FINAL

Tupelo Railroad 

Relocation Planning 

& Environmental Study

Environmental Impact Statement

July 2013

Prepared for:

Page 1 of 4

MDOT Commitments to Environmental Excellence

Project Name: Tupelo Railroad Relocation Planning and 

Environmental Study

Highway: N/A Revision Date: July 3, 2013

Project No.: MDOT – 104289-101000, FRA – 0430-00(013) County: Lee Page 1 of 4

*Value Engineering Study Recommended Yes No

Commitments/Requirements Source of

Commitment Responsible Office Place onPlans

Requires

A Special

Provision

Status of Commitment/Requirement

Traffic: During construction, all local and 

through traffic will be adequately and 

safely accommodated.

All construction operations will be 

scheduled to minimize delay to traffic.

EIS Document

p. 4-65

MDOT’s Environmental, 

Design, and Right-of-Way 

Divisions

No No To be considered during design and 

construction.

Noise: The contractor will comply with all 

state and local sound control ordinances.

EIS Document

p. 4-66

MDOT’s Environmental, 

Design, and Right-of-Way 

Divisions

No No To be considered during construction.
Page 2 of 4

Commitments/Requirements Source of

Commitment Responsible Office Place onPlans

Requires

A Special

Provision

Status of Commitment/Requirement

Water Quality: A detailed sediment 

erosion plan for construction will be 

developed and approved by the appropriate 

agencies prior to construction of the Build 

Alternative.

Construction materials will be stored and 

disposed of such that they are not 

discharged into or alongside streams and 

other water bodies.

Stockpiling and staging sites will be reestablished with vegetative cover after 

construction to reduce runoff and lessen 

sediment loadings.

Special precautions will be taken during 

construction to ensure that groundwater is 

not contaminated.

Construction measures will be incorporated 

into the design of the Build Alternative that 

will minimize water quality impacts to 

streams and tributaries.

EIS Document

p. 4-66

MDOT’s Environmental, 

Design, and Right-of-Way 

Divisions

No No To be considered prior to and during 

construction.

Wetlands/Waters of the U.S.: In 

accordance with Section 404(b)(1) 

guidelines, all practicable measures will be 

taken to avoid or minimize impacts to 

wetlands.

During the design of the Build Alternative, 

affected wetlands will be delineated and 

mapped, and copies of the supporting 

documentation will be provided o the US 

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for 

field verification. An individual permit 

from the USACE will be required.

EIS Document

p. 4-32

MDOT’s Environmental, 

Design, and Right-of-Way 

Divisions

No No To be considered during FEIS, design, 

and construction.
Page 3 of 4

Commitments/Requirements Source of

Commitment Responsible Office Place onPlans

Requires

A Special

Provision

Status of Commitment/Requirement

Floodplain: Bridges, pipes, and box 

culverts will be designed in accordance 

with appropriate floodplain impacts 

requirements per FRA, MDOT, FHWA, 

and TCMWMD.

Flood studies will be performed as 

required.

EIS Document

p. 4-34

MDOT’s Environmental, 

Design, and Right-of-Way 

Divisions

No No To be considered during design.

Vegetation and Wildlife: Construction 

limits will be posted and enforced to 

minimize impacts to vegetation and 

wildlife.

Exposed surfaces will be promptly revegetated after construction.

EIS Document

p. 4-45

MDOT’s Environmental, 

Design, and Right-of-Way 

Divisions

No No To be considered during construction.

Threatened and Endangered Species: 

During the design of the Build Alternative, 

field surveys will be conducted for Price’s 

potato bean in potential habitat areas. 

These surveys will be completed by 

qualified biologists. If necessary, 

mitigation measures will be determined in 

consultation with USFWS prior to 

construction.

EIS Document

p. 4-46

MDOT’s Environmental, 

Design, and Right-of-Way 

Divisions

No No To be considered during design.

Hazardous Materials: During design of 

the Build Alternative, additional research 

may be conducted on sites that could be 

potentially affected.

Any site impacted by the project that is 

determined to contain hazardous materials 

will be remediated as required by 

regulations and MDOT policy.

EIS Document

p. 4-48

MDOT’s Environmental, 

Design, and Right-of-Way 

Divisions

No No To be considered during design and 

construction.
Page 4 of 4

Commitments/Requirements Source of

Commitment Responsible Office Place onPlans

Requires

A Special

Provision

Status of Commitment/Requirement

Archaeology: Although the Project has 

received archaeological clearance from 

SHPO, the possibility exists that evidence 

of cultural resources may yet be 

encountered within the project limits. 

Should any evidence of cultural resources 

be discovered during construction 

activities, all work in that portion of the 

project area shall stop. Representatives of 

MDOT will assist in the identification and 

preliminary assessment of the materials. If 

such evidence is found, the MDAH will be 

notified within two working days.

In the unlikely event that human skeletal 

remains or associated burial artifacts are 

uncovered within the project area, all work 

in that area must stop. The discovery must 

be reported to local law enforcement, who 

will in turn contact the medical examiner. 

MDAH must be contacted. 

EIS Document

p. 4-18

MDOT’s Environmental, 

Design, and Right-of-Way 

Divisions

No No To be considered during construction.

Historic Resources: The TVA “Tupelo” 

Sign at the Crosstown intersection will be 

further evaluated during the design and 

construction process for protection during 

construction activities. 

EIS Document

p. 4-21

MDOT’s Environmental, 

Design, and Right-of-Way 

Divisions

No No To be considered during design and 

construction.

All practical and standard procedures and measures, including Best Management Practices will be implemented to avoid or minimize impacts.

 These commitments should be carried throughout each phase of the project development including Design, Right of Way, Construction, and Maintenance.

*Value Engineering (VE) Studies are recommended for projects on the NHS System and/or an Intermodal Connector with an estimated project costs approaching $25 Million
 

 

i 

Table of Contents 

Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................... i 

Index of Tables ..................................................................................................................... viii 

Index of Figures...................................................................................................................... ix 

Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... ES-1 

1.0 Purpose and Need .................................................................................................... 1-1 

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

1.1.1 Project Location ................................................................................. 1-1 

1.1.2 Study Area Description ...................................................................... 1-1 

1.1.3 Topography ........................................................................................ 1-1 

1.1.4 Land Use ............................................................................................ 1-1 

1.1.5 History................................................................................................ 1-1 

1.2 Purpose ........................................................................................................... 1-3 

1.2.1 Project Background and Study History .............................................. 1-3 

1.3 Need ............................................................................................................... 1-7 

1.3.1 Traffic ................................................................................................ 1-7 

1.3.2 Safety ................................................................................................. 1-8 

1.3.2.1 Emergency Vehicle Response Times ..................................... 1-8 

1.3.2.2 Vehicular and Pedestrian Accidents ...................................... 1-8 

1.3.3 Railroad Operations ........................................................................... 1-8 

1.3.4 Social Demands ................................................................................. 1-9 

1.3.5 Economic Development ................................................................... 1-10 

1.3.5.1 Economic Growth ................................................................ 1-10 

1.3.5.2 Central Business District ...................................................... 1-10 

1.3.6 Modal Interrelationships .................................................................. 1-11 

2.0 Alternatives ............................................................................................................... 2-1 

2.1 No-Build Alternative (Alternative A) ............................................................ 2-1 

2.2 Feasibility Alternatives .................................................................................. 2-1 

2.2.1 Operational Improvements ................................................................. 2-1 

2.2.2 In-Town Alternative Scenarios .......................................................... 2-3 

2.2.2.1 Scenario 1............................................................................... 2-3 

2.2.2.2 Scenario 2............................................................................... 2-3 

2.2.3 Alternative B ...................................................................................... 2-6 

2.2.4 Alternative C ...................................................................................... 2-6 

2.2.5 Alternative D ...................................................................................... 2-8 

2.2.6 Alternative E ...................................................................................... 2-8 

2.2.7 Alternative F ...................................................................................... 2-8 

2.3 Scoping Alternatives ...................................................................................... 2-9 

2.3.1 Scoping Meeting ................................................................................ 2-9 
 

 

ii 

2.3.2 New Scoping Alternatives ............................................................... 2-10 

2.3.2.1 Alternative G ........................................................................ 2-10 

2.3.2.2 Alternative H ........................................................................ 2-10 

2.3.2.3 Alternative I ......................................................................... 2-14 

2.3.2.4 Alternative J ......................................................................... 2-14 

2.3.2.5 Alternative K ........................................................................ 2-14 

2.4 Initial Alternative Refinements .................................................................... 2-20 

2.4.1 Alternatives Meeting ........................................................................ 2-20 

2.4.2 Alternative H .................................................................................... 2-20 

2.4.3 Alternative L .................................................................................... 2-20 

2.4.4 Alternative M ................................................................................... 2-22 

2.5 Native American Resources ......................................................................... 2-22 

2.6 Initial Alternatives Analysis ........................................................................ 2-22 

2.6.1 Evaluation Measures ........................................................................ 2-22 

2.6.1.1 Engineering .......................................................................... 2-24 

2.6.1.2 Environmental ...................................................................... 2-24 

2.6.1.3 Operations ............................................................................ 2-24 

2.6.1.4 Costs ..................................................................................... 2-25 

2.6.2 Analysis of Alternatives ................................................................... 2-25 

2.6.3 Impact Summary .............................................................................. 2-26 

2.6.4 Alternatives Screening ..................................................................... 2-26 

2.6.4.1 Feasibility Alternatives ........................................................ 2-26 

2.6.4.2 Scoping Alternatives ............................................................ 2-30 

2.6.4.3 Alternatives Screening Conclusion ...................................... 2-33 

2.7 Refined Alternatives .................................................................................... 2-33 

2.7.1 Railroad Coordination Meeting ....................................................... 2-33 

2.7.2 City of Tupelo Meeting .................................................................... 2-35 

2.7.3 Thoroughfare Committee Meeting .................................................. 2-35 

2.7.4 Public Meeting ................................................................................. 2-35 

2.7.5 Alternative L Refinements ............................................................... 2-36 

2.7.6 Native American Resource Impacts ................................................. 2-38 

2.7.7 Refined Alternatives Analysis ......................................................... 2-38 

2.7.8 Refined Alternatives Screening ....................................................... 2-38 

2.7.9 Refined Alternatives Conclusion ..................................................... 2-40 

2.8 Reasonable Alternatives ............................................................................... 2-40 

2.8.1 Reasonable Alternatives Descriptions ............................................. 2-40 

2.8.2 Reasonable Alternatives Analysis .................................................... 2-41 

2.8.3 Agency Coordination ....................................................................... 2-46 

2.8.4 Reasonable Alternatives Screening .................................................. 2-47 

2.9 Design Alternatives ...................................................................................... 2-48 

2.9.1 No Build Alternative ........................................................................ 2-48 

2.9.2 Build Alternative .............................................................................. 2-49 

2.9.2.1 Rail Typical Sections ........................................................... 2-49 

2.9.2.2 Rail Alignment ..................................................................... 2-49 

2.9.2.2.1 Horizontal Alignment ........................................ 2-49 
 

 

iii 

2.9.2.2.2 Vertical Alignment............................................. 2-54 

2.9.2.3 Right-of-Way and Relocations ............................................ 2-54 

2.9.2.4 Structures ............................................................................. 2-55 

2.9.2.5 Drainage ............................................................................... 2-56 

2.9.2.6 Roadway Improvements ...................................................... 2-56 

2.9.2.7 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ......................................... 2-57 

2.9.2.8 Construction ......................................................................... 2-59 

2.9.2.8.1 Phase I ................................................................ 2-59 

2.9.2.8.2 Phase II............................................................... 2-60 

2.9.2.8.3 Phase III ............................................................. 2-62 

2.9.2.9 Railroad Operations ....................................................... 2-63 

2.9.2.10 Project Costs .................................................................. 2-64 

3.0 Affected Environment ............................................................................................. 3-1 

3.1 Study Area ..................................................................................................... 3-1 

3.2 Land Use ........................................................................................................ 3-3 

3.2.1 Existing Land Use .............................................................................. 3-3 

3.2.2 Proposed Land Use ............................................................................ 3-6 

3.2.2.1 Zoning .................................................................................... 3-6 

3.2.2.2 Overlay Districts .................................................................... 3-9 

3.3 Farmland ...................................................................................................... 3-11 

3.4 History and Demographics .......................................................................... 3-12 

3.4.1 History.............................................................................................. 3-12 

3.4.2 Demographics .................................................................................. 3-12 

3.4.3 Environmental Justice ...................................................................... 3-12 

3.5 Community Facilities ................................................................................... 3-13 

3.5.1 Neighborhoods ................................................................................. 3-13 

3.5.2 Schools ............................................................................................. 3-15 

3.5.3 Churches and Cemeteries ................................................................. 3-16 

3.5.4 Public Facilities ................................................................................ 3-16 

3.5.5 Parks and Recreation........................................................................ 3-16 

3.5.6 Medical and Emergency Services .................................................... 3-18 

3.5.6.1 Medical and Health Services ............................................... 3-18 

3.5.6.2 Fire Department ................................................................... 3-18 

3.5.6.3 Police Department ................................................................ 3-20 

3.6 Cultural Resources ....................................................................................... 3-21 

3.6.1 Archaeological Sites ....................................................................... 3-22 

3.6.2 Architectural Resources ................................................................... 3-22 

3.6.3 Native American Resources ............................................................. 3-24 

3.7 Air Quality ................................................................................................... 3-25 

3.8 Noise and Vibration ..................................................................................... 3-27 

3.8.1 Noise ................................................................................................ 3-27 

3.8.2 Vibration .......................................................................................... 3-29 

3.9 Geological Resources ................................................................................... 3-30 

3.9.1 Geology and Topography ................................................................ 3-30 
 

 

iv 

3.9.2 Soils.................................................................................................. 3-32 

3.10 Wetlands ...................................................................................................... 3-33 

3.11 Floodplains ................................................................................................... 3-35 

3.12 Hydrology and Water Resources ................................................................. 3-37 

3.12.1 Surface Waters ................................................................................. 3-37 

3.12.2 Designated Use ................................................................................ 3-39 

3.12.3 Water Resources Management ........................................................ 3-39 

3.12.4 Wild and Scenic Rivers .................................................................... 3-39 

3.12.5 Groundwater .................................................................................... 3-40 

3.13 Federally Funded and Protected Public Facilities ........................................ 3-40 

3.13.1 Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act ..................... 3-40 

3.13.2 Section 6(f)(3) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act ....... 3-42 

3.13.3 National Trails System Act .............................................................. 3-42 

3.14 Wildlife ........................................................................................................ 3-43 

3.14.1 Vegetative Communities .................................................................. 3-43 

3.14.2 Terrestrial Habitat ............................................................................ 3-44 

3.14.3 Aquatic Habitat ................................................................................ 3-44 

3.14.4 Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................... 3-44 

3.14.4.1 Federally Listed Species ................................................ 3-44 

3.14.4.2 Critical Habitats ............................................................. 3-45 

3.14.4.3 State Listed Species ....................................................... 3-45 

3.14.5 Conservation Easements .................................................................. 3-46 

3.15 Hazardous Materials .................................................................................... 3-46 

3.15.1 Historical Information ...................................................................... 3-46 

3.15.2 Federal and State Records Storing Data on Industrial Waste .......... 3-46 

3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources ................................................................. 3-48 

3.17 Transportation and Utilities ......................................................................... 3-49 

3.17.1 Highways ......................................................................................... 3-49 

3.17.2 Airports ............................................................................................ 3-51 

3.17.3 Public Transportation ....................................................................... 3-51 

3.17.4 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ..................................................... 3-51 

3.17.5 Utilities ............................................................................................. 3-52 

4.0 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................. 4-1 

4.1 Land Use ........................................................................................................ 4-1 

4.1.1 Impacts to Existing Land Use ............................................................ 4-1 

4.1.2 Impacts to Proposed Land Use .......................................................... 4-3 

4.1.2.1 Consistency with Comprehensive Plans ................................ 4-3 

4.1.2.2 Zoning Impacts ...................................................................... 4-4 

4.1.2.3 Impacts to Overlay Districts .................................................. 4-6 

4.2 Farmland ........................................................................................................ 4-6 

4.3 Environmental Justice .................................................................................... 4-6 

4.4 Public Facilities and Community Cohesion ................................................... 4-9 

4.4.1 Neighborhoods ................................................................................... 4-9 

4.4.2 Schools ............................................................................................... 4-9 
 

 

v 

4.4.3 Churches and Cemeteries ................................................................. 4-11 

4.4.4 Public Facilities ................................................................................ 4-11 

4.4.5 Parks and Recreation........................................................................ 4-13 

4.4.6 Medical and Emergency Services .................................................... 4-15 

4.4.7 Travel Patterns and Accessibility ..................................................... 4-15 

4.5 Cultural Resources ....................................................................................... 4-17 

4.5.1 Archeological and Historic Sites ..................................................... 4-17 

4.5.2 Native American Resources ............................................................. 4-22 

4.6 Air Quality ................................................................................................... 4-23 

4.7 Noise and Vibration ..................................................................................... 4-24 

4.7.1 Noise ................................................................................................ 4-24 

4.7.2 Vibration .......................................................................................... 4-26 

4.8 Geological Resources ................................................................................... 4-32 

4.9 Wetlands ...................................................................................................... 4-32 

4.10 Floodplains ................................................................................................... 4-34 

4.11 Hydrology and Water Resources ................................................................. 4-36 

4.11.1 Surface Waters ................................................................................. 4-36 

4.11.2 Designated Use ................................................................................ 4-39 

4.11.3 Water Resources Management ........................................................ 4-40 

4.11.4 Wild and Scenic Rivers .................................................................... 4-40 

4.11.5 Groundwater .................................................................................... 4-40 

4.12 Federally Funded and Protected Public Facilities ........................................ 4-42 

4.12.1 Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act Impacts ....... 4-42 

4.12.2 Section 6(f)(3) of the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund Act Impacts ............................................................................. 4-46 

4.12.3 National Trails System Act Impacts ................................................ 4-46 

4.13 Wildlife ........................................................................................................ 4-47 

4.13.1 Vegetative Communities .................................................................. 4-47 

4.13.2 Terrestrial Habitat ............................................................................ 4-48 

4.13.3 Aquatic Habitat ................................................................................ 4-48 

4.13.4 Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................... 4-49 

4.13.5 Conservation Easements .................................................................. 4-49 

4.14 Hazardous Materials .................................................................................... 4-50 

4.15 Aesthetics and Visual Resources ................................................................. 4-50 

4.16 Transportation and Utilities ......................................................................... 4-63 

4.16.1 Highways ......................................................................................... 4-63 

4.16.2 Airports ............................................................................................ 4-64 

4.16.3 Public Transportation ....................................................................... 4-64 

4.16.4 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ..................................................... 4-64 

4.16.5 Utilities ............................................................................................. 4-65 

4.17 Energy Impacts ............................................................................................ 4-66 

4.18 Construction Impacts .................................................................................. 4-67 

4.19 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts ................................................................. 4-69 

4.19.1 Indirect Impacts ............................................................................... 4-69 

4.19.1.1 Land Use ........................................................................ 4-70 
 

 

vi 

4.19.1.2 Farmlands ....................................................................... 4-71 

4.19.1.3 Socioeconomic Conditions ............................................ 4-71 

4.19.1.4 Environmental Justice .................................................... 4-71 

4.19.1.5 Public Facilities and Community Cohesion ................... 4-71 

4.19.1.6 Cultural Resources ......................................................... 4-72 

4.19.1.7 Air Quality ..................................................................... 4-72 

4.19.1.8 Noise and Vibration ....................................................... 4-73 

4.19.1.9 Geological Resources ..................................................... 4-73 

4.19.1.10 Wetlands ........................................................................ 4-73 

4.19.1.11 Floodplains ..................................................................... 4-73 

4.19.1.12 Hydrology and Water Resources ................................... 4-73 

4.19.1.13 Federally Funded and Protected Public Facilities .......... 4-74 

4.19.1.14 Wildlife .......................................................................... 4-74 

4.19.1.15 Hazardous Materials ...................................................... 4-74 

4.19.1.16 Aesthetic and Visual Resources ..................................... 4-75 

4.19.1.17 Summary of Potential Impacts ....................................... 4-75 

4.19.2 Cumulative Impacts ......................................................................... 4-75 

4.19.2.1 Land Use ........................................................................ 4-78 

4.19.2.2 Noise and Vibration ....................................................... 4-80 

4.19.2.3 Waters of the U.S. .......................................................... 4-81 

4.19.2.4 Floodplains ..................................................................... 4-82 

4.20 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources .......................... 4-83 

4.21 Relationship between Short-Term Impacts and Long-Term Benefits ......... 4-84 

4.22 Summary of Impacts .................................................................................... 4-85 

5.0 Agency Coordination and Public Involvement .................................................... 5-1 

5.1 Agency Coordination ..................................................................................... 5-1 

5.1.1 Kick-Off Meeting............................................................................... 5-1 

5.1.2 Notice of Intent .................................................................................. 5-1 

5.1.3 Scoping Meetings............................................................................... 5-1 

5.1.4 Other Agency Meetings ..................................................................... 5-2 

5.2 Public Involvement ........................................................................................ 5-4 

5.2.1 Public Information ............................................................................. 5-4 

5.2.2 Scoping Meeting ................................................................................ 5-5 

5.2.3 Public Alternatives Meeting .............................................................. 5-6 

5.2.4 Public Hearing ................................................................................... 5-6 

6.0 Funding Alternatives ............................................................................................... 6-1 

6.1 Federal Programs ........................................................................................... 6-2 

6.1.1 Section 130 Rail-Highway Grade Crossing Program ........................ 6-2 

6.1.2 National Highway System (NHS) Program ....................................... 6-2 

6.1.3 Surface Transportation Program (STP) ............................................. 6-3 

6.1.4 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) 

Program .............................................................................................. 6-3 

6.1.5 Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) .. 6-3 
 

 

vii 

6.1.6 Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) ........... 6-3 

6.1.7 Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle (GARVEE) ............................. 6-4 

6.1.8 High Priority Project Program ........................................................... 6-5 

6.1.9 National Corridor Planning and Development (NCPD) and 

Coordinated Border Infrastructure (CBI) Programs .......................... 6-5 

6.1.10 Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery 

(TIGER) Discretionary Grant Program ............................................. 6-6 

6.1.11 Rail Line Relocation and Improvement Capital Grant Program ....... 6-6 

6.1.12 Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 ............................................... 6-7 

6.1.13 Summary of Federal Programs .......................................................... 6-7 

6.2 State Programs ............................................................................................. 6-10 

6.2.1 Mississippi Freight Rail Service Projects Revolving Loan/Grant 

Program (RAIL) ............................................................................... 6-10 

6.2.2 Industrial Rail Access Program (IRAP) ........................................... 6-11 

6.3 Public-Private Partnerships .......................................................................... 6-12 

6.4 Olathe Case Study ........................................................................................ 6-13 

7.0 List of Preparers ...................................................................................................... 7-1 

8.0 Distribution List ....................................................................................................... 8-1 

9.0 Glossary .................................................................................................................... 9-1 

Appendix 

 Appendix A – Agency Correspondence 

 Appendix B – Public Comments 

 Appendix C – Preferred Alternative Cost Estimates 

 Appendix D – Preferred Alternative Concept Plans 

 Appendix E – Draft Noise and Vibration Study 

 Appendix F – Draft Historic Resources Memorandum of Agreement 

 Appendix G – Public Hearing Summary and Transcript 
 

 

viii 

Index of Tables 

Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts ....................................................................................ES-3 

Table 1-1 At-Grade Crossing LOS Summary ................................................................ 1-5 

Table 1-2 Nearby Intersection LOS Summary ............................................................... 1-6 

Table 1-3 Cumulative Cost of Congestion from Year 2005 to Year 2030 ..................... 1-6 

Table 2-1 Alternative Evaluation Measures ................................................................. 2-27 

Table 2-2 Alternative Evaluation Matrix ..................................................................... 2-28 

Table 2-3 Summary of Public Comments .................................................................... 2-36 

Table 2-4 Refined Alternatives Evaluation Measures .................................................. 2-39 

Table 2-5 Refined Alternatives Evaluation Matrix ...................................................... 2-39 

Table 2-6 Reasonable Alternatives Evaluation Measures ............................................ 2-43 

Table 2-7 Reasonable Alternatives Evaluation Matrix ................................................ 2-47 

Table 2-8 Proposed Horizontal Alignment BNSF Main Line and Interchange ........... 2-53 

Table 2-9 Proposed Vertical Alignment BNSF Main Line and Interchange ............... 2-54 

Table 2-10 Drainage Structures on BNSF Main Line .................................................... 2-58 

Table 2-11 Project Construction Costs ........................................................................... 2-66 

Table 3-1 Existing Land Use within the City of Tupelo ................................................ 3-3 

Table 3-2 Zoning within the City of Tupelo .................................................................. 3-6 

Table 3-3 Criteria for NRHP Eligibility ....................................................................... 3-21 

Table 3-4 FTA/FRA Land Use Categories and Noise Metrics .................................... 3-28 

Table 4-1 Existing Land Use within 1⁄2-Mile of Build Alternative ................................ 4-1 

Table 4-2 Zoning within 1⁄2-Mile of Build Alternative ................................................... 4-4 

Table 4-3 Potential Environmental Justice Concerns within 1⁄2-mile of Build 

 Alternative...................................................................................................... 4-8 

Table 4-4 At-Grade Crossing Peak Hour LOS ............................................................. 4-16 

Table 4-5 Nearby Intersection Peak Hour LOS ........................................................... 4-17 

Table 4-6 Affected NHRP Listed and Eligible Sites with the Project APE ................. 4-20 

Table 4-7 Emission Reduction in Year 2030 from Auto Traffic Delay ....................... 4-23 

Table 4-8 Existing and Future Train Volumes and Consists ........................................ 4-25 

Table 4-9 Predicted FTA/FRA Noise Impacts ............................................................. 4-25 

Table 4-10 Potential Section 4(f) Impacts ...................................................................... 4-45 

Table 4-11 Aesthetic and Visual Impacts from Build Alternative ................................. 4-53 

Table 4-12 Utilities Affected by the Build Alternative .................................................. 4-65 

Table 4-13 Average Daily Vehicle Miles and Hours During PM Peak Hours .............. 4-66 

Table 4-14 Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts ..................................................... 4-76 

Table 4-15 Summary of Impacts .................................................................................... 4-85 

Table 5-1 Summary of Comments from Scoping Meeting ............................................ 5-5 

Table 5-2 Summary of Comments from Alternatives Meeting ...................................... 5-6 

Table 6-1 Current and Proposed Federal Funding Programs ......................................... 6-8 

Table 6-2 Sampling of State Industrial Rail Access Programs .................................... 6-11 
 

 

ix 

Index of Figures 

Figure 1-1 Location Map ................................................................................................. 1-2 

Figure 1-2 Existing At-Grade Rail Crossings .................................................................. 1-4 

Figure 2-1 Operational Improvement .............................................................................. 2-2 

Figure 2-2 In-Town Alternative Scenario 1 ..................................................................... 2-4 

Figure 2-3 In-Town Alternative Scenario 2 ..................................................................... 2-5 

Figure 2-4 Alternatives B-F ............................................................................................. 2-7 

Figure 2-5 Alternative H – Option A ............................................................................. 2-11 

Figure 2-6 Alternative H – Option B ............................................................................. 2-12 

Figure 2-7 Alternative H – Option C ............................................................................. 2-13 

Figure 2-8 Alternative I ................................................................................................. 2-15

Figure 2-9 Elevated Rail Typical Sections .................................................................... 2-16 

Figure 2-10 Alternative J ................................................................................................. 2-18 

Figure 2-11 Alternative K ................................................................................................ 2-19

Figure 2-12 Alternative L ................................................................................................ 2-21

Figure 2-13 Chickasaw Settlements ................................................................................ 2-23 

Figure 2-14 Alternative L (Refined) ................................................................................ 2-37 

Figure 2-15 Alternative M ............................................................................................... 2-42 

Figure 2-16 Build Alternative .......................................................................................... 2-50 

Figure 2-17 Typical Sections ........................................................................................... 2-51 

Figure 2-18 Maintenance of Rail Traffic Typical Section ............................................... 2-61 

Figure 3-1 Study Area ..................................................................................................... 3-2

Figure 3-2 Affected Environment .................................................................................... 3-4 

Figure 3-3 Existing Land Use .......................................................................................... 3-5 

Figure 3-4 Zoning ............................................................................................................ 3-7 

Figure 3-5 Overlay Districts .......................................................................................... 3-10 

Figure 3-6 Neighborhoods and Protection Districts ...................................................... 3-14 

Figure 3-7 Parks and Recreation.................................................................................... 3-17 

Figure 3-8 Emergency Services ..................................................................................... 3-19 

Figure 3-9 Cultural Resources ....................................................................................... 3-23 

Figure 3-10 Major Land Resources ................................................................................. 3-31 

Figure 3-11 Wetlands and Hydric Soils ........................................................................... 3-34 

Figure 3-12 FEMA Floodplains....................................................................................... 3-36 

Figure 3-13 Sub-basins / Watersheds .............................................................................. 3-38 

Figure 3-14 Aquifer ......................................................................................................... 3-41 

Figure 3-15 Transportation Network ............................................................................... 3-50 

Figure 4-1 Existing Land Use .......................................................................................... 4-2 

Figure 4-2 Zoning ............................................................................................................ 4-5 

Figure 4-3 Neighborhoods & Protection Districts ......................................................... 4-10 

Figure 4-4 Community Services .................................................................................... 4-12 

Figure 4-5 Parks and Recreation.................................................................................... 4-14 

Figure 4-6 Cultural Resources ....................................................................................... 4-19 

Figure 4-7 No-Build Noise Impact Contours ................................................................ 4-27 

Figure 4-8 Build Noise Impact Contours ....................................................................... 4-28 
 

 

x 

Figure 4-9 No-Build Vibration Impact Contours .......................................................... 4-30 

Figure 4-10 Build Vibration Impact Contours ................................................................. 4-31 

Figure 4-11 Wetlands & Hydric Soils ............................................................................. 4-33 

Figure 4-12 FEMA Floodplains....................................................................................... 4-35 

Figure 4-13 Aquifer ......................................................................................................... 4-41 

Figure 4-14 Hazardous Material Sites ............................................................................. 4-51 

Figure 4-15 Viewshed...................................................................................................... 4-52
 

 

ES-1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION 

Administrative Action Environmental Statement 

 ( ) Draft (x) Final 

 ( ) Section 4(f) Statement attached 

CONTACTS 

The following individuals may be contacted for additional information concerning this 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): 

Mr. John A. Winkle 

Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Room W38-311 

Washington, DC 20590 

Phone: (202) 493-6067 

John.Winkle@dot.gov 

Ms. Kim D. Thurman 

Environmental Division Administrator 

Mississippi Department of Transportation 

401 North West Street 

Jackson, Mississippi 39201 

Phone: (601) 359-7922 

kthurman@mdot.state.ms.us 

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 

The Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT) is proposing the relocation of the 

existing BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) main line through the City of Tupelo, Mississippi. 

The purpose of the Tupelo Railroad Relocation Planning and Environmental Study is to 

evaluate options to improve mobility and safety by reducing roadway congestion caused by 

the movement of trains running through the City of Tupelo, especially at the intersection of 

Main Street and Gloster Street (locally referred to as Crosstown). 

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

Department of Transportation, agreed to serve as the lead Federal agency in the preparation 

of this EIS. 

The following Federal agencies agreed to participate in the development of this EIS as 

cooperating agencies: 

 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

 U.S. Department of the Interior – National Park Service (NPS) 

 U.S. Department of the Interior – Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Mobile District (USACE) 

 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Vicksburg District (USACE) 
 

ES-2 

SUMMARY OF MAJOR ALTERNATIVES 

The major alternatives in this study are: 

 No-Build Alternative 

 Build Alternatives 

The No-Build Alternative would retain the existing roadway and railroad network and, 

therefore, would avoid the temporary negative impacts that railroad and roadway 

construction can cause to residences, businesses, wetlands, streams, cultural resources, and 

other resources. The No-Build Alternative would also not contribute potential viewshed 

impacts to the area. However, the No-Build Alternative would not meet the project’s 

Purpose and Need goals of improving mobility and safety by reducing roadway congestion 

caused by the movement of trains running through the City of Tupelo. 

The Build Alternatives include operational improvements, alternative corridors, and in-town 

options such as railroad and highway grade separations. These alternatives were investigated 

and refined in a five-tiered process, beginning with a Feasibility Study outlined in the 

Phase 1 – Feasibility Analysis (HDR, May 2006). The initial alternatives analysis for the 

EIS further refined the reasonable range of alternatives by evaluating engineering concerns, 

environmental impacts, operations, and costs. The refined alternatives included two 

alternative corridors going around Tupelo and an elevated rail viaduct with a relocated 

interchange yard through Tupelo. Through the alternatives development process, the two 

alternative corridors around Tupelo were eliminated from further consideration based on cost 

and the substantial adverse impacts anticipated to various environmental components. The 

elevated rail viaduct with the relocated interchange yard was considered to be the only 

reasonable Build Alternative and was brought forward for detailed study. 

A Preferred Alternative (between the Build and No-Build) will be determined upon the 

issuance of a Record of Decision (ROD). . 

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS 

This project would have some unavoidable impacts, regardless of which alternative is 

implemented. As summarized in Table ES-1, the primary impacts of the No-Build 

Alternative would include noise, safety, and mobility impacts, while the primary impacts of 

the Build Alternative would include construction cost and impacts to farmlands, cultural and 

historical resources, streams, floodplains, and utilities. 
 

ES-3 

Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts 

Impact Category No-Build 

Alternative

Build 

Alternative

Farmland Impacts (acres) n/a 0.0

Residential Relocations (No.) 0 0

Business Relocations (No.) 0 1

Severe Noise Impacted Receptors (No.) 128 76

Vibration Impacted Receptors (No.) 28 46

Adverse Visual Impacts to Historic Sites or Districts (No.) n/a 37

Hazardous Material Site Impacts (No.) n/a 0

Environmental Justice Impacted Census Blocks (No.) n/a 0

Perennial Stream Crossings (No.) 3 4

303 (d) Stream Crossings (No.) 2 3

Wetland Impacts (acres) n/a 0.0

100-Year Floodplain Impacts (acres) n/a 10.0

Natural Habitats (acres) n/a 0.0

Electric Transmission Line Impacts (No.)* n/a 3

Gas Pipeline Impacts (No.)* n/a 0

Sanitary Sewer Impacts (No.)* n/a 2

Railroad Bridges (Feet) n/a 8,690

Roadway Bridges (Feet) n/a 2,984

At-Grade Crossings within City of Tupelo (No.) 16 4

At-Grade Crossings with Unacceptable LOS in 2030 (No.) 3 0

Nearby Intersections with Unacceptable LOS in 2030 (No.) 3 1

At-Grade Crossings Blocked During Interchange Operation (No.) 8 0

Construction Costs ($2008) n/a $384,745,000

*Based Upon Field Observations of Above Ground Utilities and/or Markers

Human Environment

Natural Environment

Engineering

Safety and Mobility

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY 

Since meetings were held throughout the project planning process, the public, local elected 

officials, and state and federal agencies were actively involved in the development of the 

alternatives. Controversy has been limited to the discussion of specific issues along specific 

alignments. 

The elevated rail viaduct alternative (i.e. the Build Alternative) is within the City of Tupelo, 

and residents expressed concern regarding the design of the elevated viaduct, particularly 

regarding the use of retaining walls. Most residents stated, however, that a bridge structure 

would be acceptable, especially since removing the at-grade rail crossings would have 

benefits, including reduced traffic congestion and noise from train horns. 

The elevated rail viaduct alternative was developed by MDOT with considerable input from 

citizens and local officials, and particular care has been taken to maintain the integrity of 

existing facilities, with special regard for the viewshed of historic and cultural resources. 

The elevated rail viaduct would enhance economic opportunities for the Tupelo area, while 
 

ES-4 

minimizing impacts to farmlands, wetlands, floodplains, and cultural resources (as compared 

with the dismissed alternatives). 

COORDINATION REQUIRED 

A permit from the USACE would be required for the Build Alternative under provisions of 

Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) Amendments of 

1972. Section 404 requires the application for and approval of a permit before wetlands or 

other waters of the U.S. can be dredged or filled. The Clean Water Act requires public notice 

and review and USFWS review of Section 404 permits. Encroachment into floodways would 

be coordinated with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Involvement 

with historic sites and districts is being coordinated with the State Historic Preservation 

Office (SHPO) and the Mississippi Department of Archives and History (MDAH). The 

project area is in an attainment area for National Ambient Air Quality Standards; therefore, 

no conformity analysis under the provisions of the 1990 Clean Air Act, as amended, is 

required. 

MEASURES TO AVOID OR MINIMIZE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

Measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts that could result from the proposed 

project include the following: 

Farmland 

The agricultural lands that would be converted to transportation right-of-way are all within 

the city limits of Tupelo and given an “urban” designation by the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS); therefore, a permit is not required for acquisition. Federal 

and State acquisition and relocation policies would be followed, and any purchase of land 

would be based on fair market value. In addition, access would be provided to agricultural 

parcels separated by the interchange tracks. 

Environmental Justice 

There are no environmental justice concerns for low-income or minority populations within 

the affected environment, as impacts would be felt by all populations, not just those 

economically or racially sensitive populations. If such impacts are discovered in subsequent 

phases of this project, a community outreach program would be initiated. 

Relocations 

Relocation assistance would be conducted by MDOT in accordance with the Federal 

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public 

Law 91-646). 

Traffic 

During construction, all local rail, through-rail, and roadway traffic would be safely 

accommodated. All construction activities would be scheduled to minimize traffic delay. 
 

ES-5 

Utilities 

Construction would be coordinated by MDOT with affected utility companies. Any 

disruption to utility service during construction would be minimized by phased utility 

adjustments. 

Noise 

The elevated rail viaduct and rail interchange yard would decrease the noise impacts from 

train horns through Tupelo and create a “quiet zone” through downtown Tupelo. During 

construction, the contractor would comply with all State and local sound control ordinances. 

Each piece of equipment with internal combustion engines shall be equipped with a muffler. 

Air Quality 

During construction, MDOT will ensure all construction debris, such as vegetation and 

existing rail equipment, would be removed from the project site and disposed of in 

compliance with air quality laws and regulations. 

Water Quality 

MDOT will develop a detailed sediment and erosion control plan for construction would be 

developed and approved by the appropriate agencies prior to construction of the Build 

Alternative. Construction materials would be stored and disposed of in a manner that they 

are not discharged into or alongside of streams. Disturbed sites would be re-established with 

vegetative cover after construction to reduce runoff and lessen sediment loadings. Special 

precautions would be taken during construction to ensure that groundwater is not 

contaminated. Construction measures that would minimize water quality impacts to streams 

and tributaries would be incorporated into the design of the Build Alternative. Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) would be used to minimize water quality impacts. 

Wetlands/Waters of the U.S. 

In accordance with Section 404 (b)(1) guidelines, all practicable measures would be taken to 

avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands. If the Build Alternative were selected, affected 

wetlands would be delineated and mapped, and copies of the supporting documents would be 

provided to the USACE for field verification. An individual permit from the USACE would 

be required. Stream impacts are anticipated to be minimal due to the proposed bridge 

structures. 

Floodplain 

Bridges, pipes, and box culverts would be designed in accordance with FRA and FHWA 

floodplain impact requirements. Flood studies would be performed as required. The Build 

Alternative improvements will be designed to accommodate the floodway channel 

improvements proposed by the Town Creek Master Water Management District. 

Vegetation and Wildlife 

Construction activities would be limited to the project right-of-way and the construction 

sequence would be managed such that construction would be limited to select areas along the 

project corridor to limit impacts to vegetation and wildlife. BMPs used to reduce runoff 
 

ES-6 

would benefit vegetation and aquatic habitat. Exposed surfaces would be re-vegetated during 

construction. 

Hazardous Materials 

No hazardous materials sites listed in available databases lie within the affected area of the 

Build Alternative. If the Build Alternative were selected, additional research would be 

conducted by MDOT to identify any potential hazardous material sites that could be affected. 

Any site impacted by the project that is determined to contain hazardous materials would be 

remediated as required by regulations and by MDOT policy. 

Archaeology 

As part of the analysis completed for this EIS, a detailed survey was completed and all 

archaeological sites located in the Build Alternative alignment were evaluated for eligibility 

for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Construction of the Build Alternative 

would not physically impact any NRHP-eligible archaeological sites. Archaeological 

clearance of the Build Alternative was recommended for approval by the SHPO. However, if 

during construction any cultural materials are discovered, the appropriate parties (as 

delineated by the proposed Memorandum of Agreement [MOA], included in Appendix F) 

would be notified and appropriate mitigation implemented. 

Historic Sites and Districts 

All standing structures located in the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the Build 

Alternative were evaluated for eligibility for the NRHP and impacts to their historic 

viewsheds. Consultation with the SHPO has determined that there are 37 NRHP-listed or 

NRHP-eligible properties or historic districts within the APE that would experience adverse 

visual impacts as a result of the proposed project. However, the FRA, MDOT, City of 

Tupelo, and the Mississippi Department of Archives and History (SHPO) are in the process 

of negotiating a MOA, which is included in Appendix F, to mitigate these visual effects. 

The MOA would be a binding document and the commitments entered into through the 

MOA must be satisfied during the final design and construction processes. FRA and MDOT 

have also concluded that the visual effects of the Build Alternative do not impair the 

functions or qualities of the affected historic resources that made those resources eligible for 

the NRHP. Therefore, there are no Section 4(f) impacts to historic properties or districts as a 

result of the Build Alternative. 

Construction Costs 

Funding sources for design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of the Build 

Alternative have not been identified. Pending the selection of the Preferred Alternative, 

MDOT and/or the City of Tupelo would have to identify and Federal, State, local, and/or 

private funding sources for design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction in future 

phases of the project. A summary of available funding sources is described in Chapter 6 of 

the EIS, but there has not been any funding, public or private, identified for construction of 

the Build Alternative. 
 

 

1-1 

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED 

1.1 INTRODUCTION 

The Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT) and the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) have prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 

railroad relocation of the BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) main line through the City of 

Tupelo, Mississippi. 

1.1.1 Project Location 

Tupelo is a community with a population of approximately 35,000, located in the 

northeast region of Mississippi, shown on Figure 1-1. Because it serves as the 

region’s major employment center, the population of the City more than doubles 

during the workday as the community workforce arrives. Major employers in the 

community include a regional hospital, which employs approximately 4,600 people, 

and an active furniture manufacturing center. On average, the Tupelo economy has 

been growing at a rate of approximately 1,000 new jobs per year since 1970. With 

the job market remaining relatively stable over the past 30 years, employment models 

and job forecasts for Lee County indicate this growth continuing through the year 

2030. 

1.1.2 Study Area Description 

The project study area encompasses the greater Tupelo area. Specifically, this study 

area includes all of Lee County, the southeastern portion of Union County, and the 

eastern portion of Pontotoc County, shown on Figure 1-1. Two rail lines pass 

through Tupelo, the BNSF main line and the Kansas City Southern Railway (KCS) 

rail line. 

1.1.3 Topography 

This region of Mississippi has many characteristics including urban areas, undulating 

rural terrain, and floodplain/floodway areas which mainly serve as agricultural lands. 

The area also has several creeks that are part of the Tombigbee River Basin. 

1.1.4 Land Use 

The land uses in the Tupelo region include agricultural, residential, commercial, 

industrial, and transportation. The region is also crossed by the Natchez Trace 

Parkway, a scenic roadway under the jurisdiction of the U.S. National Park Service 

(NPS). Agricultural and industrial uses are primarily found around the existing rail 

corridor. 

1.1.5 History 

The City of Tupelo was founded in 1859 after the completion of the Mobile and Ohio 

Railroad, which is now the KCS rail line, and later incorporated in 1870. Tupelo's 

modern history can be traced to 1887 with the construction of the Kansas City, 

Memphis & Birmingham Railroad, which is now the BNSF main line. 
Map Title Tupelo Mississippi Railroad Relocation

Planning & Environmental Study

LEGEND

Figure

x-x

������������

����������

���������������

����������

�������������

���������������

���������������

���������������

���������������

����������������

����������

������� ����� ����

������� ����� ����

�������� ������ ��

������ ���� ��

������

������

����������

������������

����������

��������

������

�������������

���������

�������

������

��������

�������

����

�������

�������

��

��

���

��

���

���

�

�

��

���

��

��

��

���

�

�

�

�

������ ���� �������� �� �� ���

Primary Road

Secondary Road

Road

Rail

National Parkway

US Highway

State Highway

County Boundary

Study Area

Location Map

Figure 1-1
 

1-3 

Tupelo’s location and accessibility to the railroads have made it an industrial hub for 

many years, despite several changes in its economy. 

1.2 PURPOSE 

In recent years, the City of Tupelo has become concerned that highway-rail traffic conflicts 

are having an adverse impact on the community. These impacts include congestion, safety, 

efficiency of railroad operations, and quality of life issues, such as railroad and horn noise, 

vibration, and air pollution. The purpose of the Tupelo Railroad Relocation Planning and 

Environmental Study is to improve mobility and safety by reducing roadway congestion 

caused by the movement of trains running through the City of Tupelo, especially at the 

intersection of Main Street and Gloster Street (locally referred to as “Crosstown”). 

1.2.1 Project Background and Study History 

The BNSF and KCS rail lines share an interchange to exchange rail cars just south of 

downtown Tupelo. There are approximately 86 at-grade highway/rail crossings 

within the study area. Sixteen of those at-grade highway/rail crossings are in 

downtown Tupelo, shown on Figure 1-2. Twelve of those are owned by BNSF and 

four by KCS. The BNSF main line crosses diagonally at-grade at the Crosstown 

intersection. This intersection has an annual average daily traffic (AADT) count of 

39,000 vehicles per day (vpd), making it one of the busiest intersections in the City. 

Because of the highway traffic delays caused by the movement of trains in and 

through Tupelo, the City requested that MDOT conduct a rail relocation study to 

determine whether improvements could be made to the rail lines in the Tupelo area in 

order to alleviate some of the impacts from rail operations while maintaining railroad 

service, which is important to the City and surrounding areas. 

In 2000, MDOT contracted with Wilbur Smith Associates to perform a 

reconnaissance study. The study concluded that various improvement options, 

including re-routing the rail traffic around the City, were feasible and that further 

study was warranted. A draft Purpose and Need Statement was developed as a result 

of that study. MDOT and the City agreed that from both feasibility and economic 

perspectives, further studies were justified and necessary. In 2004, Congress 

provided funding for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis 

necessary to advance the project, and shortly thereafter, MDOT commenced the 

Tupelo Railroad Relocation Planning and Environmental Study, and FRA agreed to 

serve as the lead Federal agency for the EIS. 

MDOT’s objectives for the Tupelo Railroad Relocation Planning and Environmental 

Study are to re-examine the feasibility of the options for improving rail operations in 

Tupelo, identify the benefits and costs of each; to prepare an EIS; determine a 

preferred alternative; and, ultimately, if a project is to be advanced, to obtain a 

Record of Decision (ROD). In May 2006, the FRA and MDOT completed Phase 1, 

the Feasibility Analysis, which evaluated the current and future traffic levels on both 

the local roadways and railroads. It also evaluated the cost of current and future 

traffic delay to the motoring public as a result of railroad crossings and discussed 
Map Title Tupelo Mississippi Railroad Relocation

Planning & Environmental Study

LEGEND

Figure

x-x

��������

�������������

�������� ��������

�����������

����������

������� ����������

������������ ������������

�����������

���������� ����������

����� �������� ���

����������

���������

����������

�����������

�����������

����

�������

����

�������

�������

����

�������������

��������������������������������������

����������� �����������������������

�������������� �����������

����������������� �����������

������������ �����������

������������������� �����������

�������������� �����������

����������������� �����������

�������������� �����������

������������� �� �����������

������������ �����������

���������������� �����������

������������������� �����������

�������������� �����������

�������������� �����������

������������������� �����������

�������������� �����������

������������������� �����������

��

��

Street

At Grade Railroad Crossing

BNSF Railroad

KCS Railroad

Existing At-Grade 

Rail Crossings

Figure 1-2
 

1-5 

potential improvements to the existing rail lines and transportation network that 

would help reduce traffic delays. As detailed in Phase I – Feasibility Analysis (HDR, 

May 2006), the traffic level of service (LOS) was estimated at the 16 existing atgrade intersections and 13 nearby intersections for the initial year (2005) and the 

design year (2030), shown in Table 1-1 and Table 1-2. 

Table 1-1 At-Grade Crossing LOS Summary 

Crossing 

Line 

Crossing 

Street 

Name 

2005 Peak Hour 2030 Peak Hour 

LOS for 

Through 

Trains 

LOS for 

Switching 

Operation

LOS for 

Through 

Trains 

LOS for 

Switching 

Operation 

BNSF 

Lumpkin Ave. B F D F 

Jackson St. B F D F 

Blair St. B F D F 

Jefferson St. B F D F 

Park St. B F D F 

Gloster St. B F D F 

Main St. B F D F 

Church St. B F D F 

Green St. B F D F 

Spring St. B F D F 

Elizabeth St. C F E F 

Eason Blvd. C F F F 

KCS 

Eason Blvd. A E A F 

Elizabeth St. A F A F 

Main St. A E A E 

Jefferson St. A E A E 

The LOS is a letter designation that describes a range of traffic operating conditions 

on a particular facility. Six levels of service are defined by the Transportation 

Research Board’s 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) for capacity analysis. 

They are given letter designations A through F, with LOS A representing ideal 

operating conditions, D representing unfavorable conditions, E representing 

unsatisfactory conditions, and F representing a failing LOS. LOS E and F are 

generally considered to be unacceptable conditions. 

The results of the traffic analysis showed that all of the at-grade intersections on the 

BNSF main line would operate at LOS D or worse by the year 2030 with passing 

trains, with two at-grade intersections operating at an unacceptable LOS. In addition, 

four nearby intersections would operate at an unacceptable LOS with passing trains in 

the year 2030. All intersections would operate at an unacceptable LOS for the 

switching operations in both 2005 and in 2030. 
 

1-6 

Table 1-2 Nearby Intersection LOS Summary 

Intersection 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control 

2005 Peak Hour 

LOS 

2030 Peak Hour 

LOS 

No 

Train 

Traffic 

With 

Train 

Traffic 

No 

Train 

Traffic 

With 

Train 

Traffic 

Clark St. at Church St. Un-signalized A C A D 

Gloster St. at Main St. Signalized C F F F 

Clark St. at Spring St. Un-signalized A C B D 

Spring St. at Elizabeth St. Un-signalized A B A D 

Front St. at Main St. Signalized B B B B 

Front St. at Jefferson St. Signalized A A B B 

Park St. at Jefferson St. Signalized B D C E 

Rankin St. at Blair St. Signalized A B A C 

Rankin St. at Jackson St. Un-signalized A C A E 

Eason St. at Ryder St. Un-signalized A C A C 

Eason St. at Whitaker St. Un-signalized A A A A 

Lumpkin Ave. at Shands St./Trace Ave./Kincannon St. Un-signalized A C A C 

Gloster St. at Jefferson St. Signalized A B B F 

The traffic delay, as a result of this congestion, would have a cost to the community 

for the increased time and fuel consumption for idling vehicles. This congestion cost 

was calculated based on the Texas Transportation Institute congestion cost 

methodology for both the at-grade crossings and the nearby intersections for the time 

period between the initial year (2005) and the design year (2030). The total 

congestion cost as a result of the automobile traffic delay, summarized in Table 1-3, 

is approximately $1.25 billion. 

Table 1-3 Cumulative Cost of Congestion from Year 2005 to Year 2030 

From 2005 to 2030 

At-Grade Crossing Near-by Intersections as Secondary Impact Total Cost of Congestion 

$402,621,900 $848,183,750 $1,250,805,650 

As detailed in Phase I – Feasibility Analysis (HDR, May 2006), the Phase 1 study 

indicated that there were feasible alternatives and the study should proceed into 

Phase 2, the Environmental Analysis. The FRA published the Notice of Intent to 

proceed with the preparation of an EIS in the Federal Register on January 17, 2007. 

Several Federal agencies agreed to serve as cooperating and commenting agencies to 

assist in the development of the EIS, including: 

 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); 

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); 

 U.S. Department of the Interior – National Park Service (NPS); 

 U.S. Department of the Interior – Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS); 

 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Mobile District (USACE); and 
 

1-7 

 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Vicksburg District (USACE). 

1.3 NEED 

The proposed project will address the following identified needs: 

 Reduce vehicular traffic delays in downtown Tupelo 

 Improve response for emergency vehicles

 Improve the safety of the traveling public

 Improve efficiency of railroad operations in the Tupelo area 

 Enhance quality of life with regard to traffic flow, noise, and economic 

development 

1.3.1 Traffic 

Presently, the BNSF main line runs diagonally through the Crosstown intersection. 

This intersection is blocked for a total of over two hours each day by train traffic. In 

addition to the train traffic from through trains, BNSF and KCS exchange rail cars 

just south of Crosstown, and this compounds the amount of time this intersection is 

blocked by rail traffic. There are 12 at-grade roadway-rail crossings in the City of 

Tupelo, including Crosstown, on the BNSF main line and four at-grade roadway-rail 

crossings on the KCS rail line that contribute to the traffic and safety issues. The 

crossings are listed in the table shown on Figure 1-2. The BNSF currently operates 

20 to 25 trains per day through the City, while KCS operates two to three trains per 

day. 

According to the 2004 AADT maps from the MDOT Planning Division, Gloster 

Street has an AADT of 22,000 vpd while Main Street has an AADT of 17,000 vpd. 

Most of the BNSF trains are through-trains that run at a maximum speed of 20 miles 

per hour (mph), with each train blocking the intersection for only a few minutes, but 

the total delay is significant. One or two trains per day exchange an average of 15 

cars each, but the interchange frequently includes exchanges of as many as 40 cars. 

This can block the intersection for a much longer time, as much as 15 or 20 minutes. 

The rail traffic causes significant vehicle traffic delays. By the year 2030, rail traffic 

is expected to grow to 40 trains per day on the BNSF rail line and four trains per day 

on the KCS rail line, creating more delays and traffic congestion. As documented in 

the Phase 1 – Feasibility Analysis (HDR, May 2006), automobile traffic in 2005 at 

Crosstown experienced a daily total of 210 hours of cumulative delay. Based on a 

250-day work year, drivers experience over 52,500 hours of delay, which equates to a 

total annual workday delay cost of $7.8 million. By 2030, this cost is estimated to 

increase to approximately $25 million annually, with a cumulative cost of $1.25 

billion. 
 

1-8 

1.3.2 Safety 

1.3.2.1 Emergency Vehicle Response Times 

Delay to emergency vehicles is also a major concern. The North Mississippi 

Medical Center (NMMC) is the primary source of emergency care in Tupelo 

as well as throughout the entire northeast Mississippi region. NMMC is the 

largest hospital in Mississippi and the largest non-metropolitan hospital in the 

U.S. The hospital is located on South Gloster Street in the Crosstown area 

near the KCS classification yard. Because of its location, emergency vehicles 

traverse the railroad crossings at Crosstown and Eason Boulevard an 

estimated 80 to 100 times per day and are delayed an average of four times 

per day. When stopped at these railroad crossings, an emergency vehicle can 

be delayed up to an additional 15 minutes before reaching the hospital. 

Because of the possibility that a particular crossing may be blocked by a train, 

emergency vehicle drivers frequently must choose between risking that the 

crossing is clear and waiting when it is blocked, or taking a longer alternate 

route, either of which can dangerously increase response time. 

1.3.2.2 Vehicular and Pedestrian Accidents 

According to FRA accident data for Lee County for the period from 2000 

through 2009, there have been 13 vehicular accidents and three pedestrian 

accidents involving BNSF trains and five vehicular accidents and no 

pedestrian accidents involving KCS trains. There are 16 at-grade crossings in 

the City of Tupelo, shown on Figure 1-2. FRA has ranked all of these 

crossings in the top quartile for predicted accidents in the State of Mississippi. 

The Crosstown at-grade crossing has an AADT of 39,000 vpd. Twenty-three 

trains per day travel through this intersection, resulting in an exposure index 

(number of trains multiplied by the AADT) of 897,000. The exposure index 

is an indication of the potential hazards at a crossing. With an exposure index 

of 897,000, this intersection has one of Mississippi’s highest exposure ratings 

and, therefore, is a crossing with one of the highest probability for accidents in 

the state. Due to the nature of the crossing, only warning lights, crossbucks, 

and bells are in place at Crosstown. Gates are not present and would restrict 

right turns during train events if installed, which would further increase delays. 

Although the potential for accidents cannot be measured precisely and the 

crossing does not have a history of significant accidents, it is reasonable to 

conclude that reduced exposure of vehicle trips and train trips at these 

complicated at-grade crossings would result in improved safety for the 

traveling public. 

1.3.3 Railroad Operations 

Trains, trucks, and ships are used to provide long haul service. Following World War 

II, trucks took a large portion of the market share of long haul shipping from rail 

service. Since 1980, however, tonnage shipped by rail has increased dramatically due 

primarily to deregulation of the industry coupled with the growth of trade with 
 

1-9 

emerging Asian countries and technological advances that have made shipping by rail 

more cost-effective. 

Various types of trains operate on the Tupelo area rail lines on a weekly basis. The 

types of trains include bulk (coal and rock), intermodal, autorack, manifest, and local 

trains. Currently, BNSF averages 20 to 25 trains per day totaling 65 to 75 million 

gross tons (MGT) annually, and KCS averages two to three trains per day totaling 2 

to 3 MGT annually. Trains have been found to be three times more fuel efficient and 

carry goods at lower costs than trucking. In addition, recent fluctuations in fuel costs 

have led to an even greater demand for rail service. As a result, the number of trains 

traveling through the City of Tupelo is expected to increase to 44 trains per day by the 

year 2030. Because of this projected increase in trains per day, increasing speed and 

efficiency of freight movement through the region is a high priority. 

Currently, because of the configuration of the existing rail lines, trains are required to 

traverse the downtown Tupelo area on the BNSF main line at a maximum speed of 20 

mph. Improvement of the rail facilities would allow for train speeds to increase up to 

40 mph, thereby greatly improving the efficiency of the freight rail movement in the 

region. 

1.3.4 Social Demands 

Railroads were essential to the growth and development of Tupelo. The City was 

organized in 1859 as a result of the completion of the Mobile and Ohio Railroad. 

Tupelo’s development dramatically increased upon the completion of the Kansas City, 

Memphis & Birmingham Railroad in 1887. The railroads were heavily utilized and 

became the center of activity and industry for the town. Over the past half-century, 

however, the City has grown and become less dependent upon the railroads for 

economic survival. This is a recurring theme throughout the country as trains that 

once brought economic prosperity and social cohesion are now sometimes viewed as 

factors in the decline of both. As a result, the City of Tupelo now desires not only to 

improve mobility but also to improve overall quality of life. As currently configured, 

the rail lines have a detrimental impact on quality of life, most notably with regard to 

rail-related noise. 

A freight train generates noise levels ranging from 70 decibels (dBA) when the train 

is idling to 115 dBA when the horn is blowing. As a comparison, 70 dBA is about 

the same noise level as that of a blender while 115 dBA is between the noise level of 

a siren and a jet plane. Excessive noise has the potential to disrupt routine activities, 

which can affect the overall quality of life, especially in sensitive areas such as 

residences, recreational facilities, churches, synagogues, parks, and schools. 

Removal of the rail traffic from the downtown area, or a reduction in horn sounding, 

would reduce the noise and, as a result, improve the quality of life for residents in the 

City. 
 

1-10 

Traffic delay and congestion in the downtown area also leads to excessive idling by 

vehicles delayed at the railroad crossings. This idling results in increased emissions 

of carbon monoxide. Because of harmful effects to the public health and the 

environment, carbon monoxide is referred to as a criteria air pollutant and is 

monitored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) along with lead, 

nitrogen dioxide, ozone, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter (dust). Although 

Tupelo is in an attainment area (i.e. levels of these pollutants do not exceed the 

national Ambient Air Quality Standards [NAAQS]) for these criteria pollutants, any 

decrease in the emission of carbon monoxide would improve air quality, improving 

the quality of life. 

1.3.5 Economic Development 

1.3.5.1 Economic Growth 

This project could result in opportunities for economic growth resulting from 

the realignment of the rail lines. Historically, the railroad has been at the 

City’s center of activity, and many businesses were located along the rail lines 

because the railroad offered the fastest and most convenient mode of 

transportation for their goods. The railroad is still a vital means of 

transportation, but most rail customers have relocated outside of the center of 

the City of Tupelo. Because there are very few rail customers located in 

downtown Tupelo, realigning the rail lines has the potential for enhancing 

economic development opportunities in the region, while minimizing 

disruption of rail service to existing industries. Removal of some or all of the 

at-grade roadway-rail crossings in central Tupelo would remove the majority 

of the $1.25 billion congestion cost and allow for additional economic 

development as a result of reduced traffic delay. 

1.3.5.2 Central Business District 

The Tupelo Central Business District (CBD) is a vital part of the Tupelo’s 

economy and defines its cultural heritage. The Tupelo CBD is home to an 

array of restaurants and shops as well as to the NMMC. 

Tupelo is currently engaged in an urban renewal project designed to renovate 

the Fairpark District, the former fairgrounds area located in the heart of 

downtown. Fairpark is a mixture of commercial, residential, retail, and public 

structures that includes the City Hall, the Tupelo Auto Museum, the Hilton 

Garden Inn, and the BancorpSouth Arena and Conference Center. Improving 

mobility and safety for road users would provide better access to Tupelo’s 

CBD, improving the attractiveness of the downtown area for businesses, 

residents, and tourists. 
 

1-11 

1.3.6 Modal Interrelationships 

The City of Tupelo provides opportunities for intermodal connections in addition to 

the service provided by the two rail lines. The Tupelo Municipal Airport offers 

multiple commercial carriers and service for private use aircraft. The airport is 

undergoing an expansion of its facilities to provide additional services. 

In addition, several major highways serve Tupelo. U.S. Highway 78 (US 78) is an 

east-west route that runs from Memphis, Tennessee to Charleston, South Carolina. 

The section of US 78 from Memphis, Tennessee to Birmingham, Alabama is also 

known as Appalachian Highway System Corridor X and is currently being upgraded 

to a controlled access freeway, future Interstate 22 (I-22). US 45 is a north-south 

route from Mobile, Alabama through central Tennessee. The Natchez Trace Parkway, 

the Appalachian Highway System Corridor V, and numerous other state and county 

roadways service the Tupelo area. 

The removal of at-grade crossings within central Tupelo, especially at Crosstown, 

will allow for greater mobility of surface transportation to the airport and better traffic 

flow along the local highways. 
 

2-1 

2.0 ALTERNATIVES 

This section describes all of the alternatives considered, including the No-Build Alternative, 

rail operational improvements, in-town grade separations of the railroad at specific locations 

in Tupelo, and proposed rail alignment alternatives. The No-Build, the operational 

improvements, and the in-town alternatives would permit the rail traffic to increase speed 

through Tupelo while potentially reducing auto traffic delay and improve safety. The 

proposed rail relocation alternatives would result in a new rail line for either a portion or all 

of the BNSF and KCS traffic around downtown Tupelo with a specific intention to remove 

the traffic conflict at Crosstown. Each alternative was evaluated based on its ability to satisfy 

the project’s Purpose and Need. 

2.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE (ALTERNATIVE A) 

The No-Build Alternative would not construct any improvements to either the existing 

roadway network or the existing rail facilities, beyond any projects that are currently planned 

or programmed. The existing alignments for the BNSF main line and KCS rail line would 

remain in their existing locations, without any rail or automobile improvements. The 

existing BNSF-KCS interchange yard would also remain. The No-Build Alternative does not 

satisfy the project’s Purpose and Need, but is required to be brought forward for further 

analysis and evaluation under NEPA (and 40 CFR §§ 1502.14(d) & 1508.25(b)). 

2.2 FEASIBILTY ALTERNATIVES 

The following alternatives were identified and analyzed as part of the Phase 1 – Feasibility 

Analysis (HDR, May 2006). In June 2006, the FRA approved the document, and the Scoping 

Phase was initiated. 

2.2.1 Operational Improvements 

The amount of rail traffic through Tupelo contributes directly to the auto traffic delay 

and safety concerns at the at-grade crossing locations. A portion of the delay 

occurring in-town is due to the exchange of rail cars between BNSF and KCS. This 

exchange of cargo, while serving the needs of the community, blocks the major northsouth and east-west arterial roadways. The BNSF and KCS interchange is located 

approximately 3,600 feet east of Crosstown. 

The proposed operational improvement to address the exchange of rail cars between 

BNSF and KCS is to move the BNSF-KCS interchange to the southeast along the 

BNSF main line, shown on Figure 2-1. The interchange would be located south of 

the Pvt. John Allen National Fish Hatchery and north of US 45. Three rail storage 

tracks, turnouts and electric lock-out switches would be constructed along both the 

BNSF main line and KCS rail line for the exchange of rail cars. Roadway 

improvements would be the grade separation of Eason Boulevard over both the BNSF 

and KCS crossings, which would also reduce auto traffic delay and remove potential 

rail and vehicular conflicts. The existing highway overpass for US 45 would also 

require reconstruction to facilitate the additional storage track.Figure 2-1 

Operational Improvement 

 

2-3 

2.2.2 In-town Alternative Scenarios 

Improvements along the existing BNSF line in Tupelo were analyzed for upgrades 

and/or improvements to both the railroad and roadways. The Crosstown intersection 

was identified as a primary location for improvements. Two scenarios were analyzed 

for improvements in downtown Tupelo at the Crosstown intersection. Scenario 1 is 

to elevate the roadway intersection over the BNSF line. Scenario 2 is to elevate the 

BNSF main line over the existing roadway intersection. 

2.2.2.1 Scenario 1 

Scenario 1 consists of elevating the Crosstown intersection above the existing 

BNSF line. Although the highway overpass could be contained within the 

existing right-of-way, there would be significant impacts to the ability to 

maintain traffic volumes during construction as well as impacts to the access 

to adjacent properties. 

Upgrading the railroad switch for the BNSF and KCS interchange with an 

electric switch lock system would improve the safe operation of switching 

operations in the rail yard and allow an increase in the speed of trains 

approaching the interchange. The recommended roadway improvements, 

shown on Figure 2-2, to improve the functional speed of the BNSF main line 

in its current alignment through Tupelo are: 

 Full closure of at-grade crossings at Jefferson Street, Park Street, and 

Church Street; 

 Installation of warning gates with flashers at Spring Street, Green Street 

and Blair Street; and 

 Construction of a grade separation at the Crosstown intersection by 

building a highway bridge structure over the existing railroad. 

2.2.2.2 Scenario 2 

Scenario 2 consists of constructing a railroad bridge over the Crosstown 

intersection. The proposed improvements would be constructed to the north 

of the existing track and would require right-of-way acquisition to allow for 

uninterrupted train service.

An elevated railroad bed, bridge and retaining walls would be constructed 

across the Crosstown intersection. The limits of the improvements would be 

between Jackson Street and 1,000 feet east of the KCS crossing. The switch 

point for access to the rail yard would need to be relocated to the east near the 

Spring Street crossing. The recommended roadway improvements, shown on

Figure 2-3, to improve the functional speed of the BNSF main line in its 

current alignment through Tupelo are: 

 Full closure of the at-grade crossing at Church Street; 

 Installation of warning gates with flashers at Spring Street and Green 

Street; and 


 

2-6 

 Construction of a railroad overpass over the existing at-grade crossings at 

Blair Street, Jefferson Street, Park Street, and Crosstown.

2.2.3 Alternative B 

Alternative B, shown on Figure 2-4, which would bypass Tupelo to the west, is 

approximately 29.7 miles in length and would begin just north of the Town of 

Sherman. The alignment turns south and enters Pontotoc County and continues south 

following Lilly Creek then Coonewah Creek then turns east into Lee County. The 

alignment curves southeast crossing the Natchez Trace Parkway and Chiwapa Creek, 

then turns east to follow the Chiwapa Creek floodplain. The alignment crosses the 

KCS line at approximately MP 268.1, south of Shannon, Mississippi, and an 

interchange yard would be constructed near this location. The route would cross 

Chiwapa Creek again and connect to the common southern point on the BNSF main 

line just north of the town of Nettleton. All 29.7 miles of Alternative B would be 

construction of new track. No existing track would require reconditioning, but the 

existing track between Eason Boulevard and the reconnection point north of Nettleton 

would remain as a spur to service existing rail customers. The length of bridges and 

trestle required to span floodplains and other water features would be approximately 

6,400 feet. Twenty-one new public at-grade roadway crossings would be needed 

along the alternative corridor, but 17 existing public at-grade crossings including 

Crosstown would be closed, with four others reduced to spur traffic. Nine existing 

major roadways would require grade-separations over the new rail line. No existing 

highway overpasses would require modifications. The right-of-way width would 

vary from 100 to 200 feet. 

2.2.4 Alternative C 

Alternative C, approximately 30.4 miles in length, would bypass Tupelo to the east 

and depart the BNSF main line between the city limits of Sherman and Tupelo, 

shown on Figure 2-4. The route travels east and crosses Town Creek and Busfaloba 

Creek, Yonaba Creek, and Mud Creek. The route would then join the KCS rail line 

in the City of Saltillo and run along the existing KCS rail line to south of US 78. The 

route would run south to join the BNSF main line north of Eason Boulevard. 

Approximately 12.6 miles of new track would be constructed for Alternative C. 

Approximately 3.8 miles of existing KCS track would be upgraded. The remaining 

approximately 14.0 miles of existing BNSF track would not require additional 

improvements. The length of rail bridges and trestle required to span floodplains and 

other water features would be approximately 7,900 feet. Eight new public at-grade 

roadway crossings would be needed for this alternative. Eight existing public atgrade crossings would remain in use, but 15 existing public at-grade crossings would 

be closed for Alternative C, including Crosstown. Seven existing major roadways 

would require grade-separations and three existing highway overpasses would require 

modifications. The right-of-way width would vary from 100 to 200 feet. 
City of

Nettleton

City of

Shannon

City of

Plantersville

City of

Verona

City of

Tupelo

City of

Sherman

City of

Saltillo

Union County

Lee County

PontotocCounty

Lee County

Natchez

Trace

Pkwy

Natchez

Trace

Pkwy

BNSF Railway

Kansas City Southern

BNSF Railway

Kansas City Southern

Highway 6

Tupelo

Airport

Main St

Gloster St

78

78

45

45

278

245

145

6

371

178

145

9

178

Alternative B

Alternative F

Alternative E

Alternative C

Alternative D

363

Extension

Edgewater

Cove

Garden

Park

Estates

Lakeview

Gardens

The

Summit

Pritchard

Gardens

Westwind

North

Ridge

Ravenwood Crossings

Mt.

Vernon

Acres

Heardtown

Estates

RR Crossing (Active)

Bridge

Proposed Road

River / Stream

Subdivision

County

Boundary

FEMA Floodplain

City 

Boundary Alternatives B-F

Figure

2-4

Railroad

Natchez Trace Pkwy

Tupelo Mississippi Railroad Relocation

Planning & Environmental Study

0 1 2 3

Miles

E:\Data1\MDOT_Tupelo\map_docs\mxd\Report_072008\Fig_2-4_Alternatives_B-F_11x17.mxd
 

2-8 

2.2.5 Alternative D 

Alternative D is approximately 28.0 miles in length and would bypass Tupelo to the 

east. Alternative D would depart the BNSF main line between the city limits of 

Sherman and Tupelo, shown on Figure 2-4. The route travels east and crosses Town 

Creek, Busfaloba Creek, Yonaba Creek, the Natchez Trace Parkway, and Mud Creek. 

The alignment joins the KCS rail line at approximately MP 283.5 north of Barnes 

Crossing. After the departure from the KCS rail line, the route would run south to 

join the BNSF main line north of Eason Boulevard. Approximately 12.2 miles of 

new track would be constructed for Alternative D, while approximately 1.8 miles of 

existing KCS track would be upgraded. The remaining approximately 14.0 miles of 

existing BNSF track would not require additional improvements. The length of rail 

bridges and trestles required to span floodplains and other water features would be 

approximately 7,200 feet. Seven new public at-grade crossings would be required for 

this alternative. Eight existing public at-grade crossings would remain in use, but 15 

existing public at-grade crossings would be closed for Alternative D, including 

Crosstown. Seven existing major roadways would require grade-separations. One 

existing highway overpass would require modifications. The right-of-way width 

would vary from 100 to 200 feet. 

2.2.6 Alternative E 

Alternative E would bypass Tupelo to the east and is approximately 35.1 miles in 

length. Alternative E would depart the BNSF main line between the city limits of 

Sherman and Tupelo, shown on Figure 2-4. The route travels east and crosses Town 

Creek, Busfaloba Creek, Yonaba Creek, Mud Creek, the Natchez Trace Parkway, and 

crosses the KCS rail line. The alignment then continues east to cross Sand Creek and 

Tulip Creek north of Lake Sequoyah. The route then turns south to roughly follow 

Tulip Creek and crosses US 78 and South Tulip Creek. The route then avoids 

Tombigbee State Park and Lakewood Park and roughly follows Garrett Creek and 

joins the BNSF main line at approximately MP 593.4, south of Plantersville. 

Approximately 24.9 miles of new track would be constructed for Alternative E. 

Approximately 10.2 miles of existing BNSF track would not be upgraded. The length 

of rail bridges and trestles required to span floodplains and other water features would 

be approximately 8,600 feet. Eight existing public at-grade crossings would remain 

in use, but three of those would be reduced to spur traffic. Nineteen new public atgrade roadway crossings would be needed along the alternative corridor. Thirteen 

existing public at-grade crossings would be closed, including Crosstown. Seven 

existing major roadways would require grade-separations. No existing highway 

overpasses would require modifications. The right-of-way width would vary from 

100 to 200 feet. 

2.2.7 Alternative F 

Alternative F, approximately 38.8 miles in length, would depart the BNSF main line 

between the city limits of Sherman and Tupelo and bypass Tupelo to the east, shown 

on Figure 2-4. The route travels east and crosses Town Creek, Busfaloba Creek, 

Yonaba Creek, Mud Creek, the Natchez Trace Parkway, and crosses the KCS rail 

line. The alignment then continues east to cross Sand Creek and Tulip Creek north of 
 

2-9 

Lake Sequoyah. The route continues east, crossing Boguefala Creek, then turns south 

to roughly follow Boguefala Creek crossing US Highway 78. The route avoids the 

town of Mooreville and crosses Bougegaba Creek and continues south to roughly 

follow Smith Creek to join the BNSF main line at approximately MP 594.6 between 

Plantersville and Nettleton. Approximately 29.8 miles of new track would be 

constructed for Alternative F. Approximately 9.0 miles of existing track would not 

be upgraded. The length of rail bridges and trestles required to span floodplains and 

other water features would be approximately 9,600 feet. Eight existing public atgrade crossings would remain in use, but three of those would be reduced to spur 

traffic. Twenty-three new public at-grade roadway crossings would be needed along 

the alternative corridor. Thirteen existing public at-grade crossings would be closed, 

including Crosstown. Nine existing major roadways would require grade-separations. 

No existing highway overpasses would require modifications. The right-of-way 

width would vary from 100 to 200 feet. 

2.3 SCOPING ALTERNATIVES 

The scoping process involved the interaction of several government agencies, officials, 

stakeholders, and the public to compare and contrast the alternatives developed during the 

Phase 1 Feasibility Analysis (HDR, May 2006), develop additional alternatives, and 

recommend alternatives for further study. 

2.3.1 Scoping Meeting 

Several meetings were held to present the Phase I - Feasibility Analysis (HDR, May 

2006) alternatives to the public, government agencies and public officials. These 

meetings included an Agency Scoping Meeting held on August 14, 2006, a Public 

Meeting held on August 15, 2006, and Public/Elected Officials Scoping Meetings 

held on November 29, 2005, August 15, 2006, and November 17, 2006. All of the 

meetings were held in Tupelo, Mississippi. Representatives from the following 

agencies were in attendance at these various meetings: 

City of Saltillo 

City of Tupelo 

City of Verona 

Environmental Protection Agency 

 Federal Highway Administration 

 Federal Railroad Administration 

Lee County 

Natchez Trace Parkway (U.S. National Park Service) 

Town of Plantersville 

Town of Shannon 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

The following is a summary of verbal comments made by agencies at the scoping 

meetings: 
 

2-10 

Railroad Trench in Reno, Nevada 

Natchez Trace Parkway Superintendent supports Alternative C because it utilizes an 

existing crossing and has the least amount of impact on the Natchez Trace Parkway. 

 Invitation letters for agencies to become Cooperating Agencies would be mailed out 

as appropriate. 

The public meeting generated 52 comments that mostly supported either an in-town 

alternative or an operational improvement and generally opposed any of the proposed 

bypass alignments. 

2.3.2 New Scoping Alternatives 

As a result of the scoping process, five 

new alternatives were recommended for 

further evaluation by the study team. 

2.3.2.1 Alternative G

This alternative would lower the 

BNSF main line into a trench 

under Crosstown. Crosstown and 

other cross streets would be 

reconstructed on a bridge 

structure over the trench. 

Guardrail, barrier wall, and 

fencing would be mandatory so 

that people, vehicles, and debris 

are prevented from falling onto 

the tracks in the trench and 

disrupting rail service. 

A separate and temporary rail 

corridor would be required to maintain railroad traffic during construction 

requiring significant temporary right-of-way. 

Lowering the BNSF profile grade would require the profile grade of the 

switching yard with the KCS rail line to be lowered. Since the existing yard is 

located within an existing floodplain, issues with drainage, permitting, and 

maintaining rail operations would need to be addressed. 

2.3.2.2 Alternative H

This alternative was derived from the In-town Scenario 1, but consists of the 

grade separation of Gloster Street over both Main Street and the BNSF main 

line, instead of both roadways over the BNSF. A significant portion of the 

traffic at Crosstown would be removed from conflict with the rail movements. 

This alternative would also require the construction of a second roadway 

overpass such that the Main Street traffic may bypass the at-grade crossing 

during interchange operations. Three options were developed based on this 

concept, shown on Figure 2-5, Figure 2-6, and Figure 2-7. 



 

2-14 

Each layout includes an overpass on Gloster Street over the railroad, while 

providing a bypass route for Main Street. 

2.3.2.3 Alternative I

This alternative, shown on Figure 2-8, would consist of a long, completely 

elevated rail viaduct, predominantly located adjacent to the existing railroad 

right-of-way, to grade separate the BNSF main line over the at-grade road 

crossings through Tupelo and the KCS rail line, including Crosstown. Five 

elevated typical sections were developed to include single track, double track, 

and a potential shared-use path within the existing 100-foot railroad right-ofway, shown on Figure 2-9. The new route would parallel the existing track, 

except where modified curvature would allow trains to travel at 40 mph. The 

rail interchange would be as described in the operational improvement in 

Section 2.2.1. 

2.3.2.4 Alternative J

This alternative, approximately 22.6 miles long, was derived from 

Alternative D and parallels US 78 (I-22) along undeveloped properties to the 

north, shown on Figure 2-10. The alignment would bypass Tupelo, and then 

turn south to parallel Town Creek and intersect the existing BNSF main line 

north of Eason Boulevard. The existing interchange with the KCS rail line 

would be eliminated and replaced with a grade separated crossing. The rail 

interchange would be as described in the operational improvement in Section 

2.2.1. Alternative J would require construction of approximately 10.8 miles 

of new track. Approximately 11.8 miles of existing track would not require 

additional improvements. The length of rail bridges and trestle required to 

span floodplains and other water features would be approximately 9,580 feet. 

Eight existing public at-grade crossings would remain in use, but 14 existing 

public at-grade crossings would be closed for Alternative J, including 

Crosstown. Nine existing major roadways would require grade-separations. 

One existing highway overpass would require modifications. The right-ofway width would vary from 100 to 200 feet. 

2.3.2.5 Alternative K 

This alternative, approximately 26.8 miles long, was developed from an 

alternative initially proposed by the Urban Rail Relocations Study (Wilbur 

Smith and Associates, March 2002) and Alternative B. The alignment would 

extend south from the BNSF main line north of Sherman and would roughly 

parallel Coonewah Creek south and west to intersect the BNSF main line 

north of Nettleton, shown on Figure 2-11. All 26.8 miles of Alternative K 

would require construction of new track. The length of rail bridges and trestle 

required to span floodplains and other water features would be approximately 

13,880 feet. Four existing public at-grade crossings would remain in use, but 

17 existing public at-grade crossings would be closed for Alternative K, 

including Crosstown. Nine existing major roadways would require gradeseparations and 20 new at-grade crossings would be included. The right-ofway width would vary from 100 to 200 feet. 

FIGURE 

8

FIGURE 2-9

(Sheet 1 of 2)
FIGURE 2-9

(Sheet 2 of 2)
City of

Tupelo

City of

Saltillo

Trace

Pkwy

BNSF Railway

Kansas City Southern

Highway 6 Extension

Tupelo

Airport

Main St

Gloster St

78

45

278

178

Alternative

J

Natchez

78 Coley Rd. Extension

Garden

Park

Estates

Pritchard

Gardens

Westwind

North

Ridge

Crossings

Ravenwood

Mt. Vernon

Acres

Heardtown

Estates

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles

E:\Data1\MDOT_Tupelo\map_docs\mxd\Report_072008\Fig_2-7_Alternative_J_11x17.mxd

Alternative J

Figure

2-10

Tupelo Mississippi Railroad Relocation

Planning & Environmental Study

Proposed Road

River / Stream

Subdivision

FEMA Floodplain

City Boundary

Railroad

Natchez Trace Pkwy

LEGEND
City of

Nettleton

City of

Shannon

City of

Plantersville

City of

Verona

City of

Tupelo

City of

Sherman

City of

Saltillo

PontotocCounty

Lee County

Natchez

Trace

Pkwy

BNSF Railway

Kansas City Southern

BNSF Railway

Kansas City Southern

Highway 6 Extension

Tupelo

Airport

Main St

Gloster St

78

78

45

45

278

245

145

6

178

145

9

178

Alternative

K

363

Edgewater

Cove

Garden

Park

Estates

Lakeview

Gardens

The

Summit

Pritchard

Gardens

Westwind

North

Ridge

Crossings

Ravenwood Mt.

Vernon

Acres

Heardtown

Estates

0 1 2 3

Miles

Alternative K

Figure

2-11

Tupelo Mississippi Railroad Relocation

Planning & Environmental Study

E:\Data1\MDOT_Tupelo\map_docs\mxd\Report_072008\Fig_2-8_Alternative_K_11x17.mxd

Proposed Road

River / Stream

Subdivision

County

FEMA Floodplain Boundary

City 

Boundary Railroad

Natchez Trace Pkwy

LEGEND
 

2-20 

2.4 INITIAL ALTERNATIVE REFINEMENTS 

2.4.1 Alternatives Meeting

MDOT held a meeting on February 21, 2007 with the project team in Tupelo to 

discuss the refinement of the proposed alternatives under consideration for the 

project. The advantages and disadvantages of each alternative were discussed. 

2.4.2 Alternative H

Three options were developed for Alternative H, shown on Figure 2-5, Figure 2-6, 

and Figure 2-7, with each layout including an overpass on Gloster Street over Main 

Street and the BNSF main line, while providing a bypass route for Main Street. Each 

bypass alternative would require right-of-way acquisition from both residential and 

industrial parcels. 

Utilizing more detailed topographic data not previously available for the Phase 1 – 

Feasibility Analysis (HDR, May 2006), a conceptual plan-profile for the Gloster 

Street overpass was developed using MDOT design criteria for arterial roadways. 

Based on the grades at each approach to elevate Gloster Street over the railroad, 

MDOT determined that a significant amount of retaining walls would be required 

north of Crosstown and within the vicinity of the public elementary school at 

Jefferson Street for the construction limits to remain within the existing right-of-way. 

The profile of Jefferson Street would have to be raised enough that access to the 

adjacent historic properties would be prohibited. 

2.4.3 Alternative L

Alternative J presented many engineering challenges, including the rail line 

interfering with the interchange between the Natchez Trace Parkway and US 78 and 

skewed crossings at US 78, Gloster Street, US 45, and the KCS rail line. The new 

alignment (Alternative L) was considered to share the proposed crossing of the 

Natchez Trace Parkway with the proposed Coley Road Extension. Alternative L, 

approximately 26.8 miles long and shown on Figure 2-12, is the hybrid between 

Alternative D and Alternative J. This alternative would leave the existing BNSF 

main line north of State Road (MS) 178, cross under MS 178, then turn to cross under 

the proposed Coley Road Extension, and then turn parallel to the new roadway. The 

alignment would cross the Natchez Trace Parkway in a joint crossing with the 

proposed Coley Road Extension and would then turn south to cross US 78, Gloster 

Street, and US 45. It would then cross the KCS rail line, continue south to cross Main 

Street, and merge with the BNSF main line. Approximately 11.9 miles of new track 

would be constructed for Alternative L. The remaining approximately 14.9 miles of 

existing track would not require additional improvements. The length of rail bridges 

and trestle required to span floodplains and other water features would be 

approximately 13,370 feet. Eight existing public at-grade crossings would remain in 

use, but 14 existing public at-grade crossings would be closed for Alternative L, 

including Crosstown. Seven existing major roadways would require gradeseparations. The right-of-way width would vary from 100 to 200 feet.
City of

Tupelo

City of

Saltillo

Trace

Pkwy

BNSF Railway

Kansas City Southern

Highway 6 Extension

Tupelo

Airport

Main St

Gloster St

78

45

278

178

Alternative

L

Natchez

78 Coley Rd. Extension

Garden Park

Estates

Heardtown

Estates

Ravenwood

Westwind

North Ridge

Crossings

Pritchard

Gardens

Mt. Vernon

Acres

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles

Alternative L

Figure

2-12

Tupelo Mississippi Railroad Relocation

Planning & Environmental Study

E:\Data1\MDOT_Tupelo\map_docs\mxd\Report_072008\Fig_2-12_Alternative_L_11x17.mxd

Proposed Road

River / Stream

Subdivision

FEMA Floodplain

City Boundary

Railroad

Natchez Trace Pkwy

LEGEND
 

2-22 

2.4.4 Alternative M

Alternative M was derived from Alternative I, shown on Figure 2-8, and consists of 

an elevated rail viaduct with the limited use of retaining walls within the existing 

railroad right-of-way. The length of rail viaduct would be reduced with the addition 

of retaining walls. The rail would then be placed on earthen fill for the limits of the 

retaining wall. The route would parallel the existing track, except where modified 

curvature would allow trains to travel at 40 mph and stay within the existing BNSF 

right-of-way. The rail interchange would be as described in the operational 

improvement in Section 2.2.1. Eight existing public at-grade crossings would remain 

in use, but 11 existing public at-grade crossings would be closed for Alternative M, 

including Crosstown. Eleven existing roadways would require grade-separations and 

no new at-grade crossings would be included. 

2.5 NATIVE AMERICAN RESOURCES 

Northeast Mississippi is the historic home to the Chickasaw Indians. The Chickasaw people 

inhabited the Lee County area at least as long as, but probably much longer than, the tribe’s 

contact with European visitors in the 1500’s. The Chickasaw tribe moved northward from 

central Mississippi along the Black Prairie region as explorers encroached on their land. The 

majority of the Chickasaw settlements of the 17th and 18th Centuries were located to the south 

and west of where the present City of Tupelo footprint lies, shown on Figure 2-13. 

The archaeology of the tribe’s settlements has become a burgeoning field of study. All of the 

archaeological and documentary evidence suggest the Chickasaw towns were located in and 

around Lee County, with a particular concentration in present-day Tupelo. Traditionally, the 

Chickasaw are known to have buried their dead underneath their houses, so the disturbance 

of any Chickasaw village could mean the potential disturbance of a burial site. Since the 

majority of these village sites are not specifically identified, it is assumed that any new 

corridor or construction to the south and west of Tupelo could have a high probability of 

disturbance of a Chickasaw burial ground. 

2.6 INITIAL ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 

Each alternative was analyzed using the geographic information systems (GIS) data and 

aerial photography collected for the study area to determine whether it satisfied the aspects of 

the project’s Purpose and Need, as defined in Chapter 1. Evaluation measures were also 

developed by MDOT to provide a comparison of the impacts among the alternatives. 

2.6.1 Evaluation Measures 

Evaluation measures were used to compare each of the proposed alternatives and used 

to determine how well the alternative satisfied the project’s Purpose and Need. 

Evaluation measures were divided into four sections: Engineering, Environmental, 

Operations, and Costs. To standardize the analysis, the alternatives were compared 

from the common connection points to the existing BNSF main line. The northern 

point is north of the Town of Sherman at approximately MP 575.5. The southern 

connection point is north of the Town of Nettleton at approximately MP 600.0. 
Map Title Tupelo Mississippi Railroad Relocation

Planning & Environmental Study

LEGEND

Figure

x-x

Chickasaw 

Settlements

Figure 2-13

SOURCE: Indians of the 

Greater Southeast, Historical 

Archaeology and Ethnohistory, Figure 4.3 (ed. Bonnie G. 

McEwan)

T

O

W

N

CREE

K

C

OONEWAH

C

REEK

KINGS CREEK
 

2-24 

2.6.1.1 Engineering

The engineering factors were calculated based upon the preliminary alignment 

geometry for each alternative, and comparison to aerial photography and GIS 

data. The engineering factors considered for comparison include the 

following: 

Alignment Statistics 

The alignment statistics include total length of the new corridor, length of 

existing BNSF and KCS corridors to be used, number of proposed gradeseparations, estimated total length of bridges/trestles required, additional 

operational distance for both BNSF and KCS, and number of interchange 

modifications required. 

Safety 

The safety factors include the total number of existing grade-separations used, 

the total number of existing public at-grade crossings used, the total number 

of public at-grade crossings closed (either by grade separation or track 

removal), the total number of proposed at-grade crossings, and the total 

number of proposed grade separations. All existing streets were assumed to 

require crossings, either by grade separations or at-grade crossings. 

2.6.1.2 Environmental

The environmental factors were calculated based upon the respective 

preliminary alternative comparison to GIS data. The environmental factors 

considered for comparison include the following: 

Human Environment 

The human environment includes number of community facilities impacted, 

number of educational facilities near the alternative alignment, and population 

density. 

Natural Environment 

The natural environment includes number of stream crossings (perennial and 

intermittent), area of wetland impacts, area of floodplain encroachment, and 

assessment of likely occurrences of threatened and endangered species near 

the alternative alignment. 

Physical Environment 

The physical environment includes number of historical sites, number of 

water supply wells, and number of contamination sites near the alternative 

alignment.

2.6.1.3 Operations 

With any new alternative alignment, there can be impacts to railroad 

operations. Typically, operational impacts can be analyzed in train-miles, tonmiles, or train-hours. These units of measure are referred to as operating 

units. Since carload and train traffic data are often difficult to forecast, the 
 

2-25 

operational impact analysis quantified the estimate change in train-miles. 

Distances for the BNSF trains were calculated from a common northern point 

(MP 575.5) to a common southern point (MP 600.0). The additional length of 

the alternative alignments would produce a cost to BNSF to operate and 

maintain both the trains and the physical improvements. The alternatives 

which maintain the existing alignment would not show an increase in travel 

distance. However, the alternatives which divert from the existing alignment 

would show an increase in both distance and time. 

2.6.1.4 Costs

After the alternatives were developed, preliminary construction cost estimates 

were completed for the railroad physical plant, roadway improvements, and 

right-of-way acquisition. Unit costs were derived from average cost history. 

The operating plan estimates the incremental costs associated with the 

rerouted rail traffic. The operational improvement and the alternatives 

remaining in downtown Tupelo would not create any significant additional 

operating costs since the modifications would be in proximity to the existing 

interchange operation. BNSF and KCS would incur additional transportation 

and infrastructure expenses as a consequence of the traffic rerouting for the 

alternatives that bypass Tupelo. 

In addition to the benefit of reduced automobile traffic delay and the reduced 

risk of automobile/train collisions, the closing/opening of an existing public 

at-grade rail crossing has an economic value. An additional value from the 

reduced/increased annual maintenance cost associated with the signal 

equipment, track work and crossing surface has been calculated for each 

crossing at approximately $17,000. 

2.6.2 Analysis of Alternatives 

The Purpose and Need of the Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project, as defined in 

Chapter 1, would be to reduce the impact of a growing rail service on the region in 

the following areas: 

 Reduce vehicular traffic delays in downtown Tupelo 

 Improve response for emergency vehicles 

 Improve the safety of the travelling public 

 Improve efficiency of railroad operations in the Tupelo area 

 Enhance quality of life with regard to traffic flow, noise, and economic 

development. 

In addition to the aspects of the project’s Purpose and Need, answers to the following 

questions about project objectives influenced the development of alternatives and 

alignments: 
 

2-26 

 Does the alternative serve the commercial freight needs including existing 

industries? 

 Does the alternative reduce the traffic conflict associated with the at-grade 

intersections? 

 Does the alternative benefit or adversely impact the community or the 

environment? 

 Does the cost of the alternative provide the maximum benefit to the community? 

2.6.3 Impact Summary 

The impacts associated with each of the alternatives were quantified and compared 

with the No-Build Alternative (Alternative A). Although the available data are 

meaningful for planning purposes only, the quantities demonstrate a magnitude of 

impact. Each alternative has advantages and disadvantages related to engineering, 

environmental, operations, cost, and other associated factors. Table 2-1 summarizes 

the anticipated impacts for each of the evaluation measures for the initial alternatives 

as described in the Phase 1 Feasibility Analysis (HDR, May 2006) and for the 

scoping alternatives. The analysis for Alternative G and Alternative H was limited 

and construction costs were not developed for them, as these alternatives were 

determined to be infeasible early in the alternatives evaluation process, as discussed 

in Section 2.6.4.2. 

2.6.4 Alternatives Screening 

The impact summaries for each alternative were compared with the aspects of the 

project’s Purpose and Need to determine which alternatives would be further 

evaluated in the next phase. Table 2-2 provides a brief description of each 

alternative. 

2.6.4.1 Feasibility Alternatives 

Operational Improvements: The operational improvements would allow 

interchange operations between the BNSF main line and the KCS rail line 

without interfering with the at-grade crossings, especially Crosstown. 

However, passing through trains would continue to be the primary source of 

vehicular traffic delay and horn soundings in central Tupelo would not be 

eliminated. This alternative was eliminated from consideration as a standalone alternative because it did not adequately satisfy the traffic delay, 

emergency response, safety, and quality of life aspects of the project’s 

Purpose and Need. Due to its ability to remove interchange operations from 

the at-grade crossings, the interchange concept was included with other 

alternative alignments. 

In-town Alternative Scenario 1: While this alternative would effectively 

remove the traffic conflict at Crosstown, it would have several adverse 

impacts to central Tupelo including permanent roadway closures, property 

acquisition, and business damages. Adjacent properties would need to be 

acquired, requiring several buildings to be demolished, to provide temporary 
2-27 

Table 2-1 Alternative Evaluation Measures 

INITIAL ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES

Alignment Statistics

Est. Length (Miles) 24.5 1.7 n/a n/a 29.7 30.4 28.0 34.6 38.4 

Est. Length of New Track Construction (Miles) n/a 1.7 n/a n/a 29.7 12.6 12.2 24.9 29.8 

Est. Length of Existing BNSF Track (Miles) 24.5 0.0 n/a n/a 0.0 14.0 14.0 10.2 9.0 Est. Length of Existing KCS Track (Miles) n/a 0.0 n/a n/a 0.0 3.8 1.8 0.0 0.0 

Est. Additional BNSF Operational Distance (Miles) n/a 0.0 n/a n/a 5.2 5.9 3.5 10.1 13.9 Est. Additional KCS Operational Distance (Miles) n/a 0.9 n/a n/a 10.4 0.9 0.9 6.7 6.7 Est. Proposed Total Bridge/Trestle Length (Feet) n/a 500 n/a n/a 6,400 7,900 7,200 8,600 9,600 

Est. Proposed Highway Overpass Modifications (No.) n/a 1 n/a n/a 0 3 1 0 0 

Human Environment

Est. Community Facilities Displaced within 500 ft of R/W (No.)* n/a 0 n/a n/a 0 2 3 2 2 Est. Population Density (Population/acre) 0.84 0.01 n/a n/a 0.12 0.07 0.19 0.12 0.12 Est. Education Facilities within 500 ft of R/W (No.) 3 0 n/a n/a 0 0 2 0 0 Est. Proposed/Modified Natchez Trace Parkway Crossing (No.) n/a 0 n/a n/a 1 1 1 1 1 Est. Parks within 500 ft of R/W (No.) n/a 0 n/a n/a 0 0 0 1 0 

Natural Environment

Est. Environmentally Sensitive Sites within 500 ft of R/W (No.) 1 0 n/a n/a 1 0 0 0 0 Est. Perennial Streams Crossings (No.) 6 3 n/a n/a 8 7 4 5 8 Est. Intermittent Streams Crossings (No.) 18 2 n/a n/a 22 9 7 23 31 Est. Hydric Soils Impacts (Acres) n/a 0.0 n/a n/a 58.3 38.3 17.3 27.5 28.6 Est. Wetland Impacts (Acres)** n/a 0.0 n/a n/a 32.8 22.3 6.5 10.7 22.3 Est. 100-year Floodplain Encroachment (Acres)** n/a 40.1 n/a n/a 65.0 254.3 192.7 120.5 114.3 

Physical Environment

Est. Historical/Archeological Sites within 500 ft of R/W (No.) 6 0 n/a n/a 0 1 4 1 1 

Est. Public Water Supply Wells within 500 ft of R/W (No.) 1 0 n/a n/a 0 0 1 2 1 Est. Potential Contamination Sites within 500 ft of R/W (No.) 31 3 n/a n/a 1 6 3 2 3 

Safety

Est. Existing Grade Separations (No.) 5 5 5 5 1 2 1 1 1 Est. Existing Public At-grade Crossings to Remain (No.) 21 20 17 16 4 8 8 8 8 Est. Existing Public At-Grade Crossings Closed (No.) n/a 2 6 7 17 15 15 13 13 Est. Proposed Grade Separations (No.) n/a 2 3 6 9 4 6 7 8 Est. Proposed Public At-grade Crossings (No.) n/a 0 0 0 21 8 7 19 23 

Project Costs ($2005) n/a $70,700,000 $63,983,000 $110,119,000 $577,780,000 $367,790,000 $328,730,000 $583,730,000 $747,230,000 

In-town Alternative 

No-Build 

Alternative A

Operational 

Improvement Scenario 1 Scenario 2 B C D E F 

5. †Costs not determined due to unfeasibility of alternative

6. Bridge/Trestle length based on distance of stream crossings and 20% of distance of floodplain crossing.

4. All alignment alternative lengths have been calculated from MP 575.5 to MP 600.0.2. * Community Facilities include Churches, Cemeteries and Recreational Facilities.

Notes:

Evaluation Measures

3. ** Wetlands and 100-year floodplain quantities includes all water body crossings. Proposed bridge structures would reduce or eliminate these impacts.1. Quantities above have been estimated using GIS data and available mapping. Quantities should only be used for planning purposes.
2-28 

Table 2-2 Alternative Evaluation Matrix 

Alternative Origin Description Length of New Track (miles) Satisfies Purpose and Need Issues 

A - No-Build Alternative. Maintains the existing BNSF main line through Tupelo. N/A No Does not solve any delays or provide any benefits

Operational 

Improvement Feasibility Study Consists of moving BNSF-KCS interchange and switching yard to SE and constructing overpasses on Eason Blvd. 0.9 No Does not remove trains from Crosstown. Can be integrate

alternatives. 

In-town Alternative 

Scenario 1 Feasibility Study Grade separation at Crosstown. Elevates Gloster St. and Main St. over rail. N/A No Potential impacts to historic structures and schools on Gloste

St. Doesn’t provide same benefits as other alternati

In-town Alternative 

Scenario 2 Feasibility Study Grade Separation at Crosstown. Elevates rail over Gloster St. and Main St. N/A No Permanent road closures required. Impacts to several st

B Feasibility Study New Bypass Alternative. Western route located approximately 2 miles west of Coonewah Creek. 29.7 Yes Long route in rural area. Must use existing track to serve c

Crosses Natchez Trace Pkwy. at new location. New yard to 

C Feasibility Study New Bypass Alternative. Northern route located near Saltillo, then parallel to US 45. 16.4 No Central alignment partially in urban area. Shares right-of-wa

Crosses Natchez Trace Pkwy. in existing rail location. R

operational improvements to the yard. 

D Feasibility Study New Bypass Alternative. Northern route located north of Barnes Crossing then parallel to US 45. 14.0 Yes Central alignment partially in urban area. Shares right-of-wa

Crosses Natchez Trace Pkwy. in new location. Requires o

improvements to the yard. 

E Feasibility Study New Bypass Alternative. Eastern route located near Saltillo, south along Tulip Creek and Garrett Creek. 24.9 Yes Eastern alignment partially in urban area. Crosses Natchez T

New location. Requires new yard to the north. 

F Feasibility Study New Bypass Alternative. Eastern route located near Saltillo, south along Boguefala Creek and Smith Creek. 29.8 Yes Eastern alignment mostly in rural area. Crosses Natchez Tra

New location. Requires new yard to the north. 

G Scoping Meeting Placing rail in trench through town. N/A No Requires temporary rail corridor and yard to be below ground 

Significant drainage and safety issues with trench

H Scoping Meeting

Grade separation at Crosstown. Elevates Gloster St. over rail 

and includes second grade separated crossing to the south of 

Main St.

N/A No Potential impacts to historic structures and schools on Gloste

St. Doesn’t provide same benefits as other alternat

I Scoping Meeting Elevated rail viaduct through town. N/A Yes

Uses existing Natchez Trace Pkwy. crossing. Requires rigurbanized area with many residential parcel and structure i

would create visual impacts. Eliminates whistles at intersectio

operational improvements to the yard.

J Scoping Meeting New Bypass Alternative. Parallels US 78 and US 45. 10.9 No

Crosses Natchez Trace Pkwy. at interchange with US 78. Cr

US 45, and Gloster St. in same proximity with high skew an

three level interchanges. Requires operational improvement

K

Alternative 

Refinement 

Meeting

New Bypass Alternative. Parallels Coonewah Creek. 26.8 Yes Long route near urban area. Must use existing track to serve 

Crosses Natchez Trace Pkwy. at new location. New yard to 

L

Alternative 

Refinement 

Meeting

New Bypass Alternative. Parallels Coley Road Extension and 

US 45. 11.9 Yes

Central alignment parallelling proposed roadway. Joint cro

Natchez Trace Pkwy. Crosses US 78, Gloster St. and US 4

perpinduclar angle. Requires operational improvements to 

M

Alternative 

Refinement 

Meeting

Elevated rail viaduct through town. N/A Yes

Similar to Alternative I, but uses more retaining walls and fill 

the elevated rail. Viaduct to remain within existing right-of-wa

have visual impacts to parcels.

1. No-Build Alternative required to be evaluated in alternatives analysis under NEPA Section 1502.14(d).2. Feasibility Alternatives (B-F) were dismissed based on public, agency, and/or railroad concerns. 3. Alternative I dismissed due to property impacts and high potential for public controversy.
 2-29 

traffic detours during construction of the roadway bridge structure and the 

required utility relocations. This alternative could not be completed without 

adverse community and economic impacts to the public elementary school, 

businesses, and historic structures in downtown Tupelo. When viewed in 

light of the project’s Purpose and Need Scenario 1 was eliminated from 

further consideration. 

In-town Alternative Scenario 2: This alternative would require permanent 

roadway closures within central Tupelo, which would satisfy the safety and 

efficiency of railroad operations aspects of the Purpose and Need. However, 

while traffic at Crosstown would flow unimpeded by rail traffic, the traffic 

pattern would change and contribute higher traffic volumes elsewhere within 

the roadway network. The roadway closures would detract from the quality of 

life and impede emergency vehicles in the vicinity of the closures. Therefore, 

this alternative was eliminated from consideration. However, MDOT 

determined that if the limits of the elevated rail section were extended to avoid 

street closures, this could be considered a feasible option. This alternative 

was subsequently refined and is presented as Alternative I. 

Alternative B: This alternative would require the crossing of 30 perennial or 

intermittent streams, affect over 90 acres of wetlands, and cross over 65 acres 

of 100-year floodplain. This alternative also had negative public sentiment 

from area residents who expressed opposition to a new railroad corridor 

through currently quiet lands. Alternative B traverses lands known to include 

possible Chickasaw settlements and has a construction cost over $577 million. 

While this alternative would satisfy the project’s Purpose and Need, it was 

eliminated from consideration due to high cost, large right-of-way 

requirements, poor public support, and the significant potential impacts to 

archeological sites, wetlands, and floodplains. 

Alternative C: This alternative would cross over 254 acres of 100-year 

floodplain, although some of that acreage includes the shared corridor with the 

existing KCS rail line. This alternative would require a speed limit of 15 mph 

for an extremely sharp curve needed to merge with the KCS rail line, which 

would not satisfy the efficiency goal of the project’s Purpose and Need. 

During the scoping meetings, the City of Saltillo expressed concern over the 

potential negative effects of increased rail traffic within their city limits. Both 

KCS and BNSF also expressed objection to sharing the rail corridor between 

Saltillo and US 78. This alternative was eliminated from further consideration 

during the scoping process due to limited speed potential, significant potential 

impacts to floodplains, and the disapproval of both the City of Saltillo and the 

railroads. 

Alternative D: This alternative would require a new crossing of the Natchez 

Trace Parkway in close proximity to a residential development and a large 

retail center. The controlling grades required to grade separate the roadways 

from the railroad would make this crossing impractical. Alternative D would 
 2-30 

cross over 197 acres of 100-year floodplain, although some of that acreage 

includes the shared corridor with the existing KCS rail line. Both KCS and 

BNSF also expressed objection to sharing the rail corridor between Saltillo 

and US 78. Without this crucial link in the alignment, Alternative D was 

eliminated from further consideration during the scoping process. However, 

with modifications, the alternative could satisfy the project’s Purpose and 

Need, and subsequently was refined to reduce the potential environmental 

impacts and right-of-way requirements, and to eliminate the shared railroad 

corridor. This refined alternative is presented as Alternative J. 

Alternative E: This alternative would cross 28 perennial and intermittent 

streams, affect over 38 acres of wetlands, and cross over 120 acres of 100-

year floodplain. In addition, Alternative E would add over 10 miles to the 

BNSF operational distance. The alternative corridor would encroach on the 

Tombigbee State Park, run through the City of Saltillo, require a new crossing 

of the Natchez Trace Parkway, and cost over $583 million to construct. 

Public sentiment for Alternative E was negative and the City of Saltillo 

expressed concern over the potential effects of increased rail traffic within 

their city limits. Despite the alternative’s ability to satisfy the project’s 

Purpose and Need, Alternative E was eliminated from further consideration 

during the scoping process due to high cost, extensive right-of-way 

requirements, significant impacts to wetlands and floodplains, and the 

disapproval of the City of Saltillo. 

Alternative F: The easternmost alternative would cross 39 perennial and 

intermittent streams, affect over 40 acres of wetlands, and cross over 114 

acres of floodplains. Alternative F would add almost 14 miles to the BNSF 

operational distance. The alternative corridor would run through the City of 

Saltillo, require a new crossing of the Natchez Trace Parkway, and cost over 

$747 million to construct. Public sentiment for Alternative F was negative 

and the City of Saltillo expressed concern over the potential effects of 

increased rail traffic within their city limits. Despite the alternative’s ability 

to satisfy the project’s Purpose and Need, Alternative F was eliminated from 

further consideration during the scoping process due to high cost, extensive 

right-of-way requirements, significant impacts to wetlands and floodplains, 

and the disapproval of the City of Saltillo. 

2.6.4.2 Scoping Alternatives

Alternative G: The construction cost of a trench is typically three times 

greater than that for an elevated rail viaduct. The depth of the rail trench for 

Alternative G would be approximately 35 feet below existing ground to 

provide sufficient vertical clearance under the existing roadways. The 

existing BNSF main line crosses five perennial streams between the Natchez 

Trace Parkway and Veterans Boulevard, including the floodway associated 

with King’s Creek Tributary No. 1 and the floodway associated with both 

Town Creek and Mud Creek. The trench would tunnel underneath those 
 2-31 

streams to maintain their channels and avoid flooding the trench. To maintain 

satisfactory profile grades for the BNSF main line, the trench would begin 

south of Lumpkin Avenue and extend south of Eason Boulevard, and would 

require the permanent closure of Veterans Boulevard. Several dozen 

residences and businesses would require relocation due to the right-of-way 

acquisition required to excavate and construct the trench. Four rail-served 

businesses would require relocation, including three with large physical 

plants. The trench would require fencing to restrict pedestrians and prevent 

objects from falling on the tracks, which would present a physical divide 

within the city. Within the City of Tupelo, the projected rail profile depth is 

anticipated to be below the existing groundwater table. If the rail is below the 

existing groundwater table, it may require measures to maintain positive 

drainage (e.g. pumping) to avoid the possibility of flooding the tracks. This is 

typically unacceptable to railroads due to the potential interruptions to railroad 

operations, which would not satisfy the efficiency of operations goal of the 

project’s Purpose and Need. In addition, Alternative G would have a large 

impact on commercial freight needs in the area and could not be constructed 

without vast right-of-way acquisition in a dense urban residential and 

commercial area. The large amount of property impacts, a permanent road 

closure at Veterans Boulevard, significant groundwater elevation issues, and 

the failure of the alternative to satisfy the project’s Purpose and Need all 

contributed to Alternative G being considered infeasible and eliminated from 

further consideration. 

Alternative H: This alternative is not considered feasible or desirable to 

MDOT due to the adverse impacts to residences, businesses, and access to the 

historic properties north of Crosstown. The Gloster Street overpass would 

also restrict turning movements between Gloster Street and Main Street. 

Given the large quantity of adverse property and access impacts, this 

alternative would not satisfy the aspects of the project’s Purpose and Need and 

was eliminated from further consideration. 

Alternative I: Raising the BNSF main line would eliminate conflict between 

trains and vehicular traffic, reduce motorist delay, and create an opportunity 

for silencing of locomotive horns within the city. The rail line would not 

require extensive additional right-of-way as compared with other alternatives, 

but the right-of-way required contains a large number of residential and 

business structures within an urbanized area. This alternative would create 

public controversy and could increase anticipated right-of-way acquisition 

costs substantially. The right-of-way acquisition and possibility for public 

controversy associated with Alternative I would not satisfy the quality of life 

aspect of the project’s Purpose and Need. Therefore, this alternative was 

eliminated from further consideration. However, this alternative was refined 

to remain within the existing BNSF right-of-way and to be constructed mostly 

on bridge structure with the limited use of retaining walls as Alternative M. 
 2-32 

Alternative J: This alternative, refined from Alternative D, would reduce the 

right-of-way requirements and shorten the length of new railroad by nearly 2.5 

miles as compared to Alternative D. This alternative would also reduce the 

wetland impacts to just over 9 acres, as compared to Alternative D’s 24 acres. 

However, Alternative J would cross over 202 acres of 100-year floodplain, an 

increase of over 10 acres when compared to Alternative D. The proposed 

alignment was deemed impractical because it would cross the Natchez Trace 

Parkway at the US 78 interchange, forcing either permanent closure of a 

portion of the interchange or construction of flyover ramps, which would not 

only increase construction cost, but would detract from the aesthetics of the 

Natchez Trace Parkway. The impact on this interchange rendered this 

alternative infeasible because it would not satisfy the traffic, emergency 

services, or quality of life aspects of the project’s Purpose and Need. Thus, 

Alternative J was eliminated from further consideration. 

Alternative K: This alternative was refined from Alternative B to bring the 

alignment closer to the City of Tupelo in order to reduce the length of new 

track and potential environmental impacts. Alternative K would cross over 

266 acres of 100-year floodplain, 16 perennial or intermittent streams, and 23 

acres of wetlands. Alternative K would add approximately 2 miles of BNSF 

operational distance, but would include a new crossing of the Natchez Trace 

Parkway. This alternative would adequately satisfy the project’s Purpose and 

Need, although it has a potential for public controversy and impact to cultural 

resources. This alternative was brought forward for further consideration 

based on the desire to have a corridor bypass alternative around each side of 

Tupelo. 

Alternative L: This alternative was refined from Alternative J to avoid the 

Natchez Trace Parkway interchange with US 78. The alignment parallels the 

proposed Coley Road Extension to reduce the impacts to developed land and 

cross the Natchez Trace Parkway at the same location as the proposed Coley 

Road Extension. This alternative would cross over 262 acres of 100-year 

floodplain, 13 perennial or intermittent streams, and approximately 13 acres of 

wetlands. Alternative L would add approximately 2.3 miles to the BNSF 

operational distance and would not add an additional crossing of the Natchez 

trace Parkway, beyond a previously planned improvement. Alternative L 

adequately satisfies the project’s Purpose and Need and was brought forward 

for further consideration. 

Alternative M: Alternative M would provide the desired results as stated in 

Alternative I without the additional right-of-way acquisition and a reduced 

possibility for public controversy. In addition, the refinements result in a 

lower construction cost than Alternative I, increasing the attractiveness of the 

elevated rail viaduct as a feasible alternative. With the reduction of the rightof-way impacts and reduced project costs, this alternative adequately satisfied 

the project’s Purpose and Need. This alternative was brought forward for 

further consideration. 
 2-33 

2.6.4.3 Alternatives Screening Conclusion 

Alternatives A, K, L, and M were considered for future study and were also 

further examined for refinements to reduce the potential environmental, 

cultural, traffic, and right-of-way impacts. 

2.7 REFINED ALTERNATIVES 

These alternatives were discussed with BNSF, KCS, federal, state and local government 

agencies, and the community for additional input. 

2.7.1 Railroad Coordination Meeting 

The study team met with MDOT, FRA, BNSF, and KCS representatives in Jackson, 

Mississippi on April 10, 2007 to discuss the alternatives suggested at the scoping 

meeting. Advantages and disadvantages for Alternatives A, K, L, and M were 

compared. In general, BNSF had concerns about new at-grade road crossings. 

At this meeting, it was determined that all of the alternatives considered would 

implement the relocated interchange as described in the Operational Improvement in 

Section 2.2.1. The following is a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of 

Alternatives A, K, L, and M: 

Alternative A (No-Build) 

The advantages of this alternative are as follows: 

Would not impede automobile or train traffic flow during construction. 

Would not require expenditure of funds for right-of-way acquisition, engineering, 

design or construction. 

Would not result in additional impact on the adjacent natural, physical, and 

human environments. 

Would not result in disruption to existing land uses due to construction-related 

activities. 

The disadvantages of this alternative are as follows: 

Would not satisfy the project Purpose and Need. 

Would not result in reduction in traffic delay. 

Could increase the emergency service response time due to increased congestion. 

Would not decrease train horn soundings or train noise. 

Would not improve freight rail operations. 

Could increase the evacuation time during emergency situations due to increase in 

safety-related accidents. 

Alternative K 

The advantages of this alternative are as follows: 

Would remove through trains from central Tupelo. 

Would reduce vehicular conflict at at-grade crossings. 
 2-34 

Would have a high potential for rail-served industrial development. 

Would eliminate the traffic delay created by the BNSF-KCS interchange. 

The disadvantages of this alternative are as follows: 

Would require a new at-grade crossing of the KCS rail line. 

Would increase railroad operational mileage. 

Would require the existing BNSF main line from US 45 to remain as a spur to 

access interchange with KCS. 

Would have profile grade issues immediately south of Sherman. 

Could present public controversy. 

Would have a large number of new roadway crossings.

Alternative L 

The advantages of this alternative are as follows: 

Would remove through trains from central Tupelo. 

Would use a shared corridor with proposed roadway. 

Would eliminate the BNSF-KCS at-grade railroad crossing. 

Would eliminate the vehicular traffic delay created by the BNSF-KCS 

interchange. 

Would have less track construction than any of the initial alternatives. 

Would have support of the U.S. National Park Service. 

The disadvantages of this alternative are as follows: 

Would increase railroad operational mileage. 

Would have a limited potential for rail-served industrial development. 

Would have a number of new roadway crossings. 

Would have engineering challenges between Natchez Trace Parkway and Main 

Street. 

Could present public controversy. 

Alternative M 

The advantages of this alternative are as follows: 

Would eliminate at-grade crossings within central Tupelo. 

Would create a “quiet zone” through Tupelo. 

Would require minimal right-of-way. 

Would improve rail speed through Tupelo. 

Could minimize public controversy. 

Would not increase railroad operational mileage. 

Could include a multi-use trail. 

The disadvantages of this alternative are as follows: 
 2-35 

Would not promote rail-served industrial development. 

Would result in visual and vibration impacts on adjacent residences and 

businesses. 

Would create maintenance and liability issues (BNSF would request MDOT to 

bear the responsibility of maintaining the elevated structure through Tupelo).

2.7.2 City of Tupelo Meeting 

A meeting was held on June 11, 2007 with the Mayor and City of Tupelo staff. The 

purpose of the meeting was to update them on the status for this project and the Coley 

Road Extension. Alternative L, which would parallel the Coley Road Extension, 

could adversely impact the development along the roadway. The refined alternatives 

were discussed. Based on the information presented, the Mayor stated that 

Alternative M of elevating the rail was preferred by the City staff. 

2.7.3 Thoroughfare Committee Meeting 

A meeting was held on June 11, 2007 with the Thoroughfare Committee. The 

purpose of the meeting was to update them on the status of the project and present the 

EIS alternatives. The Committee was not in favor of the railroad being parallel to the 

Coley Road Extension (Alternative L), since the future land use would not be 

compatible with railroad uses. Alternative M, the elevated rail with aesthetic 

treatments, was preferred by the Thoroughfare Committee. 

2.7.4 Public Meeting 

An Alternatives Public Meeting was held on July 12, 2007. The meeting was 

conducted to afford the public the opportunity to express their views concerning the 

various alternatives. The meeting was held at the BancorpSouth Convention Center 

in Tupelo. In preparation for this meeting, notification mailings were sent to property 

owners, local elected officials, and other interested parties. In addition, standard 

advertisements, press releases and articles were published in the Northeast Daily 

Journal. The meeting format was an informal, open house to encourage the exchange 

of information between the public and the project team. Project information and 

comments cards were available to attendees. Representatives from MDOT and 

project team were available to speak with the public and answer questions. 

A total of 30 written comment cards were received at the meeting. In many cases, 

individuals attending the meeting had multiple opinions regarding the project. 

Therefore, the number of comments given does not match the number of comment 

cards. The comments received are briefly summarized in Table 2-3. Copies of 

comments are located in the project files and summarized in the Public Meeting #2 

Summary (ABMB, August 2007). 
 2-36 

Table 2-3 Summary of Public Comments

# of Comments # of Comments

Expressing Preference Expressing Opposition

Alternative A (No-Build) 5 0

Alternative K 3 3

Alternative L 3 2

Alternative M 22 2

Other 2 -

Corridor Alternative

2.7.5 Alternative L Refinements 

As a result of the feedback from the Alternatives Public Meeting, Alternative L was 

investigated further by project consultants to MDOT at the request of MDOT. The 

predominant issue with Alternative L, shown on Figure 2-12, is the effect that the 

alternative would have on the developing property along the proposed Coley Road 

Extension. The alternative was originally developed to share the proposed crossing 

of the Natchez Trace Parkway. However, the City of Tupelo and the Thoroughfare 

Committee opposed the rail alignment due to its proximity to the Coley Road 

Extension and the negative influence the rail could have on the development of the 

adjacent properties. Alternative L was then refined to cross the proposed Coley Road 

Extension and run parallel to Town Creek, which would require a new crossing of the 

Natchez Trace Parkway just north of Town Creek, and then turn south across the 

Natchez Trace Parkway north of the interchange with US 78. The refined Alternative 

L, shown on Figure 2-14, would continue south, as described previously, to intersect 

with the existing BNSF main line just north of Eason Boulevard. 

The advantages of the refined Alternative L are as follows: 

Would remove through trains from central Tupelo; 

Would allow the existing Natchez Trace Parkway / US 78 interchange to remain; 

Would allow the properties along the proposed Coley Road Extension to develop 

unimpeded; 

Would eliminate the BNSF-KCS at-grade railroad crossing; and 

Would result in the least track to build than any of the other bypass alternatives. 

The disadvantages of the refined Alternative L are as follows: 

Would increase railroad operational mileage; 

Would result in a limited potential for rail-served industrial development; 

Would require new at-grade roadway crossings; 

Would require much of the alignment to be built on either bridge or trestle; 

Would require a new crossing of the Natchez Trace Parkway; and 

Could present public controversy. 
City of

Tupelo

City of

Saltillo

Trace

Pkwy

BNSF Railway

Kansas City Southern

Highway 6 Extension

Tupelo

Airport

Main St

Gloster St

78

45

278

178

Alternative L

(refined)

Natchez

78 Coley Rd. Extension

Garden Park

Estates

Heardtown

Estates

Ravenwood

Westwind

North Ridge

Crossings

Pritchard

Gardens

Mt. Vernon

Acres

0 0.511.5

Miles

Alternative L

(refined)

Figure

2-14

Tupelo Mississippi Railroad Relocation

Planning & Environmental Study

E:\Data1\MDOT_Tupelo\map_docs\mxd\Report_072008\Fig_2-13_Alternative_L_refined_11x17.mxd

Proposed Road

River / Stream

Subdivision

FEMA Floodplain

City Boundary

Railroad

Natchez Trace Pkwy

LEGEND
 2-38 

2.7.6 Native American Resource Impacts 

As discussed in Section 2.5, the Chickasaw are known to have buried their dead 

underneath their houses, so the disturbance of any Chickasaw village could mean the 

potential disturbance of a burial site. Since the majority of these village sites are not 

specifically identified, it is assumed that any new corridor or construction to the south 

and west of Tupelo could have a high probability of disturbance of a Chickasaw 

burial ground. 

Alternative K runs south of and roughly parallel to Coonewah Creek, through areas 

which were known to be inhabited by the Chickasaw in the 17th and 18th Centuries. 

Alternative K would, therefore, have a significant potential for disturbance of 

Chickasaw burial sites. 

Alternative L runs north of and roughly parallel to Town Creek, which are lands that 

were not known to be inhabited by the Chickasaw. Alternative L would have a lower 

potential for disruption of Chickasaw burial sites. 

Alternative M runs roughly parallel to and north of Kings Creek through the existing 

BNSF right-of-way. The existing BNSF right-of-way is outside of the known 

Chickasaw settlement areas and is already developed. Therefore, Alternative M 

would have a low potential for disruption of Chickasaw burial sites and would result 

in the least disruption potential of the three refined alternatives.

2.7.7 Refined Alternatives Analysis 

Following the Alternatives Public Meeting, Alternative A (No-Build), Alternative K, 

Alternative L, and Alternative M were reexamined using the same evaluation criteria 

as outlined in Section 2.6.1 of this report. The anticipated impacts for each 

alternative are summarized in Table 2-4. 

2.7.8 Refined Alternatives Screening 

The impact summaries for each Alternative were compared with the project’s Purpose 

and Need to determine which alternatives would be further evaluated in the next 

phase. Table 2-5 provides a brief description of each alternative. 

Alternative K: This alternative would satisfy the project’s Purpose and Need but 

would have potential for significant impacts to Native American resources as well as 

impacts to over 23 acres of wetlands and over 266 acres of 100-year floodplain. 

Alternative K would also require the most right-of-way acquisition of the three 

refined build alternatives, which would lead to public controversy. This alternative 

lacks support from BNSF and KCS because of additional operating distance and the 

BNSF-KCS crossing remaining at-grade. 

Alternative K also lacks support from other public agencies because it would require 

a new crossing of the Natchez Trace Parkway and would have a high potential for 

disruption of Chickasaw burial sites. Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from 

further consideration. 
 2-39 

Table 2-4 Refined Alternatives Evaluation Measures 

No Build 

Alternative A Alternative K Alternative L 

(Refined) Alternative M

Alignment Statistics

Est. Length (Miles) 24.5 26.8 26.8 24.5

Est. Length of New Track Construction (Miles) n/a 26.8 12.5 3.0

Est. Length of Existing BNSF Track (Miles) 24.5 0.0 14.9 21.5

Est. Length of Existing KCS Track (Miles) n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0

Est. Additional BNSF Operational Distance (Miles) n/a 2.3 2.3 0.0

Est. Additional KCS Operational Distance (Miles) n/a 10.4 0.9 0.0

Est. Proposed Total Bridge/Trestle Length (Feet) n/a 13,880 19,710 7,200

Est. Proposed Highway Overpass Modifications (No.) n/a 0 1 1

Human Environment

Est. Community Facilities Displaced within 500 ft of R/W (No.)* n/a 1 0 n/a

Est. Population Density (Population/acre) 0.84 0.01 0.15 0.84

Est. Education Facilities within 500 ft of R/W (No.) 3 0 0 3

Est. Proposed/Modified Natchez Trace Parkway Crossing (No.) n/a 1 1 n/a

Est. Parks within 500 ft of R/W (No.) n/a 0 0 n/a

Natural Environment

Est. Environmentally Sensitive Sites within 500 ft of R/W (No.) 1 1 0 1

Est. Perennial Streams Crossings (No.) 6 5 5 6

Est. Intermittent Streams Crossings (No.) 18 11 3 18

Est. Hydric Soils Impacts (Acres) n/a 18.6 7.0 n/a

Est. Wetland Impacts (Acres)** n/a 4.9 1.9 n/a

Est. 100-year Floodplain Encroachment (Acres)** n/a 266.4 242.7 n/a

Physical Environment

Est. Historical/Archeological Sites within 500 ft of R/W (No.) 6 5 4 6

Est. Public Water Supply Wells within 500 ft of R/W (No.) 1 0 0 1

Est. Potential Contamination Sites within 500 ft of R/W (No.) 31 0 3 31

Safety

Est. Total Grade Separations (No.) 5 9 8 16

Est. Total At-grade Crossings (No.) 51 38 53 40

Project Costs ($2005) n/a $670,130,000 $769,140,000 $333,450,000

2. * Community Facilities include Churches, Cemeteries and Recreational Facilities.

3. ** Wetlands and 100-year floodplain quantities includes all water body crossings. Proposed bridge structures would reduce or eliminate these impacts.

4. All alignment alternative lengths have been calculated from MP 575.5 to MP 600.0.

Evaluation Measures

Notes: 

1. Quantities above have been estimated using GIS data and available mapping. Quantities should only be used for planning purposes.

 Table 2-5 Refined Alternatives Evaluation Matrix 

Alternative A K L M

Description

No Build Alternative. 

Maintains the Existing 

BNSF Rail Line through 

Tupelo.

New Bypass Alternative. 

Parallels Coonewah 

Creek.

New Bypass Alternative. 

Parallels Town Creek and 

Mud Creek.

In-Town Alternative - 

Elevating Rail Through 

Town.

Length of New Track 

(miles) N/A 26.8 11.6 0.9

Issues

Does not solve any 

delays or provide any 

benefits.

Long route near urban 

area. Must use existing 

track to serve customers. 

Crosses Trace at new 

location. New yard to 

south. Impacts to cultural 

resources. Railroad and 

Agency opposition.

New crossing with Trace. 

Crosses US 78, Gloster 

and US 45 closer to 

perpinduclar angle. 70% 

of alignment on trestle. 

Requires operational 

improvements to yard.

Similar to Alternative I, 

but uses more retaining 

walls and fill sections for 

the elevated rail.

Satisfies Project 

Purpose and Need No Yes Yes Yes

Estimated Cost 

($ Millions)

$0 

($1,250 Congestion) $670 $769 $333

Moving Forward Yes1 No Yes Yes

1. No-Build Alternative reuired to be evaluated in alternatives analysis under NEPA sections 1502.14(d) & 1508.25(b)
 2-40 

Alternative L: This refined alignment would affect over 242 acres of 100-year 

floodplain and nearly nine acres of wetlands. Alternative L has some support from 

BNSF, KCS, and other public agencies because it would require a nominal increase in 

BNSF operational mileage and does not run through culturally sensitive lands. 

However, other public agencies oppose this alternative because it would require a 

new crossing of the Natchez Trace Parkway. In addition, it has an estimated 

construction cost of over $769 million, the highest construction cost of any of the 

refined alternatives. Alternative L’s construction cost is estimated to be 15% higher 

than Alternative K and 131% higher than Alternative M. However, this alternative 

does satisfy the aspects of the project’s Purpose and Need while minimizing the 

effects on the community and development. Despite the high cost, this alternative 

corridor was brought forward for further consideration. 

Alternative M: Alternative M satisfies the aspects of the project’s Purpose and Need, 

has the most support from the public, the railroads, and the public agencies, would 

result in the least environmental (wetlands and floodplains) and cultural impacts, and 

is estimated to have the lowest construction cost of the build alternatives. This 

alternative was brought forward for further consideration. 

2.7.9 Refined Alternatives Conclusion 

Based upon the responses from public and agency meetings, the alternatives to be 

carried forward for further evaluation are Alternative A (No-Build), Alternative L 

(Refined Coley Road) and Alternative M (Elevated Rail).

2.8 REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES 

Alternatives A, L, and M were identified as the reasonable alternatives for detailed 

evaluation. Specific railway corridors, using BNSF standards for track construction, were 

developed to identify, quantify, and mitigate to the fullest extent practicable some of the 

potential impacts. Detailed environmental, social, cultural, and physical investigations were 

conducted based on the results from database searches, field investigations, and GIS analysis 

for each of the three reasonable alternatives. These investigations were performed to identify 

a more detailed concept for each alternative. 

2.8.1 Reasonable Alternatives Descriptions 

 

Alternative A (No-Build) 

This alternative would have the existing alignment for BNSF main line remain in its 

existing condition, without any rail or automobile improvements. The existing yard 

and interchange with the KCS rail line would also remain. 

Alternative L 

This alternative, shown on Figure 2-14, would depart the existing BNSF main line 

north of US 78, cross over MS 178 and Town Creek, then turn to parallel Town 

Creek, crossing under the Coley Road Extension. The alignment would cross over 

the Natchez Trace Parkway and would then turn south, to cross over US 78, Gloster 

Street, and US 45. It would then cross over the KCS rail line, continue south, cross 

over Main Street, and merge with the BNSF main line. Approximately 11.6 miles of 
 2-41 

new track would be constructed for Alternative L, with an additional 0.9 miles of 

track for the interchange with the KCS rail line, as described in the operational 

improvement in Section 2.2.1 of this report. Approximately 14.9 miles of existing 

track would not require additional improvements. The length of rail bridges and 

trestle required to span floodplains and other water features would be approximately 

19,710 feet. 

Alternative M 

Alternative M, shown on Figure 2-15, consists of an elevated rail viaduct with 

retaining walls and bridges within the existing railroad right-of-way. The rail would 

then be placed on earthen fill for the limits of the retaining wall. The route would 

parallel the existing track, except where modified curvature would allow trains to 

travel at 40 mph. Approximately 2.8 miles of elevated track would be constructed for 

Alternative M, with an additional 0.9 miles of track for the rail interchange, as 

described in the operational improvement in Section 2.2.1 of this report. 

Approximately 21.7 miles of existing track would not require additional 

improvements. The length of rail bridges and trestle required to span floodplains, 

roadways, neighborhoods, and streams would be approximately 8,386 feet. 

2.8.2 Reasonable Alternatives Analysis

Technical memoranda were prepared to outline the various potential impacts to the 

Tupelo area by the No-Build Alternative (Alternative A), and the Build Alternatives 

(Alternatives L and M) The findings of the technical memoranda are summarized in 

Table 2-6 and the topics covered are summarized in this section and described in 

further detail in Chapter 4. 

Archaeological & Cultural Sites 

The investigations of Alternatives L and M involved database searches to document 

the previously recorded archaeological and historic sites and field investigations to 

determine the amount of archaeological or historic material within each affected site 

by shovel tests. The specific alignment for Alternative L was refined after the 

Alternatives Public Meeting to avoid as many impacts to known archaeological and 

historic sites as possible, while maintaining BNSF standards for rail alignment 

geometry at the design speed of 60 mph. The archaeological and cultural site 

investigations were documented in the Cultural Resources Investigations for the 

Tupelo Railroad Relocation Study (Brockington, January 2009) (CRS) which was 

forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for comment. In a letter 

dated March 17, 2009, included in Appendix A, the SHPO made several conclusions 

regarding the two reasonable build alternatives. 

Alternative L would disturb five previously recorded archaeological sites, all located 

in farmland north of Town Creek between MS 178 and Mount Vernon Road. While 

none of these sites are listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), they 

do have the potential for cultural material and could be eligible for listing. The SHPO 

determined that construction of Alternative L had the potential to physically 

adversely affect three NRHP-eligible sites and intensive surveys would likely identify 

additional NRHP-eligible archaeological resources. 
City of

Tupelo

Trace

Kansas City Southern

Main St

Gloster St

45

Alternative

M

78

178

145

178

145

278

45

278

Pkwy

Natchez

Jackson St

McCullough Blvd Green St

President Ave

Lawndale Dr

Eason Blvd

Martin Luther King Jr Dr

0 0.25 0.5 0.75

Miles

Alternative M

Figure

2-15

Tupelo Mississippi Railroad Relocation

Planning & Environmental Study

E:\Data1\MDOT_Tupelo\map_docs\mxd\Report_082008\Fig_2-15_Alternative_M_11x17.mxd

River / Stream

Railroad FEMA Floodplain

Natchez Trace Pkwy

LEGEND
 2-43 

Table 2-6 Reasonable Alternatives Evaluation Measures 

No Build 

Alternative A Alternative L Alternative M

Alignment Statistics

Est. Length (Miles) 24.5 26.8 24.5

Est. Length of New Track Construction (Miles) n/a 12.5 3.7

Est. Length of Existing BNSF Track (Miles) 24.5 14.9 22.8

Est. Length of Existing KCS Track (Miles) n/a 0.0 n/a

Est. Additional BNSF Operational Distance (Miles) n/a 2.3 0.0

Est. Additional KCS Operational Distance (Miles) n/a 0.9 0.9

Est. Proposed Total Bridge/Trestle Length (Feet) n/a 19,710 8,386

Est. Proposed Highway Overpass Modifications (No.) n/a 1 1

Archaelogical & Cultural Sites

Impacted Archeological/Historic Sites within 500 ft of R/W (No.) n/a 5 4*

Endangered Species

Encountered Species within 500 ft of R/W (No.) n/a 0** 0

Floodplains and Floodways

Est. 100yr Floodplain Encroachment (Acres) n/a 186 10

Est. Regulatory Floodway Encroachment (Acres) n/a 47 2

Socioeconomic

Neighborhood Associations within 500 ft of R/W (No.) 4 2 4

Schools within 500 ft of R/W (No.) 2 1 2

Parks within 500 ft of R/W (No.) 414

Percent of Minority Households within 500 ft of R/W 14% 19% 14%

Percent of Low Income Households within 500 ft of R/W 17% 15% 17%

Visual Impacts to Residential or Historic Districts No No Yes

Land Area with 0.5 miles of R/W (Acres) 6,888 8,160 6,888

Topography and Soils

Area of High Shrink-Swell Potential Soils (Acres) n/a 69.6 5.1

Wetlands

Est. Wetland Impacts (Acres) n/a 0.97 0.68

Impacted Stream Length (Feet) n/a 2,230 350

Est. Prior Converted Cropland Impacts (Acres) n/a 115 8

Safety

Est. Total Grade Separations (No.) 5 15 16

Est. Total At-grade Crossings (No.) 51 38 40

Project Costs ($2005) n/a $769,140,000 $333,450,000

4. All alignment alternative lengths have been calculated from MP 575.5 to MP 600.0.

Evaluation Measures

Notes: 

1. Quantities above have been estimated using GIS data, available mapping, and field visits. Quantities should only be used for planning purposes.

2. * Impacts are only to the surrounding viewshed to these sites.

3. ** No species encountered. However, suitable habitat exists for Price's Potato Bean in R/W.

The SHPO also determined that Alternative M would not physically disturb any 

previously recorded NRHP-eligible archaeological sites and additional archaeological 

resources would unlikely be encountered during construction. SHPO determined, 

however, that four historic districts and 34 architectural resources documented in the 

CRS were either NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible and would be adversely affected by 

Alternative M’s visual impacts. None of these architectural resources would be 

physically impacted by Alternative M, and the visual impacts could be mitigated 

through aesthetic design or other measures. 

Construction Impacts 

Potential construction impacts include public safety, economic, emergency service, 

water quality, noise, vibration, and traffic impacts. The alignment of Alternative L 

would be located away from most residential, public, and business structures, so the 

construction impacts would be minimal and mostly limited to traffic delay. The 

impacts anticipated with the construction of Alternative M would be the noise and 
 2-44 

vibration associated with the pile driving near existing structures. However, these 

impacts would be mitigated and would not result in any permanent damage. 

Endangered Species 

Habitat of any endangered plant or animal species that would either be found or likely 

to be found within the alternative alignments was evaluated. The only federal or state 

listed endangered or threatened species which has been known to inhabit portions of 

either alternative is the Price’s potato bean, a threatened plant species. The alignment 

for Alternative L runs through a suitable habitat for the plant, although no Price’s 

potato bean blooms were found within the alignment corridor. Alternative M runs 

through the existing BNSF right-of-way, which is not a suitable habitat for the plant, 

and no blooms were found along the alignment. 

Floodplains 

Each of the reasonable alternatives was compared in detail for the right-of-way that 

would cross the 100-year floodplain and regulatory floodways as designated by the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map 

(FIRM) map data (effective October 20, 1999). In addition to the acreage of affected 

floodplain and floodway, each alternative was compared for the effects from the size 

and location of bridge structures. 

Alternative L not only crosses approximately 186 acres of 100-year floodplain, but it 

also runs within and parallel to a regulatory floodway for almost three miles of its 

alignment. Even though the proposed railroad would be constructed on either bridge 

or trestle over most of the floodplain, Alternative L would have a high potential for 

impacts to both the 100-year floodplain and the designated floodways, which would 

make a no-rise certification difficult to obtain. 

Alternative M would cross approximately 10 acres 100-year floodplain and would 

only perpendicularly cross three regulatory floodways, two of which are already 

crossed by the existing BNSF main line. 

Natural Ecological Systems 

The natural animal and vegetative habitats within the alternative alignments were 

evaluated. The investigation performed included review of aerial photographs, 

known habitats and field investigation. The conclusion of this investigation is that 

Alternative L would have permanent adverse impacts to natural ecosystems due to the 

proximity of the alignment to existing water bodies. Alternative M would have 

temporary adverse impacts during construction, but beneficial impacts in reduced 

animal/train collisions and more space for animals to cross the rail corridor. 

Natural Resources 

The amount of natural resources (e.g. fuel, raw materials) consumed or disturbed by 

the construction of each alternative was evaluated. Alternative L would use more 

natural resources than Alternative M because of the significantly longer physical 

improvements needed. 
 2-45 

Permit Requirements 

Preliminary estimates of all the environmental and regulatory permits required for 

each alternative were developed. Each alternative would require a Section 404 permit 

from the USACE and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. The permits are 

discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4. 

Public Safety 

The automobile vs. train accident histories at each of the at-grade crossings of both 

the BNSF and KCS railways through Tupelo within the last 30 years were evaluated. 

In total, 49 accidents (including eight involving trains carrying hazardous materials) 

were recorded through downtown Tupelo on the BNSF and KCS railways. With the 

removal of at-grade crossings through Tupelo, both Alternative L and Alternative M 

would decrease the likelihood of auto/train accidents on the BNSF main line and the 

KCS rail line. 

Socioeconomics 

The evaluation considered each alternative’s effect on demographics, industry and 

commerce, education, tourism, housing, and recreation. The investigation used 

census data, planning documents, local school districts, U.S. Department of Housing 

and Urban Development (HUD) housing information, and local interviews to 

compare the various impacts of each of the alternatives. Alternative L was found to 

have fewer impacts to schools, parks, and neighborhoods than Alternative M. 

However, Alternative L would have more impacts to minority households and 

adjacent land area. 

Topography and Soils 

The GIS data and field investigation of the soils for each alternative were evaluated. 

The investigation revealed that the soils for the majority of Alternative L have high 

shrink-swell potential, which means that the soils have low suitability for bridge or 

trestle support. Because the trestle and bridge length required for Alternative L to 

span the 100-year floodplain and regulatory floodways is significantly longer than a 

typical railroad corridor crossing, this would significantly increase the construction 

cost . The soil excavation would include removal of unsuitable soil and replacement 

with suitable fill material which could increase the impacts to the floodplain and 

floodways and require additional permit coordination. In addition, Alternative L 

would impact an area designated by the National Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS) through Form AD-1006 as prime and unique farmland. Alternative M 

crosses soils with low shrink-swell potential and, therefore, would provide better 

suitability for bridge and elevated rail support. 

Water Quality 

Water quality in the study area was determined using database information, GIS data, 

topographical map review, and field investigation. The Mississippi Department of 

Environmental Quality (MSDEQ) has prepared a 303(d) list of impaired water bodies, 

which details the state’s water bodies that do not meet their designated use. 

According to the MSDEQ, Town Creek, Mud Creek, and Kings Creek are all listed 
 2-46 

on the impaired water bodies list due to their relative inability to satisfy their 

designated use for aquatic life. 

Alternative L would closely parallel Town Creek along its entire length and also 

would run parallel to Mud Creek for approximately two miles. The proximity of the 

railroad could lead to additional siltation of these streams that could affect the ability 

of these streams to recover. Alternative L could hinder the potential of these streams 

to be removed from the impaired list. In addition, Alternative L would encroach on 

the Town Creek Master Water Management District’s easements and would impede 

the maintenance of the floodway to Town Creek by restricting access and possibly 

altering the channel. 

Since Alternative M would lie within the existing railroad right-of-way, it would have 

much less impact to the surrounding streams. The impacts would be limited to bridge 

widening and a new crossing of Kings Creek for the BNSF-KCS interchange. 

Wetlands 

The investigation of potential wetland impacts included information gathered from 

USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, NRCS soil maps, Mississippi 

Automated Response Information System (MARIS) data, aerial photographs, and 

field investigation. The alternatives were designed to avoid impacts to wetland areas, 

wherever possible. Wetland areas were measured as designated wetlands, stream 

crossings, and prior converted cropland. Alternative L would impact more designated 

wetlands, prior converted cropland, and linear feet of streams than Alternative M. 

2.8.3 Agency Coordination 

The two reasonable build alternatives (Alternatives L and M) were sent to the 

railroads and to the U.S. National Park Service (NPS) for review. In a letter dated 

July 16, 2007, the NPS expressed preference for Alternative M due to the least 

impacts to the Natchez Trace Parkway (no new crossing) and its viewshed. In a letter 

dated November 16, 2007, included in Appendix A, BNSF expressed preference for 

the “railroad fly-over option” (Alternative M) over the other alternatives and gave a 

list of comments and requirements for the conceptual design. In a meeting held in 

Tupelo, MS on September 10, 2008, KCS representatives reviewed both alternatives 

and stated that KCS held usage rights for the BNSF main line between Tupelo and 

New Albany, Mississippi and that any design would have to accommodate the ability 

of northbound KCS trains to access the northbound BNSF main line. KCS expressed 

that, as presented, neither build alternative would allow that operation, but added that 

the addition of a wye to the relocated interchange for Alternative M and the addition 

of a wye just south of the US 45 overpass to the new corridor for Alternative L would 

allow the reasonable build alternatives to satisfy the usage rights. 
 2-47 

2.8.4 Reasonable Alternatives Screening 

Upon review of the technical memoranda, the impact summaries for each alternative 

were evaluated and compared to the aspects of the project’s Purpose and Need to 

determine which alternatives would be brought forward as design alternatives. Table 

2-7 provides a brief description of each alternative. 

Table 2-7 Reasonable Alternatives Evaluation Matrix 

Alternative A L M

Description

No Build Alternative. 

Maintains the Existing 

BNSF Rail Line through 

Tupelo.

New Bypass Alternative. 

Parallels Town Creek 

and Mud Creek.

In-Town Alternative - 

Elevating Rail Through 

Town.

Length of New Track 

(miles) N/A 12.5 3.7

Issues

Does not solve any 

delays or provide any 

benefits.

New crossing with Trace. 

70% of alignment on 

trestle. More Floodplain, 

Wetlands, and Water 

Quality Impacts. Higher 

Cost. Requires 

operational 

improvements to yard.

Visual Impacts to historic 

districts and residential 

neighborhoods due to 

retaining walls, bridges, 

and fill sections for the 

elevated rail.

Estimated Cost 

($ Millions)

$0 

($1,250 Congestion) $769 $333

Satisifes Goals of 

Project Purpose and 

Need

No No Yes

Moving Forward 

Into EIS Yes1 No Yes

1. Alternative required to be evaluated in alternatives analysis under NEPA sections 1502.14(d) & 

1508.25(b).

Alternative L: Alternative L has unsuitable soils for bridge and trestle construction 

for approximately 70% of the new corridor’s alignment, which would present 

significant design and permitting challenges. It would also cross over 186 acres of 

100-year floodplain and would encroach on nearly three miles of regulatory 

floodways. These design and permitting issues could increase the construction cost 

beyond the current estimate and could lengthen the project construction schedule. 

This alternative would adversely impact 0.97 acres of wetlands, 2,230 feet of streams, 

and five previously recorded archaeological sites. In addition, a large amount of 

natural resources, natural ecosystems, and potential endangered plant species habitat 

would be disturbed with the construction of this alternative. Alternative L would also 

hinder the ability to improve the water quality of Town Creek and Mud Creek and 

have those streams removed from the 303 (d) impaired water body list. 

This alternative also had opposition from local residents, BNSF, KCS, the Natchez 

Trace Parkway, and the City of Tupelo, which each expressed concern regarding the 

impacts a new railroad corridor would have on adjacent property, aesthetics, and the 

environment. 
 2-48 

When evaluated in light of the project’s Purpose and Need, Alternative L appears to 

satisfy the aspects of reduced traffic delay, improved emergency response, improved 

safety, and enhanced quality of life. However, given the alignment’s proportion of 

bridge and/or trestle structure and additional operating length (especially for 

interchange operations), improving efficiency of railroad operations would not be 

satisfied, and Alternative L would hinder the growth of rail-served development. 

While some of these impacts and challenges could be mitigated, the combination of 

the adverse impacts along with the preliminary construction cost estimate being 131% 

higher than the cost for Alternative M, a new crossing of the Natchez Trace Parkway, 

and the lack of public, railroad, and agency support, Alternative L was determined to 

be infeasible. Therefore, Alternative L was eliminated from further consideration. 

Alternative M: Despite the potential visual impacts to neighborhoods, historic 

districts, and historic properties, Alternative M would have no physical impacts to 

archaeological sites or potential endangered plant species habitat. Alternative M 

would have fewer impacts to wetlands, streams, floodplains, regulatory floodways, 

natural resources, natural ecosystems, and the water quality of Town Creek and Mud 

Creek than Alternative L. Alternative M satisfies the project’s Purpose and Need, 

while providing the greatest efficiency to railroad operations and rail-served 

development. Alternative M could be constructed at a significantly lower cost than 

Alternative L, has support from local and state agencies, the railroads, and the citizens 

of Tupelo and Lee County. This alternative was brought forward for further 

consideration as the Build Alternative. 

2.9 DESIGN ALTERNATIVES 

The EIS alternatives process summarizes the development, refinement, comparison, and 

screening of various alternatives for the proposed Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project. The 

study relied on use of the best information available to evaluate and screen dozens of miles of 

possible rail routes, roadway improvements, and elevated rail. The activities included 

completing preliminary engineering and evaluating more than 160 miles of new rail. The 

alternative development process resulted in a design alternative that meets the project’s 

Purpose and Need, is feasible and practical, and generally addresses agency and stakeholder 

concerns. The No-Build Alternative (Alternative A) and the Build Alternative 

(Alternative M) are the alternatives studied in detail in this EIS. 

2.9.1 No Build Alternative 

This alternative would have the existing alignment for BNSF remain in its existing 

condition, without any railroad or roadway improvements. The existing BNSF-KCS 

interchange and storage yards would also remain. 
 2-49 

2.9.2 Build Alternative 

This alternative, shown on Figure 2-16 and in greater detail in Appendix D, consists 

of an elevated rail viaduct with limited retaining walls within the existing BNSF 

right-of-way and a new BNSF-KCS interchange constructed south of the Pvt. John 

Allen National Fish Hatchery. 

2.9.2.1 Rail Typical Sections 

The proposed rail typical sections for this improvement, shown on 

Figure 2-17 and in greater detail in the concept plans in Appendix D, were 

developed using BNSF standards. Typical sections were developed for the 

at-grade rail improvements, including the proposed storage tracks, elevated 

rail on fill with retaining wall, and bridge sections. 

Based on consultations with BNSF, the entire main line between Memphis 

and Birmingham has been planned to become a double-track line, although 

those improvements are not included in BNSF’s program for capital 

improvements and no other segments of the main line are double-tracked at 

this time. The typical sections for the elevated rail viaduct were developed to 

accommodate a future double-track of the BNSF main line through Tupelo, 

should BNSF expand the main line. However, because the double-track 

project would require significant improvements along the entire corridor 

between Memphis and Birmingham, not just through Tupelo, the double-track 

is not reasonably foreseeable. The proposed improvements only include a 

single rail line and the second track is not included as part of this project. 

2.9.2.2 Rail Alignment 

The horizontal and vertical alignment controls are much more stringent for 

trains than for roadways for several reasons. Railroads require gentler grades, 

wider turning radii, and larger transitional lengths than roadways due to the 

size and weight of trains. While FRA has developed design standards for 

railroads, each railroad has developed their own stringent horizontal and 

vertical controls to meet the specific needs of their train systems. The 

horizontal and vertical alignments for the Build Alternative, discussed here 

and detailed in the concept plans in Appendix D, were designed to meet or 

exceed BNSF design criteria. 

2.9.2.2.1 Horizontal Alignment 

The proposed main line alignment would maintain the existing track 

from north of the Natchez Trace Parkway to just south of Lumpkin 

Avenue. The track would then run on a new horizontal alignment, 

which begins at BNSF station 30930+22.59, or BNSF MP 585.73, and 

ends at BNSF station 31115+17.40, or BNSF MP 589.40 just north of 

Town Creek, for a total distance of 18,495 feet, or approximately 

3.5 miles. The BNSF main line would continue to the south on the 

existing track. The proposed interchange track would begin at BNSF 

station 31103+73.07 just north of the US 45 highway overpass, at 
City of

Tupelo

Trace

Kansas City Southern

Main St

Gloster St

45

Build

Alternative

78

178

145

178

145

278

45

278

Pkwy

Natchez

Jackson St

McCullough Blvd Green St

President Ave

Lawndale Dr

Eason Blvd

Martin Luther King Jr Dr

0 0.25 0.5 0.75

Miles

Build Alternative

Figure

2-16

Tupelo Mississippi Railroad Relocation

Planning & Environmental Study

River / Stream

FEMA Floodplain

Railroad

Natchez Trace Pkwy

Build Alternative

Bridge Structure

Structure on Fill with

Retaining Wall 
Tupelo Mississippi Railroad Relocation Planning 

& Environmental Study Figure 2-17

Typical Sections
 2-52 

interchange station 1+00.00 and ends at interchange station 55+16.68, 

which is KCS station 14673+00.00, for a total distance of 5,417 feet, 

or 1.03 miles. 

The proposed storage track along the BNSF main line would parallel 

the existing BNSF main line, offset 25 feet, from approximate BNSF 

station 31107+00 just south of the US 45 overpass to approximate 

BNSF station 31174+00 just south of Veterans Boulevard, with a 

second track, offset an additional 15 feet also included to approximate 

BNSF station 31143+00 just south of Eason Boulevard, for a total 

clear storage length of 8,300 feet. The storage tracks would be 

accessed using turnouts just south of the US 45 overpass and just south 

of the Veterans Boulevard crossing. The proposed storage tracks 

along the proposed interchange track would parallel the interchange 

track, offset 15 feet each, from approximate station 18+00 to 

approximate station 45+00, for a total clear storage length of 3,710 

feet. The storage tracks would be accessed from turnouts along the 

interchange track. The interchange also includes a wye branching off 

from approximate station 22+00, just south of the proposed Kings 

Creek bridge, to allow northbound KCS trains access to the 

northbound BNSF main line. The wye would intersect the BNSF main 

line at BNSF station 31080+29.77 just south of Elizabeth Street. 

Table 2-8 describes the proposed mainline and interchange track 

horizontal alignment, curves, and superelevation within the project 

limits.
2-53 

Table 2-8 Proposed Horizontal Alignment BNSF Main Line and Interchange 

Curve/PI TS/PC Station Back Tangent PI Station Ahead Tangent ST/PT Station Degree of Curvature Curve Direction Curve Radius Curve Length S

Le

[ft] [ft] 

C15 30930+22.59 S 38o 09' 01" E 30931+57.59 S 39o 09' 01" E 30932+92.59 0o 30' 00.00" Left 11,459.19 130.00 C16 30940+14.79 S 39o 09' 01" E 30951+09.00 S 1o 32' 38" E 30961+53.65 1o 57' 35.39" Right 2,923.65 1,698.87 C17 30965+24.20 S 1o 32' 38" E 30972+42.68 S 50o 40' 36" E 30979+16.55 4o 07' 14.87" Left 1,390.70 992.35 

31016+37.82 - S 50o 40' 36" E - S 50o 51' 50" E - - Left - - 

C18 31030+37.99 S 50o 51' 50" E 31038+36.19 S 81o 09' 25" E 31046+00.67 1o 59' 22.09" Left 2,880.10 1,482.67 

31050+82.87 - S 81o 09' 25" E - S 80o 54' 27" E - - Left - - 

C19 31055+17.47 S 80o 54' 27" E 31062+86.99 S 29o 03' 41" E 31070+00.35 4o 02' 29.37" Right 1,417.98 1,082.88 C20 31107+94.63 S 29o 03' 41" E 31109+37.83 S 26o 41' 51" E 31110+81.01 1o 00' 00.00" Right 5,729.65 186.38 C21 31112+31.01 S 26o 41' 51" E 31113+74.21 S 29o 03' 41" E 31115+17.40 1o 00' 00.00" Left 5,729.65 186.38 

L-1 1+00.00 N 29o 03' 41" W 14+06.95 S 35o 05' 11" W 17+56.06 6o 59' 44.33" Left 819.02 1,656.06 L-2 39+85.53 S 35o 05' 11" W 41+54.59 S 15o 01' 00" W 43+20.18 5o 59' 50.13" Left 955.37 334.65 

W-1 3+09.54 S 25o 14' 35" E 9+74.27 S 29o 52' 53" W 15+34.84 4o 29' 55.84" Right 1,273.57 1,225.30 

BNSF Main Line

Interchange Track

Wye Track
 

 

 2-54 

2.9.2.2.2 Vertical Alignment 

The proposed main line and interchange track vertical alignment is 

provided in Table 2-9. The vertical alignment of the storage track 

along the BNSF main line would match the existing BNSF alignment. 

The storage track along the proposed interchange track would match 

the profile of the interchange track. 

Table 2-9 Proposed Vertical Alignment BNSF Main Line and 

Interchange 

Grade In Grade 

Out

Proposed 

Vertical 

Curve 

Length

[%] [%] [ft]

30939+96.64 S -0.040 0.500 1,086 2,000

30971+06.76 C 0.500 0.000 500 1,000

30980+72.22 C 0.000 -0.281 280 1,000

30999+51.14 S -0.281 0.200 960 2,000

31016+44.82 C 0.200 0.100 100 1,000

31059+04.98 C 0.100 -1.000 1100 1,000

31102+56.70 S -1.000 0.000 800 800

1+00.00 PI 0.000 0.000 - -

46+27.94 PI 0.000 0.000 - -

1+00.00 PI -1.000 -1.000 - -

23+27.00 S -1.000 0.000 500 500

27+04.87 PI 0.000 0.000 - -

BNSF Main Line

Interchange Track

PVI Station

Crest/

Sag/ 

PI

Proposed 

"K" Value

Wye Track

2.9.2.3 Right-of-Way and Relocations 

The majority of the main line railroad improvements are proposed within the 

existing BNSF right-of-way. An additional 10 feet of right-of-way would be 

required on the south side of the BNSF main line from US 45 to just south of 

Eason Boulevard to accommodate the proposed storage tracks. The 

interchange would require 100 feet (50 feet on each side of the centerline) of 

right-of-way from station 1+00.00 to station 20+00.00 and 130 feet of right of 

way (50 feet north of the centerline and 80 feet south of the centerline) from 

station 20+00.00 to station 50+00.00. The wye would require 100 feet of 

right-of-way (50 feet on each side of the centerline) from station 1+00.00 to 

station 27+04.87. This would leave an isolated triangle remainder between 

the wye and the interchange track of approximately 8.9 acres. However, this 

remainder consists of agricultural land and would retain access underneath the 
 

 

 2-55 

wye bridge. Right-of-way acquisition is required only from vacant or 

agricultural parcels and would not affect any existing residential or business 

parcels. 

As documented in the Current Railroad Operations Technical Memorandum 

(HDR, November 2005), there are three active rail customers within the 

Tupelo city limits on the BNSF main line: Summerville Ties, Flexible Foam 

Products, and Inter-Pac Incorporated. Of these customers, only Summerville 

Ties lies in an area of elevated rail and would require relocation. 

Summerville’s operations at this site are on a leased property within the BNSF 

right-of-way, and only include loading. The ties are cut elsewhere and 

trucked to the site. There are limited facilities at the site and no physical 

plant; therefore, relocation of this customer would be feasible. Since the 

property was not owned by Summerville Ties, relocation costs were assumed 

to be limited to the construction of the rail spur at another location, and 

property acquisition costs were not included. The cost to construct a new rail 

spur was estimated to be approximately $692,000, which includes the track 

cost and signal cost. At the time of this study, there were available industrial 

properties within the Tupelo city limits which included rail spurs on the BNSF 

main line. Relocation costs could be higher or lower than the estimated cost, 

based upon leasing or purchase agreements. 

2.9.2.4 Structures 

The BNSF main line would be constructed on approximately 8,220 linear feet 

of fill with retaining wall for the climb and descent between the at-grade and 

bridge sections, and through the industrial section of Tupelo, shown on 

Figure 2-17 and the concept plans in Appendix D. Since the trains would put 

more live-load demand on the fill and retaining wall than would a typical 

roadway, a special retaining wall, called “T-wall,” would be used to support 

the fill in these sections. The T-wall would include extra straps which extend 

into the fill from the exterior panels to increase the stability of the vertical 

wall. 

Between Jackson Street and Elizabeth Street, the BNSF main line would be 

constructed on approximately 6,860 feet of bridge structure, shown on the 

concept plans and bridge typical sections in Appendix D. Pre-cast beam 

bridges would be constructed over much of the corridor, with through-plate 

girder bridges across the existing roadways. The bridge over the Crosstown 

intersection would span approximately 316 feet, requiring a truss structure. 

All of the bridge structures would provide at least 16 feet, 6 inches of vertical 

clearance above the existing roadways and 23 feet, 6 inches of vertical 

clearance over the KCS rail line. 

The at-grade storage track along the BNSF main line would also require 

construction of approximately 1,100 feet of bridge structure over the floodway 

associated with Town Creek and Mud Creek. This would consist of a pre-cast 
 

 

 2-56 

box beam bridge with through-plate girder bridges over each of the active 

streams. 

The proposed interchange track would require construction of approximately 

110 feet of pre-cast beam bridge structure to span the floodway associated 

with Kings Creek. 

2.9.2.5 Drainage 

The BNSF main line has 13 existing cross culverts and three existing bridge 

structures within the limits of the proposed improvements, shown in 

Table 2-10. Two bridge structures would remain for the BNSF main line over 

Mud Creek and Town Creek, one existing culvert would be removed, and 12 

culverts would require extension as part of the proposed improvements, 

including the temporary rail required for maintenance of rail traffic described 

in Section 2.9.2.8 and the pedestrian / bicycle trail as described in Section 

2.9.2.7. 

In addition to these culverts on the BNSF main line, the proposed interchange 

track would require one bridge structure to span the floodway associated with 

Kings Creek and four culverts, shown on the concept plans in Appendix D, to 

mitigate flow from existing ditches across the proposed rail alignment. 

The stormwater effluent from the elevated viaduct would drain to the infield 

area between the structure and the pedestrian path. The runoff would be 

treated in a grassed swale area and discharged to adjacent streams. As there is 

little contamination from railroad effluent, this treatment would likely satisfy 

the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System requirements of the EPA 

and MDOT. 

2.9.2.6 Roadway Improvements 

The proposed grade separations of the BNSF main line and roadway would 

affect several intersections within the City of Tupelo. For the at-grade 

intersections where the railroad would be elevated over the roadway, the 

existing signals, striping, and warning signs would need to be removed. Most 

of the existing at-grade intersections could be milled and resurfaced once the 

rail has been removed. 

Almost all of the at-grade crossings have an increased vertical profile or 

“hump” where the existing rail crosses the roadway. Most of these humps are 

small (less than one foot in total profile elevation) and do not have a severe 

profile grade. Given the 30 mph speed limit, most of the crossings would not 

require profile reconstruction. Jackson Street is the only intersection that 

could benefit from some profile adjustment. The existing rail crossing is 

elevated approximately three feet compared with the roadway elevation at 

both Rankin Street to the west and Joyner Avenue to the east. However, there 

is also an existing concrete box culvert underneath the roadway/railroad 
 

 

 2-57 

crossing that may limit the profile reduction. The profile grade at the Jackson 

Street crossing is not severe, and removal of the hump at this intersection 

would be at the discretion of the City of Tupelo. 

The roadway improvements required include the replacement of the US 45 

bridges over the BNSF main line, shown on the concept plans in Appendix D. 

The existing bridges were each constructed as 9-span bridges with a 50-foot 

center span and eight 40-foot ancillary spans. The existing vertical clearance 

over the BNSF main line is approximately 22 feet, 6 inches, which is one foot 

lower than the required vertical clearance prescribed by BNSF. 

The proposed bridges would consist of four spans with a 109-foot center span 

over the existing BNSF main line, the proposed BNSF main line, a provision 

for a future track if the BNSF is to be double-tracked through Tupelo, a 112-

foot northern ancillary span, and two 60-foot southern ancillary spans. The 

main span would provide the minimum 25-foot horizontal clear distance from 

the center of each of the tracks, including the provisional future track, so crash 

walls are not required for the proposed bridge piers. The replacement of these 

bridges would also require an increase in the vertical profile elevation to allow 

for the required vertical clearance and to accommodate the deeper bridge 

section. This would require the reconstruction of approximately 3,420 feet of 

US 45, which would begin just north of the bridges over Kings Creek, shown 

on the concept plans in Appendix D. 

The roadway improvements required also include the construction of two 

overpasses on Eason Boulevard, one over the KCS rail line and one over the 

BNSF main line, shown on the concept plans in Appendix D. The overpasses 

also include frontage roads to the parcels adjacent to Eason Boulevard. The 

overpass over the BNSF main line includes the replacement of the existing 

1,020-foot long, two-lane bridge over Kings Creek and Town Creek. 

2.9.2.7 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities 

The proposed improvements would require the removal of two footprints of 

at-grade track, the existing BNSF main line and the temporary maintenance of 

traffic rail line. After the removal of all existing at-grade track between 

Jackson Street and Spring Street, the southernmost 20 feet of BNSF right-ofway can be converted into a paved pedestrian/bicycle (multi-use) path through 

Tupelo, shown on Figure 2-17 and detailed in the concept plans in 

Appendix D, extending south from Jackson Street and terminating at Spring 

Street. This 10-foot wide path would be paved and include stop signs at each 

roadway crossing and a special pedestrian signal for the Crosstown 

intersection. 
 

 

 2-58 

Table 2-10 Drainage Structures on BNSF Main Line 

Length Width/ 

Diameter Height

[ft] [in] [in]

585.70 CMP 2 40 42 - Extend1 Extend

585.87 CMP 2 30 24 - Extend1 Extend

586.06 CMP 2 50 24 - Extend Extend

586.24 CMP 2 50 48 - Extend Extend

586.80 CBC 1 80 72 72 To Remain Extend

586.85 CMP 1 32 60 - To Remain2 Extend

587.03 CBC 1 20 36 36 To Remain2 Extend

587.20 Bridge - - - - Construct Pedestrian 

Bridge

Construct Temporary 

Railroad Bridge

587.80 CBC 2 75 90 72 Extend To Remain

588.31 VCP 1 68 18 - Remove3 To Remain

588.72 CMP 2 58 72 - Extend Extend

589.40 Bridge - - - - To Remain To Remain

589.50 Bridge - - - - To Remain To Remain

589.60 CMP 1 60 48 - Extend4 Extend4

589.86 CBC 1 30 120 96 Extend4 Extend4

590.28 RCP 1 36 24 - Extend4 Extend4

Notes:

1 - Culverts to be extended for the construction of the future double-track.

2 - Structure to remain for proposed pedestrian/bicycle path only. 

3 - Culvert parallels existing track under a signal foundation, which will be removed as part of the proposed improvements.

4 - Culverts to be extended for proposed at-grade storage track.

*MOT - Maintenance of Traffic

BNSF MP MOT* Requirements Structure 

Type

Number 

of Pipes

Build 

Recommendation
 

 

 2-59 

In addition to the multi-use path, the two existing sidewalk segments that 

terminate at the BNSF right-of-way could be connected. The segments are 

each located along the west side of Park Street and Church Street. No other 

streets which include sidewalks cross the existing BNSF main line. However, 

with the grade-separation of the rail over the roadway, a sidewalk connection 

could be installed along the roadway within the BNSF right-of-way. 

2.9.2.8 Construction 

In order to facilitate the construction of the Build Alternative, the construction 

process was divided into three phases. The construction phasing allows for 

both partial construction of the project and the uninterrupted flow of rail 

traffic through Tupelo during the entire construction process. 

2.9.2.8.1 Phase I 

The first phase of the construction would involve the construction of 

the BNSF-KCS interchange, the at-grade storage track along the BNSF 

main line, and the roadway improvements to Eason Boulevard. This 

first construction phase can be broken down into three sub-phases to 

create smaller projects that can be built as funding becomes available. 

Phase IA 

The first sub-phase, Phase IA, would be to construct the Eason 

Boulevard overpass over the KCS rail line. The overpass 

would have to accommodate the u-turn for the frontage road 

and the future interchange track to be constructed in a 

subsequent sub-phase. 

Phase IB 

The second sub-phase, Phase IB, would be to construct the 

Eason Boulevard overpass over the BNSF main line and Ryder 

Street and to reconstruct the Eason Boulevard bridge over 

Town Creek and Kings Creek. The overpass would have to 

accommodate the u-turns for the frontage roads and the future 

storage track to be constructed in a subsequent sub-phase. 

Phase IC 

The final sub-phase, Phase IC, would be to construct the 

railroad interchange track and storage tracks for the relocated 

railroad interchange. 

These improvements would be constructed with little interruption of 

the BNSF operations as the construction would be offset a minimum 

of 25 feet from the existing BNSF main line. Three existing cross 

culverts would require extension to cross underneath the proposed 

storage track along the BNSF main line, shown in Table 2-10. The 

traffic on Eason Boulevard would be maintained on temporary at-
 

 

 2-60 

grade crossings for both the BNSF and KCS while the overpasses in 

Phase IA and Phase IB are being constructed. Upon completion of 

Phase IC, the new interchange would replace the operations of the old 

interchange and the interchange operation would no longer affect the 

Crosstown intersection. The construction of the wye would not be 

included in Phase IC, as it would interfere with the construction of the 

temporary track in Phase II. To maintain KCS track rights to the 

northbound BNSF main line, the existing interchange track would 

remain. 

2.9.2.8.2 Phase II 

Phase II would involve the construction of the temporary main line 

track, shown on Figure 2-18 and on the maintenance of traffic (MOT) 

plans in Appendix D. Unlike temporary roadways, temporary rail is 

only termed temporary because it would be removed when the 

permanent improvements are completed. The temporary rail must be 

constructed using the same sub-grade, sub-ballast, ballast, tie, and rail 

standards as a permanent railroad. This temporary main line track 

would begin north of the Lumpkin Avenue crossing and be offset 

approximately 19 feet from the existing BNSF main line and continue 

south to just north of the relocated BNSF-KCS interchange from 

Phase IC. This second construction phase can be broken down into 

two sub-phases to create smaller projects that can be built as funding 

becomes available. 

Phase IIA 

The first sub-phase, Phase IIA, would be to construct the 

temporary main line track between Crosstown and the 

relocated BNSF-KCS interchange. This sub-phase would 

include a new at-grade crossing of the KCS rail line with a 

temporary diamond. This new at-grade alignment would 

include a larger horizontal curve radius, which would allow 

trains to move faster through Tupelo. Phase IIA would also 

require modified at-grade crossings at Church Street, Green 

Street, Spring Street, and Elizabeth Street, the removal of the 

existing BNSF-KCS interchange track between Crosstown and 

Spring Street and the relocation of the switch left in place from 

Phase IC from just south of Crosstown to some point between 

Spring Street and Green Street. This switch would be required 

to maintain KCS track rights to the northbound BNSF main 

line. 
Tupelo Mississippi Railroad Relocation Planning 

& Environmental Study Figure 2-18

Maintenance of Rail 

Traffic Typical Section
 

 

 2-62 

Phase IIB 

The second sub-phase, Phase IIB, would be to construct the 

remainder of the temporary main line track from just north of 

Lumpkin Avenue to join the track built in Phase IIA just south 

of Crosstown. Included in this temporary main line would be a 

bridge across the Kings Creek tributary between Blair Street 

and Jefferson Street, modified at-grade crossings at Lumpkin 

Avenue, Jackson Street, Blair Street, Jefferson Street, Park 

Street, and Crosstown. 

All of the modified at-grade crossings in Phase IIA and Phase IIB 

would require the installation of new railroad signals. Most of these 

at-grade crossings would require some roadway profile adjustment, 

which can be achieved with asphalt overbuild. In addition, the 

temporary track in Phase IIA and Phase IIB would require the 

extension of eight cross culverts, shown on the MOT plans in 

Appendix D and in Table 2-10. The existing BNSF-KCS interchange 

track would be moved to tie-in to the temporary rail alignment to 

maintain the KCS track rights to the northbound BNSF main line. 

Once Phase IIB is completed and the entire temporary track is in place, 

the existing main line track, storage track, and spur tracks would be 

removed between the beginning of the proposed main line track just 

south of Lumpkin Avenue and the end of the temporary track just 

north of the proposed interchange track north of the US 45 overpass. 

Once Phase IIA is completed, funding for Phase III should be 

identified prior to commencement of Phase IIB. Construction of Phase 

IIB should only be done immediately prior to Phase III, as the 

realignment needed for Phase IIB moves the railroad closer to several 

residences. This realignment would produce additional noise and 

vibration impacts to these residences and, therefore, should be as short 

in duration as is feasible. In addition, the realignment in Phase IIB 

would require construction of a temporary bridge and impact a wetland 

area, which requires additional mitigation cost. 

2.9.2.8.3 Phase III 

Upon completion of Phase IIB, the construction of the wye track at the 

relocated interchange and the elevated rail viaduct between Lumpkin 

Avenue and US 45 would begin. This phase would include the 

construction of the proposed BNSF main line, including the retaining 

wall and bridge structures, and the reconstruction of the US 45 

overpasses to accommodate the proposed track. The traffic on US 45 

would be reduced to one lane in each direction across one of the 

bridges while the other bridge is removed and reconstructed. Once 

completed, the traffic would then be diverted to the new bridge while 
 

 

 2-63 

the remaining bridge is likewise removed and reconstructed. Once the 

US 45 overpasses are reconstructed, the elevated viaduct would be 

connected to the existing BNSF main line at the bridge just north of 

Town Creek. 

During Phase III, construction of the truss bridge across the Crosstown 

intersection would have significant impacts to the roadway traffic on 

both Main Street and Gloster Street. This bridge spans approximately 

316 feet and would require, at a minimum, the off-peak closure of 

certain movements in addition to lane reductions across this 

intersection during its erection. While traffic could be diverted onto 

any number of local streets, most are only two-lane roads and would 

quickly reach capacity. Advance signing should be used to detour 

traffic around this intersection onto major roadways (i.e. Cliff Gookin 

Boulevard/Eason Boulevard for east/west travel and US 45 for 

north/south travel). Construction of the US 45 overpass replacement 

should not coincide with the construction of the bridge over the 

Crosstown intersection. 

Upon completion of the elevated viaduct, the BNSF main line would 

run in its proposed alignment on the elevated viaduct. The temporary 

track would be removed, including all of the modified at-grade 

railroad crossings and temporary bridges. The grade-separated 

roadways would be milled and resurfaced and the rail crossing signs, 

signals, and striping would be removed. The multi-use path could 

then be constructed along the southwestern-most portion of the BNSF 

right-of-way. 

2.9.2.9 Railroad Operations 

Once the proposed improvements are constructed, trains on the BNSF main 

line could run at 40 mph through Tupelo, without having to sound their horns 

for at-grade crossings between Lumpkin Avenue (BNSF MP 585.71) and 

Veterans Boulevard (MP 590.32), for a distance of almost five miles. In 

addition, the rail interchange operations between the KCS and BNSF can 

occur without disruption to roadway traffic and with an increased storage area. 

All of the existing rail customers on the KCS rail line could continue their 

service uninterrupted. One existing rail customer, the Summerville Ties 

loading operation as discussed in Section 2.9.2.3, on the BNSF main line 

would require relocation while the other customers on the BNSF main line 

could continue their service uninterrupted. In addition, the proposed 

improvements would not inhibit the ability of BNSF to increase capacity at 

some point in the future with the addition of a second main line track on their 

railway through Tupelo. As discussed in Section 2.9.2.1, this second track is 

not a reasonably foreseeable project as significant improvements would be 

needed outside of Tupelo as well and is not currently programmed. 
 

 

 2-64 

2.9.2.10 Project Costs 

Preliminary construction cost estimates were prepared for the railroad 

physical plant, roadway, and multi-use path improvements. These preliminary 

cost estimates included specific design elements and were more detailed than 

the costs developed during the alternatives analysis process. The cost 

estimates are separated into three categories, one for each major construction 

phase. Each phase has railroad and roadway items associated with the 

corresponding phase. The quantities for certain items were estimated based 

on quantities generated from the concept plans. 

The subcategories for the railroad category are trackwork, site work, signals, 

bridge structures, and mobilization. The trackwork subcategory includes 

items such as track construction, turnouts, and crossings. The site work 

subcategory includes such items as clearing and grubbing, grading, and 

drainage culvert extensions. The signals subcategory includes crossing 

signals and wayside signals associated with the railroad. The bridge structures 

subcategory includes all of the railroad bridge structures for that individual 

phase. The mobilization category only includes the mobilization cost for the 

railroad improvements. 

The subcategories for the roadway category are more phase-specific to each 

roadway improvement. For Phase I and Phase III, the Eason Boulevard and 

US 45 subcategories, respectively, include all of the more typical roadway 

costs, including pavement, embankment, striping, curb, guardrail, and sod. 

For Phase II, the asphalt overbuild subcategory includes the pavement 

overbuild anticipated for each of the 11 at-grade crossings within the City of 

Tupelo. The bridge structure costs are estimated for each bridge and for each 

phase of the construction. The retaining wall costs in Phase I include only the 

precast concrete walls along Eason Boulevard. The mobilization costs are 

phase-dependent, ranging from 10% to 20% of the roadway and bridge 

construction costs. The maintenance of traffic costs are also phase-dependent 

and include roadway maintenance of traffic inclusive of the railroad 

improvements for each phase 

A contingency was added with a lump sum value of 20% of the railroad and 

roadway subtotals. The engineering cost was added with a lump sum value of 

15% of the railroad and roadway subtotals and includes costs for preliminary 

engineering, final engineering, survey, geotechnical survey, and right-of-way 

mapping. 

While the Build Alternative uses existing right-of-way in most locations, 

right-of-way acquisition would be necessary to implement the proposed 

improvements, including the relocated BNSF-KCS interchange and the 

roadway improvements along Eason Boulevard. Using available GIS parcel 

data, an average assessed value was determined for developed and 

undeveloped parcels. The developed parcels had an average assessed value of 
 

 

 2-65 

approximately $170,000 per acre, while the undeveloped parcels had an 

average assessed value per acre of approximately $100,000. The estimated 

cost of land acquisition is more than the assessed value of the land and 

physical improvements. Other expenses may occur during acquisition, 

including eminent domain proceedings, attorney fees, business damages, and 

relocations. The assessed value per acre was multiplied by three to 

conservatively account for these items, which reflects historical trends for 

property acquisition. This would have a value in the developed and 

undeveloped parcels of approximately $510,000 and $300,000 per acre, 

respectively. 

The project construction costs were segregated by construction phase, shown 

in Table 2-11, and were estimated to sum to approximately $385 million for 

the entire Build Alternative. 

Maintenance costs were estimated for the project for both the relocated 

interchange yard (Phase I) and the elevated viaduct (Phase III), shown in 

Appendix C. The maintenance costs for the temporary rail (Phase II) were 

not estimated as the design life of the temporary rail would exceed the 

timeframe that the rail would actually be used. The maintenance costs include 

such items as tie replacement, rail reconditioning, structure maintenance, 

repainting and other typical maintenance items. 

The estimated annual maintenance costs for the relocated interchange yard 

(Phase I) are approximately $33,000. The estimated annual maintenance costs 

for the elevated viaduct (Phase III) are $318,000. 

Funding for the project has not been identified at this point in the study. 

Funding for the design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of the 

project would need to be secured from some combination of federal, state, 

local, or private funding sources. A more detailed discussion on potential 

funding sources is provided in Chapter 6 of this report. 
2-66 

Table 2-11 Project Construction Costs 

Cost Component Cost Cost Component Cost Cost Compo

Trackwork $3,555,000 Trackwork $4,017,000 Trackwork Site Work $3,396,000 Site Work $2,430,000 Site Work Signals $1,715,000 Signals $650,000 Signals Bridge Structures $10,164,000 Bridge Structures $169,000 Bridge Structures Mobilization $942,000 Mobilization $582,000 Mobilization 

Railroad Subtotal $19,772,000 Railroad Subtotal $7,848,000 Railro

Eason Boulevard $4,038,000 Asphalt Overbuild @ Crossings $60,000 US 45 Bridge Structure over KCS $1,468,000 Bridge Structures ovBridge Structure over BNSF $16,293,000 Sidewalk ConnectioRetaining Walls $3,268,000 Multi-Use Path Mobilization $2,507,000 Mobilization $12,000 Mobilization Maintenance of Traffic $5,014,000 Maintenance of Traffic $700,000 Maintenance of Traf

Roadway Subtotal $32,588,000 Roadway Subtotal $772,000 Roadw

Construction Subtotal $52,360,000 Construction Subtotal $8,620,000 Construct

Contingency (20%) $10,472,000 Contingency (20%) $1,724,000 Contingency (20%) Engineering (15%) $7,854,000 Engineering (15%) $1,293,000 Engineering (15%) Railroad Right-of-Way $3,510,000 Railroad Right-of-Way $0 Railroad Right-of-WRoadway Right-of-Way $1,479,000 Roadway Right-of-Way $0 Roadway Right-of-W

Phase I Total $75,675,000 Phase II Total $11,637,000 Phas

Notes: Costs in 2008 Dollars, estimated by HDR based on similar projects in Southeastern U.S. and unit costs available from Get-A-Quote.net (2008 Mississippi C*Railroad Right-of-Way Costs for Phase III include relocation costs for Summerville Ties

Total Construction Cost All Phases $384,745,000

Railroad ConstructionRoadway Construction

Railroad ConstructionRoadway Construction

Railroad ConstructRoadway Construc

Phase I - Interchange Construction Phase II - Temporary Track Construction Phase III - E

Co
 

 

3-1 

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

This chapter provides a general description of the natural environment and the existing social 

and economic characteristics of the study area. The descriptions establish a baseline 

condition of the social and environmental settings of the study area and provide a basis for 

determining the environmental consequences of the design alternative, which are discussed in 

Chapter 4 of this report. 

3.1 STUDY AREA 

The study area for the Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project is located in northeastern 

Mississippi. The study area, shown on Figure 3-1, includes the southeastern portion of 

Union County, the eastern portion of Pontotoc County, and all of Lee County. The 

incorporated towns and cities located within these counties include the following (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2006 estimated population in parentheses): 

Union County 

 Blue Springs (154) 

Pontotoc County 

 Sherman (619) 

Lee County 

 Guntown (1,399) 

 Nettleton (2,017) 

 Plantersville (1,328) 

 Saltillo (3,944) 

 Shannon (1,726) 

 Tupelo (35,930) 

 Verona (3,390) 

The City of Tupelo is also the county seat of Lee County and the largest city within the study 

area. In addition to the incorporated towns and cities, the study area also includes the 

unincorporated areas of Endville, Belden, and Mooreville. 

During the alternatives analysis, the affected environment of the study area was reduced as 

bypass corridors were excluded from consideration. With the removal of Alternatives B and 

K from consideration, the study area in Union and Pontotoc Counties and the area to the 

south and west of the limits of the City of Tupelo were removed from the affected 

environment, including the incorporated cities of Blue Springs, Nettleton, Shannon, Sherman, 

and Verona, and the unincorporated area of Endville. With the removal of Alternatives C, D, 

E, F, G, H, I, J, and L from consideration, the study area to the north and east of the limits of 

the City of Tupelo were removed from the affected environment, including the incorporated 

cities of Guntown, Plantersville, and Saltillo, and the unincorporated areas of Belden and 

Mooreville. 
Map Title Tupelo Mississippi Railroad Relocation

Planning & Environmental Study

LEGEND

Figure

x-x

������������

����������

���������������

����������

�������������

���������������

���������������

���������������

���������������

����������������

����������

������� ����� ����

������� ����� ����

�������� ������ ��

������ ���� ��

������

������

����������

������������

����������

��������

������

�������������

���������

�������

������

��������

�������

����

�������

�������

��

��

���

��

���

���

�

�

��

���

��

��

��

���

�

�

�

�

������ ���� �������� �� �� ���

Primary Road

Secondary Road

Road

Rail

National Parkway

US Highway

State Highway

County Boundary

Study Area

Study Area

Figure 3-1
 

3-3 

With only one Build Alternative considered for evaluation, the affected environment was 

then further reduced to the area adjacent to the proposed improvements. Since the 

improvements would be entirely within the limits of the City of Tupelo, the city limits 

became a logical demarcation for the affected environment. The City of Tupelo has also 

planned to annex some properties adjacent to the existing city limits. Therefore, the affected 

environment, as discussed in this chapter, is considered the portion of the study area defined 

as the city limits of the City of Tupelo and the proposed annexation area, shown on Figure 3-

2. 

3.2 LAND USE 

3.2.1 Existing Land Use 

In general, most of the land in the affected environment is rural. The majority of land 

use in the City of Tupelo is designated as either agricultural, residential, or rights-ofway for transportation corridors such as streets, highways, rail corridors and the 

Natchez Trace Parkway, shown in Table 3-1 and on Figure 3-3. The Natchez Trace 

Parkway has a minimum 1,000-foot wide buffer along its corridor for viewshed 

protection. 

Table 3-1 Existing Land Use within the City of Tupelo 

Land Use by Parcel Area 

(acres) % of City 

Agricultural 9,560 26.07%

Commercial Retail-Wholesale 1,077 2.94%

Commercial Services-Office 1,172 3.20%

Industrial-Heavy 588 1.60%

Industrial-Light 351 0.96%

Medical 106 0.29%

Public Government 9 0.02%

Residential 1-2 Family 8,433 23.00%

Residential Mobile Home 67 0.18%

Residential Multi-Family 260 0.71%

Semipublic 756 2.06%

Transportation-Utilities-Communication 110 0.30%

Vacant Suitable for Development 5,557 15.16%

Unknown 462 1.26%

Transportation R/W (Streets, Highways, 

Railways, and Natchez Trace) 8,158 22.25%

Total 36,666 100%

Sources: Mississippi Automated Resource Information System (MARIS), 

City of Tupelo Planning and Development Department 
Plantersville

Verona

Saltillo

Natchez

Pkwy

BNSF Railway

Kansas

Northern

Tupelo

Airport

78

45

278

6

178

178

Trace

45

78

145

145

Natchez

Southern

City

Burlington

Santa

Fe

Pontotoc Co.

Lee Co.

City of

Tupelo

Affected

Tupelo Mississippi Railroad Relocation Environment

Planning & Environmental Study Figure

3-2

0 1 2 3

Miles

Natchez Trace

Parkway

Railroads

Primary Roads

Secondary Roads

Other Roads

City of Tupelo

City Boundary

County Boundary

Legend

Proposed

Annexation Area

Affected Environment
Plantersville

Verona

Saltillo

Pkwy

BNSF Railway

Kansas

Northern

Tupelo

Airport

78

45

278

6

178

178

45

78

145

145

Natchez

Southern

City

Burlington

Santa

Fe

Pontotoc Co.

Lee Co.

City of

Tupelo Trace

Natchez

Existing

Tupelo Mississippi Railroad Relocation Land Use

Planning & Environmental Study Figure

3-3

0 1 2 3

Miles

Natchez Trace

Parkway

Railroads

Primary Roads

Secondary Roads

Other Roads

City Boundary

County Boundary

Legend

Residential

Retail / Services /

Trade

Recreational

Agricultural

Industrial

Utilities

Vacant

Unknown

278

178

45

145

BNSF

KCS

City of

Tupelo

Main StGreen St

Jackson St Gloster St

Downtown Area

SEE INSET
 

3-6 

3.2.2 Proposed Land Use 

3.2.2.1 Zoning 

The City of Tupelo has established zoning districts to help guide and direct 

development within the City and to ensure that growth is in character with the 

comprehensive plan of the City. The main land uses of the City are zoned for 

agriculture, residential, and transportation; however, the primary zoned 

districts are agriculture, and commercial, industrial and large and medium lot 

residential, shown in Table 3-2 and on Figure 3-4. Tupelo is accommodating 

greater commercial and industrial growth within city limits and ensuring that 

growth is in line with the desires of residents living within the city limits. 

Table 3-2 Zoning within the City of Tupelo

Zoning District Zoning 

Abbreviation

Area 

(acres) % of City 

Agricultural-Open District A-O 5,335 14.55%

Light Commercial District C-1 112 0.31%

General Commercial District C-2 6,920 18.87%

Heavy Commercial District C-3 1,989 5.42%

Central Business District CBD 439 1.20%

Light Industrial District I-1 2,721 7.42%

Heavy Industrial District I-2 798 2.18%

Office District O 33 0.09%

Planned Unit Development PUD 1,799 4.91%

Medical District M-1 206 0.56%

Residential Estate District R1-E 425 1.16%

Large Lot Residential District R1-L 8,014 21.86%

Medium Lot Residential District R1-M 7,031 19.18%

Small Lot Residential District R1-S 136 0.37%

Two Family Residential District R-2 185 0.51%

Multi-Family Residential District R-3 480 1.31%

Residential/Office Mixed District R-O 45 0.12%

Total 36,667 100%

Sources: Mississippi Automated Resource Information System (MARIS), 

City of Tupelo Planning and Development Department

Tupelo has 17 zoning districts. They are defined as follows: 

 Agricultural-Open District (A-O) - The purpose of this district is to 

protect agriculture and open space uses until urbanization is warranted. 

This zoning use makes room for eventual development or protects areas 

located in floodplains from development. 

 Light Commercial District (C-1) - The purpose of this district is to 

provide retail and personal services for people in nearby residential 

neighborhoods. Strict guidelines are in place to protect adjacent 

neighborhoods.
Plantersville

Verona

Saltillo

Pkwy

BNSF Railway

Kansas

Northern

Tupelo

Airport

78

45

278

6

178

178

45

78

145

145

Natchez

Southern

City

Burlington

Santa

Fe

Pontotoc Co.

Lee Co.

City of

Tupelo Trace

Natchez

Zoning Tupelo Mississippi Railroad Relocation

Planning & Environmental Study Figure

3-4

0 1 2 3

Miles

Natchez Trace

Parkway

Railroads

Primary Roads

Secondary Roads

Other Roads

City Boundary

County Boundary

Residential Estate

Large Lot Residential

Medium Lot Residential

Small Lot Residential

Two Family Residential

Multi-Family Residential

Residential /

Office mixed

Office

Central Business

Heavy Commercial

General Commercial

Light Commercial

Medical

Heavy Industrial

Light Industrial

Planned Unit Development

Agriculture - Open

278

178

45

145

BNSF

KCS

City of

Tupelo

Main StGreen St

Jackson St Gloster St

Downtown Area

SEE INSET
 

3-8 

 General Commercial District (C-2) - These districts are primarily 

located along major thoroughfares. They are to provide appropriate 

appearance, ample parking, controlled traffic, and suitable landscaping. 

 Heavy Commercial District (C-3) - The purpose of this district is to 

provide an area for intensive, high impact commercial and small scale 

industrial establishments. Residential areas and retail office space are 

not considered compatible. 

 Central Business District (CBD) - This district is designed to permit a 

concentrated development of facilities in downtown Tupelo while 

maintaining the character of downtown Tupelo. 

 Light Industrial District (I-1) - The purpose of this district is to 

provide an area for industries which can operate in a relatively clean and 

quiet manner and would not be obnoxious to adjacent residential or 

business districts.

 Heavy Industrial District (I-2) - The purpose of this district is to 

establish an area for heavy industries which by their nature may create 

some nuisances. 

 Office District (O) - The purpose of this district is to provide 

centralized compatible location for professional and business offices. 

 Planned Unit Development (PUD) - A PUD is a tract of land under 

single ownership, or under common control, evidenced by duly recorded 

contracts or agreements approved by the City Council. A PUD is 

planned and developed as an integral unit in a single development 

operation or in a programmed series of development operations in 

accordance with a master land use plan and detailed engineering and 

architectural plans as approved by the City Council. 

 Medical (M-1) - The purpose of this district is to provide a centralized 

location for major medical and related services and to protect and 

promote complimentary facilities. 

 Residential Estate District (R-1E) - The purpose of this district is to 

accommodate large “estate” sized lots where utility services do not 

support more dense development. 

 Large Lot Residential District (R-1L) - The purpose of this district is 

to preserve the quiet residential nature of single-family dwellings located 

in this area. 

 Medium Lot Residential District (R-1M) - The purpose of this district 

is for single-family dwellings and to encourage the wise use of land and 

natural resources with the aim of reducing sprawl and costly 

infrastructure requirements are associated with sprawl. 
 

3-9 

 Small Lot Residential District (R-1S) - The purpose of this district is 

to support single-family dwellings and the related recreational, religious 

and educational facilities which provide balanced and attractive 

residential area. 

 Two Family Residential District (R-2) - The purpose of this district is 

to accommodate duplexes or two unit condominiums. These districts 

also serve as a transition from commercial and multifamily areas to 

single-family areas. 

 Multi-Family Residential District (R-3) - The purpose of this district is 

to support multi-family dwellings, discourage uses which would 

interfere with the residential nature of these districts, and ensure 

developments have services, such as open space and recreational 

facilities to support persons living in the district. 

 Residential/Office Mixed District (R-O) - The purpose of this district 

is to allow the conversion of older residential structures to limited office 

uses in older neighborhoods. The establishment of retail establishments 

is prohibited as it requires large amounts of short-term parking and high 

volumes of traffic. 

3.2.2.2 Overlay Districts 

In addition to zoning districts, the City has also established overlay districts, 

shown on Figure 3-5. These areas adhere to both zoning and overlay 

regulations to prevent growth that is deemed out of character for the area. 

The 10 overlay districts (including subdistricts) are described as follows: 

 Downtown Overlay - The purposes of this overlay district are to 

attract economic development and employment opportunities and 

preserve the existing character of the downtown area. Specific desired 

outcomes include: 

 enhancing the gateway to Tupelo, 

 reducing visual clutter, 

 enhancing landscaping, and 

 encouraging preservation of buildings. 

This overlay district is subdivided into subdistricts to further guide 

activities occurring in this critical portion of the City. The subdistricts 

within the Downtown Overlay District are: 

 City Center Retail Subdistrict 

 Coliseum Center Subdistrict 

 Downtown Gateway Subdistrict 

 Fairgrounds Subdistrict 
Plantersville

Verona

Pkwy

BNSF Railway

Kansas

Northern

Tupelo

Airport

78

45

278

6

178

178

Trace

45

78

145

145

Natchez

Southern

City

Burlington

Santa

Fe

Pontotoc Co.

Lee Co.

City of

Tupelo

Overlay

Tupelo Mississippi Railroad Relocation Districts

Planning & Environmental Study Figure

3-5

0 1 2 3

Miles

Natchez Trace

Parkway

Railroads

Primary Roads

Secondary Roads

Other Roads

City Boundary

County Boundary

Barnes Crossing Overlay

City Center Retail Subdistrict

Cliff Gookin Overlay

Coliseum Center Subdistrict

Downtown Gateway Subdistrict

Fairgrounds Redevelopment

Subdistrict

Financial Subdistrict

Historic Downtown Overlay

Judicial Subdistrict

Major Development Subdistrict

South Gloster Street Overlay

278

45

145

BNSF

KCS

City of

Tupelo

Main StGreen St

Jackson St Gloster St

President Ave

Downtown Area

SEE INSET
 

3-11 

 Financial Subdistrict 

 Judicial Subdistrict 

 Major Development Subdistrict 

 Barnes Crossing Overlay - This is an area of rapid commercial 

growth. The purpose of this overlay district is to set guidelines to 

encourage only high quality retail development in order to prevent the 

decline in retail activity. 

 Cliff Gookin Overlay - This overlay district is located adjacent to 

Tupelo High School and a large, planned unit development area. The 

purpose of this overlay district is to provide a high standard of growth 

to protect the quality of life in the area. 

 South Gloster Overlay - The largest employer in the City, the 

NMMC, is located in this district. The district was established to 

prevent commercial and retail facilities from leaving the area and to 

provide a higher standard of commercial and retail facilities for people 

who work and shop in this area. 

3.3 FARMLAND 

Farmland is defined as land used for crop production including livestock and timber. The 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) NRCS classifies farmland into several different 

categories as part of the Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) of 1981. FPPA was 

enacted to reduce permanent conversion of important agriculture areas to non-agriculture 

activities due to federally funded programs. Specific characteristics are given to soil types 

that exhibit best tendencies to produce food, fiber, forage, oilseed and other agriculture crops 

and are not in urban or built-up areas. “Prime farmland” is designated as areas that are best 

suited for crop production with minimum inputs of fuel, fertilizer, pesticides and labor 

without intolerable soil erosion. “Unique farmland” is further defined as areas having special 

combinations of conditions to produce specific high-value food and fiber crops, including 

citrus, tree nuts, olives, cranberries, fruits and vegetables. The Mississippi Department of 

Agriculture further defines areas as “statewide and locally important” farmland. All 

designated soil types do not have to be agriculture production to be considered prime and 

unique farmland. Land tracts can be forested land or some other use; however, urban or open 

water areas are not considered. As part of FPPA, NRCS completes a Farmland Conversion 

Form (AD-1006) for all federally funded projects to assess potential irreversible impacts to 

farmland. Farmland within Tupelo’s city limits is not subject to FPPA because it is 

considered “urban” based on FPPA guidelines. 

Crops grown within the affected environment include cotton, soybeans, corn, and grain. 

Timber, cattle, poultry, dairy production, and catfish farming are also important to Lee 

County. Catfish is a growing industry in the Blackland Prairie region, where the aquifer is 

deep, so ponds are surface water driven. There are no catfish ponds within the affected 

environment; however, these ponds can be found throughout Lee County. The USDA has 

established conservation programs to help restore natural ecological systems on the nation’s 
 

3-12 

farms. The purposes of these programs are targeted toward protecting the nation’s long term 

capability to produce food and fiber, reducing soil erosion and sedimentation, improving 

water quality and creating better habitat for wildlife. Programs such as the Conservation 

Reserve Program (CRP), the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) and the Grassland Reserve 

Program (GRP) provide valuable tax incentives to preserve some of the nation’s most 

sensitive areas. There are no CRP, WRP or GRP tracts within the affected environment. 

3.4 HISTORY AND DEMOGRAPHICS 

3.4.1 History 

Originally home to the Chickasaw Nation, the Tupelo area was an important link 

along the trade route now known as the Natchez Trace Parkway. In the late 1830’s, 

the Chickasaw people were forcibly removed from the area under the Federal Indian 

Removal Act of 1830. The City of Tupelo was founded in 1859 after the completion 

of the Mobile and Ohio Railroad, and later incorporated in 1870. Tupelo's modern 

history can be traced to the convergence of the Mobile & Ohio and the Kansas City, 

Memphis & Birmingham Railroads in 1887. As a hub of transportation corridors, 

Tupelo became known as a rail distribution and manufacturing center. 

Today, as the county seat of Lee County, Tupelo is a manufacturing, retail and 

distribution center. 

3.4.2 Demographics 

The City of Tupelo has a population of 35,673. Based on the 2000 Census counts, 

there were approximately 13,395 households, with a median household income of 

$36,165. Approximately 67% of the population of the City of Tupelo is white and 

approximately 30% is Black or African American. There is a small Asian population 

(0.6%), a small population of Hispanic origin (1.4%), and a small population selfreported as two or more races (0.8%). The median age is 32, with 70% of the 

population over the age of 18 and almost 10% of the population over the age of 65. 

3.4.3 Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898 requires federal agencies to identify and address 

disproportionately high and adverse effects of federally funded projects on minority 

and low-income populations as part of the environmental justice (EJ) analysis. The 

EJ analysis is discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of this report. Of the households 

within 1⁄2-mile of the existing BNSF main line, 14% are classified as minority 

households and 17% are classified as low-income households. Low-income 

households have been defined as those who have an annual household income below 

80% of the median household income of Tupelo, or a household income of $28,932 

or less. 
 

3-13 

3.5 COMMUNITY FACILITIES 

Neighborhoods, schools, churches, cemeteries, public facilities, parks and recreation areas, 

and emergency services facilities were identified within the affected environment. 

3.5.1 Neighborhoods 

Tupelo has several areas of special concern, including those with neighborhood 

associations and neighborhood protection districts. A “neighborhood association” is 

a group of homeowners, renters, apartment dwellers, and neighborhood business, 

church, and school representatives who organize to improve conditions in the 

neighborhood. As members of an active neighborhood association, the people in the 

neighborhood decide what needs to be done and work together to make it happen. A 

group that represents the community has the stability, credibility, and political clout 

to be an effective force for a better neighborhood. The designated neighborhood 

associations in the City of Tupelo are shown on Figure 3-6. 

Ten neighborhood associations are registered in Tupelo, including Downtown, 

Gravlee, Haven Acres, Lee Acres, Joyner, Park Hill, Presley Heights, South Foster 

Street, Southern Heights, and Willis Heights. Eight of the 10 districts are located 

within 1⁄2-mile of the proposed project: 

 Downtown - This was the first neighborhood to form a neighborhood 

association. This community is recognized in the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and is economically and racially diverse. 

 Gravlee - A diverse community of older, single-family dwellings, where many 

of the residents are tenants. West Jackson Street runs to the southeast of the 

district and serves as one of the gateways into the City. 

 Joyner - This is the sister neighborhood to Gravlee, and the homes are 

primarily single-family cottages. Although racially diverse, there is a definite 

increase in income and property value as compared to the Gravlee 

neighborhood. 

 Lee Acres – This west-side neighborhood includes primarily single-family 

housing in a diverse community with most of the residents being seniors and 

retirees with a small population of young families and singles. 

 Park Hill - This is the oldest African American or Black community in the City, 

also another gateway both to the major retail hub at Barnes Crossing and to the 

City. The population is primarily retirees and senior citizens, mostly from the 

educational field with a diverse income base. 

 Presley Heights - This is the largest neighborhood in terms of land area in the 

City. The area does not contain a large youth population, but rather contains 

more seniors and retirees. It is racially and economically diverse. It was 

originally a suburb, East Tupelo, before being annexed. 
Plantersville

Verona

Pkwy

BNSF Railway

Kansas

Northern

Tupelo

Airport

78

45

278

6

178

178

45

78

145

145

Natchez

Southern

City

Burlington

Santa

Fe

Pontotoc Co.

Lee Co.

City of

Tupelo

Trace

Natchez

Neighborhoods &

Tupelo Mississippi Railroad Relocation Protection Dist.

Planning & Environmental Study Figure

3-6

0 1 2 3

Miles

Natchez Trace

Parkway

Railroads

Primary Roads

Secondary Roads

Other Roads

City Boundary

County Boundary Protection District

Gravlee

Haven Acres

Historic District

Joyner

Lee Acres

Park Hill

Presley Heights

South Foster Street Area

Southern Heights

Willis Heights

278

178

45

145

BNSF

KCS

City of

Tupelo

Main StGreen St

Jackson St Gloster St

Downtown Area

SEE INSET
 

3-15 

 Willis Heights - The other west side neighborhood that anchors to Lee Acres is 

heavily populated with rental properties with minimal home ownership. The 

population ranges in age and is racially diverse. 

Neighborhood Protection Districts, shown on Figure 3-6, are neighborhood areas 

designated for protection from declining property values, lack of maintenance, 

physical deterioration, disinvestment and abandonment, changes in ownership 

patterns, or changes in land use. Anyone who rents or buys a residence in this area 

would need a Residential Certificate of Occupancy in order to transfer utilities. 

3.5.2 Schools 

The public school system serves 7,624 students and is composed of 12 schools with 

student counts ranging from the low 100s (pre-K) to the high 1,000s (Tupelo High 

School). Of the 12 public schools, there are 10 elementary schools, one middle 

school, and one high school. In addition, the public school system also supports the 

King Early Childhood Center (pre-K), and the Career Center (grades 9 to 12). The 

University of Mississippi and Itawamba Community College have campus facilities 

in southeastern Tupelo near the intersection of Eason Boulevard and Veterans 

Boulevard. The University of Mississippi Advanced Education Center had 565 

students (2006) and the Itawamba Community College Tupelo Campus had 1,165 

students (2004 – 2005). 

In general, development in the Tupelo area has moved to the western side of the City, 

and schools on the east side are now under-utilized. However, the school district is 

working to keep a demographic balance at all schools. 

The existing BNSF main line passes most closely to the Joyner Avenue Elementary 

School just north of Jackson Street and to the Milam Elementary School just north of 

the Crosstown intersection. 

Joyner Avenue Elementary is adjacent to the BNSF main line and with horn sounding 

required at the Jackson Street crossing, the elementary school is currently affected by 

approximately 23 trains per day, estimated to increase to approximately 40 trains per 

day by 2030. Joyner Avenue Elementary School has approximately 218 white, nonHispanic children and 137 black, non-Hispanic children. The Joyner neighborhood is 

more typically associated with starter homes and typically has young families. 

Milam Elementary School has approximately 319 white, non-Hispanic children and 

359 black, non-Hispanic children. The Milam neighborhood contains older homes 

associated with the central and downtown Tupelo area. The Milam facility is 

proposed to be converted to a 6th grade school facility according to the Tupelo Public 

School District Future Excellence Plan (2009 restructuring). 
 

3-16 

3.5.3 Churches and Cemeteries 

There are 58 churches and 12 cemeteries within the city limits of Tupelo. A public 

meeting was held in February 2008 at the Inspirational Community Baptist Church at 

405 Clayton Avenue, which is one of several churches within close proximity to the 

existing BNSF main line. The comments received at this public meeting included 

statements that the church windows have been enclosed to mitigate the train noise and 

that train horns often interfere with studio recordings. 

3.5.4 Public Facilities 

Public facilities within the City of Tupelo include City, County, and Federal 

government buildings, events centers, attractions, museums, and retail establishments. 

However, some of these facilities, such as the Barnes Crossing Mall, Oren Dunn City 

Museum, and the Elvis Presley Birthplace and Museum, are located more than 

1⁄2-mile from the existing BNSF main line. The public facilities that lie within 1⁄2-

mile of the existing BNSF main line include: 

 Tupelo Buffalo Park and Zoo 

 Tupelo Furniture Market 

 West Main Shopping Center 

 Willow Bend Village Shopping Center 

 Gloster Creek Village Shopping Center 

 Tupelo Public Library 

 Tupelo Post Office and Federal Building 

 Tupelo City Hall 

 Lee County Courthouse 

 Tupelo Artist Guild 

 Lyric Theatre 

 Tupelo Convention and Visitors Bureau 

 BanccorpSouth Arena 

 VF Factory Outlet Stores 

3.5.5 Parks and Recreation 

The City of Tupelo has 570 acres of City park land in 19 City parks and various 

walking tracks/trails, shown on Figure 3-7. Of the larger amenities, the Rob Leake 

City Park and the Tupelo Buffalo Park and Zoo are adjacent to the existing BNSF 

main line. Small parks and other open spaces exist at various points along the 

existing BNSF and KCS rail lines, such as Burt Park Liberty Gardens near the 

Crosstown intersection and Old Mill Town Park in the Mill Village area. The Tupelo 

National Battlefield and the Natchez Trace Parkway, a national scenic highway, are 

under the jurisdiction of the U.S. National Park Service and are also within the City 

of Tupelo. In addition, the Elvis Presley Lake and Campground and Tombigbee State 

Park are adjacent to the City of Tupelo, but both are outside the affected environment. 
Plantersville

Verona

Pkwy

BNSF Railway

Kansas

Northern

Tupelo

Airport

78

45

278

6

178

178

45

78

145

145

Natchez

Southern

City

Burlington

Santa

Fe

Pontotoc Co.

Lee Co.

City of

Tupelo Trace

Natchez

6

12 23

3

22 7

13

14

15 4

16

25

27

17

26

18

19

2

24

28

20

21

5

9

11

8 10 1

Parks &

Tupelo Mississippi Railroad Relocation Recreation

Planning & Environmental Study Figure

3-7

0 1 2 3

Miles

Natchez Trace

Parkway

Railroads

Primary Roads

Secondary Roads

Other Roads

City Boundary

County Boundary

Legend

Attraction

Battlefield

Birdwatching

Campgound

Fishing

Golf Course

Park / Recreation

Pool

Id NAME Id NAME

1 Tupelo Buffalo Park & Zoo 15 Lee Acres

2 BankcorpSouth Center 16 Old Mill Town Park

3 Tupelo National Battle Field 17 Rob Leake City Park

4 Tupelo National Fish Hatchery 18 Robbins Noble Park

5 Elvis Campground 19 Gum Tree Park

6 Campground at Barnes Crossing 20 Veterans Park

7 Ballard Park Disc Golf Course 21 Eastwood Softball Complex

8 Bel Air Golf Course 22 James L Ballard Park

9 Elvis Presley Fishing Lake 23 Thomas Street Park

10 Tupelo Country Club 24 City Hall Park

11 Big Oaks Golf Club 25 Burt Park - Liberty Gardens

12 Hancock Park 26 CC Augustus Pool

13 Haven Acres 27 Rob Leake CIty Pool

14 Theron Nichols Park 28 Elvis Presley Park
 

3-18 

Two golf courses are within the Tupelo city limits. The Tupelo Country Club is a 

private 18-hole golf course located near the existing BNSF main line just south of 

Coley Road. The Bel Air Golf Course is a public 9-hole golf course located along the 

Natchez Trace Parkway just north of the existing BNSF main line. In addition, disc 

golf is a popular sport in the region, with courses at Ballard Park and at Veterans Park 

within the Tupelo city limits. 

3.5.6 Medical and Emergency Services 

3.5.6.1 Medical and Health Services 

Tupelo is the headquarters of the NMMC, the largest non-metropolitan 

hospital in the United States. Located at 830 South Gloster Street, shown on 

Figure 3-8, the 650-bed facility has a service area that includes northern 

Mississippi, northwest Alabama, and portions of Tennessee. The medical 

center was a winner of the prestigious Malcolm Baldrige National Quality 

Award in 2006. Emergency vehicles en route to NMMC traverse the railroad 

crossings at Crosstown and Eason Boulevard an estimated 80 to 100 times per 

day and are delayed an average of four times per day. When stopped at these 

railroad crossings, an emergency vehicle can be delayed up to an additional 15 

minutes before reaching the hospital. Because of the possibility that a 

particular crossing may be blocked by a train, emergency vehicle drivers 

frequently must choose between risking that the crossing is clear and waiting 

for a train to pass or taking an alternate route, either of which can dangerously 

increase response time. 

North Mississippi State Hospital is located in Tupelo at 1937 Briar Ridge 

Road, shown on Figure 3-8. North Mississippi State Hospital is a Stateowned psychiatric and chemical dependency facility offering 50 licensed beds. 

There are 28 other medical facilities within the City of Tupelo, including four 

ambulatory surgical facilities, four licensed long-term care facilities, four 

licensed personal care homes, seven certified hospice providers, two certified 

rehabilitation centers, two home health agencies, a certified rural health clinic, 

a certified portable X-ray service, an end-stage renal disease facility, a 

certified community home, and the Lee County Health Department. 

3.5.6.2 Fire Department 

The Tupelo Fire Department operates seven stations located throughout the 

City of Tupelo, shown on Figure 3-8, running seven Emergency-One 

Pumpers, a Rescue, a Truck Company (1998 Emergency-One) and a 2001 

Pierce Special Response Unit. The Tupelo Fire Department has a total of 87 

staff employees including 81 employees in the Emergency Services Division, 

three employees in the Special Services Division, which includes a 

Training/Safety Officer, Fire Investigator, Fire Inspector, and administrative 

officers and staff. 
Plantersville

Verona

Pkwy

BNSF Railway

Kansas

Northern

Tupelo

Airport

78

45

278

6

178

178

45

78

145

145

Natchez

Southern

City

Burlington

Santa

Fe

Pontotoc Co.

Lee Co.

City of

Tupelo

Trace

Natchez

North MS

State

Hospital

North MS

Medical

Center

Lee County

Health Dept.

Station 3

Station

2

Station 5

Station 5

Station 6

Station 7

Emergency

Tupelo Mississippi Railroad Relocation Services

Planning & Environmental Study Figure

3-8

0 1 2 3

Miles

STATION 1

City

Police

Lee County

Justice

Police

Records

Police

Central

Lee Courthouse

Downtown Area

SEE INSET

Natchez Trace

Parkway

Railroads

Primary Roads

Secondary Roads

Other Roads

City Boundary

County Boundary

Fire Station

Hospital

Police Station / Court

Legend
 

3-20 

Other services provided by the Tupelo Fire Department include: 

 Fire suppression 

 Basic on-site life support EMS services 

 Trained special operation group of Dive Rescue Specialists 

 Hazardous Materials Technicians 

 Confined Space and Rope Rescue Specialists 

 Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Regional Response Team for the 

State of Mississippi 

All of these services help to keep the community safe and maintain an 

Insurance Class Rating of Five. According to the City of Tupelo’s website, 

the City’s fire department averages approximately seven responses per day 

with an average response time of three minutes and six seconds (3:06). The 

Tupelo Fire/Rescue Training Center and the cooperative effort of many City 

employees and departments brought state-wide recognition to the City of 

Tupelo by winning the 2007 Overall Excellence award sponsored by the 

Mississippi Municipal League and the Clarion Ledger. Tupelo’s Fire 

Department is also featured in several national ad campaigns for EmergencyOne. 

The following excerpt was obtained from the City of Tupelo’s Fire 

Department Standard Operating Guidelines Manual and provides railroad 

crossing standard operation procedures to be followed by all emergency 

response units. 

“In an emergency response mode upon approaching an unguarded 

railroad crossing the driver and company officer shall observe the 

warning system for operation, open the windows of the vehicle, turn 

the siren off, bring the vehicle to a complete stop prior to entering the 

crossing area, listen for a train warning signal and observe all 

directions for on-coming train traffic. Once the company officer and 

the driver has determined there is no train approaching, the driver 

may proceed across the rail crossing. An exception to turning off the 

siren would be when the rail crossing is at a four way intersection (i.e. 

Crosstown). At crossings of this nature, the hazards associated with 

automobile traffic at an intersection dictates that the driver and 

company officer use extreme caution when proceeding through the 

intersection and leave the warning siren activated in order to clear 

automobile traffic from the intersection.” 

3.5.6.3 Police Department 

The Tupelo Police Department is divided into 14 divisions covering 10 patrol 

zones. These divisions include a records division, criminal investigative 

division, information technology division, reserve division, traffic division, 
 

3-21 

community outreach program division, patrol division, the North Mississippi 

narcotics unit, the school resource officers program, a special operations 

group, code enforcement division, special weapons and tactics (SWAT) 

division, and a crime stoppers division. The Tupelo Police Department also 

administers the North Mississippi Law Enforcement Training Academy. 

The Lee County Sheriff’s Department, shown on Figure 3-8, offers a wide 

range of services including a patrol division, a criminal investigative division, 

a narcotics unit, a special operations unit, a SWAT division, and a reserve unit. 

The Lee County Sheriff’s Department also administers the Lee County 

Juvenile Detention Center, the Lee County Work Center, and the Tupelo/Lee 

County Adult Jail which holds prisoners for not only the Lee County Sheriff’s 

Department, but also for Tupelo and all other municipalities within Lee 

County. The adult jail was completed in 1997 and can house approximately 

200 prisoners. 

3.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Each cultural resource encountered as part of the Tupelo Railroad Relocation Planning and 

Environmental Study investigation, as documented in the Cultural Resources Investigations 

for the Tupelo Railroad Relocation Study (Brockington, January 2009), was assessed for 

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

CFR Part 60.4, shown in Table 3-3. The criteria for evaluation are based on the quality of 

significance in American history architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture are 

present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, 

design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. 

Table 3-3 Criteria for NRHP Eligibility 

Criterion 

Level Eligibility Description 

A Property associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns 

of our history. 

B Property associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. 

C 

Property that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of 

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

represents a significant and distinguished entity whose components may lack individual 

distinction. 

D Property that has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or 

history. 

A resource may be eligible under one or more of these criteria. Criteria A, B, and C are most 

frequently applied to historic buildings, structures, objects, districts, or non- archaeological 

sites (e.g., battlefields, natural features, designed landscapes, or cemeteries). The eligibility 

of archaeological sites is most frequently considered with respect to Criterion D. Also, a 

general guideline of 50 years of age is employed to define “historic” in the NRHP evaluation 
 

3-22 

process. That is, all resources greater than 50 years of age may be considered. However, 

more recent resources may be considered if they display “exceptional” significance. 

According to 36 CFR Section 800.16(d), the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the affected 

environment is defined as that area within the existing BNSF right-of-way and an 

approximate 500-foot buffer on each side of the existing right-of-way, as well as a 500-foot 

buffer on each side of the right-of-way for the proposed interchange. The buffer width was 

coordinated with Mississippi Department of Archives and History (MDAH) to account for 

possible visual or noise impacts. 

3.6.1 Archaeological Sites 

As documented in the Cultural Resources Investigations for the Tupelo Railroad 

Relocation Study (Brockington, January 2009) (CRS), three previously unrecorded 

archaeological sites were located within or adjacent to the APE. At the previously 

unrecorded archaeological site located just east of the intersection of Jefferson Street 

and the BNSF main line, shovel tests produced a light density of archaeological 

materials dating to the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, indicating the 

presence of a domestic structure. The site had been disturbed and dates to a relatively 

recent time period. The previously unrecorded archaeological site located within the 

BNSF right-of-way just south of Jackson Street and was identified by the presence of 

historic debris, which was considered to be the result of incidental trash dumping 

rather than an archaeological site. The previously unrecorded archaeological site 

located in the proposed interchange area just south of the Pvt. John Allen Fish 

Hatchery consists of two sewer manholes. None of these archaeological sites was 

considered eligible for listing in the NRHP. 

3.6.2 Architectural Resources 

As documented in the CRS, 58 architectural resources (30 previously recorded and 28 

previously unrecorded) were located within or adjacent to the APE, shown on Figure 

3-9. The majority of the architectural resources fell within NRHP-eligible historic 

districts, consisting mainly of early to mid-20th Century residential architecture. Of 

those 58 resources, 13 had been demolished. Three architectural resources are listed 

on the NRHP. 

 Superintendent’s House, Pvt. John Allen Fish Hatchery 

The Pvt. John Allen Fish Hatchery includes the NRHP-listed Superintendant’s 

House. The property was listed in 1988 as an excellent example of the Queen 

Anne architectural style. The NRHP boundary was designed to include the 

house and 100 feet in each direction, totaling less than 0.5 acres, and excludes 

the grounds and non-contributing outbuildings. The present NRHP boundary is 

visually protected by dense vegetation along its northern and eastern perimeters 

and is oriented westward towards Elizabeth Street. In addition, upon review of 

1958 aerial maps, the surrounding landscape has been subject to substantial 

changes, including the destruction of warehousing north of Elizabeth Street and 

the extension of Elizabeth Street eastward across the BNSF main line. 
 

3-23 

Under the authority of Section 304 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act, this map is not for public disclosure due to 

the sensitive nature of identified cultural resources.
 

3-24 

 Mill Village Historic District 

The Mill Village Historic District was listed on the NRHP in 1992. The Mill 

Village Historic District is located south of the existing BNSF main line along 

Green Street and includes and industrial complex and associated employee 

housing. During field inspection, it appeared as if some of the contributing 

houses were being prepared for removal or relocation. In addition, one mill 

building, identified as Mill #2 east of Spring Street, has been demolished. 

However, the District remains largely intact and retains its NRHP integrity. The 

northern border of this District abuts the BNSF right-of-way. 

 South Church Street Historic District 

In 1992, the South Church Street Historic District was listed on the NRHP as an 

intact example of an early 20th Century neighborhood, associated with the 

residential development of Tupelo. The District consists of local interpretations 

of the bungalow, Colonial Revival, Craftsman, and foursquare house types. The 

district includes 19 contributing residences. The boundary was designed to 

exclude offices and light industry located north of the Elliot Street intersection. 

In a letter dated March 17, 2009, included in Appendix A ̧ coordination with the 

SHPO determined that of the remaining 42 architectural resources not NRHP-listed or 

demolished, 35 were deemed eligible for listing with NRHP. The SHPO determined 

that these 35 NRHP-eligible individual properties or historic districts appear to retain 

their historic architectural integrity. 

These include two proposed NRHP-eligible historic districts and one proposed local 

historic district. The proposed Gravlee Historic District is bisected by the existing 

BNSF main line between Jackson Street and Crosstown. The proposed North 

Neighborhood Historic District clips a small portion of the APE with its southwest 

boundary. This portion of the neighborhood is within view of modern commercial 

and business development along Main and Gloster Streets. The local Tupelo 

Preservation Commission has discussed designating a Joyner Avenue district as a 

local historic district. This proposed district, while not finalized, is bounded by the 

existing BNSF main line on the west and includes early to mid-20th Century 

residential housing, a school, ball fields, tennis courts and a swimming pool. The 

boundary was drawn to exclude the railroad. 

3.6.3 Native American Resources 

The Chickasaw people inhabited the Lee County area at least as long as, but probably 

much longer than, the tribe’s contact with European visitors in the 1500s. The 

archaeology of the tribe’s settlements has become a burgeoning field of study. All of 

the archaeological and documentary evidence suggest the Chickasaw towns were 

located in and around Lee County, with a particular concentration in present-day 

Tupelo. 
 

3-25 

The Cobb Institute of Archaeology, associated with Mississippi State University in 

Starkville, has conducted numerous Chickasaw surveys and data recovery projects in 

and around the Tupelo area. Based on experience and knowledge of the area, the 

Cobb Institute contends that previously unrecorded archaeological sites would be 

concentrated along ridgelines and on the upland areas, especially in those areas to the 

south and west of the City of Tupelo. Based on the Cobb Institute studies, these sites 

are also very likely to contain burials due to the Chickasaw tradition of burying the 

dead underneath their homes. However, the existing BNSF main line and proposed 

interchange area are in relatively low-lying areas near Kings Creek and Town Creek, 

which are areas not known to hold Chickasaw settlements. There are no documented 

Chickasaw settlements within the existing BNSF right-of-way or the proposed 

interchange area. 

3.7 AIR QUALITY 

The Clean Air Act directed the EPA to establish standards for clean air. As a result, the EPA 

established NAAQS for six atmospheric pollutants that affect the air quality of a region. 

These pollutants are carbon monoxide, particulate matter, volatile organic compounds, ozone, 

oxides of nitrogen, lead, and sulfur dioxide. Each pollutant is described below: 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 

CO is an odorless, colorless gas formed by the burning of fuels containing carbon. 

Motor vehicles are the principal source of CO emissions in urban areas. Maximum 

concentrations usually occur near intersections and other areas of traffic congestion, 

and they decrease rapidly with distance from the source. CO exposure can cause 

dizziness and fatigue and can impair central nervous system functions. Exposure to 

high levels of CO can cause immediate death. 

Particulate Matter (PM2.5 and PM10) 

Particulate matter enters the air from industrial operations, vehicular traffic and other 

sources, including fireplaces. Most of the particulate matter generated by motor 

vehicles consists of suspended road dust. Measurements of particulate matter 

concentrations include TSP (total suspended particulates), PM10 (particles with a 

diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers), and PM2.5 (particles with a diameter 

less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers). Particles of this size can be inhaled, and can 

irritate the human respiratory tract and aggravate pre-existing respiratory diseases. 

Certain populations, such as children, the elderly, exercising adults, and those 

suffering from asthma or bronchitis, are especially vulnerable. Very small particles 

of substances such as lead (Pb), sulfates, and nitrates can cause lung damage directly, 

can be absorbed into the blood stream and cause damage elsewhere in the body, and 

can transport adsorbed gases, such as chlorides or ammonium into the lungs and 

cause injury. 
 

3-26 

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) 

VOCs are a key component in the formation of ozone (O3). These hydrocarbons are 

emitted or evaporate into the atmosphere from a variety of sources, particularly the 

storage and combustion of fuels in motor vehicles. 

Ozone (O3) 

O3 in the lower atmosphere is a harmful air pollutant and contributes to the formation 

of smog. It is a secondary pollutant formed by the reaction of VOCs and nitrous 

oxides (NOx) in the presence of sunlight. O3 levels are reduced by minimizing 

emissions of those precursor pollutants. O3 can cause eye and respiratory irritation, 

reduces resistance to lung infections, and may aggravate pulmonary conditions in 

individuals with lung disease. Elevated O3 levels can cause vegetation damage. 

Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) 

NOx are gaseous mixtures of NO and NO2 that can damage or irritate the human 

respiratory system and exacerbate damage from respiratory disease and other existing 

forms of irritation. NO2 may reduce resistance to certain infections. It is also a 

precursor of O3. NO2 is a product of high-temperature combustion, emitted generally 

by the same sources as CO. High concentrations of NO2 cause brown haze readily 

observed in urban areas during periods of heavy air pollution. 

Lead 

Lead (Pb) is a particulate pollutant that is also a carcinogenic air contaminant. In the 

past, automobiles were the chief contributors of Pb to the atmosphere in the U.S. 

Currently, lead is primarily emitted in the U.S. from a relatively small number of 

point sources such as smelters and battery plants. 

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 

SO2 is a product of the combustion of high-sulfur fuels, such as many grades of coal 

and oil. SO2 is a human respiratory irritant. It combines with moisture in the 

atmosphere to form sulfuric acid and can damage vegetation and exterior facades of 

buildings. 

According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) website, transportation-related pollutants 

are large contributors to unhealthy air quality. The pollutants most attributed to motor 

vehicle use include CO, PM2.5 and PM10, NOx and VOCs, which combine with sunlight to 

form ground-level O3, as well as other air toxins. The EPA reported that motor vehicles are 

responsible for nearly half of smog-forming VOCs, more than half of the NOx emissions, and 

about half of the toxic air pollutant emissions in the United States. Motor vehicles, including 

non-road vehicles, account for 75% of CO emissions nationwide. 

The Air Quality Index (AQI) is a tool used by EPA and other agencies to provide the public 

with timely and easy-to-understand information on local air quality and whether air pollution 

levels pose a health concern. The AQI tells the public how clean the air is and whether or not 

they should be concerned for their health. The AQI is focused on health effects that can 
 

3-27 

happen within a few hours or days after breathing polluted air. The annual maximum AQI 

level experienced in Lee County from 1999-2007 ranged from 107 in 2004 to 156 in 1999. 

An AQI level between 101 and 150 is classified as “unhealthy for sensitive groups” and 

means that the general public is not likely to be affected, but sensitive groups may experience 

some health effects. An AQI level of 156 is classified as “unhealthy” and means anyone may 

begin to experience health effects, especially members of sensitive groups. The annual 

minimum AQI level experienced in Lee County from 1999-2007 ranged from 2 in 2003 to 13 

in 2007. An AQI level of 2 is classified as “good” and means the air quality is considered to 

be satisfactory and air pollution poses little or no risk. 

Of the pollutants monitored in the Tupelo area in the past 10 years, O3 has been the most 

problematic in terms of threatening possible noncompliance with the NAAQS. This is 

exacerbated by the fact that in 2007, the 8-hour O3 NAAQS was reduced from 0.08 ppm to 

0.075 ppm. The most recent data shows compliance with the reduced NAAQS, but by only a 

small margin (0.073 ppm). However, O3 levels in Tupelo have been showing a general 

downward trend in recent years, probably due to national-level EPA efforts to better control 

O3 precursor pollutants (VOCs and especially NOx). 

The current EPA designations have Lee County as in “attainment” with respect to NAAQS 

for all pollutants. Based on the monitoring data and the trends indicated, it does not appear 

that the area is likely to become a “nonattainment” area in the foreseeable future. For this 

reason, a conformity analysis is not required. 

3.8 NOISE AND VIBRATION 

3.8.1 Noise 

Noise pollution can be defined as displeasing human or machine-created sound that 

disrupts the environment. This unwanted sound can seriously affect and damage 

physiological and psychological health. Noise pollution can cause annoyance and 

aggression, hypertension, high stress levels, tinnitus, hearing loss, and other harmful 

effects depending on the level of sound. Noise can interrupt ongoing activities and 

can result in community annoyance, especially in residential areas. In general, most 

residents become annoyed when noise interferes significantly with activities such as 

sleeping, talking, noise-sensitive work, listening to the radio, and watching television. 

In addition, some land uses, such as outdoor concert pavilions, are inherently 

incompatible with high noise levels. 

Noise pollution in the downtown Tupelo area can be attributed to either traffic-related 

noise or railroad-related noise. Noise pollution generated by railroad operations is 

considerably higher than noise pollution created by motor vehicle traffic. Sources of 

railroad-related noise include the diesel exhaust engine, the interaction between the 

wheels and track, and the audible warning devices such as horns and bells. 

Locomotive horns are loud, and horn noise is often the major contributor of adverse 

noise impacts in a community. Sound exposure from locomotive horns in the 
 

3-28 

downtown Tupelo area does not reach the cumulative levels that would exceed risk 

criteria for hearing damage. The horn noise model, established by measurements for 

the FRA, is based on a sound exposure level of 107 decibels (dBA) at 100 feet from 

the tracks for locations no closer than 660 feet from an at-grade crossing. In order to 

risk the onset of hearing damage, a person at that distance would have to hear more 

than 180 horn events during each eight-hour period for five days a week and 

continuously for 40 years. These conditions would yield an eight-hour equivalent 

continuous sound pressure level of 85 dBA. 

The FRA and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) have established noise level 

criteria to account for the startle effect on humans and wildlife and the noise 

sensitivity of different land uses. These criteria vary based upon the proposed land 

use of the receptor site. The land uses are segregated into three categories, shown in 

Table 3-4. The majority of the noise receptor sites adjacent to the existing BNSF 

corridor would be considered either Category 2 or Category 3 land uses. For 

Category 2 land uses, the noise impacts are measured using the outdoor day-night 

sound level (Ldn). The Category 3 land uses have the noise impacts measured using 

the hourly average sound level (Leq(h)). 

Table 3-4 FTA/FRA Land Use Categories and Noise Metrics 

Land Use 

Category 

Noise 

Metric(1)

(dBA) 

Description of Land Use Category 

1 Outdoor 

Leq(h)(2)

A tract of land where quiet is an essential element of their intended 

purpose. This includes lands set aside for serenity and quiet and such land 

uses as outdoor amphitheaters and concert pavilions, as well as National 

Historic Landmarks with significant outdoor use. 

2 Outdoor 

Ldn 

Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. This includes 

homes, hospitals and hotels where a nighttime sensitivity to noise is 

assumed to be of utmost importance. 

3 Outdoor 

Leq(h)(2)

Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening uses. This 

includes schools, libraries, and churches where it is important to avoid 

interference with such activities as speech, meditation, and concentration 

on reading material. Buildings with interior spaces where quiet is 

important, such as medical offices, conference rooms, recording studios 

and concert halls fall into this category, as well as places for meditation or 

study associated with cemeteries, monuments, museums. Certain historical 

sites, parks and recreational facilities are also included. 

(1)

 For certain uses other than freight trains, “onset-rate” adjusted sound levels (Leq, Ldn) are used. There is no 

“onset-rate” adjustment for freight trains. 

(2) Leq for the noisiest hour of transit-related activity during hours of noise sensitivity.

Ambient noise levels above 65dBA are considered “normally unsatisfactory” by the 

HUD, however that is not the only metric used to evaluate noise impacts. The 

FTA/FRA noise impact model evaluates projects as having No Impact, Moderate 

Impact, or Severe Impact on a graduated scale based on the amount of existing 
 

3-29 

ambient noise. The FTA/FRA noise impact evaluation model is rather conservative, 

as improvements made to an existing corridor could have a noise impact even if the 

amount of noise is not increased by the proposed project. The FTA/FRA noise 

impact criteria are applied at the closest sensitive receptor, which generally means the 

closest sensitive human land use. 

As documented in the Noise and Vibration Assessment for the Tupelo Mississippi 

Railroad Relocation (HDR, June 2008) (NVA), included in Appendix E, the existing 

noise conditions in the City of Tupelo were documented through a series of 24-hour 

continuous measurements performed at seven different sites and short-term 

measurements performed at two sites on May 12-15, 2008. The 24-hour 

measurement sites were selected within the project area to be representative of the 

sensitive receptors near the existing BNSF and KCS rail lines. All of the sites were 

either multi-family or single-family residential sites. The short-term measurement 

sites were located within 50 feet of the existing BNSF main line to capture the passby noise levels of BNSF trains. 

Five of the seven 24-hour measurement sites recorded Ldn values exceeding the 

65 dBA HUD threshold. Evaluation of these sites with the FTA/FRA noise impact 

evaluation model found that five of the seven sites would exceed the Severe Impact 

threshold and all seven of these sites would exceed the Moderate Impact threshold. 

This would mean that any improvements to the corridor could require noise 

abatement measures to reduce the level of noise from the railroad corridor. The 

short-term measurements recorded locomotive engine noise for six train pass-bys 

between 86 to 90 dBA, rail car noise between 96 to 105 dBA, and train horn noise of 

101 to 117 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the railroad. These measurements were 

used to develop the noise models for both the No-Build and Build Alternatives, as 

discussed in Chapter 4. 

3.8.2 Vibration 

Trains are also a common source for ground-borne vibration. Train wheels rolling on 

a rail create vibration energy that is transmitted through the track support system. 

The amount of energy that is transmitted is strongly dependent on factors such as how 

smooth the wheels and rails are and the resonance frequencies of the vehicle 

suspensions system and the track support system. 

The track support system would influence the level of ground-borne vibration levels. 

A rail system would be either subway, at-grade, or elevated. It is rare for groundborne vibration to be an issue with elevated railways except when guideway supports 

are located within 50 feet of buildings. For an at-grade guideway, directly radiated 

noise is usually the dominant issue, although vibration can be an issue. 

The background vibration velocity level in residential areas is usually 50 vibration 

decibels (VdB) or lower, well below the threshold of perception for humans, which is 

around 65 VdB. Human response to vibration is not usually significant unless the 
 

3-30 

vibration exceeds 70 VdB. At 85 VdB, most people are strongly annoyed. 

Annoyance from vibration often occurs when the vibration exceeds the threshold of 

perception by 10 VdB or less. A vibration level that causes annoyance is well below 

the damage threshold for normal buildings. According to FTA, light rail systems 

typically generate vibration levels of 70 VdB or more near their tracks. 

The effects of ground-borne vibration include detectable movement of the building 

floors, rattling of windows, shaking of items on shelves or hanging on walls, and 

rumbling sounds. In extreme cases, the vibration can cause damage to buildings. 

Ground-borne vibration is almost never annoying to people who are outdoors. 

Although the motion of the ground may be perceived, without the effects associated 

with the shaking of a building, the motion does not provoke the same adverse human 

reaction. In addition, the rumble noise that usually accompanies the building 

vibration is perceptible only inside buildings. Vibration impacts may unreasonably 

interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property. 

The FRA and FTA have also established vibration criteria to identify and mitigate 

annoyance from rail operations. These criteria are set far below the damage 

thresholds for normal structures. The impact thresholds are based on the maximum 

ground vibration caused by a typical train pass-by and are lower for frequent events 

than for infrequent events. A vibration event is defined as the vibration created from 

a passing locomotive or rail car. As documented in the NVA in Appendix E, 

FTA/FRA defines frequent as more than 70 vibration events per day. Tupelo 

averages more than 20 trains on the BNSF main line, and far exceeds the 70 events 

per day criteria, so the frequent criteria were applied to both locomotives and rail cars. 

The applicable vibration impact threshold for the BNSF main line was 72 VdB and 

the applicable vibration impact threshold for the KCS rail line was 80 VdB. 

3.9 GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Geology and soils data of the region were compiled using GIS information as well as 

relevant literature. The affected environment was visited in December of 2007, and general 

geology and soil data were verified. The USDA NRCS was consulted in regard to prime and 

unique farmland as well as tracts enrolled in various conservation programs. 

3.9.1 Geology and Topography 

The affected environment is located in the USDA’s Inner Coastal Plain Land 

Resource Region (LRR). Topography of the affected environment ranges from nearly 

level to undulating irregular plains. The affected environment lies in the Alabama 

and Mississippi Blackland Prairie Major LRR, shown on Figure 3-10. The Blackland 

Prairie is a thin, arc-shaped band of fertile, rolling hills curving from Tupelo to 

Columbus, Mississippi and south to Montgomery, Alabama. This thin belt of prairie 

land is flat to gently undulating. Near Tupelo, the Blackland Prairie region generally 

follows perennial streams, located in valleys of the Tombigbee Hills. 
Plantersville

Verona

Pkwy

BNSF Railway

Kansas

Northern

Tupelo

Airport

78

45

278

6

178

178

45

78

145

145

Natchez

Southern

City

Burlington

Santa

Fe

Pontotoc Co.

Lee Co.

City of

Tupelo

Trace

Natchez

Major Land

Tupelo Mississippi Railroad Relocation Resources

Planning & Environmental Study Figure

3-10

0 1 2 3

Miles

Natchez Trace

Parkway

Railroads

Primary Roads

Secondary Roads

Other Roads

City Boundary

County Boundary

Blackland Prairie

Southern Coastal Plain

Legend
 

3-32 

3.9.2 Soils 

The soils of Lee County formed from sediments deposited during the late Mesozoic 

and early Cenozoic eras when the Gulf of Mexico stretched northward to Cairo, 

Illinois. Sands, silts, clays, and calcareous formations remained as the Gulf of 

Mexico retreated to form parent material for the soils found today. The entire region 

is underlain by Selma Chalk formed from Upper Cretaceous marine deposits. The 

area’s soils have a high clay content underlain by Cretaceous-age soft limestone, 

chalk or marl. Much of the affected environment is found in floodplains; therefore, 

the soils have formed from fairly recent alluvium and are underlain by Demopolis 

chalks. 

The primary soil association for the affected environment is Leeper-Catalpa-Marietta, 

which is formed in clayey and loamy alluvium washed from nearby uplands. These 

soils range from somewhat poorly-drained to moderately well-drained soils and are 

located on floodplains. Almost all of this association is in row crop, pasture or urban 

land. Urban areas, located mainly within Tupelo’s City limits, have been altered so 

extensively that soil series are no longer distinguishable. 

Marietta is the dominant soil type composing over 40% of the affected environment. 

Marietta is a moderately well-drained, nearly level soil formed on loamy alluvium. 

This soil has a moderate shrink swell potential, and a high water holding capacity. 

This soil series is typically found on floodplains. 

The Ora soil series is moderately well drained, formed in loamy material. This soil 

has a fragipan, which is an altered subsurface soil layer that restricts water flow and 

root penetration. Permeability is moderate in the upper portion and moderately slow 

in the fragipan. Water holding capacity and runoff is medium. Ora soils are typically 

found on side slopes and ridge tops. 

Tuscumbia is a poorly-drained soil formed on clayey alluvium. Available waterholding capacity is high and runoff is slow. The soil has a moderate shrink-swell 

potential in the topsoil and very high potential in the subsoil. The soil shrinks and 

cracks when dry and is found along floodplains. This soil type is found primarily in 

the operational improvement zone of the Build Alternative. 

Shrink-swell potential is rated according to the expected volume change of soil layers 

resulting from moisture. Ratings depend on the amount and volume of clay in soil 

horizons and are ranked as either low, moderate, high, or very high. Leeper (Le and 

Lp), Tuscumbia (Tu) and Una (Un) are soils which have high to very high shrinkswell potential. Site-specific engineering practices are required for structures placed 

on these soil types to avoid injury to the structure as the soil shrinks and swells. 
 

3-33 

3.10 WETLANDS 

Wetlands are extremely important features in any landscape. They provide stormwater 

detention, nutrient cycling, organic carbon sequestration, flood water mitigation, contaminant 

removal, and critical fish and wildlife habitat. Due to the function and value of wetlands to a 

landscape and increased developmental pressures, wetlands are protected under the Clean 

Water Act (CWA). The USACE has regulatory authority over waters of the United States, 

including wetlands, under Section 404 of the CWA. Wetlands are defined in the USACE 

Wetland Delineation Manual (USACE, 1987) as “areas that are inundated or saturated by 

surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under 

normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in 

saturated soil conditions.” Areas must exhibit the following three characteristics: hydric soil, 

hydrophytic vegetation, and adequate hydrology. Dredging or filling activities in areas 

fitting this definition are required to receive a Section 404 permit from USACE. 

Wetlands are further classified according to their placement in a landscape. All wetlands 

within the affected environment can be described as palustrine forested and palustrine scrubshrub, shown on Figure 3-11. Although forested wetlands are located within the affected 

environment, the dominant class of wetlands is scrub-shrub. This is due to the fact that 

almost all the affected environment is either in an agricultural or urban land use. Most of the 

vegetation either has been cleared previously or is maintained as part of a utility or 

transportation right-of-way. Large, undisturbed forested wetland areas are not found within 

the affected environment. 

Streams and open water habitat are also considered for a Section 404 permit from the 

USACE. Impacts that require a Section 404 permit include, but are not limited to, placement 

of culverts or pipes within the ordinary high water mark of a stream and alteration of channel 

morphology. Bridge construction over creeks that does not involve dredging or filling does 

not require a permit as no improvements take place in waters of the U.S. Within the affected 

environment ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial streams were evaluated, and 

jurisdictional determination forms were completed, according to guidelines set out in the 

Rapanos Guidance (2007). The three major streams within the affected environment are 

Kings Creek, Mud Creek, and Town Creek. There is also a wetland that parallels the existing 

BNSF main line southeast of its crossing with the Natchez Trace Parkway, shown on Figure 

3-11. 

Across the U.S., many historical wetlands have been converted to farmland. Wetland areas 

converted to agriculture prior to December 23, 1985 carry special exemption from the CWA, 

as long as the area continues to receive agricultural influences at a minimum of 5-year 

intervals, as defined by Section 512.15 of the National Food Securities Manual (1988). Prior 

converted cropland consists of wetlands that were both manipulated (drained or otherwise 

altered to remove excess water from the land) and cropped before December 23, 1985, to the 

extent that they no longer exhibit wetland values. These lands have experienced such 

extensive manipulation that “normal circumstances” cannot support a prevalence of 

hydrophiytic vegetation and are not subject to regulation under Section 404 of the CWA. 
Plantersville

Verona

Saltillo

Pkwy

B

Kansas

Northern

Tupelo

Airport

78

45

278

6

178

178

Trace

45

78

145

145

Natchez

Southern

City

Burlington

Santa

Fe

Pontotoc Co.

Lee Co.

City of

Tupelo

Town Creek

Yonaba Creek

Town Creek

Mud Creek

Tulip Creek

Town Creek

Elvis

Presley

Lake

Coonewah Creek

Chiwapa Creek

Kings Creek

Wetlands &

Tupelo Mississippi Railroad Relocation Hydric Soils

Planning & Environmental Study Figure

3-11

0123

Miles

Natchez Trace

Parkway

Railroads

Primary Roads

Secondary Roads

Other Roads

City Boundary

Legend County Boundary

Wetlands

Hydric Soils

Stream / Creek

Tupelo City Limits
 

3-35 

Most of the farmland in the affected environment can be classified as prior converted 

cropland. 

These areas do not require a Section 404 permit for agricultural activities, and they typically 

do not require a permit for other uses because conditions of the site have been so altered that 

they no longer exhibit functions and values of a wetland. However, if USACE determines 

that any of the three wetland characteristics of a particular site are strong enough to support 

wetland functions, then a Section 404 permit may be required for land use change away from 

agriculture. 

3.11 FLOODPLAINS 

Flooding is the primary environmental concern around the City of Tupelo. Floodplains in the 

affected environment, shown on Figure 3-12, generally follow the wide, mostly flat 

Blackland Prairie physiographic region. This is due to the fact that these areas lie in valleys 

at the base of the Tombigbee Hills. Portions of the affected environment lie within the Town 

Creek, Mud Creek, and Kings Creek floodplains. 

In 1968, the U.S. Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to reduce 

damage and to provide protection for property owners from potential losses through an 

insurance mechanism. FEMA produces Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), which outline 

areas subject to flooding. The flood risk information presented on a FIRM is based on 

historic, meteorological, hydrologic, and hydraulic data, as well as on open-space conditions, 

flood control structures, and development. A floodplain is any land area susceptible to being 

inundated by water from any source. Typically, floodplains are delineated by their 100-year 

flood, which is the one percent probability that flood levels would be equaled or exceeded in 

a given year on a given piece of land. The 100-year floodplain is accepted by FEMA as the 

base flood elevations. 

Once a flood insurance study is conducted, base flood elevations for the 100-year flood are 

determined from hydrologic and hydraulic analysis. These zones are typically represented as 

Zone AE on flood maps. Areas without base flood elevations established within a floodplain 

are usually represented as Zone A on flood maps. Minimum federal standards limit increases 

to base flood elevations to one foot, provided that hazardous velocities are not produced. 

From the flood insurance study, specific portions of the floodplain may be further designated 

as a regulatory floodway. 

A floodway is defined as the channel of the stream plus any adjacent flood plain areas that 

must be kept free of encroachment so that the 100-year flood can be carried without 

substantial increases in flood heights. At any location where an encroachment within the 

floodway is expected, a no-rise certification must be obtained. This is a hydrologic analysis 

done by a certified professional engineer certifying that the encroachment would not impact 

the 100-year floodplain. If a no-rise certification cannot be obtained, then the process to 

obtain a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) must be pursued to effectively change the 

floodway for an area or to remove certain tracts from the floodplain. Map changes would 

officially alter the FEMA FIRM for flood insurance rate purposes. 
Plantersville

Verona

Saltillo

Pkwy

B

Kansas

Northern

Tupelo

Airport

78

45

278

6

178

178

Trace

45

78

145

145

Natchez

Southern

City

Burlington

Santa

Fe

Pontotoc Co.

Lee Co.

City of

Tupelo

Town Creek

Yonaba Creek

Town Creek

Mud Creek

Tulip Creek

Town Creek

Elvis

Presley

Lake

Coonewah Creek

Chiwapa Creek

Kings Creek

FEMA

Tupelo Mississippi Railroad Relocation Floodplains

Planning & Environmental Study Figure

3-12

0123

Miles

Natchez Trace

Parkway

Railroads

Primary Roads

Secondary Roads

Other Roads

Tupelo City Limits

City Boundary

Legend County Boundary

FEMA Floodplain

Stream / Creek

FEMA Floodway
 

3-37 

The Town Creek Master Water Management District (TCMWMD) maintains many of the 

channels around the City of Tupelo and was one of the first watershed organizations of its 

kind (formed in 1963). The main purpose of this organization is to manage floodwaters 

around the City of Tupelo, implement channel improvements, and apply land treatment 

measures. TCMWMD holds easements ranging from 250 feet to 550 feet in width along all 

the major channels within the City of Tupelo, and has coordinated with the USACE and the 

NRCS to implement a floodway channelization plan for the floodways associated with all of 

the channels in the Town Creek sub-basin. This plan includes either the enlargement of the 

existing channels or lining the channels with either concrete or rip-rap to facilitate rapid 

removal of floodwaters. All projects which encroach within these easements would require 

coordination with and approval from the TCMWMD to avoid any conflicts with the flood 

control structures and comply with the proposed channelization plan. 

3.12 HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES 

3.12.1 Surface Waters 

Located in the Tombigbee River Basin, the affected environment is drained by Town 

Creek, Mud Creek and Kings Creek. The affected environment is located in the 

Town Creek sub-basin, which covers 682 square miles, shown on Figure 3-13. 

Streams in the area are typically narrow in headwaters and become broad, widely 

meandering stream valleys downstream. However, around the City of Tupelo, many 

of the waters have been channelized to aid in stormwater removal. Instead of broad, 

winding streams, channels are straight, incised water bodies. Upper stream reaches 

are located in the Southern Coastal Plains-Tombigbee Hills physiographic regions 

and bottom reaches are located in Blackland Prairie physiographic regions. These 

waters flow into the Tombigbee River and eventually into the Tennessee-Tombigbee 

Waterway near Amory, Mississippi. The Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway is a 234-

mile man-made connection between the Tennessee and the Tombigbee Rivers. 

Waters from the Tombigbee River basin eventually connect to the Mobile River and 

out to the Gulf of Mexico. 

Most of the land within the Town Creek and Mud Creek watersheds is in agricultural 

use. Streams in these areas receive seasonal increases of sediment loads 

corresponding with agricultural activities. The Kings Creek watershed receives 

typical urban runoff chemical contaminants, such as heavy metals, hydrocarbons, and 

sediment, as well as high sediment loads from construction sites. 

Streams in the affected environment are actively incising, primarily due to 

downstream hydrologic changes resulting from the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway. 

The Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway has effectively lowered the thalweg elevation 

of all water bodies flowing into it. Upstream channels are adjusting to this lower 

elevation and are incising to meet the new downstream gradient. Due to this natural 

channel process, streams are receiving large sediment loads. This increases the need 

for channelization and bank stabilizing activities. 
Union Co.

Lee Co.

Pkwy

Kansas

Northern

78

45

278

6

371

178

9

178

Trace

45

78

145

145

Natchez

Southern

City

Burlington

Santa

Fe

City of

Tupelo

Pontotoc Co.

Lee Co.

Prentiss Co.

Lee Co.

Itawamba Co.

Lee Co.

Town Creek

Coonewah Creek

Yonaba Creek

Mud Creek

Tulip Creek

Kings Creek

Town Creek

Chuquatonchee

Creek Tallabinnela

Creek

Cowpenna

Creek

Upper

Lappatubby

Creek

Chiwapa

Creek

Cherry

Creek

Mantachie

Creek

Okanatie

Creek

Kings

Creek

Wilhite

Creek

Town

Creek

Pinhook and

Jamison

Creeks

Upper

Tallahatchie

River

Cane

Creek

Twenty

Mile-Donivan

Creeks

Browns

Upper Creek

Hatchie

River

Sub-basins /

Tupelo Mississippi Railroad Relocation Watersheds

Planning & Environmental Study Figure

3-13

0 2 4 6

Miles

Natchez Trace

Parkway

Railroads

Primary Roads

Secondary Roads

Other Roads Town Creek Watershed

City Boundary

County Boundary

Legend

Stream / Creek
 

3-39 

3.12.2 Designated Use 

Designated uses are prescribed by MSDEQ to determine activities that healthy stream 

segments should support, including aquatic life, secondary contact, recreation, and 

fish consumption. Town Creek, Mud Creek and Kings Creek each have an aquatic 

life designated use. The aquatic life designated use means that these stream segments 

should meet the basic needs of aquatic organisms and support healthy and diverse instream communities. 

Streams unable to satisfy the requirements of the their designated use are placed on 

Mississippi’s 303(d) list, along with the possible causes of impairment, in compliance 

with Section 303 of the CWA. Once on the list, states are required to develop a plan 

to reduce the cause of impairment in order to restore the stream to healthy conditions. 

Part of this restoration plan is the development of Total Maximum Daily Loads 

(TMDL), which is the maximum contaminant concentration in a water body that 

allows it to support its designated use. Town Creek, Mud Creek, and Kings Creek are 

all on Mississippi’s 303(d) list for their inability to satisfy the requirements for 

aquatic life designated use. 

3.12.3 Water Resources Management 

The TCMWMD maintains 21 flood control structures constructed in the headwater 

tributaries of Town Creek, as well as other floodwater retarding structures. Many 

creeks within the City of Tupelo have been channelized to aid in stormwater removal. 

The TCMWMD aids in debris removal around culverts and bridges and holds 

easements, ranging from 250 feet to 550 feet, around all major channels within the 

Town Creek sub-basin. 

All major perennial channels around the City of Tupelo have adequate riparian 

buffers due to management activities of the TCMWMD. This organization holds 

conservation easements and maintains riparian buffers of 75 to 250 feet along each 

side of the main channels around the City of Tupelo. Riparian buffers are important 

components for functioning streams. They provide stream bank stabilization, 

contaminant filtration, flood surge dampening, habitat for both in-stream and 

terrestrial organisms and provide important shading functions to the stream. 

3.12.4 Wild and Scenic Rivers 

As part of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, certain rivers and their immediate 

environments are designated Wild and Scenic and carry special protection. 

Mississippi has only one Wild and Scenic River which is located in the southern 

portion of the state. There are no designated Wild and Scenic rivers within the 

affected environment. 

The State of Mississippi also oversees a Statewide Scenic Stream Stewardship 

Program (SSSP). This is a non-regulatory program to encourage private conservation 

efforts on exceptional streams in Mississippi. For a stream to be eligible for the 
 

3-40 

program, it must not have been channelized within the previous five years and must 

be designated a “public water.” In northeast Mississippi, there are several streams 

either enrolled in or nominated for the SSSP. However, none of them are located 

within the affected environment. 

3.12.5 Groundwater 

The affected environment lies on the boundary of the Southeastern Coastal Plain 

Aquifer and a Confining Unit, shown on Figure 3-14. The Confining Unit is an area 

composed of rock or sediment with low permeability so that water hardly moves 

though the unit. The Confining Unit generally follows the Blackland Prairie 

physiographic region. 

The Southeastern Coastal Plain Aquifer is made up of unconsolidated sands and is a 

wedge of sediments which becomes thicker as it approaches the coast. The aquifer in 

this portion of Mississippi is typically very deep. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

measurements at three wells near the BNSF main line indicate the aquifer is a 

minimum of 230 feet below the surface of the City of Tupelo. 

The City of Tupelo acquires its drinking water from the Tombigbee River, 18 miles 

northeast of Tupelo. 

3.13 FEDERALLY FUNDED AND PROTECTED PUBLIC FACILITIES 

3.13.1 Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act 

Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 USC 303(c)) allows 

for publicly owned parks and recreation areas, wildlife or waterfowl refuges, or 

significant historic sites to be “used” for transportation purposes only if there is no 

feasible and prudent alternative to the use of the land, and the action includes all 

possible planning to minimize harm resulting from such use. Use can be defined in 

three ways: Actual Use, Temporary Occupancy, or Constructive Use (23 CFR 774). 

Actual Use constitutes permanent incorporation of the resource into the project, such 

as land acquisition or demolition of a resource. Temporary Occupancy would be the 

extended intrusion into the property during construction, where construction would 

physically alter the land, or where full restoration of the resource could not be 

possible after construction. A Constructive Use determination could apply if a 

resource would experience ancillary impacts, despite the lack of a physical intrusion 

into the resource. Increased noise, increased vibration, restriction of access, 

ecological intrusion, or visual impairment are all examples of Constructive Use. 

If the lands or sites are determined to be impacted by Actual Use, Temporary 

Occupancy, or Constructive Use, a Section 4(f) evaluation would be prepared to 

assess the impacts to the affected lands. The Section 4(f) evaluation would be 

included in the EIS and would require MDOT and FRA approval in the final EIS. 
Plantersville

Verona

Pkwy

BNSF Railway

Kansas

Northern

Tupelo

Airport

78

45

278

6

178

178

45

78

145

145

Natchez

Southern

City

Burlington

Santa

Fe

Pontotoc Co.

Lee Co.

City of

Tupelo

Trace

Natchez

Aquifer Tupelo Mississippi Railroad Relocation

Planning & Environmental Study Figure

3-14

0 1 2 3

Miles

Natchez Trace

Parkway

Railroads

Primary Roads

Secondary Roads

Other Roads

City Boundary

County Boundary

Southeastern Coastal Plain

Confining Unit

Legend
 

3-42 

The inventory of land uses included a review of public parks, recreation areas, 

wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance, or land of an 

historic site of national, state, or local significance. 

There are no wildlife or waterfowl refuges within the affected environment. Land of 

an historic site of national, state, or local significance and public parks and recreation 

facilities within the affected environment subject to Section 4(f) protection include: 

 Pvt. John Allen National Fish 

Hatchery 

 Mill Village Historic District 

 South Church Street Historic 

District 

 Downtown Historic District 

 Carnation Condensary 

 Hamp Bryson House 

 North Neighborhood Historic 

District 

 Gravlee Historic District 

 Joyner Historic District (proposed) 

 Oren Dunn City Museum 

 Tupelo National Battlefield 

 Natchez Trace Parkway 

 Rob Leake City Park 

 Burt Park Liberty Gardens 

 Veterans Park 

 Old Mill Town Park 

 Elvis Presley Birthplace and 

Museum 

 Gum Tree Park 

 Eastwood Softball Complex 

 City Hall Park 

 Ballard Park

3.13.2 Section 6(f)(3) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act 

Section 6(f)(3) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCFA) requires that 

all land purchased or improved with LWCFA funds are to remain forever available 

for public outdoor recreation use or replaced by lands of equal market value and 

recreational usefulness, and any conversion of property must be approved by the 

Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior. 

This "anti-conversion" requirement applies to all parks and other sites that have been 

the subject of LWCFA grants of any type, whether for acquisition of parkland, 

development or rehabilitation of facilities. In many cases, even a relatively small 

LWCFA grant (e.g., for development of a picnic shelter) in a park of hundreds, or 

even thousands, of acres provides anti-conversion protection to the entire park site. 

The Natchez Trace Parkway, Oren Dunn City Museum, and Ballard Park and 

Sportsplex have been LWCFA grant recipients within the City of Tupelo and thus fall 

under Section 6(f)(3) protection. 

3.13.3 National Trails System Act 

The National Trails System Act promotes the preservation, enjoyment, and 

appreciation of the open-air, outdoor areas and historic resources, with provisions to 

include public access. Trails should be established primarily near urban areas and 

secondarily within scenic areas and along historic travel routes which are often 

remotely located. 
 

3-43 

The National Trails System Act identified the Natchez Trace National Scenic Trail as 

one of the initial 14 routes nationwide thought to have potential as a national scenic 

trail. The six-mile foot trail parallels the Natchez Trace Parkway from Jackson Street 

to the Natchez Trace Parkway Headquarters and Visitor Center. 

3.14 WILDLIFE 

3.14.1 Vegetative Communities 

The affected environment is comprised of the confluence of the Blackland Prairie 

ecoregion and the Southern Coastal Plain, shown on Figure 3-10. The proposed 

project corridor lies exclusively within the Blackland Prairie ecoregion. The 

Blackland Prairie is a crescent-shaped region extending from northeast Mississippi, 

across central Alabama, and into western Georgia. The original vegetation of 

Blackland Prairie is not well known; however, it was probably prairie grasses 

scattered with wildflowers. This area was once believed to be connected to the Great 

Plains region of the United States and controlled by regular fire cycles. The 

Blackland Prairie area is considered a critically endangered ecosystem in the nation 

and has been identified by the USFWS partners group as one of their focus areas. In 

the 1800’s, much of the prairie land was converted into agriculture production due to 

its relatively flat topography and fertile soils. Excessive grazing allowed expansion 

of eastern red cedar and other noxious species. At this time, there are no pristine 

prairie environments remaining in the Blackland Prairie around the City of Tupelo. 

Although the project is located in the Blackland Prairie, it is surrounded by rolling 

Tombigbee Hills which is part of the Southern Coastal Plain. 

Most native prairie vegetation, such as blackbelt oak-cedar forests, has been replaced 

with row crop and grazing agriculture activities. It is estimated that less than one 

percent of the Blackland Prairie’s open prairie habitat remain intact nationwide. 

Remaining prairie remnants are also threatened by development, erosion, incursion of 

eastern red cedar, waste disposal, suppression of fire, and other human activities. In 

recent years, areas in several of the higher quality prairies have been disturbed by 

recreational driving and planting green-fields for deer hunting. 

The region supports both deciduous hardwoods and conifers in undeveloped areas. 

Red oak, white oak, sweetgum, blackgum, loblolly pine, and shortleaf pine are the 

dominant over story species. Mixed hardwoods dominate floodplains and forests of 

eastern red cedar and sugarberry dominate alkaline hills and side slopes. Eastern red 

cedar, dogwood, and osage orange are the major midstory species. Japanese 

honeysuckle, greenbrier, little bluestem, native lespedzas, plumegrass, low panicums, 

sedges and rushes are the dominate understory species. The affected environment 

generally contains either urban or agricultural areas. Few pristine deciduous or 

coniferous forests are found within the affected environment. 
 

3-44 

3.14.2 Terrestrial Habitat 

Because the primary land use for the affected environment is either agriculture or 

urban, most wildlife species expected in the affected environment are generalists and 

are able to survive in a wide range of habitats. Organisms found in open areas, 

including agriculture, are bobwhite quail, cottontail rabbit, red fox, mourning dove, 

and species of songbirds. Squirrels, white tail deer, wild turkey, woodcock, raccoon, 

ducks, geese, rails, and shore birds can be found in, or near, the affected environment. 

No environmentally sensitive habitat or species is found within the affected 

environment. 

3.14.3 Aquatic Habitat 

Water bodies support numerous different forms of aquatic organisms including fish, 

macroinvertebrates, and phytoplankton. These organisms often require specific 

habitat requirements to thrive. Substrate type is typically a guiding factor in 

determining what communities can survive in a stream. 

Large sediment loads are the leading cause of stream degradation of aquatic 

communities. Small interstitial spaces providing opportunities for retreat for aquatic 

insects can become saturated with sediment and many aquatic eggs become 

suffocated by high sediment loads. Fish gills can become clogged and sight-hunting 

fish species can have reduced visibility, and thus are unable to locate prey, with 

increased sedimentation. Primary producers, which obtain energy from the sun and 

are the base for all communities, are unable to photosynthesize due to the fact that 

light is unable filter through murky waters. 

Organisms found in Kings Creek, Mud Creek, and Town Creek area are typical 

organisms able to survive in a range of environmental conditions and are capable of 

living in poor water quality due to high sediment loads and stream channelization 

activities. Common fish species found in these creeks include bass, bluegill, and 

channel catfish. 

3.14.4 Threatened and Endangered Species 

3.14.4.1 Federally Listed Species 

In compliance with Endangered Species Act (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), the USFWS was consulted in regard to any Threatened 

or Endangered species within the affected environment. A USFWS record 

search revealed the presence of one federally threatened species in Lee 

County. 

Price’s potato bean (Apios priceana) 

This species was listed by USFWS as Threatened in 1990 due to the small 

number of populations and threats to its habitat. At the time of listing, there 

were 25 known populations of the species in four states. 
 

3-45 

Price’s potato bean (Apios priceana) is a yellow-green perennial vine in the 

pea family (Fabacae). It was originally found by Sadie Price in Bowling 

Green, Kentucky in 1896. The compound leaves have five to seven (dark 

green above, lighter below) leaflets, growing from a stout, thick tuber. 

Twining vines are round in cross section, somewhat twisted and slightly 

ridged. Flowers are white and pink-purple-maroon, large pea-type flowers. 

Flowering in August with large pink fragrant blooms, the Price’s potato bean 

can be distinguished from other legumes by its single large tuber. 

Occurring in mesic (moderately moist) forests, it is often found along streams 

or tree fall gaps in open canopy habitats. The species is found in upland 

habitat near creeks and stream banks. Unlike many listed species, the Price’s 

potato bean requires some openings in the tree canopy to allow sunlight. 

Excessive shading from canopy trees results in reduced growth and 

reproduction. The species can be found along roadsides and utility rights-ofway. 

No critical habitat for the Price’s potato bean has been established by the 

USFWS. The potato bean does not flower every year. Due to the fact that a 

single vine grows from a large tuber, it is easy to overlook this species when it 

is not flowering. 

The population declines are primarily due to the fact that the plant produces 

very few seeds, resulting in a low level of sexual reproduction. Clear cutting 

logging practices can eliminate populations. Also, most populations are 

located on private lands where management for this species may not be a high 

priority. Trampling of species by cattle can cause severe damage. 

The largest known population of Price’s potato bean is located in Lee County, 

in the nearby Coonewah Creek watershed. The Nature Conservancy owns this 

five-acre tract of land with 1,300 to 1,500 individuals, the largest known 

population of Price’s potato bean in the world. The preserve is located near 

the intersection of Coonewah Creek and MS 6 southwest of Tupelo. Because 

of this large concentration of individuals there is potential to find other 

populations in nearby watersheds, such as Town Creek or Mud Creek. 

3.14.4.2 Critical Habitats 

A critical habitat is defined in the Endangered Species Act as a habitat given 

special protection for the benefit of a listed species. No critical habitats for 

any species were recorded within the affected environment. 

3.14.4.3 State Listed Species 

Record searches of the Mississippi Department of Natural History did not 

reveal the presence of any state listed species in the affected environment. 
 

3-46 

3.14.5 Conservation Easements 

Conservation easements are legal agreements entered into by a property owner and a 

qualified conservation organization such as a land trust or a government entity. The 

use of conservation easements is widely employed throughout the State of Mississippi 

to protect and preserve wildlife, wetlands, and agricultural land. Most easements 

involve permanent restrictions on the use of land whereas some are term easements. 

The TCMWMD holds conservation easements around many of the channels 

throughout the Tupelo area. 

3.15 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

3.15.1 Historical Information 

Standard historical sources reviewed in this investigation were USGS (7.5-minute) 

Topographic Maps made available by the NRCS office in Tupelo. Aerial 

photographs reviewed were dated for the years 1958, 1980, 1985, and 1992. In 

addition, Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps were also reviewed for the years 1924, 1949, 

and 1963 for a more detailed view of the more industrial section of the affected 

environment. 

Aerial photographs indicate that this entire section of the existing BNSF main line 

was developed during these years for light to heavy industrial use. US 45 had not 

been constructed in 1958. Although detail is poor on the aerials, the increasing level 

of development is readily apparent through the years. 

The review of the aerial photographs and Sanborn maps shows significant change 

occurred in the more industrial area of the corridor from 1924 through 1992. 

However, the path of the railroad remained constant, and growth of the area and 

change in industry from more industrial to textile and light commercial does not 

suggest the potential for environmental impairment along the existing railroad. 

3.15.2 Federal and State Records Storing Data on Industrial Waste 

All database record reviews were obtained from Environmental Data Resources, Inc. 

(EDR), which incorporates databases from the EPA and the MSDEQ. 

The EDR database provides extensive information regarding facilities which use, 

generate, or store hazardous materials. The EDR database includes information from 

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Mines Master Index, Sara 

Title III Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System (TRIS), Emergency Planning and 

Community Right-to-Know, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, and 

the Toxic Substances Control Act (FTTS and HIST FTTS). In addition, sites which 

utilize underground storage tanks (USTs) or above-ground storage tanks (ASTs) are 

listed. Facilities which have environmental permits such as National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, the Title V Air program or Solid 

and Hazardous Waste program permits are included. A separate EPA database called 

the Facility Index System (FINDS) provides additional data on sites included in the 
 

3-47 

above programs. According to the search performed of these databases, the following 

sites in the overall search area where reported: 

 RCRA Small Quantity Generators - 7 

 RCRA Non-Generators - 14 

 FTTS - 2 

 HIST FTTS - 2 

 FINDS - 76 

 Landfill - 1 

 SWRCY (Solid Waste Recycler) - 1 

 Underground Storage Tanks (UST) - 113 

 Above Ground Storage Tanks (AST) - 2 

 Permits - 18 

Databases capturing information on spills or clean-up of releases and the number of 

sites reported by EDR for the overall search area include the following: 

 Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) -8 

 Hazardous Materials Incident Report System (HMIRS) - 1 

 Department of Transportation Office of Pipeline Safety (DOT-OPS) - 1 

 State Voluntary Clean-Up Program (VEP) - 1 

 State Hazardous Waste Sites (SHWS) - 7 

 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUSTS) - 28 

Based on the database records, there have been no railroad-generated contamination 

spills in the Tupelo area. Releases of hazards substances reported by ERNS included 

a small release of gasoline (approximately 10 gallons) from a saddle tank on a large 

truck parked at a Kroger Grocery store (241 South Park, west of the Crosstown 

intersection) and a release of floor scrubbing waste water entering a storm drain from 

the Cooper Tire Rubber Company (1804 Green Street, south of Eason Boulevard 

along the KCS rail line). The HMIRS also has listed the release at the Kroger 

location. EDR Site specific reports indicate that actions were taken to remedy the 

releases. 

SHWS listed sites include the following: 

 Day Brite Lighting/Thomas Industries 

 Tupelo Recycling/Henry Oil 

 Tupelo Fairgrounds-Long Laundry 

The Day Brite Lighting site received a Federal No Further Action letter in November 

1995. The site is located approximately 2.5 miles south of the intersection of the 

BNSF and the KCS railroads. Only one SHWS site, Tupelo Recycling/Henry oil was 

noted adjacent to the railroad. The Tupelo Recyling/Henry Oil site was reported by 
 

3-48 

EDR to have received a State No Further Action letter in May 1997. Because this site 

is immediately adjacent to the railroad, a file review was performed at the MSDEQ. 

Soils and groundwater at the site were documented to be contaminated with 

petroleum products. The May 1997 letter issued by MSDEQ required that additional 

groundwater delineation be performed onsite, that contaminated soils be removed, 

and that oily wastewater in a sump be removed. These activities were apparently 

performed by the facility to the satisfaction of the MSDEQ. The Tupelo 

Fairgrounds–Long Laundry, which is located in an area to the northeast of the 

existing BNSF main line, is being remediated by the Tupelo Redevelopment 

Authority which has worked to develop the surrounding area. Groundwater has been 

contaminated at the site by the dry cleaning solvent tetrachloroethene and its 

degradation products. Contamination appears to be localized and is being addressed 

under the MSDEQ Brownfields program. 

The majority of the LUST sites reported were noted to be closed. Sites with an open 

status include the following: 

 Mid Town BP at 220 North Gloster Street 

 Savings Station at 447 East Main Street 

 Cockrell Banana Company 405 Elizabeth Street 

The Mid Town BP is undergoing clean-up under the State Trust Fund for remediation 

of leaking underground storage sites, and the USTs have been removed. The Savings 

Station and the Cockrell Banana sites are located near the intersection of Elizabeth 

Road and East Main Street, away from the BNSF main line. 

EDR provides a list of “Orphan sites” that are included on various databases, but 

which have insufficient address information to provide locations. There are 

numerous Orphan sites listed for the overall affected environment. The majority of 

the Orphan sites are listed under a FINDS, RCRA, UST, or Permits database, and 

none was identified immediately adjacent to the railroad corridor during the site 

reconnaissance. 

3.16 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 

The majority of the affected environment is flat and used for agriculture and urban residential 

areas. Even in the industrial areas adjacent to the existing BNSF and KCS rail corridors, 

there are few distinguishing visual characteristics in the landscape and few structures over 35 

feet tall. The most prominent natural features are the streams and remaining wooded areas 

adjacent to them. Other visual features include an historic Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) 

sign at the Crosstown intersection, the BancorpSouth Arena, and the 1,000-foot viewshed 

surrounding the Natchez Trace Parkway. 

The existing BNSF and KCS railroad corridors serve as both a visual resource and a visual 

obstruction. The rail beds provide open space and the setting for train-watching enthusiasts, 

which can be viewed as providing a visual resource. However, the rail beds also provide the 
 

3-49 

setting for negative visual impacts resulting from passing and standing trains. The trains on 

the existing BNSF and KCS rail lines provide temporary and long-term viewshed impacts to 

cultural resources. The trains which pass through Tupelo or which are engaged in 

interchange operations can be considered a temporary viewshed impact. The rail cars which 

occupy the interchange yard storage tracks between Gloster Street and Church Street on the 

BNSF main line and between Eason Boulevard and Elizabeth Street on the KCS rail line can 

sit unmoving for several days. Even though individual cars may not spend a significant 

number of days in either of these yards, the cars are replaced often enough such that they 

would represent an almost permanent presence. This can be considered a long-term 

viewshed impact as rail cars are often rusty and covered with graffiti. 

3.17 TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES 

3.17.1 Highways 

The transportation network within the City of Tupelo consists of a combination of 

local streets, state highways, U.S. highways, and a future Interstate highway corridor, 

shown on Figure 3-15. In addition, two corridors of the Appalachian Highway 

System run through the City of Tupelo. 

 US 78 (future I-22) runs east to west as a four-lane, divided, limited-access 

highway across the northern portion of the Tupelo city limits. This highway is 

also part of Corridor X of the Appalachian Highway System and provides 

freeway access from Tupelo to Memphis, Tennessee and Birmingham, Alabama. 

 US 45 (Martin Luther King Jr. Drive) runs north to south as a four-lane, divided, 

limited-access highway through the center of the Tupelo city limits. The 

highway is shared by MS 178 from McCullough Boulevard to Main Street and 

US 278 from Main Street to Shannon, Mississippi. US 45 provides a northsouth freeway bypass around downtown Tupelo from Shannon to Saltillo. 

 US 278 runs east to west as various road types, sharing MS 6 and US 45 

through the City of Tupelo. US 278 is also part of Corridor V of the 

Appalachian Highway System. 

MS 6 is a principal east to west road through the City of Tupelo. It shares Main 

Street from the west and through the downtown area and then turns south to 

Plantersville as Briar Ridge Road. However, MS 6 is being realigned to be 

constructed as a new four-lane, divided highway to run to the south of the City 

of Tupelo. MS 6 provides access from Tupelo to Pontotoc and serves as a local 

highway to the communities south of Tupelo. 
Plantersville

Verona

Saltillo

Pkwy

Kansas

Northern

Tupelo

Regional

Airport

78

45

278

6

178

178

Trace

45

78

145

145

Natchez

Southern

City

Burlington

Santa

Fe

Pontotoc Co.

Lee Co.

City of

Tupelo

Tupelo

Greyhound Bus

Terminal

Eason Blvd S Gloster St

Lawndale Dr

Thomas St

Cliff Gookin Blvd

Coley Rd

Veterans Blvd

Appalachian Hwy

6

Mc Cullough Blvd

MLK Dr

E Main St

W Main St

N Gloster St

Briar Ridge Rd

278

Hwy 6 Extension

Coley Rd Extension

Transportation

Tupelo Mississippi Railroad Relocation Network

Planning & Environmental Study Figure

3-15

0 1 2 3

Miles

Natchez Trace

Parkway

Railroads

Primary Roads

Secondary Roads

Other Roads City of Tupelo

City Boundary

County Boundary

Legend

Proposed Roads
 

3-51 

 MS 145 (Gloster Street) is a principal north to south road through the City of 

Tupelo. It provides local access from Tupelo to Shannon, Verona, and Saltillo. 

 MS 178 is a principal east to west road through the City of Tupelo. It runs as 

McCullough Boulevard from the northwest corner of the City to US 45, then 

shares US 45 to Main Street, and then runs east as Main Street towards 

Mooreville. MS 178 provides local access from Tupelo to Sherman and Blue 

Springs. 

 Natchez Trace Parkway, which is maintained by the U.S. National Park Service, 

is a national scenic, two-lane, limited-access roadway which runs north to south 

through the City of Tupelo. While the Natchez Trace Parkway is not a primary 

highway and does not allow trucks, this road does connect individual passenger 

cars from Tupelo with Jackson, Mississippi and Nashville, Tennessee. 

3.17.2 Airports 

Tupelo provides regional air service at the Tupelo Regional Airport, served by 

Northwest Airlink/Mesaba (three commercial flights per day). Located in the western 

portion of Tupelo, shown on Figure 3-15, the airport serves 13 Mississippi counties 

and accounts for 202 jobs with an annual payroll of $4.1 million. The airport’s total 

economic impact is almost $14 million. Gross revenues for associated rental cars 

companies alone approached $1 million in 1999. The airport operations also host 

Army aviation and Mississippi National Guard facilities and operations. 

3.17.3 Public Transportation 

Greyhound operates long-distance passenger bus service with a station in Tupelo, 

shown on Figure 3-15. Tupelo does not have local or regional bus service or 

passenger rail service. 

3.17.4 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities 

As part of the U.S. National Park Service, the Natchez Trace Parkway promotes 

bicycle use along its entire 444-mile route, including within the City of Tupelo. 

However, cyclists are discouraged from using the Natchez Trace Parkway during 

peak traffic times through the City of Tupelo, as the Natchez Trace Parkway does not 

provide any dedicated bicycle facilities, such as bicycle lanes, paved shoulders, or 

sidewalks. Some of the streets in downtown Tupelo have sidewalks, but there are no 

designated bicycle facilities within the City of Tupelo. Pedestrian trails within the 

City of Tupelo are limited to the city parks, such as Burt Park Liberty Gardens and 

Ballard Park, and the Natchez Trace National Scenic Trail. 

The existing BNSF main line through the City of Tupelo has no pedestrian or 

sidewalk facilities which directly cross the railroad within the right-of-way. However, 

sidewalk segments along the west side of both Park Street and Church Street 

terminate on each side of the BNSF right-of-way, making a tacit or implied 

connection. In addition, sidewalk along both sides of Spring Street terminates on the 
 

3-52 

north side of the existing BNSF right-of-way with no sidewalk facilities south of the 

railroad. Pedestrians entering the BNSF or KCS right-of-way without consent are 

considered trespassing. 

3.17.5 Utilities 

The City of Tupelo includes many utilities, both subsurface and above-ground. The 

City of Tupelo provides potable water, sewer, and electricity to customers within the 

city limits. The electric service, however, is actually generated by the TVA. There 

are also five major TVA transmission lines which run through the entire affected 

environment. Mississippi Valley Gas Company (ATMOS Energy) provides natural 

gas in Tupelo, with a pipeline extending southeast from Tupelo. AT&T is the major 

provider of telephone service in Tupelo. Comcast provides television cable service in 

and around the Tupelo city limits. 
 

 

4-1 

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

This chapter describes the potential beneficial and adverse social, economic, and 

environmental effects of the No-Build Alternative (Alternative A) and Build Alternative 

(Alternative M). In addition, impacts are described for the proposed roadway improvements 

associated with the Build Alternative. This chapter also includes discussion on measures 

proposed to avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse impacts. 

Since the Build Alternative consists of an elevated viaduct within the existing BNSF right-ofway, the impacts would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the proposed improvements. 

For the purposes of determining effects to various resources, a distance of 1⁄2-mile was 

selected for the analysis, unless otherwise noted. 

4.1 LAND USE 

4.1.1 Impacts to Existing Land Use 

The primary land uses within a 1⁄2-mile of the BNSF main line, shown in Table 4-1 

and shown on Figure 4-1, are agricultural (17%), total commercial (12%), total 

industrial (12%), total residential (17%), vacant (17%), and transportation (18%). 

Commercial and industrial land uses and vacant land suitable for development are 

good indicators that there is a great deal of development already existing in this area 

and that there is available land for continued growth. 

Table 4-1 Existing Land Use within 1⁄2-Mile of Build Alternative 

Land Use by Parcel Area 

(acres) % of Area

Agricultural 607 17.46%

Commercial Retail-Wholesale 205 5.90%

Commercial Services-Office 255 7.34%

Industrial-Heavy 301 8.66%

Industrial-Light 104 2.99%

Medical 30 0.86%

Public Government 8 0.23%

Residential 1-2 Family 553 15.91%

Residential Mobile Home 0 0.00%

Residential Multi-Family 44 1.27%

Semipublic 39 1.12%

Transportation-Utilities-Communication 41 1.18%

Vacant Suitable for Development 582 16.74%

Unknown 76 2.19%

Transportation R/W (Streets, Highways, 

Railways, and Natchez Trace) 631 18.15%

Total 3,476 100%

Sources: Mississippi Automated Resource Information System (MARIS), 

City of Tupelo Planning and Development Department
Pkwy

Trace

Natchez

City of

Tupelo

278

178

45

78

6

278

45

145

145

Kansas

Northern

Southern

City

Burlington

Santa

Fe

Main St

Gloster St

Jackson St

McCullough Blvd

Green St

President Ave

Lawndale Dr

Martin Luther King Jr Dr

Eason Blvd

Existing

Tupelo Mississippi Railroad Relocation Land Use

Planning & Environmental Study Figure

4-1

0 0.3 0.6 0.9

Miles

Natchez Trace

Parkway Railroads

Primary Roads

Secondary Roads

Other Roads

Build Alternative

Legend

Residential

Retail / Services /

Trade

Recreational

Agricultural Industrial

Utilities

Vacant

Unknown

1/2 Mile Buffer Zone
 

4-3 

No-Build Alternative 

Since there are no improvements involved, there would be no impacts to the existing 

land use as a result of the No-Build Alternative. 

Build Alternative 

The majority of the Build Alternative would remain within the existing BNSF rightof-way, with approximately two acres of right-of-way acquisition area from vacant 

parcels for the storage tracks and approximately 11 acres of either agricultural or 

vacant land for the interchange tracks. Land use changes adjacent to the Build 

Alternative are not anticipated as the proposed design would not disturb any occupied 

residential or commercial parcels. The agricultural areas would be bisected by the 

interchange track, but agricultural activities can be maintained on both sides of the 

right-of-way. All at-grade crossings would be eliminated between Lumpkin Avenue 

and Veterans Boulevard. This would reduce many of the adverse impacts of the 

current facility, such as traffic congestion and noise. By reducing adverse impacts 

associated with a rail facility, greater traffic flow and further economic development 

could be realized by neighboring land uses. 

4.1.2 Impacts to Proposed Land Use 

4.1.2.1 Consistency with Comprehensive Plans 

Tupelo: The Story Continues - The 2025 Comprehensive Plan (December 

2008 www.tupeloms.gov/development/tupelo-2025) was adopted by the City 

of Tupelo to outline the City’s and region’s growth and development plan for 

the next two decades. The plan is updated every five years and directs interagency coordination and molds policy. Some of the main goals of the 

comprehensive plan include revitalizing neighborhoods, expanding economic 

development, and improving transportation. The comprehensive plan 

identified the relocation of the BNSF railroad crossing at the Crosstown 

intersection as an immediate need to enhance transportation safety within 

Tupelo. The development of a network of greenways, bikeways, and 

sidewalks was also identified in the comprehensive plan as a long-term goal. 

No-Build Alternative 

Without improvements to the BNSF main line or relocation of the rail lines 

from the Crosstown intersection, the comprehensive plan would need to be 

adjusted in order to facilitate future development. These adjustments would 

include changes to the roadway network to accommodate the anticipated 

traffic delay. The comprehensive plan goal of removing the rail lines from the 

Crosstown intersection would not be satisfied. As a result, the No-Build 

Alternative would not be consistent with the revised comprehensive plan. 

Build Alternative 

The Build Alternative would effectively remove the at-grade railroad crossing 

from the Crosstown intersection, satisfying the immediate need identified in 
 

4-4 

the comprehensive plan. With this removal, the existing roadway network 

would require fewer enhancements to facilitate future development. In 

addition, the proposed multi-use trail could serve as the spine of a 

pedestrian/bicycle facility network within Tupelo. Therefore, the Build 

Alternative would be consistent with the recently adopted comprehensive 

plan. 

4.1.2.2 Zoning Impacts 

Zoning codes within 1⁄2-mile of the Build Alternative, shown in Table 4-2 and

shown on Figure 4-2, are diverse. The zoning district definitions are the same 

as discussed in Section 3.2.2.1. By traversing downtown Tupelo, many 

different zoning areas are bisected, including the many sub-districts of the 

downtown overlay districts. 

Table 4-2 Zoning within 1⁄2-Mile of Build Alternative

Zoning District Zoning 

Abbreviation

Area 

(acres) % of Area

Agricultural-Open District A-O 712 20.70%

Light Commercial District C-1 2 0.06%

General Commercial District C-2 435 12.65%

Heavy Commercial District C-3 248 7.21%

Central Business District CBD 285 8.28%

Light Industrial District I-1 545 15.84%

Heavy Industrial District I-2 139 4.04%

Office District O 109 3.17%

Planned Unit Development PUD 4 0.12%

Medical District M-1 1 0.03%

Residential Estate District R1-E 0 0.00%

Large Lot Residential District R1-L 40 1.16%

Medium Lot Residential District R1-M 862 25.06%

Small Lot Residential District R1-S 7 0.20%

Two Family Residential District R-2 26 0.76%

Multi-Family Residential District R-3 22 0.64%

Residential/Office Mixed District R-O 3 0.09%

Total 3,440 100%

Sources: Mississippi Automated Resource Information System (MARIS), 

City of Tupelo Planning and Development Department 

No-Build Alternative 

Since no improvements would be involved, the intended zoned uses would be 

preserved. There would be no impact to zoning with the No-Build Alternative.

Build Alternative 

The Build Alternative would preserve the intended zoned uses by retaining the 

location of the rail line throughout the city. No impacts to zoning are 

anticipated with the Build Alternative. However, the grade-separated rail 

would mean less opportunity for rail-served industrial uses along the BNSF 

main line, which could result in the rezoning of industrial areas into other uses.
Pkwy

Trace

Natchez

City of

Tupelo

278

178

45

78

6

278

45

145

145

Kansas

Northern

Southern

City

Burlington

Santa

Fe

Main St

Gloster St

Jackson St

McCullough Blvd

Green St

President Ave

Lawndale Dr

Martin Luther King Jr Dr

Eason Blvd

Zoning Tupelo Mississippi Railroad Relocation

Planning & Environmental Study Figure

4-2

0 0.3 0.6 0.9

Miles

Natchez Trace

Parkway

Railroads

Primary Roads

Secondary Roads

Other Roads

Residential Estate

Large Lot Residential

Medium Lot Residential

Small Lot Residential

Two Family Residential

Multi-Family Residential

Residential / Office mixed

Office

Central Business

Heavy Commercial

General Commercial

Light Commercial

Medical

Heavy Industrial

Light Industrial

Planned Unit

Development

Build Alternative Agriculture - Open

1/2 Mile Buffer Zone
 

4-6 

4.1.2.3 Impacts to Overlay Districts 

Nearly all of the downtown overlay districts are located within 1⁄2-mile of the 

BNSF main line. 

No-Build Alternative 

The downtown overlay districts would be preserved by the No-Build 

Alternative. No impacts to the downtown overlay districts would occur with 

the No-Build Alternative. 

Build Alternative 

The downtown overlay districts would be preserved by the Build Alternative. 

These districts would be better served by the alleviated congestion, and 

reduced noise which could be achieved by the Build Alternative. This also 

could potentially result in more economic investment and development for the 

downtown Tupelo area. 

4.2 FARMLAND 

The entire project is located within the city limits of Tupelo. There is little farmland, except 

for areas near the proposed interchange. In a letter dated March 19, 2008, included in 

Appendix A, the USDA NRCS stated that because the impacted farmlands are within the 

municipal boundaries of the City of Tupelo, they are not subject to the requirements of the 

FPPA. Therefore, Form AD-1006 would not be required and FPPA would not apply. In 

addition, the letter stated that no CRP, WRP, or GRP lands would be impacted with the Build 

Alternative. 

4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

Executive Order 12898 – Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations – provides guidance for addressing minority and 

low-income populations in association with NEPA. Actions should identify and address 

disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority and low-income populations. 

Disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority and low-income populations is 

defined as: 

 An adverse effect that is predominately borne by a minority population and/or a 

low-income population; or 

 An adverse effect that will be suffered by the minority population and/or lowincome population and is appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the 

adverse effect that will be suffered by the non-minority population and/or non-lowincome population. 

The race and ethnicity of the population of the study area were analyzed. According to U.S. 

Department of Transportation (DOT) Order to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations (DOT Order OST-95-141 (50125), 1997), 

population groups defined as minorities include the following: 

 Black (having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa); 
 

4-7 

 Hispanic (of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other 

Spanish culture of origin, regardless of race); 

 Asian American (having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, 

Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands); or 

 American Indian and Alaskan Native (having origins in any of the original people 

of North America and who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation 

or community recognition). 

According to the 2000 Census data, Lee County is primarily White (76.6%). The largest 

minority population is Black (22.1%), with the remaining races comprising approximately 1% 

of the population (Native American [0.1%], Asian [0.4%], and two or more races [0.5%]). 

Hispanic persons comprise only 0.8% of the County’s population. Based on the income 

threshold defined in Section 3.4.3, 41.2% of the population of Lee County is classified as 

low-income. 

2000 Census data were reviewed at the County and Census block group levels to identify 

localized minority and low-income populations. A potential EJ concern could exist if the 

minority or low-income percentage of the population of a Census block group within 1⁄2-mile 

of the Build Alternative is significantly greater than the Lee County percentages. The 

Census data shows a very small percentage of minority households other than black 

households in these Census block groups. The minority populations other than black 

populations are small enough to remove specific EJ concerns for minority groups other than 

black. Therefore, only the black minority percentages were used to identify EJ concerns for 

Census block groups within 1⁄2-mile of the Build Alternative. 

For minority populations, a potential EJ concern could exist if the minority population 

percentage for the Census block group is at least 50%. For low-income populations, a 

potential EJ concern could exist if the median household income for the Census block group 

was below 80% of the median household income of Tupelo, or a household income of 

$28,932 or less. The Census block groups within 1⁄2-mile of the Build Alternative were 

identified and tabulated for black households and low-income households, shown in 

Table 4-3. 
 

4-8 

Table 4-3 Potential Environmental Justice Concerns within 1⁄2-mile 

of Build Alternative 

Percent EJ Concern

Median 

Household 

Income

EJ Concern

1 9% No $47,639 No

2 13% No $68,000 No

1 4% No $41,801 No

4 2% No $98,746 No

5 7% No $61,010 No

1 6% No $44,464 No

2 0% No $50,822 No

4 32% No $31,420 No

5 23% No $26,063 Yes

1 51% Yes $18,966 Yes

2 39% No $30,500 No

3 31% No $28,519 Yes

9508 - Lee Acres 1 40% No $25,292 Yes

9507 - Mill Village

Block 

Group

Black Households Low-Income Households

Census Tract

9504 - Airport Area

9505 - Park Hill/ 

Joyner/Downtown

9506 - Gravlee & 

Joyner

No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative would leave the BNSF main line in its existing configuration, 

including all of the at-grade crossings. The No-Build Alternative would not adversely affect 

discrete minority or low-income populations because there are no improvements associated 

with the No-Build Alternative. Therefore, there are no EJ concerns associated with the 

No-Build Alternative. 

Build Alternative 

The improvements associated with the Build Alternative would primarily be contained within 

the existing BNSF right-of-way, except for the interchange area. The overall percentages of 

minority population (14%) and overall median household income within 1⁄2-mile of the Build 

Alternative are well below those of the total population of Lee County. There is one Census 

block group that contains a population that is 51% minority and four Census block groups 

that would be considered low-income. Because the improvements would be constructed 

within the existing BNSF right-of-way within these Census block groups, no minority or 

low-income households would need to be relocated and no disproportionate adverse effects 

would occur. The potential adverse effects associated with the Build Alternative of visual 

obstruction and increased vibration would not be limited to these minority and/or low-income 

areas; they would be experienced along the entire corridor. As documented in the NVA, the 

Build Alternative would benefit these and other neighborhoods by greatly reducing train 

noise and reducing traffic delay by removing the at-grade crossings. Since the adverse 

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

EJ concerns associated with the Build Alternative. 
 

4-9 

4.4 PUBLIC FACILITIES AND COMMUNITY COHESION 

4.4.1 Neighborhoods 

The following neighborhoods are either bisected or directly adjacent to the BNSF 

main line, shown on Figure 4-3: 

 Gravlee 

 Joyner 

 Historic Downtown 

No-Build Alternative 

The BNSF main line bisects the Gravlee Neighborhood, runs through the 

southernmost portion of the Downtown Neighborhood, forms the western boundary 

of the Joyner Neighborhood, and forms the northern boundary of the Mill Village 

Historic District. While no construction or visual impacts would be experienced for 

these neighborhoods, the increased delay resulting from the at-grade crossings and 

other rail-associated environmental conflicts would remain. 

Build Alternative 

Elevating the existing railroad would improve these neighborhoods in terms of noise 

and traffic impacts. However, visual impacts within the Mill Village Historic District, 

the South Church Street Historic District, and the Downtown Historic District are 

anticipated due to the elevated corridor and are discussed in Section 4.5. The 

elevated rail structure would range in height from 20 to 30 feet. The existing 

residential zones allow for structures that are 35 feet high. Therefore, the elevated 

rail structure would conform to those zoning guidelines. Context sensitive solutions 

(such as public art, lighting, landscaping, and type of materials) would need to be 

applied to reduce these visual impacts. 

4.4.2 Schools 

The BNSF main line passes most closely to the Joyner Avenue Elementary School 

north of the Jackson Street crossing and the Milam Elementary School just north of 

the Crosstown intersection, shown on Figure 4-4. The grounds of Joyner Avenue 

Elementary School are adjacent to the BNSF main line. 

No-Build Alternative 

With horn sounding required at at-grade crossings for the No-Build Alternative, these 

schools are affected by approximately 23 trains per day, estimated to increase to 

approximately 40 trains per day by 2030. Therefore, the No-Build Alternative is 

anticipated to result in increased noise levels, which could adversely affect the 

learning environment at both Joyner Avenue Elementary School and Milam 

Elementary School as the train traffic increases. 
Pkwy

Trace

Natchez

City of

Tupelo

278

178

45

78

6

278

45

145

145

Kansas

Northern

Southern

City

Burlington

Santa

Fe

Main St

Gloster St

Jackson St

McCullough Blvd

Green St

President Ave

Lawndale Dr

Martin Luther King Jr Dr

Eason Blvd

Neighborhoods &

Tupelo Mississippi Railroad Relocation Protection Dist.

Planning & Environmental Study Figure

4-3

0 0.3 0.6 0.9

Miles

Natchez Trace

Parkway

Railroads

Primary Roads

Secondary Roads

Other Roads

Protection District

Gravlee

Haven Acres

Historic District

Joyner

Lee Acres

Park Hill

Presley Heights

South Foster Street Area

Southern Heights

Willis Heights

Build Alternative

1/2 Mile Buffer Zone
 

4-11 

Build Alternative 

The Build Alternative would reduce the horn soundings and result in less noise 

disruption around these schools, which could result in a better learning environment. 

In addition, by removing the at-grade crossings, safer vehicle and pedestrian routes 

would be created. 

4.4.3 Churches and Cemeteries 

There are 58 churches and 12 cemeteries within the city limits of Tupelo. Of these, 

12 churches and two cemeteries are within 1⁄2-mile of the BNSF main line, shown on 

Figure 4-4. 

No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative would leave the existing BNSF main line at-grade, 

including all of the at-grade road crossings. The trains would continue to sound their 

horns. Churches and cemeteries, especially those within 1⁄2-mile of the BNSF main 

line, would continue to experience disruption in services and other functions due to 

noise, vibration, and traffic delays in their vicinity, which would worsen as the train 

traffic increases. 

Build Alternative 

The Build Alternative would reduce noise disruption through downtown Tupelo, 

which will benefit both church and cemetery activities. The Red Oak Grove Baptist 

Cemetery on Eason Boulevard would adjoin the eastern edge of the proposed frontage 

road adjacent to the roadway overpass, shown in the concept plans in Appendix D, 

but the impact to the property is anticipated to be minimal, as the right-of-way 

acquisition area is on the periphery of the parcel and does not affect any gravesites. 

The impact can be further minimized through the use of other noise abatement 

measures, examples of which are discussed in the NVA, which would be determined 

during the final design phase. 

4.4.4 Public Facilities 

Public facilities within the City of Tupelo include city and government buildings such 

as the Lee County Courthouse and Tupelo City Hall, events centers such as the 

BancorpSouth Arena and Lyric Theater, attractions and museums such as the Elvis 

Presley home and driving tour and the Tupelo Automobile Museum, and retail 

establishments such as the Barnes Crossing Mall and the Tupelo Furniture Market. 

No-Build Alternative 

The increased train traffic could cause disruption of civic services and public 

activities caused by more frequent train noise and horn soundings as a result of the 

No-Build Alternative. In addition, access to these facilities would be hindered by the 

increased traffic delays associated with the existing at-grade crossings. 
Pkwy

Trace

Natchez

City of

Tupelo

278

178

45

78

6

278

45

145

145

Kansas

Northern

Southern

City

Burlington

Santa

Fe

Main St

Gloster St

Jackson St

McCullough Blvd

Green St

President Ave

Lawndale Dr

Martin Luther King Jr Dr

Eason Blvd

6

10

7 8

9

4

5

1

2

12

11

3

15

16

13

14

Community

Tupelo Mississippi Railroad Relocation Services

Planning & Environmental Study Figure

4-4

0 0.3 0.6 0.9

Miles

Natchez Trace

Parkway

Railroads

Primary Roads

Secondary Roads

Other Roads

Legend

1/2 Mile Buffer Zone

Build Alternative

Cemeteries

Educational Facilities

Churches

Id NAME

1 St. Luke United Methodist Church

2 Oak Ridge Christian Church

3 West Jackson Street Baptist Church

4 Inspirational Community Baptist Church

5 Gloster Street Church Of Christ

6 All Saints Episcopal Church

7 First Baptist Church

8 First Presbyterian Church

9 First United Methodist Church

10 Cavalary Baptist Church

11 Temle Baptist Church

12 Red Oak Grove M.B. Church

13 Tupelo Memorial Cemetery

14 Red Oak Grove Baptist Cemetery

15 Joyner Avenue Elementary School

16 Milam Elementary School

Affected Cemetery

Affected School

Affected Church

13

15

1
 

4-13 

Build Alternative 

The public facilities which lie within 1⁄2-mile of the Build Alternative include: 

 West Main Shopping Center 

 Willow Bend Village Shopping Center 

 Gloster Creek Village Shopping Center 

 Tupelo Public Library 

 Tupelo Post Office and Federal Building 

 Tupelo City Hall 

 Lee County Courthouse 

 Tupelo Artist Guild 

 Lyric Theatre 

 Tupelo Convention and Visitors Bureau 

 BancorpSouth Arena 

 VF Factory Outlet Stores 

The Build Alternative would directly affect the VF Factory Outlet Stores on Eason 

Boulevard. The Build Alternative would require approximately 0.3 acres of right-ofway acquisition from the property and the redirection of traffic flow to and from the 

property, shown on the concept plans in Appendix D. The right-of-way acquisition 

would not disturb any structures or parking on the VF property. In addition, a new 

driveway access from the property to Veterans Boulevard would be constructed to 

mitigate the access to the VF Factory Outlet Stores. 

The Build Alternative would remove traffic delays associated with the existing atgrade crossings. Context sensitive solutions (such as public art, lighting, landscaping, 

and type of materials), as agreed upon in the MOA, included in Appendix F, would 

be applied to reduce visual impacts of the elevated rail through the city center areas. 

4.4.5 Parks and Recreation 

Several parks and recreational facilities are adjacent to the existing BNSF right-ofway: the Pvt. John Allen National Fish Hatchery, the Natchez Trace Parkway and 

National Scenic Trail, the Burt Park Liberty Gardens, and the Rob Leake City Park, 

shown on Figure 4-5. 

No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative would not result in impacts to parks and recreation 

facilities. 

Build Alternative 

Since the Build Alternative improvements would be within the existing BNSF rightof-way, there would be no physical impacts to any public parks or recreational 

facilities. However, visual impacts are anticipated due to the elevated corridor. 

These impacts are discussed further in Section 4.15. 
Pkwy

Trace

Natchez

City of

Tupelo

278

178

45

78

6

278

45

145

145

Kansas

Northern

Southern

City

Burlington

Santa

Fe

Main St

Gloster St

Jackson St

McCullough Blvd

Green St

President Ave

Lawndale Dr

Martin Luther King Jr Dr

Eason Blvd

24

2

17

27

25

16

4

8

21

20

28

19

18

26

15

14

3

23

12

Parks &

Tupelo Mississippi Railroad Relocation Recreation

Planning & Environmental Study Figure

4-5

0 0.3 0.6 0.9

Miles

Natchez Trace

Parkway

Railroads

Primary Roads

Secondary Roads

Other Roads

Legend

Attraction

Battlefield

Birdwatching

Campgound

Fishing

Golf Course

Park / Recreation

Pool

1/2 Mile Buffer Zone

Build Alternative

Id NAME

2 BankcorpSouth Center

3 Tupelo National Battle Field

4 Tupelo National Fish Hatchery

12 Hancock Park

15 Lee Acres

16 Old Mill Town Park

17 Rob Leake City Park

18 Robbins Noble Park

19 Gum Tree Park

20 Veterans park

21 Eastwood Softball Complex

23 Thomas Street Park

24 City Hall Park

25 Burt Park - Liberty Gardens

26 CC Augustus Pool

27 Rob Leake CIty Pool

28 Elvis Presley Park

Affected Other
 

4-15 

Parks and recreation facilities would benefit from the Build Alternative through the 

removal of many of the at-grade crossings within the City of Tupelo. This would 

improve the access to the parks and recreational facilities. In addition, the elevated 

corridor would reduce the noise impacts throughout the City as trains would not need 

to sound the horn at at-grade crossings. The elevated corridor would also increase the 

safety of these parks by making the railroad inaccessible to pedestrians. 

4.4.6 Medical and Emergency Services 

The locations of Tupelo’s major health care facilities, police stations, and fire stations 

are discussed in detail in Section 3.5.6. 

No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative would not result in adverse impacts to medical, fire, or 

police services in the study area. However, future growth unrelated to this project is 

expected. Without facilities to address the potential delays caused by trains at atgrade crossings, emergency response times are expected to increase, which would 

hinder emergency response capabilities. 

Build Alternative 

The Build Alternative would not result in adverse public health impacts to medical, 

fire, or police services in the study area. The Build Alternative is expected to benefit 

public health and emergency services in the study area by improving emergency 

response times through the removal of at-grade crossings in the downtown Tupelo 

area. The removal of the at-grade crossings at Crosstown and across Eason 

Boulevard would enhance the ability of those emergency services to respond and 

transport more rapidly. 

4.4.7 Travel Patterns and Accessibility 

The at-grade crossings and nearby intersections were evaluated for both the No-Build 

and Build Alternatives. The average vehicle delay experienced at the at-grade 

crossings was calculated for each crossing. Vehicle delay includes two components, 

the delay occurring at the at-grade rail crossings and the delay experienced by 

vehicles at nearby intersections. The latter component is considered because the 

queuing of vehicles at the at-grade crossing locations can extend into several nearby 

intersections and potentially impede traffic flow on other streets in the traffic 

network. This is considered a secondary delay related to crossing events. The LOS is 

a letter designation that describes a range of traffic operating conditions on a 

particular facility. Six levels of service are defined by the HCM for capacity analysis. 

They are given letter designations A through F, with LOS A representing ideal 

operating conditions and LOS F the worst. 

The queuing model is based on the procedures contained in the HCM. Since there is 

not a fixed train schedule, the train volume was generally assumed to be uniformly 

distributed throughout the day. The arrival rate of vehicles approaching each at-grade 

crossing location is also assumed to be uniform. Vehicles start to queue at each 
 

4-16 

crossing whenever a train approaches the crossing. In addition to the train crossing 

events, a switching operation is performed daily between the BNSF main line and the 

KCS rail line. This creates severe delays at several crossings including Crosstown. 

The purpose of the switching operation is to allow train cars from the main line to be 

transferred to spur tracks and be delivered to the local industry destinations. Due to 

the lack of electronic lock switching, this operation typically takes 10 minutes to 

complete. 

Each at-grade crossing was evaluated as a signalized intersection based on the HCM. 

The delay time, queuing length, and the LOS were determined using a computergenerated traffic model by the VISSIM traffic simulation computer software program. 

VISSIM is a micro-simulation program capable of analyzing and modeling complex 

traffic conditions on highway and street networks. 

The 2005 and projected 2030 peak hour LOS for at-grade railroad crossings in the 

affected environment are shown in Table 4-4. The 2005 and projected 2030 peak 

hour LOS for various intersections near at-grade railroad crossings during the peak 

hour are shown in Table 4-5. 

Table 4-4 At-Grade Crossing Peak Hour LOS 

Railroad Crossing 

Street Name

2005 

Crossing 

LOS

2030 

Crossing LOS 

(No-Build)

2030 

Crossing 

LOS 

(Build)

Lumpkin Ave. B D D

Jackson St. B D A*

Blair St. B D A*

Jefferson St. B D A*

Park St. B D A*

Gloster St. B E A*

Main St. B D A*

Church St. B D A*

Green St. B D A*

Spring St. B D A*

Elizabeth St. C F A*

Eason Blvd. C F A*

Eason Blvd. A A A*

Elizabeth St. A A A

Main St. A A A

Jefferson St. A A A

*LOS A assumed due to grade-separated crossing

BNSF

KCS
 

4-17 

Table 4-5 Nearby Intersection Peak Hour LOS 

Intersection 2005 LOS

2030 LOS 

With Trains 

(No-Build)

2030 LOS 

Without 

Trains (Build)

Clark St. at Church St. DC A

Gloster St. at Main St. FF F

Clark St. at Spring St. CC B

Spring St. at Elizabeth St. BC A

Front St. at Main St. BB B

Front St. at Jefferson St. AB B

Park St. at Jefferson St. DE C

Rankin St. at Blair St. CC A

Rankin St. at Jackson St. CD A

Eason Blvd. at Ryder St. BC A

Eason Blvd. at Whitaker St. AA A

Gloster St. at Jefferson St. CF B

No-Build Alternative 

Under the No-Build Alternative, each at-grade crossing along the BNSF main line 

would exhibit unfavorable (D) or unacceptable (E or F) LOS by the year 2030. In 

addition, most of the nearby intersections’ LOS would fall at least one letter-grade by 

the year 2030. 

Build Alternative 

The construction of the Build Alternative would remove train traffic from the 

roadway network by creating grade separations between the roadway and railroad. 

This not only would remove most of the traffic delay at the at-grade intersections 

within Tupelo, but it would also improve the LOS of almost all of the nearby 

intersections to LOS C or better. The exception would be the intersection of Gloster 

Street at Main Street, which is projected to be over capacity during the peak hour, 

even without train crossing disruptions. The intersection appears to have capacity 

issues that should be addressed with other refinements, such as signal timing 

adjustments and addition of turning lanes. 

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

4.5.1 Archaeological and Historic Sites 

The APE for the affected environment is defined as that area within the existing 

BNSF right-of-way and an approximate 500-foot buffer on each side of the existing 

right-of-way, as well as a 500-foot buffer on each side of the right-of-way for the 

proposed interchange. The buffer width was coordinated with MDAH to account for 

possible visual or noise impacts. As documented in the Cultural Resources 

Investigations for the Tupelo Railroad Relocation Study (Brockington, January 2009) 

three previously unrecorded archaeological sites and 58 architectural resources (thirty 

previously recorded and 28 previously unrecorded) were located within or adjacent to 

the APE. 
 

4-18 

At the previously unrecorded archaeological site located just east of the intersection 

of Jefferson Street and the BNSF main line, shovel tests produced a light density of 

archaeological materials dating to the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, 

indicating the presence of a domestic structure. The site had been disturbed and dates 

to a relatively recent time period. The previously unrecorded archaeological site 

located within the BNSF right-of-way just south of Jackson Street and was identified 

by the presence of historic debris, which was considered to be the result of incidental 

trash dumping rather than an archaeological site. The previously unrecorded 

archaeological site located in the proposed interchange area just south of the Pvt. John 

Allen Fish Hatchery, consists of two sewer manholes. 

Of the 58 architectural resources documented, 13 had been demolished and three are 

currently listed on the NRHP: the Pvt. John Allen Fish Hatchery Superintendant’s 

House, the Mill Village Historic District, and the South Church Street Historic 

District. In a letter dated March 17, 2009, included in Appendix A ̧ coordination 

with the SHPO determined that of the remaining 42 architectural resources not 

NRHP-listed or demolished, 35 were deemed eligible for listing with NRHP. The 

SHPO determined that these 35 NRHP-eligible individual properties or historic 

districts appear to retain their historic architectural integrity. 

No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative would not result in impacts to historic or archaeological 

sites. 

Build Alternative 

With the Build Alternative, all construction activities would take place within the 

existing BNSF right-of-way, except for the proposed interchange. No NRHP-listed 

or NRHP-eligible properties would be directly impacted by project construction, 

demolition, or removal of NRHP contributing features. In a letter dated March 17, 

2009, included in Appendix A ̧ coordination with the SHPO determined that the 

Build Alternative would not affect any NRHP-listed archaeological sites and 

additional archaeological sites were not likely to be encountered. However, the 

SHPO did determine that the Build Alternative has potential to adversely affect 37 

NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible properties, shown on Figure 4-6 and in Table 4-6, by 

altering their existing viewsheds. The FRA, SHPO, MDOT, and the City of Tupelo, 

have been consulted pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

to discuss appropriate measures to mitigate these visual impacts. These proposed 

measures are contained in the draft MOA between the interested parties, included in 

Appendix F, and will be binding when the final MOA is signed and the project 

advances into final design and construction. 

Although the Project has received archaeological clearance from SHPO, the 

possibility exists that evidence of cultural resources may yet be encountered within 

the project limits. Should any evidence of cultural resources be discovered during 

 
 

4-19 

Under the authority of Section 304 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act, this map is not for public disclosure due to 

the sensitive nature of identified cultural resources.
4-20 

Table 4-6 Affected NHRP-Listed and -Eligible Sites within the APE 

Resource Type NRHP Status Project Effect Resource Type 

Pvt. John Allen Fish Hatchery

Superintendant's House House Listed Not Adverse 541 Magazine St. House 

Mill Village Historic District District Listed Adverse 543 Magazine St. House 

South Church Street Historic

District

District Listed Adverse 555 Magazine St. House 

North Tupelo Neighborhood

District District Eligible Adverse 557 Magazine St. House 

Joyner Neighborhood District District Eligible Adverse 561 Magazine St. House 

Gravlee Neighborhood

District District Eligible Adverse 331 Park St. House 

Carnation Condensary Industrial Eligible Adverse 623 Main St. Commercial 

TVA 'Tupelo' Sign Sign Eligible Adverse 627 Main St. House 

308 S. Broadway Industrial Eligible Adverse 631 Main St. House 

400 S. Broadway

(Tupelo Oil & Ice Office) Industrial Eligible Adverse 634 Main St. Apartment 

314 S. Church St. House Eligible Adverse 637 Main St. House 

317 S. Church St. House Eligible Adverse 640 Main St. House 

319 S. Church St. House Eligible Adverse 641 Main St. House 

525 S. Church St. House Eligible Adverse 646 Main St. House 

529 S. Church St. House Eligible Adverse 123 S. Gloster St. Commercial 

105 Clark Pl. House Eligible Adverse 208N. Gloster St. House 

812 Jefferson St. House Eligible Adverse 218 N. Gloster St. House 

405 Magazine St. House Eligible Adverse 110 Robbins St. House 

411 Magazine St. House Eligible Adverse 311 S. Green St. House 
 

 

4-21 

construction activities, all work in that portion of the project area would stop. 

Representatives of MDOT will assist in the identification and preliminary assessment 

of the materials. If such evidence is found, the MDAH will be notified within two 

working days. 

In the unlikely event that human skeletal remains or associated burial artifacts are 

uncovered within the project area, all work in that area would stop. The discovery 

must be reported to local law enforcement, who will in turn contact the medical 

examiner. MDAH must be contacted. 

While there are no direct impacts to any cultural resources, there is a potential impact 

during construction to the TVA “Tupelo” sign at the Crosstown intersection, shown 

below. The sign could require special consideration to preserve its historic character 

during the construction of the truss bridge across the intersection. Even though the 

sign is not currently a NRHP-listed resource, it is eligible for listing with the NRHP. 

Although the Build Alternative would not require relocation of the sign, its existing 

position lies within a traffic island almost directly underneath the proposed bridge 

span across the intersection. The SHPO will be consulted during construction to 

determine whether the sign is adversely affected and if so, mitigation efforts, which 

could include temporary relocation to avoid damage during construction. 

Additionally, mitigation for the sign could be added to the provisions of the MOA, 

included in Appendix F. 

TVA “Tupelo” Sign at the Crosstown Intersection 

 
 

4-22 

4.5.2 Native American Resources 

The Tupelo area was once home to the Chickasaw Nation, meaning the entire affected 

environment can be regarded as Native American lands. While the existing BNSF 

main line does not run through any known Native American resources within the City 

of Tupelo, soil corings were performed at 21 locations along the Build Alternative 

alignment to identify any previously unrecorded Native American archaeological 

resources. 

The soil corings revealed that the soils within the BNSF right-of-way east of Gloster 

Street were heavily disturbed from industrial and cultural activities. These areas 

contain minimal potential for cultural deposits. The BNSF right-of-way west of 

Gloster Street was found to contain intact, natural soils, and was then further 

recommended for systematic shovel tests to determine any archaeological value. The 

shovel tests found no cultural or Native American resources of any architectural value. 

No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative would not result in any impacts to Native American 

resources. 

Build Alternative 

No artifacts were found within the soil corings or shovel tests conducted along the 

BNSF main line. Further coordination with the Chickasaw Nation, SHPO and 

MDAH resulted in each entity granting archaeological clearance for the Build 

Alternative. However, the presence of intact and natural soils within the BNSF rightof-way provides the possibility for intact cultural resources and the remote possibility 

exists to recover Native American resources, despite the heavy disturbance of the area. 

Should any evidence of cultural resources be discovered during construction activities, 

all work in that portion of the project would stop. Representatives of MDOT will 

assist in the identification and preliminary assessment of the materials. If such 

evidence is found, MDAH would be notified within two working days. 

In the unlikely event that human skeletal remains or associated burial artifacts are 

uncovered within the project area, all work in that area would stop. The discovery 

must be reported to local law enforcement, who in turn, will contact the medical 

examiner. MDAH will also be contacted. 

 
 

4-23 

4.6 AIR QUALITY 

The total delay times for the year 2030, without train traffic at the affected crossings, were 

calculated as part of the Phase 1 Feasibility Analysis (HDR, May 2006). The emission 

reductions for the year 2030, shown in Table 4-7, were calculated by multiplying the total 

net delay hours for all of the affected at-grade crossings and nearby intersections by the 

motor vehicle fleet-average emission factors generated by the EPA MOBILE6.2 emissions 

model. The MOBILE6.2 factors were generated based on annual average climate conditions 

for Tupelo and by assuming a national average fleet mix in terms of vehicle types, ages, and 

mileage accumulation rates. 

Table 4-7 Emission Reduction in Year 2030 from Auto Traffic Delay 

Pollutant

Reduced 

Emissions 

No-Build 

Alternative 

(tons/yr)

Reduced 

Emissions 

Build Alternative 

(tons/yr)

CO -- 18.75

NOx -- 0.66

PM -- 0.07

SO2 -- 0.01

VOC -- 2.86

Notes

1) Emission reduction calculated based on estimated 

hours of traffic delay removed by Build Alternative at atgrade and nearby intersections. (704,000 hrs/yr)

2) MOBILE 6.2 assumed emission factors for national 

fleet averages for year 2030 at a speed of 3.1 miles/hr 

under Tupelo climate conditions.

No-Build Alternative 

The current EPA designations have Lee County, Mississippi as in attainment of the NAAQS 

for all criteria pollutants. Based on the monitoring data, it does not appear that the area is 

likely to become a nonattainment area in the foreseeable future. However, there would be an 

increase in pollutants as a result of the increased auto traffic delay associated with the NoBuild Alternative. 

Build Alternative 

The Build Alternative is expected to result in a slight benefit to air quality. This slight 

benefit is attributed primarily to elimination of some delays of motor vehicles that would 

otherwise idle near highway/rail at-grade crossings while waiting for trains to pass. 

The emissions decreases, shown in Table 4-7, are small in comparison to emissions from 

major stationary emissions sources. However, these reductions provide a slight benefit to the 

area and more so at locations near the affected crossings, where vehicles would otherwise 

idle waiting for trains to pass. 
 

4-24 

Another benefit of the proposed project is that it would enhance train speeds and movement 

of rail freight through the Tupelo area. While the emissions benefits of operation 

improvements have not been quantified, these improvements are expected to result in 

reduced fuel use and reduced emissions from locomotives operating on the rail line. 

In addition to operation-related emissions decreases, there would be some temporary air 

pollutant emissions increases during the construction period. These emissions would result 

from construction equipment engine exhaust and from fugitive dust that may be suspended 

from exposed soils prior to re-vegetation. However, given the temporary and diffuse nature 

of such emissions, they are not expected to have a major impact on air quality in the Tupelo 

area.

4.7 NOISE AND VIBRATION 

4.7.1 Noise 

As documented in the NVA, included in Appendix E, predicted noise levels for 

future operation of the No-Build and Build Alternatives for the BNSF main line and 

the KCS rail line through Tupelo were modeled using the measurements of noise 

from the existing rail line. As discussed in Section 3.8.1, those noise measurements 

consisted of 24-hour measurements at seven locations within the City of Tupelo and 

short-term measurements at two locations within 50 feet of the existing BNSF main 

line. The noise levels recorded from the train pass-bys were used to calculate the 

average noise generated by a single train. The future noise levels were then predicted 

at representative sensitive receptors based on the estimated future train volumes, 

consists, and speeds. These noise models also considered the propagation path of the 

noise between the source and the receptors, including ground cover, physical 

obstructions, and elevations. 

Train volumes are predicted to increase to approximately 40 trains per day on the 

BNSF main line through Tupelo and to approximately four trains on the KCS rail line 

by the year of 2030. The No-Build and Build Alternatives were modeled using the 

projected train traffic data, with train consist information as shown in Table 4-8, to 

determine the wayside noise impact contours and to the grade-crossing noise impact 

contours where train horns are used. 

As documented in the NVA, included in Appendix E, once the noise model contours 

were established for the year 2030, the affected receptors and impacted areas within 

the City of Tupelo were identified within each level of noise impact for both the NoBuild and Build Alternatives, based on the FTA/FRA noise impact criteria defined in 

Section 3.8.1. 
 

4-25 

Table 4-8 Existing and Future Train Volumes and Consists 

Trains Engines per 

Train

Cars per 

Train Trains Engines per Train

Cars per 

Train

BNSF - Coal 8 5 135 13 6 160

BNSF - Freight 16 3 125 28 4 150

KCS - Through 1 2 95 3 3 110

KCS - Local 1 1 25 2 1 25

Average Existing Daily Train Traffic 

(2005)

Average Future Daily Train Traffic 

Service Line (2030)

and Type

 Source: Noise and Vibration Analysis (HDR, 2008) 

The comparison was based on the area adjacent to the improvements recommended in 

the Build Alternative, as the noise in unimproved areas adjacent to the BNSF main 

line was assumed to be identical for both the Build Alternative and the No-Build 

Alternative. The receptor sites were identified using aerial and GIS data as existing 

structures and did not include any future development. The noise contours were used 

to estimate an area of impact for both moderate impacts and severe impacts. The 

summary of the predicted noise impacts is shown in Table 4-9. 

Table 4-9 Predicted FTA/FRA Noise Impacts 

Alternative

Total 

Predicted 

Impacted 

Sites

Moderate 

Noise 

Impact Sites

Severe 

Noise 

Impact Sites

Impact 

Reduced 

Sites

Impact 

Removed 

Sites

Total 

Noise 

Impact 

Area 

(Acres)

Severe 

Noise 

Impact 

Area 

(Acres)

No-Build 

Alternative 414 286 128 N/A N/A 1,134 457

Build 

Alternative 385 309 76 23 29 1,093 395

 Source: Noise and Vibration Analysis (HDR, 2008) 

No-Build Alternative 

A total of 414 noise impacted sites within the comparison area of the City of Tupelo, 

shown on Figure 4-7, were identified for the No-Build Alternative in the year 2030. 

Of these sites, 128 were determined to be considered severely impacted (as defined 

by the FTA/FRA, discussed in Section 3.8.1). In the comparison area, a total of 

1,134 acres would experience a noise impact, including 457 acres that would 

experience a severe noise impact. 

Build Alternative 

A total of 385 noise impacted sites within the City of Tupelo, shown on Figure 4-8, 

were identified for the Build Alternative in the year 2030. Of these sites, 76 were 

determined to be severely impacted. The Build Alternative offers a reduction of 29 

noise-impacted sites compared to the No-Build Alternative, and an additional 23 sites 
 

4-26 

experience a reduction of the noise impact designation from severe to moderate (as 

defined by the FTA/FRA noise criteria, as discussed in Section 3.8.1). The Build 

Alternative also removes, approximately 41 acres from having any noise impact and 

approximately 62 acres would move from being severely impacted to only being 

moderately impacted by train events as compared to the No-Build Alternative. All of 

the noise impacted sites and areas identified for the Build Alternative are also 

predicted to experience train noise levels that exceed FTA/FRA noise impact 

thresholds, as discussed in Section 3.8.1, under the No-Build Alternative, so the 

Build Alternative would not result in any additional noise impacts to any receiver as 

compared to the No-Build Alternative. The Build Alternative would result in the 

BNSF trains operating through Tupelo without sounding their horns between 

Lumpkin Avenue and Veteran’s Boulevard, a distance of nearly five miles. The 

Build Alternative would result in a sizeable benefit to the reduction of train-related 

noise through Tupelo. 

The substantial reduction of horn noise and increase in path length between the 

source and receivers both greatly reduce the noise generated by the trains on the 

BNSF main line as compared to the No-Build Alternative. However, the train noise, 

specifically wheel noise and engine noise would not be eliminated within downtown 

Tupelo. Additional options for further mitigating the noise levels predicted for the 

Build Alternative would be evaluated during the final design phase. 

4.7.2 Vibration 

To estimate potential vibration effects from the future No-Build and Build 

Alternatives, the FTA General Vibration Assessment methodology was applied to 

develop a prediction curve of vibration velocity as a function of distance from the 

tracks. This curve was used to estimate future vibration levels at each vibration 

sensitive receptor that were compared to the FTA vibration impact thresholds, as 

discussed in Section 3.8.2. 

Vibration impacts are determined based on train speed and average number of 

vibration events during single train pass-bys. Therefore, distances to residential 

impacts changed where track upgrades are proposed as well as where the predicted 

speed and number of events changed. 

The General Vibration Assessment uses generalized data to develop a curve of 

vibration levels as a function of distance from the track. The vibration levels at 

specific buildings are estimated by reading values from the curve and applying 

adjustments to account for factors such as track support system, vehicle speed, type of 

building, and track and wheel condition. 

Once the base curve has been selected, adjustments are used to develop vibration 

projections for specific receiver positions. The adjustment parameters include speed, 

wheel and rail type and condition, type of track support system, type of building 

foundation, geologic conditions, and number of floors above the basement level. 
Pkwy

Trace

Natchez

City of

Tupelo

278

178

45

78

6

278

45

145

145

Kansas

Northern

Southern

City

Burlington

Santa

Fe

Main St

Gloster St

Jackson St

McCullough Blvd

Green St

President Ave

Lawndale Dr

Martin Luther King Jr Dr

Eason Blvd

No-Build Noise

Tupelo Mississippi Railroad Relocation Impact Contours

Planning & Environmental Study Figure

4-7

0 0.3 0.6 0.9

Miles

Natchez Trace

Parkway

Railroads

Primary Roads

Secondary Roads

Other Roads

Legend

Severe Potential Impacted Sites

Moderate Potential Impacted Sites

Severe Noise Impact Contours

Moderate Noise Impact Contours
Pkwy

Trace

Natchez

City of

Tupelo

278

178

45

78

6

278

45

145

145

Kansas

Northern

Southern

City

Burlington

Santa

Fe

Main St

Gloster St

Jackson St

McCullough Blvd

Green St

President Ave

Lawndale Dr

Martin Luther King Jr Dr

Eason Blvd

Build Noise

Tupelo Mississippi Railroad Relocation Impact Contours

Planning & Environmental Study Figure

4-8

0 0.3 0.6 0.9

Miles

Natchez Trace

Parkway

Railroads

Primary Roads

Secondary Roads

Other Roads

Legend

Build Alternative

Severe Potential Impacted Sites

Moderate Potential Impacted Sites

Severe Noise Impact Contours

Moderate Noise Impact Contours
 

4-29 

The adjustments for the BNSF main line for the No-Build and Build Alternatives 

were considered identical. However, train speeds varied along the BNSF main line 

and the General Vibration Assessment applied lower adjustments to the slower train 

movements. In addition to the adjustment for train speed, a conservative adjustment 

for ground-borne propagation effects was applied to account for efficient propagation 

of the vibration between the source and the receptors within the City of Tupelo. This 

adjustment adds 10 VdB to each of the vibration projections. Because the adjusted 

vibration level for the locomotives is more than 10 VdB greater than the vibration 

level for the railcars, the railcar component of the vibration has been eliminated from 

further discussion. 

The difference between the adjusted vibration level at the screening distance and the 

impact threshold was then used to determine the distance to the impact contour line. 

The distance to the vibration impact contour line for residential land uses was 

determined to range from 60 to 170 feet from the BNSF main line, with the variation 

due to the range of operating speeds, and 76 feet from the KCS rail line. For 

industrial land uses near the proposed interchange between the BNSF and KCS the 

vibration contour was determined to be 110 feet from the interchange track centerline. 

As documented in the NVA, included in Appendix E, these vibration impact 

contours were overlaid upon a digital aerial photograph of the project areas using GIS 

technologies. The number of residences inside the vibration contour was determined. 

No-Build Alternative 

Twenty-eight vibration-impacted sites were identified for the No-Build Alternative, 

shown on Figure 4-9. All of these sites are residential structures located in the 

downtown Tupelo area. 

Build Alternative 

Forty-six vibration-impacted sites were identified for the Build Alternative, shown on 

Figure 4-10. All of the sites are residential structures located in the downtown 

Tupelo area. Eighteen additional impacted sites are predicted as compared to the 

No-Build Alternative, due to the increase in the train speed from 20 mph to 40 mph. 

Because there is no predicted change in the make-up of trains between the No-Build 

and Build Alternatives, the increased operational speed for the Build Alternative is 

the primary cause of predicted increases in vibration impacts. Despite the increase in 

vibration, the predicted impacts are conservative and may not fully account for the 

increased path length from the elevated track to the impacted receptors. However, the 

anticipated increase in vibration associated with the Build Alternative would be still 

well below the potential damage threshold. Vibration mitigation options would 

require extensive design and could significantly increase construction costs, while 

providing only a minimal dampening of the vibration effects. These additional 

mitigation measures would not be cost-beneficial, since even the anticipated increase 

in vibration would remain well below the potential damage threshold. 
Pkwy

Trace

Natchez

City of

Tupelo

278

178

45

78

6

278

45

145

145

Kansas

Northern

Southern

City

Burlington

Santa

Fe

Main St

Gloster St

Jackson St

McCullough Blvd

Green St

President Ave

Lawndale Dr

Martin Luther King Jr Dr

Eason Blvd

No-Build Vibration

Tupelo Mississippi Railroad Relocation Impact Contours

Planning & Environmental Study Figure

4-9

0 0.3 0.6 0.9

Miles

Natchez Trace

Parkway

Railroads

Primary Roads

Secondary Roads

Other Roads

Legend

Vibration Impact Contours

Potential Impacted Sites
Pkwy

Trace

Natchez

City of

Tupelo

278

178

45

78

6

278

45

145

145

Kansas

Northern

Southern

City

Burlington

Santa

Fe

Main St

Gloster St

Jackson St

McCullough Blvd

Green St

President Ave

Lawndale Dr

Martin Luther King Jr Dr

Eason Blvd

Build Vibration

Tupelo Mississippi Railroad Relocation Impact Contours

Planning & Environmental Study Figure

4-10

0 0.3 0.6 0.9

Miles

Natchez Trace

Parkway

Railroads

Primary Roads

Secondary Roads

Other Roads

Legend

Build Alternative

Vibration Impact Contours

Potential Impacted Sites
 

4-32 

4.8 GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

The No-Build Alternative and the Build Alternative were each investigated concerning the 

potential geotechnical problem sites along the BNSF main line and the proposed interchange. 

This investigation included potential settlement and stability problems along the BNSF main 

line and the proposed interchange for structures such as bridges and overpasses. Soil borings 

were recovered from the existing BNSF main line and from the proposed interchange area. 

No-Build Alternative 

There would be no impact to geological resources associated with the No-Build Alternative. 

Build Alternative 

The Build Alternative runs primarily along the existing BNSF main line. The majority of 

soil types along the existing alignment have low to moderate shrink-swell potential, which is 

indicative of a good ability of the native soils to support the elevated structures without 

special engineering. Areas located along the interchange area have somewhat higher shrinkswell potential, as Tuscumbia and Una soils are found in this area. However, the interchange 

area would be constructed at-grade, which is much more flexible than an elevated structure 

and would suffer less damage due to soil expansion and contraction. 

4.9 WETLANDS 

The No-Build and Build Alternatives run through agricultural, urban, or industrial portions of 

the City of Tupelo. These areas typically do not support high-quality wetlands or other water 

systems. 

Considerable effort was made during the alternatives development process to avoid areas 

identified on the USFWS NWI maps. All wetland sites identified were generally less than an 

acre and classified as shrub-scrub. These wetlands were often found along electric power 

transmission or transportation rights-of-way. Although these areas may not be the highest 

quality wetland features, their function in the landscape serves to filter contaminants and 

dampen floodwaters. 

All wetland and stream impacts, as well as jurisdictional determination and mitigation 

assessments, should be considered preliminary for planning purposes and are subject to 

approval by the Mobile Regulatory Division and the Vicksburg Regulatory Division of the 

USACE. 

No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative would have no impact on wetlands and streams of the study area. 

Build Alternative 

One wetland area could be impacted by the Build Alternative, shown on Figure 4-11. A 

small wetland runs parallel to the existing BNSF main line southeast of the Natchez Trace 

Parkway crossing. The temporary rail used for the maintenance of rail traffic could encroach 

upon the wetland, but since the improvements are to be entirely within the BNSF right-ofway in this section, permanent impacts are not anticipated and the wetland would be restored 
Pkwy

Trace

Natchez

City of

Tupelo

278

178

45

78

6

278

45

145

145

Kansas

Northern

Southern

City

Burlington

Santa

Fe

Main St

Gloster St

Jackson St

McCullough Blvd

Green St

President Ave

Lawndale Dr

Martin Luther King Jr Dr

Town Creek

Kings Creek

Mud Creek

Eason Blvd

Wetlands &

Tupelo Mississippi Railroad Relocation Hydric Soils

Planning & Environmental Study Figure

4-11

0 0.3 0.6 0.9

Miles

Natchez Trace

Parkway

Railroads

Primary Roads

Secondary Roads

Other Roads

Legend

Wetlands

Hydric Soils

Stream / Creek

Stream Crossing

Build Alternative
 

4-34 

when the temporary rail is removed. Proposed bridges on the BNSF main line would extend 

to the limits of the parallel existing bridges to minimize impacts to stream crossings. 

Because much of the Build Alternative would be bridged by the proposed structures or built 

outside of the designated wetlands, no mitigation would be required. A Section 404 permit 

would be required for any clearing that would need to take place inside a designated wetland. 

Approximately 350 linear feet of stream impacts are anticipated with the Build Alternative. 

The existing BNSF main line already crosses most of the affected streams with existing 

bridge structures. The proposed bridges over the existing stream crossings would be wider 

than the existing bridges due to the need to accommodate a future second rail track. One new 

crossing of Kings Creek and two new crossings of intermittent streams would be part of the 

proposed interchange. However, the bridge work would require a Section 404 permit for the 

in-water work anticipated for bridge and pile construction. 

4.10 FLOODPLAINS 

As discussed in Chapter 3, flooding is the primary environmental concern around the City of 

Tupelo. Floodplains in Lee County generally follow the wide, mostly flat Blackland Prairie 

physiographic region, as these areas lie in valleys at the base of the Tombigbee Hills. 

Portions of the Build Alternative lie within the Town Creek, Mud Creek, and Kings Creek 

floodplains, shown on Figure 4-12. 

There are many flood control measures located around the City of Tupelo in the Town Creek 

watershed. Many of the flood control measures in Lee County are managed by the 

TCMWMD. Any crossings of a regulatory floodway should be submitted to this 

organization for their review and given an opportunity for comment on final structures within 

their easements. 

No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative would have no impact to floodplains in Lee County, MS. 

Build Alternative 

The Build Alternative would be almost entirely placed on an elevated structure within the 

existing BNSF right-of-way. Little of the alignment would be placed at-grade, except for the 

proposed interchange. 

The railway improvements of the Build Alternative cross three floodways and approximately 

10 acres of 100-year floodplain. The Build Alternative crosses a regulatory floodway, 

designated as Kings Creek Tributary 1, in the heart of a residential section of Tupelo. This 

floodway is bridged by the existing BNSF main line. However, at no point does the Build 

Alternative run closely parallel or run along the flow line of a regulatory floodway or 

floodplain. The elevated railroad is on a bridge structure across this stream and would have 

no adverse impact to this floodway. In addition, the reduction in the number of bridge piers 

within the floodway and the increased low member elevation as a result of the elevated rail 

would enhance the floodway at this location. 
Pkwy

Trace

Natchez

City of

Tupelo

278

178

45

78

6

278

45

145

145

Kansas

Northern

Southern

City

Burlington

Santa

Fe

Main St

Gloster St

Jackson St

McCullough Blvd

Green St

President Ave

Lawndale Dr

Martin Luther King Jr Dr

Town Creek

Kings Creek

Mud Creek

Eason Blvd

FEMA

Tupelo Mississippi Railroad Relocation Floodplains

Planning & Environmental Study Figure

4-12

0 0.3 0.6 0.9

Miles

Natchez Trace

Parkway

Railroads

Primary Roads

Secondary Roads

Other Roads

Legend

Stream / Creek

Build Alternative

FEMA Floodplain

FEMA Floodway
 

4-36 

The Build Alternative crosses the regulatory floodway associated with the confluence of Mud 

Creek and Town Creek east of US 45. This floodway crossing is also bridged by the existing 

BNSF main line and is proposed to be bridged by the additional track proposed for the 

interchange yard associated with the BNSF Line. The Build Alternative also crosses the 

regulatory floodway associated with Kings Creek as part of the proposed interchange track. 

These bridge structures were designed to be above the base flood elevation to ensure that the 

conveyance of the Kings Creek, Mud Creek, and Town Creek floodwaters would not be 

impaired. 

The proposed structures were designed to adequately span the existing floodways. 

Coordination with the TCMWMD to accommodate their planned floodway channel 

improvements would occur in the final design phase of this project. 

4.11 HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES 

4.11.1 Surface Waters 

Surface water impacts can be viewed as either short-term construction or long-term 

operational impacts. Short-term construction related impacts can be reduced by 

careful implementation of the erosion and sediment control plan. Sediment 

contamination can lead to aquatic habitat degradation through loss of spawning areas, 

macro-invertebrate habitat loss, aquatic egg suffocation, gill irritation, lack of 

visibility for visual aquatic predators, and increased biological oxygen demand. 

Increases in suspended solids are also linked to increases in coliform bacteria, 

phosphorus, heavy metals, and organic chemicals. 

Erosion at construction sites can be reduced by following through on an erosion and 

sediment control plan which usually encompasses a combination of efforts to prevent 

the loss of sediment from a site. MDOT is the largest administrator of construction 

projects in Mississippi and has had a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) 

in place since October 1992. This plan was approved by MSDEQ and is routinely 

used successfully throughout the State on MDOT construction projects. 

Long-term efforts to protect surface water can be made by managing stormwater as it 

leaves a project’s right-of-way. Should contaminants build up on-site as a result of 

engine wear and tear, stormwater retention and detention ponds would allow the 

majority of these contaminants to settle out before runoff entered surface waters. 

Long-term stormwater impacts are less of an issue with rail projects than with 

highway projects. Normally right-of-way widths are less for railroads than for 

multilane highways, and that provides a greater amount of pervious surface area 

where rainwater can infiltrate into the soil instead of discharging directly into surface 

waters. This advantage is particularly true for the Build Alternative because much of 

the elevated viaduct will be on an elevated structure without an impervious surface 

below. 
 

4-37 

A number of federal, state, and local laws, and regulations, govern activities that 

could affect surface waters. Brief descriptions of these follow: 

The Federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq) (CWA) is the primary federal 

law protecting the quality of the nation’s surface waters. The Act prohibits any 

discharge of pollutants into the nation’s waters unless authorized by a permit. Section 

404 of the CWA establishes a permit program, administered by the USACE, to 

regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. 

Section 402 of the CWA requires a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permit for discharges into waters of the United States. 

Section 401 of the CWA requires that an applicant for a federal license or permit to 

allow activities that would result in a discharge to waters of the U. S. must obtain a 

state certification that the discharge complies with other provisions of the CWA. 

MSDEQ administers the certification program in Mississippi. 

Section 303[d]of the CWA requires each state to provide a list of impaired waters that 

do not meet or are expected not to meet state water quality standards as defined by 

that section. It also requires the state to develop total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) 

from the pollution sources for such impaired water bodies. This has been done in the 

project area. The Town Creek Watershed evaluation indicated that the impairment is 

due to phosphorus and nitrogen from point and nonpoint sources. The estimated 

existing ecoregion concentrations indicate reductions of nitrogen and phosphorus can 

be accomplished with installation of best management practices and reductions to 

point sources in the watershed. The proposed project does not include activities that 

would normally increase levels of nitrogen and phosphorus in streams. 

Section 14 of Rivers and Harbors Act (33 U.S.C. Section 408) requires permission for 

the use, including modifications or alterations, of any flood control facility work built 

by the U.S. to ensure that the usefulness of the federal facility is not impaired. The 

permission for occupation or use is to be granted by “appropriate real estate 

instrument in accordance with existing real estate regulations.” For USACE facilities, 

the Section 408 approval, known as a Section 408 permit, is required. 

There are many flood control measures located around the City of Tupelo in the 

Town Creek watershed. Many of the flood control measures in Lee County are 

conducted by the TCMWMD. Any crossings of a regulatory floodway would be 

submitted to this organization for their review and concurrence. 

 Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) requires that federal agency 

construction, permitting, or funding of a project avoid incompatible floodplain 

development, be consistent with the standards and criteria of the National Flood 

Insurance Program (NFIP), and restore and preserve natural and beneficial floodplain 

values. 
 

4-38 

Under the federal CWA, discharge of stormwater from construction sites must 

comply with the conditions of an NPDES permit. The state has adopted a statewide 

General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity that 

applies to projects resulting in 1 or more acres of soil disturbance. For projects 

disturbing more than 1 acre of soil, a SWPPP is required that specifies site 

management activities to be implemented during site development. These 

management activities include construction stormwater best management practices 

(BMPs), erosion and sedimentation controls, dewatering (nuisance water removal), 

runoff controls, and construction equipment maintenance. 

In 1987, Congress amended the Clean Water Act (CWA) to require implementation, 

in two phases, of a comprehensive national program for addressing storm water 

discharges. The first phase of the program, commonly referred to as “Phase I” was 

promulgated on November 16, 1990, (55 FR 47990). Phase I in 40 CFR Parts 9, 122, 

123, and 124 requires NPDES permits for storm water discharge from a large number 

of priority sources including municipal separate storm sewer systems generally 

serving populations of 100,000 or more and several categories of industrial activity, 

including construction sites that disturb five or more acres of land. In response to this 

requirement MDOT developed a SWPPP in October 1992, which was subsequently 

approved by the MSDEQ. 

This document serves as the standard for controlling storm water runoff from MDOT 

construction sites that disturb more than 5 acres. The Stormwater Phase II Rule 

extends coverage of the NPDES stormwater program to certain “small” MS4s but 

takes a slightly different approach to how the stormwater management program is 

developed and implemented. 

Bridges were used as much as possible in development of the Build Alternative. 

Where culverts are designed, they would be placed below grade to avoid scouring 

downstream from the structure. 

No-Build Alternative 

There would be no impacts to surface waters as a result of the No-Build Alternative. 

Build Alternative 

The Build Alternative lies within the City of Tupelo, where many streams are already 

impacted due to intense urban land use. A total of six perennial and ephemeral 

streams would be crossed by this alternative. Many stream crossings are currently 

traversed with a bridge or culvert structure for the existing rail line. Although the 

proposed BNSF main line parallels Kings Creek, it is located approximately 500 feet 

from the stream and well outside of the associated floodway. 

The Build Alternative would affect approximately 350 linear feet of streams. The 

existing BNSF main line already crosses most of the affected streams with existing 

bridge structures. The proposed bridges over the existing stream crossings would be 
 

4-39 

wider than the existing bridges because of the need to accommodate a future second 

rail track. One new crossing of Kings Creek and two crossings of existing intermittent 

streams would be part of the proposed interchange. However, the bridge work would 

require a Section 404 permit for the in-water work anticipated for bridge and pile 

construction. 

All stream crossings would be updated and modified during construction activities. 

This could result in, at most, short-term impacts associated with minor discharges of 

sediment. Because of the use of best management practices in design and 

construction; and, since the proposed project is largely within existing railroad right 

of way, long-term land use changes are not expected to occur. During construction 

activities, aquatic organisms are expected to undergo minor displacement resulting 

from construction activities, but these organisms are expected to return once activities 

cease. The overall land use will not change once construction activities are 

completed. Long-term effects to these streams are expected to be minimal. 

The proposed interchange area would be the only area of new railroad right-of-way. 

Three small drainage ditches would require some channel alteration with the 

placement of pipes or culverts, and a new bridge would be placed over Kings Creek. 

BMPs for erosion and sediment control would be provided during construction and 

stream bank stabilization post construction. Coordination with the TCMWMD would 

occur during the design stage to ensure all structures placed within easements are 

acceptable. 

Bridges were used as much as possible in development of the Build Alternative. 

Where culverts are used they would be designed with their floors below the normal 

stream bottoms. This will avoid scouring downstream from the structure and provide 

better aquatic habitat. 

4.11.2 Designated Use 

As discussed in Section 3.11.2, Mud Creek, Town Creek, and Kings Creek, are all on 

the MSDEQ 303(d) impaired water bodies list. Once on the list, MSDEQ is required 

to develop a plan to reduce the cause of impairment in order to restore the stream to 

healthy conditions. Part of the restoration plan is the development of TMDL, which 

is the maximum contaminant concentration in a water body that allows it to support 

the aquatic life designated use for each of these streams. TMDLs have been 

developed for Mud Creek, Town Creek, and Kings Creek for biological impairments. 

No-Build Alternative 

There will be no impacts to surface waters or to the MSDEQ restoration plans for 

Mud Creek, Town Creek, or Kings Creek associated with the No-Build Alternative. 

Build Alternative 

The primary surface water impact expected during the construction of the Build 

Alternative would be sedimentation, and increases in sedimentation can often be 
 

4-40 

linked to higher nutrient and pathogen levels. Once constructed, the Build 

Alternative would have very little impact on sedimentation, since it is a railroad 

mostly constructed on an elevated structure. The structure effluent would be treated 

within the BNSF right-of-way. Railroads typically do not contribute much to surface 

water or groundwater contamination. The Build Alternative would not hinder the 

MSDEQ restoration plans for Town Creek, Mud Creek, and Kings Creek. 

4.11.3 Water Resources Management 

The TCMWMD maintains each of the main channels around the City of Tupelo, 

including managing floodwaters, implementing channel improvements, applying land 

treatment measures, and it aids in debris removal around culverts and bridges. This 

organization holds conservation easements ranging from 250 feet to 550 feet along 

each of the main channels. 

No-Build Alternative 

There would be no impacts to any of the existing channels around the City of Tupelo 

with the No-Build Alternative. Therefore, there would be no need to consult the 

TCMWMD. The existing railroad bridges can accommodate the channel 

improvements proposed by the TCMWMD. 

Build Alternative 

The proposed improvements would construct one new bridge crossing of Kings Creek, 

three new culverts, and new bridges across Town Creek and Mud Creek. The Build 

Alternative would also require the permanent extension of two existing culverts and 

allow for the removal of one existing culvert. However, for the maintenance of rail 

traffic during the construction of the Build Alternative, 13 existing culverts would 

require extension and one new bridge across the Kings Creek Tributary No. 1 would 

be required. The TCMWMD would be consulted as to the additional channel 

improvements associated with the Build Alternative and its construction. 

4.11.4 Wild and Scenic Rivers 

There are no designated Wild and Scenic rivers within the study area. Therefore, 

there are no impacts to any Wild and Scenic Rivers under either the No-Build or 

Build Alternatives. 

There are also no streams eligible for the Mississippi Statewide Scenic Stream 

Stewardship Program within the study area. Therefore, there are no impacts to any 

streams within this program associated with either the No-Build or Build Alternatives. 

4.11.5 Groundwater 

The City of Tupelo lies on the boundary of the Southeastern Coastal Plain Aquifer 

and a Confining Unit, shown on Figure 4-13. USGS measurements taken at wells 

near the BNSF main line show that the aquifer has a minimum depth of 230 feet 

below the ground surface. The City of Tupelo receives drinking water from the 

Tombigbee River, 18 miles northeast of Tupelo. 
Pkwy

Trace

Natchez

City of

Tupelo

278

178

45

78

6

278

45

145

145

Kansas

Northern

Southern

City

Burlington

Santa

Fe

Main St

Gloster St

Jackson St

McCullough Blvd

Green St

President Ave

Lawndale Dr

Martin Luther King Jr Dr

Eason Blvd

Aquifer Tupelo Mississippi Railroad Relocation

Planning & Environmental Study Figure

4-13

0 0.3 0.6 0.9

Miles

Natchez Trace

Parkway

Railroads

Primary Roads

Secondary Roads

Other Roads

Legend

Build Alternative

Southeastern Coastal Plain

Confining Unit
 

4-42 

No-Build Alternative 

There would be no impact to groundwater or drinking water as a result of the NoBuild Alternative. 

Build Alternative 

Most of the proposed improvements, including all of the interchange area, are located 

over the Southeastern Coastal Plain Aquifer. Bridge piles are not anticipated to 

penetrate the aquifer. A small portion of the proposed storage yard along the BNSF 

main line would be over a Confining Unit, which prevents groundwater from 

percolating into an aquifer. With the aquifer insulated either by depth or by the 

Confining Unit, no impacts are expected to the Southeast Coastal Plain Aquifer. In 

addition, given the large distance between the Tombigbee River and the proposed 

improvements, no impacts are expected to the drinking water for the City of Tupelo. 

4.12 FEDERALLY FUNDED AND PROTECTED PUBLIC FACILITIES 

The inventory of land uses included a review of public parks, recreation areas, wildlife and 

waterfowl refuges of national, State, or local significance, or land of an historic site of 

national, State, or local significance. 

4.12.1 Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act Impacts 

Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 USC 303(c)), 

(Section 4(f)), declares that it is the policy of the United States Government that 

special effort should be made to preserve the natural beauty of the countryside and 

public park and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites. 

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

transportation program or project requiring the use of publicly owned land of a public 

park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, State, or local 

significance, or land of an historic site of national, State, or local significance (as 

determined by the Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction over the park, 

area, refuge, or site) only if: 

1) there is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land; and 

2) the program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the 

park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting 

from the use. 

Section 4(f) further requires consultation with the U.S. Department of the Interior and, 

as appropriate, the involved offices of the USDA and the HUD in developing 

transportation projects and programs that use lands protected by Section 4(f). 

This study evaluated over a dozen alternatives to determine if they satisfied the 

Purpose and Need of the project, were buildable, and whether they were socially, 

economically, and environmentally realistic solutions to the conflicts between rail and 

vehicular traffic in Tupelo. All the alternatives, except the Build Alternative, were 
 

4-43 

determined either to fail to satisfy the project’s Purpose and Need or be infeasible and 

dismissed from further consideration. 

One of the primary reasons that some of the dismissed alternatives were removed 

from consideration was that they would impact lands from resources protected by 

Section 4(f). Some of the alternatives would impact lands that could have 

archaeological or cultural significance to the Chickasaw Nation. Other alternatives 

would impact Chickasaw burial sites, and many alternatives would have impacts to 

the Natchez Trace Parkway. The exact location and severity of the impacts varied, 

but all of the dismissed bypass alternatives were expected to physically impact lands 

protected by Section 4(f). 

The Build Alternative would be constructed largely on existing developed right-ofway without the use of any land or structures protected by Section 4(f). It would have 

no physical impact on any park, recreational facility, or wildlife refuge. 

While the Build Alternative would not result in a physical use of a property protected 

by Section 4(f), this EIS also considered the visual effects the Build Alternative may 

have on the adjacent parks and the adjacent properties that are listed or eligible for the 

NRHP. To constitute a Section 4(f) impact, the visual effect would have to be of such 

magnitude that construction of the alternative would substantially impair the features 

or attributes that made the properties eligible for the NRHP or detract from the use of 

a public park. 

Historic Resources 

In coordination with the SHPO, the Build Alternative would have an adverse visual 

effect on 37 NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible resources, including the NRHP-listed 

Mill Village Historic District, the NRHP-listed South Church Street Historic District, 

and three NRHP-eligible historic districts--the Gravlee, North Tupelo, and Joyner 

neighborhoods, as shown in Table 4-6. 

The affected neighborhoods adjoin the railroad at ground level. The Build 

Alternative would elevate the railroad within the existing right-of-way so that it 

would no longer be a physical barrier to circulation and to eye-level sight lines within 

the City of Tupelo and within the historic neighborhoods. The SHPO has also 

expressed that any of the bypass alternatives would also have presented an adverse 

effect on the historic properties through the removal of the railroad tracks from their 

present location. 

Adverse visual effects could result from a change in the viewshed of and from these 

parks and historic resources as the railroad would change from at-grade to an elevated 

viaduct. However, the elevated viaduct would not result in physical take of the 

properties and would result in several benefits to these resources. The elevated rail 

viaduct would result in less train noise, especially horn soundings, and would project 

exhaust fumes from the locomotives upward and away from the parks and historic 
 

4-44 

neighborhoods. In addition, access to the historic districts would be improved as the 

proposed project would remove barriers to pedestrian and traffic movements. 

The majority of the historic resources potentially affected by the proposed project are 

eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C, which defines eligibility based on their 

architectural type, their period, method of construction, or because they are the work 

of a master architect, or because of their high artistic value. Some of the historic 

resources identified in the Cultural Resources Investigations for the Tupelo Railroad 

Relocation Study (Brockington, January 2009) are adjacent to the proposed 

improvements, while most are not within the direct line of sight. In either case, 

although the SHPO has determined adverse visual effects for these historic resources, 

the architectural features that make them eligible under Criterion C will not change 

with construction of the proposed improvements. 

Other historic resources are eligible under Criteria A and C. Criterion A is defined as 

having association with historic events or broad patterns of history. The resources 

that are eligible under Criterion A may lose one facet of the many that made them 

eligible for their contributions to the industrialization of Tupelo: the at-grade railroad. 

However, there would still be a railroad at the same location, and all of the other 

factors that affected the historical development of Tupelo would remain unchanged. 

Parks 

Two adjacent city parks, Burt Park Liberty Gardens and Rob Leake City Park, shown 

on Figure 4-5, would also experience visual impacts from the elevated rail viaduct. 

Burt Park Liberty Gardens is located on the corner of Park Street and Jefferson Street 

and consists of a landscaped footpath among trees in an urban environment. The park 

has no recreational facilities and occupies less than one-tenth of an acre adjacent to 

the railroad, which can easily be seen from anywhere in the park, and is bounded by 

two at-grade rail crossings. The park serves as an urban garden. The elevated 

viaduct would not physically impact the park, and the proposed bridge structure 

would maintain the park’s sight lines. 

Rob Leake City Park is located along Joyner Avenue and lies on a ridge overlooking 

the adjacent existing BNSF main line. The park has several recreation facilities, 

including ball fields, tennis courts, and a public pool. The elevated structure would 

be constructed on fill with retaining wall, which would not physically impact the park. 

The viaduct would be on an incline adjacent to the park and the structure would not 

be visible from much of the park due to an existing vegetative barrier and the grade 

difference. 

The viaduct would allow for trains to pass without horn soundings and create a “quiet 

zone” in central Tupelo, which would include these parks. The elevated viaduct 

could be viewed as an enhancement for the patrons of these facilities, where train 

noise, especially horn soundings, can be intrusive to the enjoyment of these facilities. 
 

4-45 

No-Build Alternative 

No lands which would fall under protection by Section 4(f) would be used with the 

No-Build Alternative. Therefore, a Section 4(f) evaluation would not be required for 

the No-Build Alternative. 

Build Alternative 

There are no wildlife or waterfowl preserves within the affected environment. As 

determined through coordination with MDOT and the SHPO, there would be adverse 

visual impacts to two public parks, five NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible historic 

districts, and 37 NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible structures that lie within the project 

APE. However, the majority of those affected structures are not adjacent to the 

proposed improvements included in the Build Alternative and any visual impacts to 

the viewshed of or from those structures would not impair the qualities that made 

them eligible for listing on the NRHP. The parks, structures, and historic districts 

adjacent to the proposed improvements, shown in Table 4-10, would be more directly 

impacted and would be at the center of any mitigation efforts. 

Table 4-10 Potential Section 4(f) Impacts 

Type Mitigation

Rob Leake City Park Park Visual - Retaining Wall Vegetative Barrier / Context Sensitive Design

Burt Park Liberty 

Gardens Park Visual - Bridge Multi-Use Path / Landscaping / Context Sensitive Design

Carnation Condensary Indusrial Visual - Bridge/Retaining Wall Multi-Use Path / Landscaping / Context 

Sensitive Design

TVA 'Tupelo' Sign Sign Visual - Bridge TBD

Joyner Historic District Historic 

District Visual - Bridge/Retaining Wall Architectural Survey of District / Historic Signs / Context Sensitive Design

Gravlee Historic District Historic 

District Visual - Bridge Architectural Survey of District / Historic Signs / Context Sensitive Design

North Tupelo Historic 

District

Historic 

District Visual - Bridge Architectural Survey of District / Historic Signs / Context Sensitive Design

South Church Street 

Historic District

Historic 

District Visual - Bridge Funding for Restoration Initiatives / Context Sensitive Design / Historic Signs

Mill Village Historic 

District

Historic 

District Visual - Bridge Funding for Restoration Initiatives / Context Sensitive Design / Historic Signs

Resource Facility 

Type

Build Alternative Impact

The park functions of Burt Park Liberty Gardens and Rob Leake City Park would not 

be impaired by the Build Alternative. Both parks would remain intact as a result of 

the Build Alternative and both parks would experience a significant noise benefit 

from the construction of the elevated rail viaduct. Therefore, the Build Alternative 

would not involve a use of these parks. 

The FRA, City of Tupelo, MDOT, and the SHPO are in the process of determining 

possible mitigation efforts, through a binding MOA, included in Appendix F, to 
 

4-46 

soften the appearance of the elevated rail viaduct and reduce the visual impacts to 

adjacent features. Potential mitigation could include context sensitive design, public 

art, and other visual treatments, as well as public involvement, restoration projects, 

and historic surveys. In addition, the elevated viaduct would introduce some benefits 

to these resources, such as reduced noise and the removal of stationary rail cars from 

the existing yard between Crosstown and Church Street. 

The FRA in consultation with MDOT has concluded that the adverse visual effects on 

the historic resources resulting from the Build Alternative are not of such magnitude 

that they would substantially impair the features or attributes that give the properties 

their function or historic significance. Therefore, there are no Section 4(f) impacts as 

a result of the Build Alternative and a separate 4(f) Statement is not required. 

4.12.2 Section 6(f)(3) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Impacts 

The Natchez Trace Parkway, Oren Dunn City Museum, and Ballard Park and 

Sportsplex have been LWCFA grant recipients within the City of Tupelo and thus fall 

under Section 6(f)(3) protection. However, only The Natchez Trace Parkway is 

within 500 feet of the existing BNSF main line. 

No-Build Alternative 

There would be no impacts to Section 6(f)(3) lands with the No-Build Alternative. 

Build Alternative 

The proposed improvements associated with the Build Alternative begin more than 

1,000 feet south of the Natchez Trace Parkway overpass over the BNSF main line and 

are entirely within the existing BNSF right-of-way. No lands under the protection of 

Section 6(f)(3) would be impacted by the Build Alternative. 

4.12.3 National Trails System Act Impacts 

The Natchez Trace National Scenic Trail is protected under the National Trails 

System Act. One of the segments of the Natchez Trace National Scenic Trail is a 

six-mile foot path that parallels the Natchez Trace Parkway through the City of 

Tupelo. The trail crosses the BNSF rail line at-grade, approximately 150 feet north of 

the Natchez Trace Parkway overpass over the BNSF main line. 

No-Build Alternative 

There are no impacts to any facilities protected by the National Trails System Act 

associated with the No-Build Alternative. 

Build Alternative 

The Build Alternative improvements begin approximately 1,000 feet south of the 

Natchez Trace Parkway overpass over the BNSF main line. The Build Alternative 

would not affect either the Natchez Trace National Scenic Trail or its associated 

viewshed since the improvements will be entirely within the existing BNSF right-ofway and are on the opposite side of the Natchez Trace Parkway from the trail. 
 

4-47 

4.13 WILDLIFE 

During construction activities, nearly all vegetative species would be removed and most 

animal species would flee from the area as clearing begins. Construction impacts to local 

fish and wildlife species are expected to be temporary, as construction areas are cleared of 

vegetation. However, the Tupelo area is a growing urban area, and most major impacts have 

already occurred or are occurring in response to growth in and around the City of Tupelo. 

Where bridges are located, permanent effects are expected to be less than those associated 

with embankment style construction. However, an adverse shading effect can be expected 

under bridges. Where bridging or elevation occurs, areas below the elevated structure would 

no longer receive the same amount of sunlight as they would normally receive, resulting in 

reduced primary production. This shading effect on both terrestrial and aquatic species could 

result in further habitat degradation. 

4.13.1 Vegetative Communities 

As described in Section 3.14.1, a portion of the study area is located within the 

Blackland Prairie ecoregion, which is considered a critically endangered ecosystem, 

and is surrounded by rolling Tombigbee Hills which is part of the Southern Coastal 

Plain. However, there are no pristine prairie environments remaining in the Blackland 

Prairie in or around the City of Tupelo, and the affected environment generally 

contains either urban or agricultural areas. 

No-Build Alternative 

There would be no change to the Blackland Prairie ecoregion as a result of the NoBuild Alternative. 

Build Alternative 

No areas of pristine Blackland Prairie exist and little forested area remains along the 

Build Alternative. While the majority of the Build Alternative lies within the 

Blackland Prairie area of Tupelo, the improvements would be almost entirely on 

previously developed land. The existing BNSF right-of-way has little vegetation and 

is cleared periodically as a routine component of track maintenance. Temporary 

habitat effects could possibly be significant during construction activities, and these 

would be mitigated through proper erosion and sediment control practices (BMPs). 

Construction of the railroad within the existing right-of-way would greatly reduce the 

potential adverse impacts to species. 

The interchange area would cross Kings Creek with a bridge to avoid impacts to 

vegetative communities. The interchange area would also bisect agricultural fields 

between an industrial portion of Tupelo and US 45. The area is rapidly being 

converted to more industrial areas and cannot be considered prime habitat due to 

encroaching industry and human activity. Therefore, impacts to vegetative 

communities as a result of the Build Alternative are anticipated to be minimal. 

 
 

4-48 

4.13.2 Terrestrial Habitat 

Because the primary land use for the study area is either agriculture or urban, most 

wildlife species expected in the study area are generalists and are able to survive in a 

wide range of habitats. Organisms found in open areas, including agriculture, are 

bobwhite quail, cottontail rabbit, red fox, mourning dove, and species of songbirds. 

Squirrels, white tail deer, wild turkey, woodcock, raccoon, ducks, geese, rails, and 

shore birds can be found in or near the study area. No environmentally sensitive 

habitat or species was found within the affected environment. 

No-Build Alternative 

The existing BNSF main line will remain at-grade with the No-Build Alternative, 

increasing the likelihood of train and wildlife collisions will increase as train traffic 

increases through Tupelo. There would be no other impacts to terrestrial species as a 

result of the No-Build Alternative. 

Build Alternative 

Because the Build Alternative is proposed primarily within the existing BNSF rightof-way, the potential adverse impacts to species are minimized. Impacts to species 

would be reduced in the areas where the rail line is elevated, resulting in less inhibited 

movement of species through the railroad right-of-way and reducing train and 

wildlife collisions. The likelihood of an increase in bird strikes by trains on the 

elevated viaduct is minimal, since the trains would only be travelling at 40 miles per 

hour and birds should be able to avoid vehicles travelling at that speed. Furthermore, 

the proposed construction of a green space bike path, as described in Section 2.8.2.7, 

could increase the amount of wildlife habitat within the City of Tupelo. Minimization 

of terrestrial habitat degradation would occur by reducing erosion and sedimentation 

at construction sites and quickly re-vegetating once construction is completed. After 

construction is finished, maintaining a vegetated buffer along the rail line would offer 

habitat within a highly industrial land use. 

4.13.3 Aquatic Habitat 

Organisms found in Kings Creek, Mud Creek, and Town Creek area are able to 

survive in a range of environmental conditions and are capable of living in poor water 

quality due to high sediment loads and stream channelization activities. Common 

fish species include bass, bluegill, and channel catfish. 

No-Build Alternative 

There would be no impacts to aquatic habitat with the No-Build Alternative. 

Build Alternative 

Due to existing urban land uses, relative distance to streams, use of bridge structures, 

and elevation of the rail line, effects to aquatic systems associated with the Build 

Alternative along this corridor are anticipated to be minimal. Minimization of aquatic 

habitat degradation would occur by reducing erosion and sedimentation at 

construction sites and quickly re-vegetating once construction is completed. 
 

4-49 

4.13.4 Threatened and Endangered Species 

The only Federal or State listed endangered species within the affected area is the 

Price’s potato bean. No critical habitats for any endangered species were found 

within the affected environment. 

No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative would not have impact on any sensitive organisms within 

the study area. 

Build Alternative 

There is little suitable habitat for the Price’s potato bean along the Build Alternative 

as it runs through an intense urban area and primarily within the existing BNSF 

railroad right-of-way. No individuals were observed, and there is little potential for 

this species to exist due to the fact that corridors have already been significantly 

impacted. Remaining on the footprint of the existing rail line reduces the potential 

for major impacts to this species. No further coordination with USFWS would be 

required. 

If a Price’s potato bean population were found in the area of the Build Alternative 

during construction, bridging the area would not be considered a viable mitigation 

option. This species needs an open sunlight canopy to survive and the shading 

provided by bridge structures would be detrimental to the plant’s survival. If the 

species were found along the project right-of-way, there could be potential to relocate 

individuals to The Nature Conservancy preserve in the Coonewah Creek watershed. 

Further coordination with the USFWS and The Nature Conservancy would be 

required if an individual were identified along the location during construction; 

however, this is not anticipated. 

4.13.5 Conservation Easements 

The TCMWMD maintains conservation easements surrounding several channels 

throughout the Tupelo area. 

No-Build Alternative 

There would be no impacts to any conservation easements with the No-Build 

Alternative. 

Build Alternative 

The Build Alternative includes four bridge structures to either replace existing 

bridges or to construct new spans across existing water bodies within the City of 

Tupelo. The new bridge structures include a bridge across Mud Creek and Town 

Creek for the proposed storage tracks along the BNSF main line and a bridge across 

Kings Creek for the interchange track. The existing BNSF main line bridge across a 

Kings Creek Tributary No.1 would be replaced with the proposed mainline elevated 

bridge structure and the existing Eason Boulevard bridge across Kings Creek and 

Town Creek would be replaced with the proposed bridge over the BNSF main line. 
 

4-50 

Coordination with the TCMWMD during design and construction of the bridges 

would occur to avoid conflicts with the conservation easements. 

4.14 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

Based on a review of database records, interviews with State and local officials who have 

knowledge of the study area, documents on file with the MSDEQ, and a site reconnaissance, 

no sites were identified with potential to significantly impact the railroad corridor, as detailed 

in Section 3.16. Impacts may be considered significant if the proposed improvement appears 

to affect buildings, underground tanks, or requires the purchase of adjacent property. 

No-Build Alternative 

Since there are no known sources of contamination within the existing corridor and no 

improvements are included in the No-Build Alternative, there would be no impacts to 

hazardous materials sites. 

Build Alternative 

Based on information obtained from reviews of available government records and maps, and 

a field reconnaissance of the railroad corridor and the adjacent areas, there is limited 

potential for hazardous materials impacts from the Build Alternative, shown on Figure 4-14. 

During this reconnaissance, no sites that warrant further investigation were identified. Some 

of the properties adjacent to the corridor have previously been the location of several 

industries, including manufacturing and textile mills. Therefore, care should be taken during 

construction activities to identify any evidence of contamination, such as discolored or 

stained soils or unusual odors. If evidence of contamination is noted during construction, 

environmental professionals and/or the MSDEQ would be notified. 

4.15 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 

Visually sensitive sites were identified within the City of Tupelo and included known 

cultural resources, parks, and other recreation facilities in the immediate vicinity of the Build 

Alternative. A viewshed model was created for the length of the Build Alternative to 

determine the distance at which the elevated viaduct could be seen into each neighborhood, 

shown on Figure 4-15. Observer locations on top of the proposed bridge structure were 

established at nodes along the Build Alternative, and a 360-degree sweep of the landscape 

was performed at an observer height of six feet above ground. The visually sensitive sites 

identified within the viewshed of the proposed elevated viaduct were rated on the level of 

impact, shown in Table 4-11. Impact scores were determined by the following criteria: 

 Low - Minor adverse change to the existing visual resource, with low viewer 

response to the change in visual environment. May or may not require mitigation. 

 Moderate - Adverse change to the visual resource, with moderate viewer response. 

Aesthetic impact can be mitigated within five years, using conventional practices. 

 Moderately High - Moderate adverse visual resource change with high viewer 

response, or high adverse visual resource change with moderate viewer response. 

Landscape treatment required will generally take longer than five years to mitigate. 
Pkwy

Trace

Natchez

City of

Tupelo

278

178

45

78

6

278

45

145

145

Kansas

Northern

Southern

City

Burlington

Santa

Fe

Main St

Gloster St

Jackson St

McCullough Blvd

Green St

President Ave

Lawndale Dr

Martin Luther King Jr Dr

Eason Blvd

Hazardous

Tupelo Mississippi Railroad Relocation Material Sites

Planning & Environmental Study Figure

4-14

0 0.3 0.6 0.9

Miles

Natchez Trace

Parkway

Railroads

Primary Roads

Secondary Roads

Other Roads

Legend

Agricultural Chemical

Sampling Sites

CERCLA Sites

Discharge Elimination

Sites

EPA Regulated Facilities

RCRA Sites

Toxic Release

Inventory Sites

Storage Tanks for

Flammable Materials

Build Alternative
Pkwy

Trace

Natchez

City of

Tupelo

278

178

45

78

6

278

45

145

145

Kansas

Northern

Southern

City

Burlington

Santa

Fe

Main St

Gloster St

Jackson St

McCullough Blvd

Green St

President Ave

Lawndale Dr

Martin Luther King Jr Dr

Eason Blvd

11

12

13 14

15

16

5

6

7

9 8

10

4

1 2

3

Viewshed Tupelo Mississippi Railroad Relocation

Planning & Environmental Study Figure

4-15

0 0.3 0.6 0.9

Miles

Natchez Trace

Parkway

Railroads

Primary Roads

Secondary Roads

Other Roads

Legend

Observation Point

Park

NHRP Historic Site/District

Build Alternative

NHRP Historic District/Site

Potential Historic 

District/Site

Id NAME

1 Carnation Condensary

2 Hamp Bryson House

3 531 S Church Street

4 Superintendant's House, pvt. John Allen Fish Hatchery

5 Rob Leake City Park

6 Burt Park Liberty Gardens

7 Old Mill Town Park

8 Green Street Observation Point

9 Church Street Observation Point

10 Jefferson Street Observation Point

11 South Church Street Historic District

12 Mill Village Historic District

13 North Broadway Historic District

14 North Historic District

15 Gravlee Historic District

16 Joyner Avenue Historic District

Out of Bridge View

Potential Historic Site/District Within Bridge View
 

4-53 

 High - High level of adverse changes to the resource, or high level of viewer response 

to visual change, such that architectural design or landscape treatment cannot mitigate 

the impacts. An alternative project design may be required to avoid impacts. 

Table 4-11 Aesthetic and Visual Impacts from Build Alternative 

Visual Resource NHRP 

Status

Visual 

Impact Mitigation Option

Pvt. John Allen National 

Fish Hatchery Listed Low None

Mill Village Historic 

District Listed Moderately 

High Aesthetic design

South Church Street 

Historic District Listed Moderately 

High Aesthetic design

Carnation Condensary Eligible Moderately 

High Aesthetic design

Hamp Bryson House Eligible Moderate Aesthetic design

531 S. Church Street Eligible Moderate Aesthetic design

Joyner Historic District Proposed Low None

Gravlee Historic District Proposed High Elevated bridge w/ aesthetic 

design

Old Mill Town Park N/A Moderate Aesthetic design

Burt Park Liberty 

Gardens N/A Moderate Aesthetic design w/ pedestrian 

trail link

Rob Leake City Park N/A Moderate Aesthetic design w/ vegetative 

barrier

TVA Sign at Crosstown 

Intersection Proposed High Possible relocation or 

incorporation into bridge design

No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative would not alter the viewsheds of any of the cultural resources, 

parks, and other recreational facilities within the City of Tupelo. The trains would still run 

through Tupelo at-grade and perform the interchange operations through the downtown 

Tupelo area. Trains would remain visible from the Old Mill Town Park and Burt Park 

Liberty Gardens, the NRHP-listed historic districts of Mill Village and South Church Street, 

and the NRHP-eligible structures and districts described in Section 3.6.1. Stationary rail cars 

would still be visible in the storage yard between Gloster Street and Church Street. 

Build Alternative 

The Build Alternative would replace an at-grade rail facility with an elevated rail facility 

within the existing railroad right-of-way. A large, permanent bridge structure approximately 

25 to 30 feet high would cross through the heart of downtown Tupelo. The sentiment 

expressed by attendees at various project public meetings prevailed that the potentially 
 

4-54 

adverse aesthetic impact of a large bridge structure is offset substantially by the improvement 

of traffic flow issues associated with the current at-grade rail facility. However, while public 

opinion on the visual impacts is a significant factor in the design, visual impacts to historic 

structures, historic districts, and recreational facilities must also be evaluated. 

Visual resources scoring High or Moderately High, identified in Table 4-11, would require 

some visual mitigation involved in the structure design, especially for NRHP-listed resources. 

Those highly affected resources are described with respect to their relative aesthetic impacts 

and mitigation recommendations, and photographic renderings of the Build Alternative were 

prepared for each resource to provide a visual benchmark as to the level of impact anticipated 

for each resource. 

 Mill Village Historic District - Moderately High – This NRHP-listed historic district 

is bordered to the north by the BNSF main line. The existing heavy tree cover within 

the district will aid in masking the facility. However, the elevated rail viaduct would 

be visible from much of the historic district, especially looking along Spring Street 

and Green Street as well as from other breaks in tree cover. This district is listed on 

the NRHP for historic industrial structures. The bridge would be designed with 

context sensitive elements, to be determined during procedures outlined in the MOA 

included in Appendix F, which fits within the existing land uses. 

 South Church Street Historic District - Moderately High - The BNSF railroad runs 

to the north of this NRHP-listed historic district. The proposed viaduct structure 

would be visible from much of the neighborhood. The South Church Street Historic 

District is NRHP listed for its historic homes. While the rail facility would not be 

residential in nature, the facility will be hidden by trees and other homes and 

buildings. Context sensitive design elements would lessen visual impacts to this 

historic neighborhood. The proposed pedestrian trail would add an opportunity for 

recreation and linkages to other recreational facilities within the City, enhancing the 

aesthetics of the district.

 Carnation Condensary - Moderately High - This is a closed factory building that 

borders the BNSF main line to the north and Church Street to the east. The factory 

itself is in a serious state of disrepair, but was purchased by the City of Tupelo with 

the intent of preserving its historic character. The existing viewshed regarding the 

BNSF main line includes the storage yard between Gloster Street and Church Street. 

The proposed viewshed would include the proposed fill structure with retaining wall, 

which could be considered a hindrance. However, because this viewshed is already 

compromised by stationary rail cars, the proposed fill structure with retaining wall in 

this area and the associated pedestrian trail could be considered an improvement. 

 
 

4-55 

Existing View Looking North from Mill Village Historic District (Spring St.) 

View Looking North from Mill Village Historic District with Build Alternative 
 

4-56 

Existing View Looking North from Mill Village Historic District (Green St.) 

View looking North from Mill Village Historic District with Build Alternative 
 

4-57 

Existing View Looking North within South Church Street Historic District 

View Looking North within South Church Street Historic District with Build 

Alternative 
 

4-58 

Existing View Looking South into Church Street Historic District 

View Looking South into Church Street Historic District with Build Alternative 
 

4-59 

Existing View Looking North Adjacent to Carnation Condensary 

View Looking North Adjacent to Carnation Condensary with Build Alternative 
 

4-60 

Existing View Looking North at Crosstown Intersection 

View Looking North at Crosstown Intersection with Build Alternative 
 

4-61 

Existing View Looking North within Gravlee District 

View Looking North within Gravlee District with Build Alternative 
 

4-62 

Existing View Looking West from Rob Leake City Park 

View Looking West from Rob Leake City Park with Build Alternative 

 Gravlee District - High - This neighborhood has the highest potential for visual 

impacts as this district is bisected by the BNSF main line. A bridge structure would 

be critical for preserving cohesiveness within the district. An embankment style 

structure would be devastating to the continuity of the neighborhood, completely 

cutting off view from one side of the facility to the other. Because of the potential for 

major adverse visual impacts, this is the most important section of the project to 

receive a bridge structure rather than an embankment style structure. An aesthetic 

design is critical to preserve this historic neighborhood. 

 
 

4-63 

 TVA Sign at Crosstown Intersection - High - This sign was historically designed to 

be observed by visitors traveling towards the Crosstown intersection. While the 

setting of this resource has been dramatically altered in recent decades with the 

construction of modern commercial development, the sign has retained much of its 

historic value, including its colorful neon lighting. The Build Alternative would 

obstruct its view from visitors traveling on both Gloster Street and Main Street, and 

consultation with the SHPO would be coordinated to recommend possible mitigation 

measures. In addition, the construction of the truss bridge across Crosstown could 

require the temporary relocation of this sign, as it is located almost directly 

underneath the proposed structure. Mitigation options could include the relocation of 

this sign to another intersection within Tupelo along with the construction of a larger, 

more modern sign to be incorporated into the proposed truss bridge. 

4.16 TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES 

4.16.1 Highways 

The effects on the highway network around the City of Tupelo can be measured in 

both capacity and travel delay. The impacts of the alternatives are likely to arise 

more from the construction process than as a permanent hindrance to the traffic flow. 

No-Build Alternative 

The highway network would experience greater vehicle delay with the No-Build 

Alternative as a result of the increased rail traffic across the at-grade intersections 

throughout Tupelo. Of particular concern would be the Crosstown intersection which 

is comprised of MS 145 (Gloster Street) and US 278/MS 6 (Main Street), which is 

also part of Appalachian Highway Corridor V. As discussed in Section 4.4.7, the 

traffic delay affects both the Crosstown intersection and adjacent intersections. 

Increased rail traffic would result in additional delays. Grade-separated highways, 

such as US 45 and US 78, would not experience the increased vehicle delay. 

Build Alternative 

Highways throughout Tupelo would be impacted by the Build Alternative, both by its 

construction and its final configuration. During the construction of the Build 

Alternative, the Crosstown intersection would require temporary lane closures to 

facilitate the construction of both the temporary track crossing and the proposed truss 

bridge structure across the intersection. These closures would occur during off-peak 

hours, and the intersection could remain open during peak traffic hours. Also, US 45 

would be reduced to one lane in each direction as the overpass over the BNSF main 

line is reconstructed. All of the construction-related delays would be temporary. 

The proposed Build Alternative would remove the majority of the at-grade railroad 

crossings within the City of Tupelo, especially those that experience the greatest 

amount of traffic. This would have a noticeable beneficial impact on the traffic flow 

in and around the Tupelo area, which would enhance the area’s opportunity for future 

growth. 
 

4-64 

4.16.2 Airports 

Tupelo provides regional air service at the Tupelo Regional Airport. 

No-Build Alternative 

There would be no impact to the Tupelo Regional Airport with the No-Build 

Alternative. 

Build Alternative 

The Tupelo Regional Airport is located more than one mile from the proposed 

improvements associated with the Build Alternative. Overall roadway traffic within 

Tupelo would see reduced delay with the Build Alternative, but none of the roads 

which access the airport would be impacted. Therefore, there would be no impact to 

the Tupelo Regional Airport associated with the Build Alternative. 

4.16.3 Public Transportation 

Greyhound operates long-distance passenger bus service with a station in Tupelo. 

Tupelo does not have local or regional bus service or passenger rail service. 

Therefore, there would be no impacts to public transportation with either the 

No-Build or Build Alternatives. 

4.16.4 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities 

Existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities are uncommon within the City of Tupelo. 

No-Build Alternative 

Pedestrian and bicycle facilities across the BNSF main line would remain unchanged 

with the No-Build Alternative. The sidewalk segments would remain disconnected 

across the railroad at Park Street and Church Street. In addition, future development 

for bicycle and pedestrian facilities would have to account for the at-grade railroad. 

Build Alternative 

The Build Alternative would greatly enhance pedestrian and bicycle facilities 

throughout Tupelo. The sidewalk segments at Park Street and Church Street would 

be connected across the BNSF right-of-way and a proposed pedestrian/bicycle trail 

would be constructed within the BNSF right-of-way from Lumpkin Avenue to Spring 

Street. In addition, sidewalk segments along all of the grade-separated crossings 

could be installed across the BNSF right-of-way. All such crossings would meet 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. 

The Build Alternative also includes a multi-use pedestrian/bicycle trail to be 

constructed within the outside 20 feet of the existing BNSF right-of-way once the 

elevated viaduct is complete and the temporary at-grade track has been removed. 

This trail would run from Jackson Street to Spring Street for a total length of 

approximately 1.5 miles. The trail would include a pedestrian crossing at Crosstown, 

which would require a pedestrian signal. Additional trail crossings at Blair Street, 

Jefferson Street, Park Street, Church Street, and Green Street would require stop signs 
 

4-65 

on the trail and appropriate signing and pavement markings on all cross-streets. The 

trail would also meet ADA requirements. 

4.16.5 Utilities 

The City of Tupelo includes many utilities, both subsurface and above-ground. 

No-Build Alternative 

There would be no impacts to utilities with the No-Build Alternative. 

Build Alternative 

The Build Alternative would impact several utilities within the City of Tupelo, shown 

in Table 4-12. These utilities were located based on a field reconnaissance 

performed in July 2008 and do not include all subsurface utilities. Potable water, 

sewer, and other underground utilities may exist within the existing BNSF right-ofway and the proposed interchange corridor, but they were not located with the surface 

evaluation of these corridors. In addition, overhead electric facilities may also carry 

telephone and cable television lines, but the specific carrier and utility owner 

information was not obtained for this study. 

Table 4-12 Utilities Affected by the Build Alternative 

Utility Type Location Relocation 

Needed Utility Type Location Relocation 

Needed

Gas Crossing BNSF R/W under Spring St. 

and KCS Unknown Overhead Electric 

(Distribution)

Along west edge of BNSF R/W between 

KCS and Elizabeth St. N/A

Gas Crossing BNSF R/W along north side of 

Eason Blvd N/A Overhead Electric 

(Distribution)

Crossing BNSF R/W along both sides of 

Elizabeth St. Vertical

Gas Crossing Eason Blvd west of US 45 N/A Overhead Electric 

(Distribution)

Along south side of Eason Blvd. between 

Green St. and Veterans Blvd. Horizontal

Overhead Electric 

(Distribution)

East edge of BNSF R/W along 

Shands Dr. N/A Overhead Electric 

(Distribution)

Crossing BNSF R/W south of 

Veterans Blvd. N/A

Overhead Electric 

(Distribution)

Crossing BNSF R/W along south side of 

Jackson St. Vertical Overhead Electric (Distribution)

Along east edge of KCS R/W from south 

of Eason Blvd. to Main St.

Horizontal & 

Vertical

Overhead Electric 

(Distribution)

Along west edge of BNSF R/W between 

Jackson St. and Park St. N/A Overhead Electric 

(Distribution)

Along north side of Eason Blvd. between 

Green St. and US 45 Horizontal

Overhead Electric 

(Distribution)

East edge of BNSF R/W from north of 

King St. to Gloster St. Horizontal Overhead Electric 

(Transmission)

Crossing BNSF R/W 700' south of 

Elizabeth St. Vertical

Overhead Electric 

(Distribution) Crossing BNSF R/W south of Main St. Vertical Overhead Electric 

(Transmission)

Crossing BNSF R/W 1200' north of 

US 45 Vertical

Overhead Electric 

(Distribution)

Along south edge of BNSF R/W from 

south of Main St. to Church St. N/A Overhead Electric 

(Transmission)

Crossing BNSF R/W 750' north of 

US 45 Vertical

Overhead Electric 

(Distribution)

Crossing BNSF R/W along east side of 

Church St. Vertical Sanitary Sewer East edge of BNSF R/W along 

Shands Dr. N/A

Overhead Electric 

(Distribution)

Crossing BNSF R/W along east side of 

Green St. Vertical Sanitary Sewer Manhole within BNSF R/W south of 

Elizabeth St. Horizontal

Overhead Electric 

(Distribution)

Crossing BNSF R/W along east side of 

Spring St. Vertical Sanitary Sewer Manholes (2) in field south of Pvt. John 

Allen Fish Hatchery Horizontal

Horizontal relocations would include the repositioning of utility poles or the rerouting of an underground facility. Vertical relocations would include the 

transposition of an overhead line either to a taller utility pole or to an underground 

facility. The cost of these utility relocations would be the responsibility of the utility 

owner. Utility owners have been contacted and coordination with utility owners to 
 

4-66 

estimate relocation costs and further identify utilities within the project corridor is 

ongoing. 

4.17 ENERGY IMPACTS 

Energy generation and consumption data specific to Tupelo and Lee County were not 

available, thus energy data for the State of Mississippi was obtained from the U.S. Energy 

Information Administration. 

Existing (2005) and future (2030) fuel consumption was calculated for the No-Build and 

Build Alternatives based on the VISSIM traffic modeling, described in Section 4.5.7, for the 

PM peak period and expressed in vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The VMT statistics 

represent the system-wide traffic projection and generally indicates the overall volume of 

traffic circulating under each alternative. Vehicle hours traveled (VHT) were summed for all 

the traffic in the model network to represent PM peak fuel consumption under each 

alternative. The hours traveled is indicative of the hours of fuel consumption for each 

alternative during the PM peak hours. This analysis does not estimate fuel consumed during 

off-peak hours or changes in technology that would lead to reduction of fuel consumption. 

Operational average daily peak miles, trips, and hours traveled by trains and vehicles for the 

No-Build and Build Alternatives are summarized in Table 4-13. 

Table 4-13 Average Daily Vehicle Miles and Hours During PM Peak Hours 

Vehicle Miles Traveled 5,383 7,062 7,254

Percent Change - 31% 35%

Total Vehicle Trips 11,253 14,928 15,283

Percent Change - 33% 36%

Vehicle Hours Traveled 326 829 519

Percent Change - 154% 59%

2030 

Build 

Alternative

 Parameter 2005 

(Existing)

2030 

No-Build 

Alternative

Source: Production and Consumption of Energy Technical Memorandum (ABMB, 2008) 

No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative would require minimal construction energy. Any energy expended 

would be for periodic rail and roadway maintenance, which would occur over time until the 

condition of either the rail or roadway network significantly deteriorates and warrants 

complete reconstruction. As shown in Table 4-13, the No-Build Alternative would result in 

154% more VHT as compared to the existing conditions, even though the traffic volumes are 

anticipated to increase by approximately one-third. This is representative of nearly a threefold increase in fuel consumption as a result of automobile delay due to the No-Build 

Alternative. 

 
 

4-67 

Build Alternative 

The Build Alternative would decrease the overall amount of energy consumed compared to 

the No-Build Alternative, as shown in Table 4-13. The VHT associated with the Build 

Alternative would increase by approximately 59% as compared to the existing condition, or 

by approximately one-third of the VHT increase associated with the No-Build Alternative. 

This decrease in VHT is inclusive of the relative increase in VMT and total vehicle trips as 

compared to the No-Build Alternative. The primary direct impacts on transportation energy 

use related to the Build Alternative would result from changes in traffic volumes and traffic 

patterns. Removing at-grade crossings reduces the fuel consumption per automobile because 

of the unrestricted flow of traffic and fewer delays while traveling. The operational energy 

required is anticipated to be less because of reduced vehicular congestion and increased 

safety near the elevated railroad. 

The Build Alternative would have a net beneficial impact on energy expenditures of the 

BNSF freight rail line because it would separate train traffic from the existing at-grade 

crossings, reducing train delays. Energy consumption would be reduced because the newer, 

elevated rail tracks offer higher travel speed and decrease delays. The interchange between 

the KCS and the BNSF would increase the efficiency of the exchange and reduce energy 

consumption. Over the design life of the facility, the savings in operational energy would be 

anticipated to offset the energy required to construct the viaduct. 

The use of energy for the construction of the Build Alternative would be a short-term impact 

on energy resources, representing only a minor age of the total energy consumed throughout 

the study area during the construction period. It is not anticipated to result in adverse 

impacts on the overall demand for energy during construction. 

4.18 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS 

The construction activities associated with building the elevated viaduct and associated 

roadway improvements would create environmental impacts. These impacts are generally 

short-term in nature and would be controlled, minimized, or mitigated through conformance 

with established construction methods. Temporary impacts resulting from construction 

include traffic disruption, increases in noise pollution, increases in vibration, decreases in air 

quality, erosion, sedimentation, and encroachment on sensitive animal and vegetative habitat. 

Construction activities would be performed to comply with applicable Federal, State, and 

local laws governing safety, health, and sanitation. These activities would include safeguards, 

safety devices, protective equipment, and any other needed action reasonably necessary to 

protect the life and health of employees on the job, the safety of the public, and property in 

connection with the performance of the work. 

Traffic 

During construction, all local and through traffic would be adequately and safely 

accommodated. All construction operations would be scheduled to minimize traffic delays, 

and the contractor will conform to standard construction practices. The plan for maintenance 

of traffic for each phase of construction of the Build Alternative would be developed during 
 

4-68 

the final design of the project and would include temporary lane or road closures and 

appropriate detours. A community relations/construction mitigation program would be 

developed and implemented in order to provide general construction scheduling information, 

coordination of construction work with local jurisdictions, and assistance with the resolution 

of problems concerning adjacent land uses associated with the construction work. 

Noise and Vibration 

Noise generated by haul trucks and other heavy equipment used in railroad, roadway, and 

bridge construction and paving is anticipated. The range of construction noise depends on 

the noise characteristics of the equipment and activities involved (e.g. pile driving), the 

construction schedule (time of day and duration of activity), and the distance from sensitive 

receptors. Expected phases of construction include land clearing and excavation, demolition, 

utility relocation, drainage construction, and bridge construction. Noise impacts, including 

pile driving and vibratory compaction of embankments, would be temporary and control 

measures would be implemented to reduce the impacts. 

Water Quality 

During project construction, potential short-term increases in water turbidity, which could 

affect wetlands and water quality, would vary from none to moderate. Qualitative short-term 

construction impacts to water quality, listed below, would not be permanent and would be 

minimized by using BMPs, consistent with State and local standards. 

 Chemical Pollutants – Minor 

 Biota – Minor 

 Turbidity – Moderate 

 Sedimentation – Minor 

Direct effects on water quality during construction may include spills or discharges. 

However, BMPs and proper planning should prevent such occurrences. 

Water quality degradation as a result of stormwater runoff is expected to be minimal as 

stormwater management rules and regulations are strict, and compensation for this type of 

impact would be provided. Adverse impacts on water quality during construction can be 

successfully mitigated through a variety of good construction and stormwater management 

practices. Water quality impacts resulting from erosion and sedimentation would be 

controlled in accordance with standard construction practices and through the use of BMPs. 

Air Quality 

Air quality impacts would be temporary and would primarily be in the form of exhaust 

emissions from trucks and construction equipment as well as from fugitive dust from 

construction sites. Almost all of the trucks and other equipment involved in construction 

activities would be diesel-powered. Overall, construction vehicle emissions would not be 

significant compared with the emissions from automobile traffic in the area. Detours and 

other delays in traffic during construction typically result in local increases in vehicle 

emissions. These impacts would be minimized by adherence to State and local regulations 

and in accordance with standard construction practices. 
 

4-69 

Construction Waste 

All construction waste material generated during clearing, grubbing, and other construction 

phases would be removed from the project site and disposed of by the contractor in 

accordance with State and local regulations. Litter and other general trash would be 

collected and disposed of at landfill locations. Construction waste deposition in and borrow 

from jurisdictional wetlands would not be allowed unless permitted by the USACE. 

Utility Service 

Construction of the Build Alternative would require some adjustment, relocation, or 

modification to existing public utilities. The impacts to these utilities are described in 

Section 4.16.5. Any disruptions to utility service during construction would be minimized 

by phased adjustments to the utility lines. All modifications, adjustments, or relocations 

would be coordinated with the affected utility owners. 

Borrow Pits and Spoil Sites 

Approved borrow material would be taken from sites in conformance with Federal, State, and 

local regulations. MDOT has worked closely with USFWS, SHPO, and other regulatory 

agencies to develop better procedures for evaluating and selecting borrow pits and spoil sites. 

All required permits (e.g. utility protection and erosion control) would be obtained before 

gathering the borrow material and the pit sites are determined satisfactory from an 

archaeological standpoint. Tribal governments would be consulted where necessary. 

Any material excavated would be disposed of in accordance with Federal, State, and local 

regulations. Excavated materials would not be disposed of in wetlands. After the completion 

of pit operations, water would not be allowed to pond. 

4.19 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

4.19.1 Indirect Impacts 

Indirect effects are defined by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) as: 

“...caused by an action and are later in time or farther removed in distance but 

are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing 

effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, 

population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other 

natural systems, including ecosystems” (40 CFR §1508.8). 

In many cases, these indirect effects would occur outside of a specific project area. 

As to the cause and effect relationship between the project and the indirect impact, 

CEQ states that indirect effects may include induced changes to land use resulting in 

resource impacts (40 CFR §1508.8). Other indirect effects include the potential 

alteration of or encroachment on the affected environment. Examples of this include 

fragmentation of a habitat and functional effects to water resources. 

This analysis follows guidance from the National Cooperative Highway Research 

Program (NCHRP) Report 466, Desk Reference for Estimating Indirect Effects of 
 

4-70 

Proposed Transportation Projects, from the Transportation Research Board and 

NCHRP Report 25-25, Task 22, Land Use Forecasting for Indirect Impacts Analysis. 

NCHRP Report 466 identifies three general categories of indirect land use effects: 

 Those stemming from projects planned to serve a particular land development 

project; 

 Projects likely to produce complementary land development (highwayoriented businesses); and 

 Projects likely to influence intraregional location decisions. 

Although the Build Alternative (elevation of an existing rail line) is not anticipated to 

induce development adjacent to the corridor, it would result in improved efficiency 

for the transportation network within the City of Tupelo. As a result, it could provide 

enhanced opportunities for development elsewhere in the City. The City of Tupelo 

and other local planners in the surrounding areas agree that a more efficient 

transportation network could enhance development opportunities. However, it is not 

possible to precisely quantify development that would occur as a result of the 

enhanced opportunities. Because the amount of development associated with the 

proposed project cannot be quantified, the following resource sections contain a 

qualitative assessment of the indirect effects that could occur as a result of enhanced 

development opportunities. Because the Build Alternative would remove the 

majority of the at-grade crossings within the City of Tupelo, the affected environment 

for the indirect effects analysis is bounded by the city limits. However, based on 

input from the City of Tupelo, it is anticipated that the majority of the enhanced 

development opportunities would be concentrated in downtown Tupelo. 

4.19.1.1 Land Use 

Tupelo: The Story Continues - The 2025 Comprehensive Plan (December 

2008) was adopted by the City of Tupelo to outline the City’s and region’s 

growth and development plan for the next two decades. The plan is updated 

every five years and directs inter-agency coordination and molds policy. 

Some of the main goals of the comprehensive plan include revitalizing 

neighborhoods, expanding economic development, and improving 

transportation. The comprehensive plan identified the relocation of the BNSF 

railroad crossing at the Crosstown intersection as an immediate need to 

enhance transportation safety within Tupelo. The development of a network 

of greenways, bikeways, and sidewalks was also identified in the 

comprehensive plan as a long-term goal. 

The majority of the proposed project would occur in a developed area. 

Existing land uses within 1⁄2-mile of the Build Alternative include residential, 

commercial, industrial, and agricultural. The City of Tupelo and the 

surrounding area are experiencing rapid growth and as a result, agricultural 

areas both within and outside of the city limits are being converted into 
 

4-71 

housing and business developments. This on-going trend of conversion from 

agricultural or undeveloped lands to residential and commercial areas is likely 

to continue with or without the proposed project. To the extent that the rate of 

development is increased by the proposed project, indirect effects could occur. 

Development is anticipated to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and 

zoning regulations, and, as a result, the change from undeveloped to 

developed uses is not anticipated to be significant. 

4.19.1.2 Farmlands 

Although some of the land that would be converted to developed uses is 

currently in agricultural use, the NRCS has stated that farmland within the city 

limits is considered to be in “urban” use. As a result, any conversion of 

agricultural land to developed uses would not be considered an adverse effect. 

4.19.1.3 Socioeconomic Conditions 

Indirect economic impacts include the impact on the local and regional 

economy due to enhanced development opportunities. These impacts are 

generally beneficial, such as increased tax revenue from developed land, 

increased household income and employment opportunities from new 

commercial development, reduced costs due to reduction in travel times and 

congestion, and increased income from construction of new development. 

Adverse economic impacts may occur during construction as traffic may be 

diverted around Tupelo. However, long-term employment opportunities could 

be increased as the growth following improvements in rail and roadway 

transportation. Population growth could follow employment growth and 

could increase additional demand for housing, and services. The Build 

Alternative would allow local traffic better access to residential, commercial, 

and industrial services within central Tupelo. 

4.19.1.4 Environmental Justice 

The on-going trend of conversion from agricultural or undeveloped lands to 

residential and commercial areas is likely to continue with or without the 

proposed project. Although there are minority and low-income populations 

within the City, the enhanced development opportunities afforded by the 

proposed project is not anticipated to result in disproportionate adverse effects 

to these vulnerable populations because those impacts will be felt by all 

populations. 

4.19.1.5 Public Facilities and Community Cohesion 

Any enhanced development opportunities would be anticipated with the City 

of Tupelo’s comprehensive plan and zoning regulations and would not result 

in adverse effects to public facilities. The Build Alternative would not 

separate any neighborhoods as the alignment primarily follows the existing 

railroad. Because the affected environment is moderately developed, it is 

unlikely that additional development, regardless of whether or not is it 
 

4-72 

enhanced by the proposed project, would result in adverse effects to 

community cohesion. 

4.19.1.6 Cultural Resources 

Archeological sites are typically directly affected through site clearing, 

grading, or excavation during development. Due to the history of the Tupelo 

area regarding the Chickasaw Nation, many archeological resources in the 

affected environment are unknown. Determination of whether any of the 

development forecasted by local planners would result in adverse effects to 

these sites cannot be made because the quantity, location, and character of 

individual resources are unknown. 

Indirect effects, as defined by Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act, would occur where the integrity of the resources would be 

affected by a change in viewshed. The MOA, discussed in Section 4.5.1 and 

included in Appendix F, is anticipated to account and mitigate for the direct 

effects and in so doing, will also mitigate for any indirect effects. Although it 

is possible that other archaeological sites exist in the affected environment, it 

is not possible to determine potential effects, as the exact location and nature 

of the resources are unknown and areas for potentially enhanced development 

cannot be quantified. 

Some development may fall under Federal or State regulatory resource 

protection review, and therefore, archeological and historic resources could be 

protected, preserved, or mitigated. If development is publicly funded, or if 

private development requires certain Federal permits, such as a permit under 

Section 404 of the CWA, then it would likely be subject to Federal or State 

regulations. However, most of the development, such as residential and 

commercial development, would not fall under the regulatory review process; 

therefore, these resources would have no protection under Federal or State 

laws. 

4.19.1.7 Air Quality 

Any future development may cause degradation of air quality as a result of 

increased traffic volumes within the affected environment. However, based 

on the comprehensive plan and zoning, most of the development would be 

residential and commercial. 

Potential indirect effects to air quality are not considered to be significant, and 

air quality may improve over time. Overall emissions would likely decrease 

due to the rapidly improving fuel and vehicle technology and vehicle turnover 

in the future years. Improved traffic flow in areas of existing congestion 

would also result in improved air quality. 

 
 

4-73 

4.19.1.8 Noise and Vibration 

Increases in vibration are not anticipated with any potential development that 

would be enhanced by the proposed project. Additional noise could result 

from future development. To the extent that this development is induced by 

the proposed project, an indirect effect of increased noise levels could occur. 

Noise is essentially a localized physical condition, with most of the noise from 

any increased development resulting from increased traffic within the study 

area. The proposed project is only anticipated to enhance the rate of 

development, rather than induce additional development within the study area. 

As a result, potential indirect effects to noise levels are not anticipated to be 

significant. 

4.19.1.9 Geological Resources 

The development in the study area is anticipated to be primarily residential 

and commercial. Any development, regardless of whether it is accelerated by 

the proposed project, would be anticipated to conform to current building 

codes and would not be in conflict with geological resources. 

4.19.1.10 Wetlands 

The proposed project is only anticipated to enhance opportunities for 

development rather than induce additional development beyond what is 

already planned. Regardless of whether development is public or private, it 

would be subjection to Sections 404 and 401 of the CWA, which regulates 

impacts to waters of the U.S., including wetlands. As a result, significant 

indirect effects to wetlands are not anticipated. 

4.19.1.11 Floodplains 

In general, floodplains pose a constraint to development regardless of whether 

it is accelerated by the proposed project. This constraint relates to the 

regulation of these floodplains through county and local ordinances. While 

these ordinances do not prohibit development within the floodplain, they limit 

and regulate development to eliminate or reduce potential damage from future 

floods. Development within floodways is prohibited. Any enhanced 

development opportunities would be subject to the local ordinances governing 

development within floodplains. As a result, significant indirect effects to 

floodplains are not anticipated. 

4.19.1.12 Hydrology and Water Resources 

Development effects that contribute to degradation of surface waters include 

increased impermeable surface and increased non-point source pollution (e.g. 

from fertilizers, pesticides, sediments, and vehicle residues). However, the 

proposed project is only anticipated to accelerate the rate of development, 

rather than induce additional development within the affected environment. 

Any development would have to comply with MSDEQ requirements, which 

will help minimize impacts to water quality. 
 

4-74 

4.19.1.13 Federally Funded and Protected Public Facilities 

Any enhanced development opportunities would be anticipated with the City 

of Tupelo’s comprehensive plan and zoning regulations and would not result 

in adverse effects to Federally funded and protected public facilities. 

4.19.1.14 Wildlife 

The majority of the undeveloped and agricultural lands within the City are 

interspersed within currently developed areas and do not provide high quality 

wildlife habitat. In addition, there are no known populations of Federal or 

State listed threatened or endangered species in the affected environment. 

Any enhanced development opportunities are not anticipated to occur in 

natural habitats or environmentally sensitive lands. In addition, because any 

accelerated development would occur within undeveloped pockets in currently 

developed areas, it is unlikely that this development would result in significant 

habitat encroachment or alteration. 

Impacts to Federally-listed endangered and threatened species are regulated 

by the USFWS under Sections 7, 9, and 10 of the Endangered Species Act. 

The Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks (MDWFP) has 

regulatory authority over State-listed animals where direct take (killing or 

injuring) is involved, but the agency does not have authority over destruction 

of habitat of State-listed animals. For State-listed plants, MDWFP does not 

regulate either direct or indirect take except for lands owned or managed by 

MDWFP. For any of the development anticipated to be induced by the 

proposed project, it would be the responsibility of the individual developers, 

in coordination with USFWS and MDWFP, to determine if their projects have 

the potential to affect threatened or endangered species. Because the proposed 

project is only anticipated to accelerate the rate of the planned development 

and the regulations governing projected species, indirect effects to protected 

species are not anticipated. 

4.19.1.15 Hazardous Materials 

Although a database search was completed for the affected environment, it is 

possible that development induced as a result of the proposed project could 

encounter sites contaminated with hazardous materials. To minimize the risk 

of impacting these sites through land disturbing activities, a Phase I 

Environmental Site Assessment to identify potential hazardous materials 

could be conducted prior to property acquisition and development. This is a 

standard practice in commercial and residential subdivision land development. 

The potential adverse effect is associated with additional costs and schedule. 

There would be a beneficial effect to soil and ground water resources by 

remediation of the contamination. Potential indirect effects are not considered 

to be substantial. Although hazardous materials may increase from future 

development of commercial areas, potential effects would likely be abated 
 

4-75 

from recent, more stringent regulations regarding hazardous materials 

management. Therefore, these potential effects are not considered to be 

substantial. 

4.19.1.16 Aesthetic and Visual Resources 

The aesthetic and visual direct effects of the elevated viaduct are generally 

limited to those properties within the immediate vicinity of the viaduct. The 

MOA, discussed in Section 4.5.1 and included in Appendix F, is anticipated 

to account and mitigate for the direct effects and in so doing, will also 

mitigate for any indirect effects. The potential development anticipated would 

be subject to the regulations of the City of Tupelo. Indirect impacts to the 

aesthetic and visual resources are not anticipated. 

4.19.1.17 Summary of Potential Impacts 

Table 4-14 provides a summary of the potential direct and indirect effects. 

Indirect impacts to other resources are described in further detail. Actual 

impacts to some of these resources could be reduced, as Federal and State 

regulations and local ordinances regulate development affecting these 

resources. In other cases, such as historic and archeological resources, 

regulation of development applies only to projects requiring Federal monies or 

permits, and these regulations mandate consideration not protection of the 

resource. Other resources, such as farmlands, wildlife habitat, and open 

space, are not effectively regulated for either public or private development. 

4.19.2 Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts are defined by CEQ regulations as: 

“...the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of 

the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes 

such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from minor but collectively 

significant actions taking place over a long period of time” (40 CFR §1508.7). 

Cumulative effects (impacts) include both direct and indirect, or induced, effects that 

would result from the project, as well as the effects from other projects (past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions) not related to or caused by this project. 

Therefore, the cumulative effects analysis includes the direct effects and indirect 

effects of the proposed project and effects of other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions. The cumulative effects analysis considers the magnitude of the 

cumulative effect on the resource health. Health refers to the general overall 

condition, stability, or vitality of the resource and the trend of that condition. 

Therefore, the resource health and trend are key components of the cumulative effects 

analysis. Laws, regulations, policies, or other factors that may change or sustain the 

resource trend would be considered to determine if more or less stress on the resource 

is likely in the foreseeable future. Opportunities to mitigate adverse cumulative 
 

4-76 

 Table 4-14 Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts 

Resource or 

Topic 

Evaluated

Summary of Direct Effects Summary of Indirect Effects

Land Use

Approximately 11 acres of 

agricultural and vacant land 

would be converted to railroad 

right-of-way. 

No Effect 

Farmlands No Effect* No Effect*

Socioeconomic 

Conditions

Increased traffic flow on 

roadway network, leading to 

economic development and 

growth.

Increased tax revenue, growth, 

employment, and improved 

access.

Environmental 

Justice

No disproportionate effects 

anticipated.

No disproportionate effects 

anticipated.

Public Facilities 

& Community 

Cohesion

No Effect No Effect

Cultural 

Resources

Visual impacts to 37 NRHPlisted or NRHP-eligible sites & 

districts. MOA to mitigate 

adverse effects.

Potential viewshed impacts 

and potential impacts to 

unknown resources.

Air Quality

Improvement of air quality via 

reduction of emissions from 

idling automobile traffic

No Effect

Noise Decrease in noise severity level 

at 52 sites No Effect

Vibration Increase in vibration imapacts 

at 18 sites No Effect

Geological No Effect No Effect

Wetlands Short-term impacts during 

construction. No Effect

Floodplains

Impact to 10 acres of 100-year 

floodplain and 3 new floodway 

crossings

No Effect

Hydrology & 

Water 

Resources

No Effect No Effect

Section 4(f) No Effect No Effect

Wildlife

Not likely to adversely affect 

Price's potato bean. No effect 

to other listed species or 

habitat. 

No Effect

Hazardous 

Materials

Low concern for encountering 

materials during construction. No Effect

Visual & 

Aesthetic

Impacts to resources within 

immediate vicinity of viaduct. 

MOA to mitigate adverse 

effects.

No Effect

*Land that is in agricultural production will be affected, but it is not Prime Farmland as designated by 

the Farmland Protection Act.
 

4-77 

effects on a stressed resource, or a resource that would continue to be stressed would 

be presented. 

The cumulative effects of an action may be undetectable when viewed in the 

individual context of direct and indirect impacts. Nonetheless, they can add to other 

disturbances and eventually lead to a measurable environmental change. 

The following eight-step evaluation process is intended to provide an efficient, 

consistent, and logical method of evaluating cumulative effects of a project. The 

following sections describe each of the eight steps used in this cumulative effects 

analysis. 

Step 1: Identify Resources to Consider 

Evaluation of cumulative effects should be completed for any resource that was found 

to be affected by the project. Resources that were not found to be directly or 

indirectly affected by the project were not considered in the cumulative effects 

analysis (CEA). Specific resources and environmental effects categories evaluated in 

this CEA are listed in Table 4-14. These resources include land use, noise and 

vibration, waters of the U.S., and floodplains. 

Step 2: Define the Study Area for Each Resource 

The CEA considered both geographic and temporal study limits. A Resource Study 

Area (RSA) was defined for each resource and is discussed in the pertinent sections. 

The RSAs are used for characterization of the health condition and trend for each 

resource and to determine the potential cumulative effects on a resource. Cumulative 

effects were determined considering the potential cumulative effect on the health and 

trend within the RSA. Additionally, the temporal limits were considered for the CEA 

from 1980 to 2030. The US 45 freeway bypass of Tupelo was constructed in 1980 

and has since altered the development patterns of the City. 

Step 3: Describe the Current Status/Viability and Historical Context for Each 

Resource 

The historical context and health of each resource is described and presented in the 

resource sections. This information is important to establish the baseline condition 

and trend the resource is experiencing to be able to estimate the magnitude of the 

resource effect. The historical context is first described to provide an explanation of 

the factors that have caused the current health of the resource. 

Step 4: Identify the Direct and Indirect Impacts of the Project 

This step identifies the direct and indirect effects that could result from the proposed 

project that may contribute to a cumulative effect when added to non-project related 

effects. Direct and indirect impacts are defined by CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1508.8) 

as follows: 
 

4-78 

“Direct impacts are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place”. 

(40 CFR 1508.8) 

“Indirect (secondary) impacts are caused by the action and are later in time and 

farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect 

impacts may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced 

changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate and related 

effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems.” (40 

CFR 1508.8) 

The CEA considers the direct and indirect effects, as previously described. A 

summary of these effects is presented for each resource in Table 4-14. 

Step 5: Identify Other Reasonably Foreseeable Effects 

A CEA requires consideration of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions. This is important to provide a context for the types of development projects 

that have caused the current health of the land and other resources, and the trends the 

resources are experiencing. 

Step 6: Identify and Assess Cumulative Impacts 

The CEA considered the direct and indirect effects of the project, together with the 

effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. The magnitude of 

the cumulative effect was determined by comparing the effect to the health and trend 

of the affected resource. 

Step 7: Report the Results 

The results of the CEA are reported herein. Direct effects and indirect effects are 

summarized in this section as they are included in the cumulative effects analysis. 

The assumptions and methods used are described in the appropriate resource sections. 

Step 8: Assess the Need for Mitigation 

Opportunities for mitigation of adverse effects, where applicable, are discussed for 

each resource. These are not meant to be mitigation measures that FRA, MDOT, 

BNSF, or other agencies would, or have the authority to implement. Rather, they are 

intended to disclose steps or actions that could be undertaken by local, State and 

Federal agencies and organizations to minimize the potential cumulative effect on 

each resource health and trend. 

4.19.2.1 Land Use 

Resource Study Area 

For purposes of this CEA, the RSA includes the City of Tupelo. The RSA is 

the area to which development may or has the potential to occur as a result of 

the proposed project. Based on the City of Tupelo’s comprehensive plan, with 

the exception of floodplains and existing parks located in the RSA, it can be 
 

4-79 

assumed that the land within the RSA that is not already developed would be 

available for future development in one form or another. 

Historical Context and Current Health 

Existing zoning and land use within and surrounding the City of Tupelo reveal 

single-family residential and general business development as the main 

drivers of land development. This follows the trend of the last decade of Lee 

County as a whole with continuous development and expansion. While the 

rate of population growth and physical development in this area of Mississippi 

has been quite high during the last decade compared to State and national 

trends, the City of Tupelo still maintains the potential to continue 

development as long as vacant parcels are available for conversion to 

residential, commercial, or industrial land uses. The majority of the city limits 

are well-developed. The floodplain areas still remain mostly undeveloped and 

are used for agricultural purposes. The development patterns have included 

areas over the entire affected environment, including the Barnes Crossing area 

north of US 78 and the Fairpark district adjacent to downtown. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Approximately 11 acres of vacant and agricultural land would be converted to 

transportation right-of-way. To the extent that the opportunity for 

development is enhanced by the proposed project, indirect effects could occur. 

Development is anticipated to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and 

zoning regulations, and, as a result, indirect effects to land use are not 

anticipated to be significant. 

Effects of Other Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 

Based on the City of Tupelo comprehensive plan, none of the adjacent lands 

to the BNSF main line are considered for major future development. The 

zoning designations predominantly match the existing land uses. 

Beyond the continued development within the City of Tupelo, three roadway 

corridors are planned for improvement. MDOT plans to reconstruct MS 6 as a 

four-lane, divided highway south of the city limits, US 78 is proposed to 

become I-22, and the City of Tupelo is planning to extend Coley Road north 

of MS 178 to connect to Barnes Crossing. Although these improvements are 

not likely to result in development adjacent to the BNSF main line, they 

would improve development opportunities within Tupelo since better roads 

can provide more incentive for residents to move to new and existing 

developments. 

Increased mobility and better traffic congestion management would contribute 

to the continued maintenance of air quality standards in Lee County, which 

would be considered a beneficial cumulative effect. 
 

4-80 

Results of the Cumulative Effects Analysis 

Although it is not possible to quantify the development from reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, given the growth in the Tupelo area, the RSA that 

is not already developed could be available for future development in one 

form or another. Development is anticipated to be consistent with the 

comprehensive plan and zoning regulations, and as a result, adverse 

cumulative effects to land use are not anticipated. 

Mitigation 

Because adverse cumulative effects to land use are not anticipated, no 

mitigation has been proposed. 

4.19.2.2 Noise and Vibration 

Resource Study Area 

For purposes of this analysis, the noise and vibration RSA is the same as the 

Land Use RSA. 

Historical Context and Current Health 

As the pace of residential and commercial development continues in and 

around Tupelo, it has likely contributed to higher ambient noise levels in 

project vicinity. However, these levels within the project vicinity are 

consistent with those expected in residential and commercial areas, with the 

exception of train events where noise from train horns and vibration from 

locomotives and rail cars exceed normal thresholds. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Direct effects of the Build Alternative would include the benefit of decreased 

noise levels at 52 receivers and the increase in vibration levels at 18 receivers. 

The vibration impacts would increase, but would not be adverse. Additional 

noise could result from future development. To the extent that this 

development is induced by the proposed project, an indirect effect of 

increased noise levels could occur. The proposed project is only anticipated 

to enhance the potential for development, rather than induce additional 

development within the study area. As a result, potential indirect effects to 

noise levels are not anticipated to be significant. Indirect effects to vibration 

are not anticipated to occur. 

Effects of Other Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 

It is reasonable that the current trend in growth, including residential and 

commercial development would continue. As population grows in the Tupelo 

area and as development spreads into vacant and traditionally rural areas, 

associated noise and vibration levels would continue to increase. 

 
 

4-81 

Results of the Cumulative Effects Analysis 

Adverse cumulative effects to noise and vibration are not anticipated. The 

Build Alternative would result in the benefit of reduced noise impacts and a 

small, but not adverse, increase in vibration impacts. 

Mitigation 

Because adverse cumulative effects to either noise or vibration are not 

anticipated, no mitigation has been proposed. 

4.19.2.3 Waters of the U.S. 

Resource Study Area 

For purposes of this analysis, the RSA is the watersheds of Town Creek, Mud 

Creek and Kings Creek and their associated tributaries. 

Historical Context and Current Health 

The four streams crossed by the Build Alternative are designated as impaired 

in the MSDEQ 303(d) list for their inability to satisfy the requirements of the 

aquatic life designated use. MSDEQ has established restoration plans, 

including TDMLs to restore these streams. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The Build Alternative would bridge these four streams, resulting in no adverse 

impacts to the restoration plans set forth by the MSDEQ or the flood control 

measures managed by the TCMWMD. Total impacts to waters of the U.S. are 

anticipated to be approximately 350 linear feet. No wetlands or other special 

aquatic sites would be permanently impacted by the Build Alternative. The 

proposed project is only anticipated to enhance opportunities for development 

rather than induce additional development beyond what is already planned. 

Regardless of whether development is public or private, it would be subjection 

to Sections 404 and 401 of the CWA, which regulates impacts to waters of the 

U.S., including wetlands. As a result, significant indirect effects to wetlands 

are not anticipated. 

Effects of Other Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 

It is reasonable that the current trend in growth, including residential and 

commercial development would continue and the TCMWMD plans to 

channelize the floodways in the Tupelo area would be implemented. 

Although this development may impact waters of the U.S., any new 

development would be regulated by Federal, State, and local policies and the 

USACE would be coordinated with for the TCMWMD channelization plan. 

As a result, significant adverse impacts to waters of the U.S. from other 

reasonably foreseeable developments are not anticipated. 

 
 

4-82 

Results of the Cumulative Effects Analysis 

Significant adverse cumulative effects to waters of the U.S. are not anticipated. 

Regardless of whether reasonably foreseeable future development would be 

public or private, these developments would have to comply with Sections 

404 and 401 of the CWA, which regulates the filling of and encroachment on 

these resources and the USACE would oversee the TCMWMD channelization 

plans. Given the regulatory requirements governing impacts to waters of the 

U.S., and the mitigation measures discussed in the following section, 

substantial cumulative effects to these resources are not anticipated. 

Mitigation 

Because adverse cumulative effects to waters of the U.S. are not anticipated, 

no mitigation has been proposed. Any new development within these 

watersheds would be regulated under Section 404 of the CWA. In addition, 

the TCMWMD maintains easements over all of these local streams and serves 

to protect water resources, including waters of the U.S. 

4.19.2.4 Floodplains 

Resource Study Area 

For purposes of this analysis, the RSA is the portion of the 100-year 

floodplain and designated floodways within the City of Tupelo. 

Historical Context and Current Health 

As discussed in the direct impacts section, flooding is the primary 

environmental concern around the City of Tupelo. The 100-year floodplain 

follows the wide, mostly flat Blackland Prairie region. Most of the 100-year 

floodplain consists of agricultural or vacant land surrounding Town Creek, 

Mud Creek, and Kings Creek. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Approximately 10 acres of 100-year floodplain would be crossed by the Build 

Alternative, including three crossings of designated floodways. However, 

each of the floodway crossings would be on bridge structure and would not 

run along or parallel to the flow line of the floodway. Much of the impacted 

floodplain falls within the proposed right-of-way, which could require 

floodplain compensation ponds, but that determination would be made during 

the design phase. Indirect effects are not anticipated from the Build 

Alternative due to the adjacent land also being within the 100-year floodplain 

and its limited potential for development. 

Effects of Other Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 

It is reasonable that the current trend in growth, including residential, 

industrial, and commercial development would continue. Although this 

development may impact the floodplains, the floodplains are not considered 
 

4-83 

desirable for such development. Any development would be subject to the 

local ordinances governing development within floodplains. As a result, 

significant effects to floodplains from reasonable foreseeable future 

development are not anticipated. The TCMWMD channelization plan for the 

floodways around Tupelo would be overseen by the USACE. 

Results of the Cumulative Effects Analysis 

Adverse cumulative effects to floodplains and floodways are not anticipated. 

Any development would be subject to the local ordinances governing 

development within floodplains. The TCMWMD channelization plan for the 

floodways around Tupelo would be overseen by the USACE. 

Mitigation 

Because adverse cumulative effects to floodplains and floodways are not 

anticipated, no mitigation has been proposed. 

4.20 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF 

RESOURCES 

As with any new construction project, the Build Alternative would require certain 

irreversible and irretrievable commitment of natural resources, manpower, materials, and 

fiscal resources. As noted above in Section 4.1.1, the majority of the Build Alternative 

would remain within the existing BNSF right-of-way, with a small right-of-way acquisition 

area from vacant parcels for the storage tracks and approximately 11 acres of either 

agricultural or vacant land for the interchange tracks. These lands within the proposed rightof-way would be converted from agricultural and vacant land use to transportation use. Use 

of these lands is considered an irreversible commitment during the time period that the land 

is used for railroad and roadway facilities. However, if a greater need arises for the land use, 

or if the railroad or roadway facilities are no longer needed, the land would be converted to 

another use. At the time of this report, reasons for such a conversion are not anticipated. 

Maintenance is an important long-term cost and includes major items such as roadway 

resurfacing and railroad track conditioning, as well as routine maintenance such as mowing, 

cleaning drainage structures, bridge maintenance, and weed control. Over time, maintenance 

cost can be a major expense. Since the Build Alternative is proposing the majority of its 

improvements on the existing roadway and railroad footprints, much of the maintenance cost 

will remain unchanged between the No-Build and Build Alternatives. The rail-mile 

difference between the No-Build and Build Alternatives is comprised solely of the 

interchange track and the associated storage tracks. The larger differences in maintenance 

costs between these alternatives is the cost associated with the existing at-grade rail crossings 

(which would be removed with the Build Alternative) and the maintenance costs associated 

with the elevated railroad viaduct and Eason Boulevard overpasses. 

No-Build Alternative 

While the No-Build Alternative would not require an irreversible and irretrievable 

commitment of resources for construction, the additional maintenance cost for the at-grade 
 

4-84 

rail crossings and the costs associated with the traffic congestion can be seen as irretrievable 

commitments. At an annual cost of $17,000 per crossing ($34,000 for the Crosstown 

intersection due to its size and complexity), the No-Build Alternative would commit 

$272,000 annually to at-grade crossing maintenance, or a total cost of $6,800,000 by the year 

2030. As discussed in the Phase 1 - Feasibility Analysis (HDR, May 2006), the total cost of 

congestion with the No-Build Alternative for the year 2030 will be $81,945,000, with a 

cumulative cost of congestion from year 2005 to year 2030 of $1,251,000,000. The 

congestion cost includes the cost of fuel consumption as well as time spent in delay. 

Build Alternative 

Considerable amounts of fossil fuels, labor, and construction materials such as steel, cement, 

aggregate, and bituminous material would be expended to complete the project. Additionally, 

large amounts of labor and natural resources would be used in the fabrication and preparation 

of construction materials. These materials are generally not retrievable, but they are also not 

in short supply, and their use would not have an adverse effect on the availability of these 

resources. Any construction would also require a substantial one-time expenditure of State 

and Federal funds, which is not retrievable. 

The commitment of these resources would benefit local residents, the State, and the railroads 

by removing the rail/auto traffic conflict and increasing traffic flow throughout the Tupelo 

area. The benefits of improved accessibility, savings in time, and greater availability of 

quality services are anticipated to outweigh the necessary commitment of resources. 

4.21 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM IMPACTS AND LONGTERM BENEFITS 

The most disruptive local short-term impacts associated with the Build Alternative would 

occur during project construction. As discussed in Section 2.9.2.3, one existing business 

within the proposed right-of-way would require relocation. However, this business, the 

Summerville Ties loading operation, has few permanent structures, is able to be relocated 

easily, and is on land already owned by BNSF. Coordination with Summerville Ties is 

ongoing regarding the relocation to estimate costs and operations requirements. Improved 

mobility in the downtown Tupelo area could stimulate economic and business growth as well 

as long-term residential interest. 

Construction activities would create short-term air quality, noise, vibration, and visual 

impacts for nearby residents and businesses. Normal traffic patterns would be disrupted by 

construction. MDOT standard construction practices and procedures would help minimize 

these impacts. 

Localized water quality could be affected temporarily, specifically by increased turbidity 

levels in Kings Creek, Mud Creek, and Town Creek and their tributary systems. Use of 

BMPs would minimize potential water quality impacts. In addition, MDOT would consult 

with the appropriate Federal and State resource and regulatory agencies to identify measures 

to minimize these impacts. 
 

4-85 

The local short-term impacts and use of resources by the Build Alternative would be 

consistent with the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity. Completion of 

the Build Alternative would be consistent with local, county, regional, and State 

transportation plans. The Build Alternative would help achieve these long-term goals. 

4.22 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS 

The quantifiable impacts have been assessed for the No-Build and Build Alternatives of the 

Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project and are shown in Table 4-15. 

Table 4-15 Summary of Impacts 

Impact Category No-Build 

Alternative

Build 

Alternative

Farmland Impacts (acres) n/a 0.0

Residential Relocations (No.) 0 0

Business Relocations (No.) 0 1

Severe Noise Impacted Receptors (No.) 128 76

Vibration Impacted Receptors (No.) 28 46

Adverse Visual Impacts to Historic Sites or Districts (No.) n/a 37

Hazardous Material Site Impacts (No.) n/a 0

Environmental Justice Impacted Census Blocks (No.) n/a 0

Perennial Stream Crossings (No.) 3 4

303 (d) Stream Crossings (No.) 2 3

Wetland Impacts (acres) n/a 0.0

100-Year Floodplain Impacts (acres) n/a 10.0

Natural Habitats (acres) n/a 0.0

Electric Transmission Line Impacts (No.)* n/a 3

Gas Pipeline Impacts (No.)* n/a 0

Sanitary Sewer Impacts (No.)* n/a 2

Railroad Bridges (Feet) n/a 8,690

Roadway Bridges (Feet) n/a 2,984

At-Grade Crossings within City of Tupelo (No.) 16 4

At-Grade Crossings with Unacceptable LOS in 2030 (No.) 3 0

Nearby Intersections with Unacceptable LOS in 2030 (No.) 3 1

At-Grade Crossings Blocked During Interchange Operation (No.) 8 0

Construction Costs ($2008) n/a $384,745,000

*Based Upon Field Observations of Above Ground Utilities and/or Markers

Human Environment

Natural Environment

Engineering

Safety and Mobility
 

 

5-1 

5.0 AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC 

INVOLVEMENT 

Coordination with appropriate agencies and interested citizens was accomplished throughout 

the project scoping, meetings with regulatory agencies, and an extensive public involvement 

program. The public involvement process is a key component of the project and provides a 

forum to share project information with the individuals who live and work in this area; to 

listen to ideas and concerns; and to incorporate input received is an important step in the 

study process. This section of the Final EIS (FEIS) provides a summary of the agency 

coordination efforts and public involvement process, as well as summaries of comments 

made at the public meetings. 

5.1 AGENCY COORDINATION 

5.1.1 Kick-Off Meeting 

The initial coordination meeting was held on September 29, 2005 at the MDOT 

Administration Building at 401 North West Street in Jackson, Mississippi. The 

meeting was conducted to provide the background of the project, to introduce the 

project team, and to discuss initial project concerns. Six representatives from the 

FRA and MDOT were in attendance. 

The conclusions of this meeting included the decision to hold the scoping meeting 

upon the completion of the Feasibility Study (Phase 1 – Feasibility Analysis [HDR, 

May 2006]), and to keep the six Native Americans tribes apprised of the progress of 

the study. 

5.1.2 Notice of Intent 

FRA is the lead federal agency for the Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project, in 

cooperation with MDOT. In accordance with the NEPA, a notice of intent (NOI) to 

prepare an NEPA EIS was published in the Federal Register on June 29, 2006. No 

comments were received in response to the NOI. 

5.1.3 Scoping Meetings 

Prior to the scoping meetings, scoping letters were mailed to all applicable federal 

and state agencies and/or officials requesting comments on the project and inviting 

them to the scoping meetings. The agency scoping meeting was held on 

August 14, 2006 at the Tupelo Community Development Foundation (CDF) offices at 

300 West Main Street in Tupelo, Mississippi. Three public and elected officials 

meetings were held at the CDF offices on August 15, 2006, November 17, 2006, and 

November 29, 2006. The purpose of these meetings was to introduce the agencies to 

the project and to present the findings of the Phase 1 – Feasibility Analysis (HDR, 

May 2006). Representatives from the following agencies and public officials were in 

attendance: 
 

5-2 

 City of Saltillo 

 City of Tupelo 

 City of Verona 

 EPA 

 FHWA 

 FRA 

 Lee County 

 Natchez Trace Parkway (U.S. National Park Service) 

 Town of Plantersville 

 Town of Shannon 

 USFWS 

Display maps were used to show representatives the project’s progression. 

Representatives were asked to contribute any information that would aid in the 

project’s development. 

This meeting generated the following comments regarding the alternatives presented 

from the Phase 1 – Feasibility Analysis (HDR, May 2006): 

 Natchez Trace Parkway Superintendent supports Alternative C because it 

utilizes an existing crossing and has the least amount of impact on the 

Parkway. 

 Discussion ensued regarding Participating Agencies and Cooperating 

Agencies. It was determined that invitation letters would be mailed out as 

appropriate. 

FHWA, USACE and the U.S. National Park Service have been included as 

Cooperating Agencies for the project. The minutes from these meetings are included 

in Appendix A. 

5.1.4 Other Agency Meetings 

In addition to the full agency scoping meeting, the project team also coordinated with 

individual agencies as part of the EIS process. These meetings fulfilled requirements 

of the NEPA/Section 404 merger process and were scheduled as needed. 

Alternatives Development Meeting 

A meeting with MDOT was held on February 21, 2007 at the CDF Office in Tupelo, 

Mississippi. The purpose of this meeting was to evaluate alternatives presented in the 

Phase 1 – Feasibility Analysis (HDR, May 2006) and other additional alternatives, 

and to select three alternatives for study during the EIS. The minutes from this 

meeting are included in Appendix A. 
 

5-3 

City of Tupelo 

A meeting with the City of Tupelo was held on June 11, 2007 at the Tupelo City Hall. 

The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the impacts of the Scoping Alternatives 

and the proposed Coley Road extension. The conclusion of this meeting was that the 

City objected to Alternative L due to its proximity to the proposed Coley Road 

extension. The City stated the railroad would inhibit residential and commercial 

development along the proposed corridor. The minutes from this meeting are 

included in Appendix A. 

A second meeting with the City of Tupelo was held on September 9, 2008 at the 

Tupelo City Hall. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the process of 

evaluation leading to the selection of the Build Alternative and to discuss the impacts 

the Build Alternative could have on the City. The conclusion of this meeting was that 

the City approved of the selection of the Build Alternative. The minutes from this 

meeting are included in Appendix A. 

Prior to the Public Hearing, two meetings were held with members of the Tupelo City 

Commission on August 11, 2011. These meetings were to inform the members of the 

City Commission of the study history, background, process, and results, including the 

impacts the Build Alternative could have on the City. The conclusion of these 

meetings was that the City agreed that the Build Alternative was the best solution, but 

the impacts and costs of the Build Alternative presented significant issues The 

summary of these meetings is included in the Public Hearing Summary included in 

Appendix G. 

Natchez Trace Parkway 

A meeting was held with the U.S. National Park Service on February 5, 2008 at the 

Natchez Trace Parkway Headquarters in Tupelo, Mississippi. The purpose of this 

meeting was to discuss the EIS alternatives and the impacts to the Natchez Trace 

Parkway. The conclusion of this meeting was that the U.S. National Park Service 

expressed preference for Alternative M. The minutes from this meeting are included 

in Appendix A. 

Community Development Foundation 

A meeting with the City of Tupelo and MDOT was held on April 24, 2008 at the 

Community Development Foundation (CDF) office in Tupelo, Mississippi. The 

purpose of this meeting was to inform the City and the CDF of the progress of the 

alternatives development. The conclusion of this meeting was that the City expressed 

preference for Alternative M, provided that retaining wall use was kept to a minimum. 

The minutes from this meeting are included in Appendix A. 

A second meeting with the City of Tupelo and MDOT was held on September 9, 

2008 at the Community Development Foundation office in Tupelo, Mississippi. The 

purpose of this meeting was to inform the CDF, local agencies, MDOT maintenance, 

and the U.S. National Park Service of the process of evaluation leading to the 

selection of the Build Alternative and to discuss the impacts the Build Alternative 
 

5-4 

could have on the City and surrounding environment. The conclusion of the meeting 

was that the CDF, U.S. National Park Service, and the local agencies generally 

approved of the selection of the Build Alternative, and many issues were introduced 

regarding the multi-use path, maintenance of the structure, and mitigation of the 

visual effects. The minutes from this meeting are included in Appendix A. 

A third meeting with the City of Tupelo, MDOT, MDAH, and local historic groups 

was held on April 14, 2009 at the Community Development Foundation office in 

Tupelo, Mississippi. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the visual impacts of 

the proposed elevated rail viaduct on the historic properties and the surrounding area. 

The conclusion of this meeting was that the City of Tupelo, MDOT, SHPO, and the 

Tupelo Historic Preservation Commission would be parties to an MOA to mitigate 

the visual effects of the proposed improvements. Several proposals were discussed 

and some of the local agencies expressed opposition to the Build Alternative, but 

conceded that a relocated interchange would be acceptable as a minimum 

improvement. The minutes from this meeting are included in Appendix A. 

Railroad Meetings 

A meeting with MDOT and representatives from BNSF and KCS was held at the 

Hilton Garden Inn in Tupelo, MS on September 10, 2008. The purpose of this 

meeting was to present the evaluation process and the selection of the Build 

Alternative and discuss the impacts it would have on railroad operations. The 

conclusion of this meeting was that KCS stated they had track rights to the 

northbound BNSF between Tupelo and New Albany and the design must 

accommodate those track rights. In addition, BNSF also stated that they were not 

willing to maintain the structure below the ballast. BNSF also stated that the multiuse path could only be constructed in the outer 20 feet of the right-of-way, provided 

that all indemnifications for the trail have been secured. The minutes from this 

meeting are included in Appendix A. 

5.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

A public involvement plan was developed at the initiation of the study process, and was 

updated throughout the course of the study. The public involvement plan included use of 

several communications media in addition to meetings scheduled after certain milestones 

during the study. These communications and meetings are described in the following 

sections. 

5.2.1 Public Information 

Elected officials, civic groups, business groups, local government agencies, and 

interested citizens were included in mailing lists compiled for this project. The 

mailing lists, as well as announcements in local newspapers, were used to notify the 

public of the study’s initiation, progress, and public meeting locations. In addition, 

citizens were given opportunity to contact the project team with questions or 

comments throughout the project process. Contact information was located on 

comment cards and in the presentation materials at the public meetings. 
 

5-5 

5.2.2 Scoping Meeting 

A public meeting was held on Tuesday, August 15, 2006, at the BancorpSouth 

Conference Center, 375 East Main Street in Tupelo, Mississippi. The public meeting 

was an open-house format. Meeting attendees were asked to sign-in and each 

attendee was given: 

 a “quick facts” sheet providing a brief overview of the project’s background, 

project team contact information, and the purpose and need of the project; and 

 a comment card that could be completed at the meeting or at a later date and 

mailed in. 

Display boards and larger scale drawings with the preliminary alternatives were set 

up for public review and discussion. Project team members were available to explain 

the alternatives, answer questions and receive comments. In addition, attendees were 

encouraged to provide project team members with any additional information about 

the project area that was not represented or incorrectly depicted on the maps. 

Approximately 52 individual comments were received at the public meeting. Some 

individuals’ comments pertained to more than one alternative, so the number of 

comments exceeds the number of comment cards. Sign-in sheets and copies of all 

comments received from the public documenting the issues addressed in each 

comment are contained in Appendix B. The comments received from the public 

regarding various issues are summarized in Table 5-1. 

Table 5-1 Summary of Comments from Scoping Meeting 

Corridor Alternative 

No. of 

Comments 

Expressing 

Preference

No. of 

Comments 

Expressing 

Opposition

Alterantive A (No-Build ) 10 -

In-Town Alternative – Overpass, 

Underpass, or Tunnel at Crosstown 16 -

Operational Improvement 9 -

Alterantive B 6 4

Alterantive C 2 7

Alterantive D 1 3

Alterantive E 1 1

Alternative F 1 2
 

5-6 

5.2.3 Public Alternatives Meeting 

The second public meeting was held on July 12, 2007 at the BancorpSouth 

Convention Center in Tupelo, Mississippi. The meeting was conducted in an 

open-house format and citizens attending this meeting were given information about 

the project and a comment card. This meeting presented the Refined Alternatives as 

discussed in Section 2.6. 

Approximately 30 individual comment cards were received as a result of the second 

public meeting. In addition, a private citizen wrote a letter to Congressman Roger 

Wicker, and this was forwarded to MDOT personnel for inclusion in the comments 

for this meeting. Copies of the comment cards and correspondence received are 

included in Appendix B. The comments received from the public regarding various 

issues are summarized in Table 5-2. In many cases, individuals attending the 

meeting had multiple opinions regarding the project. Therefore, the number of 

comments given exceeds the number of comment cards. 

Table 5-2 Summary of Comments from Alternatives Meeting 

# of Comments # of Comments

Expressing Preference Expressing Opposition

Alternative A (No Build) 5 0

Alternative K 3 3

Alternative L 3 2

Alternative M 22 2

Other 2 -

Corridor Alternative

5.2.4 Public Hearing 

A Public Hearing was held on August 11, 2011 at the BancorpSouth Convention 

Center in Tupelo, Mississippi. The meeting opened in an open-house format and 

citizens were given information about the project and a comment form. A formal 

presentation was given by project staff and citizens were permitted to voice their 

comments publicly at the conclusion of the presentation. A court reporter was present 

to document all of the citizens’ comments. This meeting presented the Build 

Alternative and the No-Build Alternative. 

Approximately 30 people attended the hearing, including members of the public, a 

representative from KCS, and elected officials. During the hearing, the public had an 

opportunity to give verbal comments following the technical presentation and also 

directly to a court reporter stationed at the hearing. The court reporter transcribed 

both the comments that were given to her directly and the comments openly 

expressed by attendees following the presentation. One person gave verbal comments 

directly to the court reporter, and nine people provided verbal comments after the 

presentation. The court reporter’s transcript is included in Appendix G. The 

following is a synopsis of the verbal comments received during the hearing. 
 

5-7 

 The project is too expensive to build. How could it ever be funded? 

 Concerns about potential safety issues with an elevated rail (derailments, 

flying debris, etc.). 

 Concerns about the impacts on property values and historic resources such as 

Mill Village. 

 Concerns about the aesthetic of the elevated rail sections; it won’t blend with 

the surrounding built environment. 

 Concerns about community cohesion; the elevated structure has the 

appearance of a wall that will further divide the city physically, socially, and 

psychologically. 

In addition to formal comments given verbally at the public hearing, MDOT also 

accepted written comments on the comment cards that were provided at the hearing. 

Attendees were also informed that they could provide written comments via fax or 

email to MDOT. One person provided a letter to the court reporter, which is 

transcribed in the reporter’s notes in Appendix G. Copies of all written comments 

are included in Appendix G of this report. There were 12 people who submitted 

written comments. Overall, the written comments tracked closely with the verbal 

comments described above, particularly the concerns about community cohesion and 

project cost. Two comments submitted preferred the No-Build Alternative, and two 

comments submitted preferred the Build Alternative. Eight of the comments 

submitted expressed preference for other options, ranging from suggesting that the 

crossings be double gated to silence the horns, to proposing that the rail line be 

located somewhere outside of Tupelo. There was a good variety of comments 

received for the Build Alternative both supporting and opposing it, but a predominant 

public opinion on the project could not be determined by these comments. 
 

 

6-1 

6.0 FUNDING ALTERNATIVES 

Currently, there is no identified funding for the Build Alternative. This section provides a 

summary of the available potential alternatives for funding for the Build Alternative. There 

are several finance mechanisms for investing in freight rail improvements projects. The most 

common are appropriations from Congress or State agencies such as MDOT, where the 

project is specifically funded through a legislative or departmental program and authorized 

by the legislature. There are also other methods of funding capital projects at both the State 

and Federal level. These other funding sources can be categorized as grants, loans, and taxexpenditure finance programs. 

Grants give States and the Federal government the best control over the use of funds. Funds 

can be targeted to specific projects that solve freight and passenger rail needs. At the Federal 

level, the longstanding FHWA Section 130 Rail-Highway Grade Crossing Program provides 

dedicated funding to improve safety at rail grade crossings. The Congestion Mitigation and 

Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ), created in the Intermodal Surface 

Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), has benefited passenger and freight rail 

intermodal projects where there is an air quality benefit. There are also discretionary grant 

programs such as the Corridors and Borders Programs established in the Transportation 

Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). There are proposals for a Program for Projects of 

National Significance and a National Infrastructure Investment Bank that may be included in 

future Federal transportation system funding reauthorization bills. There are also Federal 

grant programs such as the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery 

(TIGER) Discretionary Grant program and the Rail Line Relocation and Improvement 

Capital Grant Program that target freight rail projects such as the proposed action described 

in the Build Alternative. 

Loan programs such as Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA), 

Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF), and State Infrastructure Banks 

(SIBs) are existing loan programs specific to railroad and other transportation infrastructure 

projects. TIFIA provides loans, loan guarantees, and lines of credit for large capital 

improvement projects. To qualify for assistance under TIFIA, a project needs a source of 

revenue to cover debt service costs; the total project must be valued at more than $100 

million or 50 percent of the State’s annual Federal-aid highway apportionments, whichever is 

less; the Federal TIFIA loan cannot exceed one-third of the total project cost; and the 

project’s senior debt obligations must receive an investment-grade rating from at least one of 

the major credit rating agencies. These factors limit its applicability, and private rail projects 

are not eligible today (although eligibility is proposed for reauthorization); but TIFIA is an 

important tool that can be used for financing joint highway and rail projects that meet the 

program guidelines. RRIF is a loan and credit enhancement program for freight rail. It seems 

particularly oriented to needs of regional and short-line railroads. The program has been slow 

to catch on because of features such as “lender of last resort” and a requirement that project 

recipients assume the credit risk premium. SIBs are designed to complement traditional 

Federal-aid highway and transit grants by providing States increased flexibility for financing 

infrastructure investments. Approximately 32 States (not including Mississippi) have SIBs 
 

6-2 

that provide loans for highway and in some cases transit improvements. Expanded SIB 

authority in reauthorization could provide States with a mechanism to provide revolving 

loans and possibly credit enhancement for freight rail improvements in the future. State-only 

SIBs are another possibility, such as Pennsylvania’s initiation of a new State SIB for freight 

rail. 

Tax-expenditure finance programs include accelerated depreciation, tax-exempt bond 

financing, and tax-credit bond financing. Expansion of tax-exempt private activity bonds for 

surface transportation has been proposed in the Obama Administration’s surface 

transportation reauthorization bill; these could potentially be beneficial for rail investment. 

Tax-credit bond financing is a new form of federally subsidized debt financing, where the 

investor receives a Federal tax credit in lieu of interest payments on the bonds. From the 

borrower’s perspective, it provides a zero-interest-cost loan. These programs can be used to 

provide targeted, income-tax benefits for investments made to improve the efficiency or 

increase the capacity of the freight rail system. They have the potential to elevate the rail 

system’s rate of return and simultaneously reduce its cost of capital. States and local 

agencies will likely want to explore all of these tools including new or expanded ones that 

may be included in the surface transportation reauthorization legislation, tailoring them to 

projects that produce public and system-wide benefits. 

6.1 FEDERAL PROGRAMS 

Federal funding for freight rail projects in the past have largely been limited to rail highway 

grade crossing safety enhancements and projects that benefit air quality. Recently, however, 

the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) has developed new finance programs for 

transportation infrastructure improvements resulting from the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 

(PRIIA), and related programs sponsored by other federal agencies such as the EPA, HUD, 

and the Department of Homeland Security. The following Federal sources may be applicable 

for providing funding for the Build Alternative. 

6.1.1 Section 130 Rail-Highway Grade Crossing Program 

Under this program, the entire cost of construction projects for the elimination of 

hazards of railroad-highway at-grade crossings could be funded. Funding under this 

program must be applied to safety improvements; capacity expansion projects are not 

eligible. The Build Alternative would almost certainly qualify for funding under this 

program, as capacity improvements for the roadways are not considered and the Build 

Alternative would include grade separations or upgraded safety gates at each of the 

existing at-grade crossings. However, the available funding for this program would 

not be able to cover the entire cost of the Build Alternative and several applications 

for this program might be required to secure funding through each construction phase. 

6.1.2 National Highway System (NHS) Program

Provides funding to improve highway links on the NHS network, or designated 

highway connectors to intermodal terminals. Since Main Street (US 278/MS 6) and 

US 45 are considered part of the NHS, funding from this program could be applied 

for construction of the Build Alternative. 
 

6-3 

6.1.3 Surface Transportation Program (STP) 

The STP provides funding for roadway improvements over any Federal-aid highway, 

including improvements that benefit freight rail movement such as lengthening or 

increasing vertical clearances on highway bridges, or improving at-grade rail 

crossings. Since Main Street (US 278/MS 6) and US 45 are considered part of the 

NHS, funding from this program could be applied for construction of the Build 

Alternative. 

6.1.4 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program 

Jointly administered by FHWA and FTA, the CMAQ program was reauthorized 

under the TEA-21 in 1998, and, most recently in 2005 under the Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEALU). Under SAFETEA-LU, the program has provided just under $9 billion in 

authorizations to State departments of transportation and metropolitan planning 

organizations, and their project sponsors, for a growing variety of transportationenvironmental projects. As with its predecessor legislation, the SAFETEA-LU has 

provided CMAQ funding to areas that still face the challenge of attaining or 

maintaining the NAAQS. In addition, States that have no nonattainment or 

maintenance areas-facing much less of a clean air challenge-still receive a minimum 

apportionment of CMAQ funding. An apportioned program, each year's CMAQ 

funding is distributed to the States via a statutory formula based on population and air 

quality classification as designated by the EPA. 

CMAQ provides funding for transportation projects that improve air quality in 

designated non-attainment areas. Intermodal freight facility improvements are 

eligible, and funded projects have included rail yards, branch lines, and clearance 

improvements. 

6.1.5 Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) 

TIFIA authorizes credit assistance on flexible terms directly to public-private 

sponsors of major surface transportation projects of national significance to assist in 

gaining access to private capital markets. It can provide direct loans, loan guarantees, 

and lines of credit to support up to one third of a project's cost. TIFIA is restricted to 

projects costing at least $50 million, with the exception of projects for Intelligent 

Transportation System (ITS) projects, which must cost at least $15 million. 

TIFIA has been previously used to assist major transportation investments of national 

significance, including international bridges and tunnels, intercity passenger rail 

facilities, and publicly owned intermodal freight rail facilities on or adjacent to the 

NHS. The construction of the Build Alternative would require a private entity for 

either sponsorship or partnership to utilize TIFIA. 

6.1.6 Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) 

The RRIF program provides loans and credit assistance for public and private 

sponsors of intermodal and rail projects, including Class I and short-line railroads. 
 

6-4 

This program enables USDOT to make direct loans and loan guarantees to State and 

local governments, government sponsored authorities and corporations, and railroads 

and joint ventures that include at least one railroad. Eligible projects include: 

 Acquisition, improvement or rehabilitation of intermodal or rail equipment or 

facilities (including tracks, components of tracks, bridges, yards, buildings 

and shops); 

 Refinancing outstanding debt incurred for these purposes; or 

 Development or establishment of new intermodal or railroad facilities. 

The FRA can authorize direct loans and loan guarantees up to $35 billion and up to 

$7 billion for projects benefiting non-Class I carrier freight railroads. The loans can 

fund up to one hundred percent of a railroad project with a repayment period of up to 

25 years and interest rates equal to the cost of borrowing from the government. The 

Build Alternative would qualify for this loan program to cover some or all of the 

project construction costs, but the funds would need to be repaid over time and with 

interest. 

6.1.7 Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle (GARVEE) 

GARVEE is a type of bond or similar financing method issued by a State or State 

infrastructure bank under the guidelines of the National Highway System Designation 

Act of 1995, eventually made permanent in Section 122 of Title 23 of the United 

States Code. States must repay the bonds using Federal funds expected to be received 

in the future. Some financing under this plan is referred to using the term Grant 

Anticipation Note (GAN). 

GARVEE bonds may be used for major projects receiving federal funding. They do 

not guarantee that the Federal government will provide the expected financing, and 

they are not guaranteed by the Federal government. Details of projects must be sent 

to the appropriate FHWA division office to make sure the project follows Federal 

rules for eligibility. FHWA approves only the projects, not the financing method. 

The State may also elect to use methods other than federal funding for repayment, 

and it may receive federal funds through a trustee or depository. 

Eligible costs for projects may include interest, retirement of principal, costs for 

issuing bonds, and other incidental costs which must be approved. Bond proceeds not 

used for projects may be used to pay principal and interest, but they may not be 

reimbursed. FHWA may also repay a debt service reserve fund used to pay 

bondholders when Federal funds come later than needed. Reimbursement of a surety 

provider for interest and principal is also eligible; interest and penalties associated 

with payments to surety providers are not. 
 

6-5 

6.1.8 High Priority Project Program 

The High Priority Projects Program provides designated funding for specific projects 

identified in Federal legislation such as SAFETEA-LU. In this program, a total of 

5,091 projects have been identified, each with a specified amount of funding over the 

five years of SAFETEA-LU. These projects are funded by contract authority, 

available until expended. The funds designated for a project are available only for 

that project with the following exception: 

 Funds allocated for a project specified below may be obligated for any other 

of these projects in the same State: 

o High Priority Projects listed in Section 1702 and numbered 3677 or 

higher; 

o Projects of National and Regional Significance listed in Section 1301 

and numbered 19 or higher; 

o National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program projects listed 

in Section 1302 and numbered 28 or higher; or 

o Any Transportation Improvements project listed in Section 1934. 

The authorization for a project from the category list may not be reduced. 

Advance construction, using State funds until Federal funds are available, remains as 

an allowable method for States to construct these high priority projects. High priority 

projects may also be advanced with funds apportioned from a program under which 

the project would be eligible, and the funds are to be restored from future allocations 

of the high priority project funds for the project. 

The High Priority Projects program is subject to obligation limitation that is set aside 

specifically for this program. The funds are available only for the activities described 

for each project specified in the subject federal legislation. 

6.1.9 National Corridor Planning and Development (NCPD) and Coordinated 

Border Infrastructure (CBI) Programs 

The NCPD and CBI provide funding for planning, project development, construction, 

and operation of projects that serve border regions near Canada and Mexico and for 

high-priority corridors throughout the United States. These programs are for highway 

corridors and border projects but a few projects were funded that benefited rail; such 

as the FAST corridor in Washington State. 

The use of NCPD and/or CBI programs should be explored to fund the construction 

of the Build Alternative, but the likelihood of these programs being applied to the 

Build Alternative is low. 
 

6-6 

6.1.10 Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) 

Discretionary Grant Program 

The TIGER Discretionary Grant program provides a unique opportunity for the 

USDOT to invest in road, rail, transit and port projects that promise to achieve critical 

national objectives. Representative projects are multi-modal, multi-jurisdictional or 

otherwise challenging to fund through existing programs. The TIGER program 

enables USDOT to use a rigorous process to select projects with exceptional benefits, 

explore ways to deliver projects faster and save on construction costs, and make 

investments in our Nation's infrastructure that make communities more livable and 

sustainable. 

The construction of the Build Alternative would qualify for TIGER grants, but the 

widespread application of the resources for TIGER has created fierce competition for 

those funds. Most TIGER grant applications are either denied or receive only a small 

portion of what is requested. Despite the high level of competition, the Build 

Alternative would be an ideal project for TIGER grant funding. 

6.1.11 Rail Line Relocation and Improvement Capital Grant Program 

In order to assist State and local governments in mitigating the adverse effects created 

by the presence of rail infrastructure, Congress authorized the Rail Line Relocation 

and Improvement Capital Grant Program in 2005 through SAFETEA-LU. The final 

rule was published in the Federal Register on July 11, 2008. States, political 

subdivisions of States (such as a city or county), and the District of Columbia are 

eligible for grants under the program. Grants may be awarded for construction 

projects that improve the route or structure of a rail line and: 

 are carried out for the purpose of mitigating the adverse effects of rail traffic 

on safety, motor vehicle traffic flow, community quality of life, or economic 

development; or 

 involve a lateral or vertical relocation of any portion of the rail line. 

Pre-construction activities, such as preliminary engineering, design, and costs 

associated with project-level compliance with NEPA, are considered part of the 

overall construction project and are also eligible for funding. However, activities 

such as planning studies and feasibility analyses are not eligible for funding. 

This grant program was created for a project such as the Build Alternative and was 

authorized for up to $350 million a year from 2006 through 2009. However, since the 

program was established in 2006, Congress has appropriated only approximately $90 

million and nothing for fiscal year 2012 Funding for the Build Alternative could be 

achieved through this program, but supplemental funding would likely be necessary 

as appropriations for this program have been well below the amount needed for the 

construction of the Build Alternative. 
 

6-7 

6.1.12 Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 

The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 Requires Class I railroads, intercity, and 

commuter railroads to develop safety programs. The Rail Safety Improvement Act 

provides Railroad Safety Infrastructure improvement grants that cover as much as 80 

percent of project costs for eligible railroads, States and local governments. The 

legislation provides $1.6 billion for rail safety for FY 2009 through FY 2013. The 

bill also authorizes $250 million in Railroad Safety Technology Grants. These grants 

require a 20 percent minimum State or local funding match, but priority is given to 

projects that provide a larger percentage of matching funds. For projects to be 

eligible, they must be in the respective State’s rail plan. Five percent of the funds are 

reserved for projects of less than $2 million in total cost. 

6.1.13 Summary of Federal Programs 

The most beneficial Federal programs for freight rail to date have been the FHWA 

Section 130 grade crossing and CMAQ programs, and the FTA Rail Modernization 

Program (which has funded commuter rail improvements that have been indirectly 

beneficial to freight rail). The recent TIGER and Rail Line Relocation programs have 

also been largely successful in providing funding for freight railroad projects. For the 

future, the proposed changes for the next surface transportation reauthorization noted 

in Table 6-1 all have the potential to spur additional investment in freight rail projects. 

For large-scale projects, the proposed program for Projects of Regional and National 

Significance is of most interest along with the Section 130 grade crossing program or 

its successor. CMAQ remains as another eligible funding source. The TIFIA loan 

and credit enhancement program offers possibility if a revenue stream is identified. 

RRIF will likely continue as the program of choice for smaller regional and short-line 

railroads. Private Activity Bonds and Tax Credit Bonds present two interesting 

funding possibilities on the horizon. Private activity bonds could give private 

railroads access to tax-exempt financing for rail improvements, thus significantly 

reducing the cost of capital. This could allow the railroads, States, and local 

governments to jointly pursue tax-exempt borrowing. 
 

6-8 

Table 6-1 Current and Proposed Federal Funding Programs 

Current and Proposed 

Federal Programs 

Current Eligibility for 

Freight Rail-Related 

Improvements 

Impediments Proposed Reauthorization 

Changes 

NHS Can fund highway intermodal 

connectors to rail terminals. 

Connectors are normally 

lower priority on NHS system 

and there is no eligibility for 

rail improvements. 

Future reauthorization bills 

propose set-asides for 

intermodal connectors. 

STP 

(including Section 130 

Rail-Highway Grade 

Crossing Program) 

Section 130 funds rail 

highway grade crossing 

safety improvements. STP in 

general can fund 

improvements to 

accommodate freight rail, 

under certain circumstances. 

Work allowed includes: 

“...lengthening or increasing 

vertical clearances of 

bridges, adjusting drainage 

facilities, lighting, signage, 

utilities, or making minor 

adjustments to highway 

alignment...”* 

STP normally can’t fund 

freight rail other than 

highway grade crossings, 

which must have safety 

benefit. 

Increased funding for Section 

130 in Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, and Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act A 

Legacy for Users (SAFETEALU) and Transportation 

Equity Act: (TEA-21); 

Administration and 

SAFETEA –LU makes all 

STP funds eligible for 

publicly owned intermodal 

facilities including rail. 

CMAQ 

Can fund any transportation 

project that improves air 

quality including operations 

for up to 3 years. 

Air quality oriented, not for 

capacity improvements. No change for freight. 

TIFIA 

Provides loans and credit 

assistance for highway and 

public intermodal rail 

facilities. 

Private rail not eligible. 

Current project minimum 

$100 million. 

Administration proposes to 

make private rail eligible. 

Project minimum reduced to 

$50 million. Requires a 

revenue stream. 

RRIF 

Provides loans and credit 

assistance to private 

railroads. 

Applicant must provide 

Credit Risk Premium. 

“Lender of last resort” 

provision has caused some 

concern. 

No changes proposed. 

GARVEE 

The Grant Anticipation 

Revenue Vehicle (GARVEE) 

bond is a financing 

instrument with principal 

and/or interest repaid with 

future Federal-aid highway 

funds. 

Eligibility is constrained by 

the underlying Federal-aid 

highway programs. 

Same as for SIBs, underlying 

Federal program eligibility 

carries through into 

GARVEEs. 

TIGER 

Can be used to fund projects 

that can be completed 

quicker, that cannot be 

funded under traditional 

programs, are nationally 

significant, and promote 

sustainable and livable 

communities. 

Proposed reauthorization 

language should continue 

with this program. 

Rail Line Relocation 

Can fund construction 

projects that improve the 

route or structure of a rail 

line. 

Funding allocation is usually 

under $30 million per year, 

with the average grant award 

being $2.5 million. 

Proposed reauthorization 

language should continue 

with this program. 

Borders and Corridors

Border and corridor 

programs are for 

improvements to highway 

trade corridors and border 

crossings and have been 

used for rail grade crossings; 

e.g., FAST. 

Very limited eligibility for rail; 

highway needs dominate. 

Administration proposes 

eligibility for multiState, 

multimodal corridor 

planning; SAFETEA and 

TEA-LU propose expanded 

funding with current 

eligibilities. All bills separate 

borders and corridors. 
 

6-9 

Table 6-1 Current and Proposed Federal Funding Programs (cont’d) 

Current and Proposed 

Federal Programs 

Current Eligibility for 

Freight Rail-Related 

Improvements 

Impediments Proposed Reauthorization 

Changes 

Rail Modernization

Public transit program – can 

fund commuter rail 

improvements that have 

associated benefits for 

freight. 

Must have primarily 

passenger benefit. 

Likely source for flyover 

projects benefiting commuter 

rail. 

High-Priority Projects

Rail Intermodal Projects 

occasionally earmarked by 

Congress, such as Detroit 

rail intermodal terminal in 

TEA-21.

Normally focused on large 

highway projects. 

This source and new 

program 

for “Projects of Regional and 

National Significance.”

Projects of Regional and 

National Significance Proposed program. 

TEA-21 proposes new 

discretionary program for 

“Projects of Regional and 

National Significance” that 

could include freight rail 

projects. 

Private Activity Bonds

Allows private sector access 

to tax-exempt debt. 

Currently not available for 

surface transportation. 

Administration and 

SAFETEA-LU propose $15 

billion private activity bond 

volume for highway and rail 

projects. 

This would allow railroads to 

participate in tax-exempt 

borrowing along with city and 

State. 

Tax Credit Bonds

Tax-credit bond financing is 

a new form of federally 

subsidized debt financing, 

where the investor receives a 

Federal tax credit in lieu of 

interest payments on the 

bonds. Currently not 

available for transportation. 

AASHTO proposes a 

Transportation Investment 

Corporation to issue 

$80 billion in tax credit 

bonds, 

a portion to benefit 

intermodal freight. An 

institutional mechanism, 

Bonds for America, has been 

proposed in SAFETEA-LU 

but no funding has been 

provided.

Short Line Railroad Tax 

Credit 

Expenditures that qualify for 

the credit include gross 

expenditures for maintaining 

railroad track, which includes 

roadbed, bridges, and 

related track structures, that 

are owned or leased as of 

January 1, 2005, by a Class 

II or Class III railroad. 

An extension of the tax credit 

is being pursued by the 

ASLRRA. 

Rail Safety Improvement Act For projects to be eligible, 

they must be in the State’s 

Rail Plan. 

An extension of this program 

is being proposed in the new 

surface transportation 

reauthorization bill. 
 

6-10 

6.2 STATE PROGRAMS 

In addition to Federal funding, many States provide funding for freight rail projects. In most 

cases, State programs were initiated by the Federal rail service assistance program 

established by the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (4R Act), and 

amended by the Local Rail Service Assistance Act of 1978 (LRSA). The LRSA program 

provided funding on a Federal/local matching share basis for four types of projects: 

rehabilitation, new construction, substitute service, and acquisition. The LRSA program 

permitted States to provide funds on a grant or loan basis. LRSA was updated in 1990 to the 

Local Rail Freight Assistance program (LRFA) and the criteria for lines eligible to receive 

assistance were revised. Funds for the program were dramatically reduced in the 1990s, and 

congressional appropriations ceased in 1995. Despite the lack of Federal funds, many States 

have continued their freight rail assistance programs through remaining LRFA funds (repaid 

loans) or through apportionment of State funds. The objectives of most of these programs 

have been job retention, economic development, and safety. More recently, benefits accrued 

to highway congestion mitigation and avoided highway costs are being considered. 

Transportation finance at the State level in Mississippi (via MDOT) is dominated by a series 

of user-based revenues. The most prominent of these revenues are the State motor fuel tax, 

tag fee, and privilege tax. Mississippi also receives contract authority in the form of Federalaid apportionments as authorized by the ISTEA, and successor legislation (TEA-21 and 

SAFETEA-LU). MDOT shares State-generated user fees with local governments. Counties 

receive a significant portion of the State motor fuel tax and the State privilege tax, while 

municipalities receive a small share of the State motor fuel tax. Counties and municipalities 

also share federal funds with MDOT. A substantial share of local transportation funding is 

derived from portions of local real eState property taxes, bonds and the Personal Property 

Tax. 

6.2.1 Mississippi Freight Rail Service Projects Revolving Loan/Grant Program 

(RAIL) 

The Mississippi Freight Rail Service Projects Revolving Loan/Grant Program (RAIL) 

administered by the Mississippi Development Authority (MDA) is designed for 

making loans and grants to municipalities and/or counties to finance freight rail 

service projects in the State of Mississippi. Counties and municipalities are 

encouraged to use these funds in connection with other State and Federal programs. 

Funding for loans and grants to applicants is derived from the issuance of State bonds. 

RAIL was enacted by the State Legislature during the Regular 1995 Session. The 

governing authority of a municipality or county is eligible to apply for this program. 

Under this program, a project which involves the acquisition, construction, 

installation, operation, modification, renovation or rehabilitation of any freight rail 

service facilities is eligible. Also eligible are projects which may include any fixtures, 

machinery or equipment, used in conjunction with any freight rail service facilities, 

including construction costs (including reasonable and customary site work for 

buildings, right of ways, easements, etc.). Under the grant program, there is a 

maximum amount of $250,000 per project. Under the loan program, the cumulative 

maximum loan amount is limited to $1,000,000 per project per calendar year. Up to 8% 

of the principal loan amount may be used for design work, (i.e. engineer or 
 

6-11 

architect;engineering and/or architectural costs above 8% may be paid from other 

funding sources). The loan term is a maximum of 15 years or estimated life of 

project, whichever is less. Interest rates are 1% below the Federal Reserve Discount 

Rate at the time of loan approval. Funding is derived from the issuance of State 

general obligation bonds. 

6.2.2 Industrial Rail Access Program (IRAP) 

An Industrial Rail Access Program (IRAP) is created to provide financial assistance 

to improve industrial access to rail. These programs aim to preserve freight rail 

service, stimulate economic development through new or expanded freight rail 

service, and increase the use of rail transportation. An IRAP program would provide 

funding assistance for the construction or improvement of railroad tracks and 

facilities to serve industrial or commercial sites where freight rail service is currently 

needed, anticipated in the future, or in need of an upgrade. The funding program can 

allow financial assistance to localities, businesses and/or industries seeking to provide 

freight rail service between the site of an existing or proposed commercial facility and 

common carrier railroad tracks. It typically entails a partnership among the public 

sector, business owner, and railroad, which can all realized benefits from new or 

improved rail access. 

IRAP programs are well-established in a number of States. Each State’s IRAP 

program, shown in Table 6-2, varies in terms of budget and the percent of local and 

private funds that are required. At the time of this study, Mississippi does not have an 

IRAP program. 

Table 6-2 Sampling of State Industrial Rail Access Programs 

State Program Name Match Budget Comments 

Maine

Maine Industrial Rail 

Access Program 

(IRAP) 

50% Minimum $1 million total 

program (2007) 

New York

New York State 

DOT Industrial 

Access Program 

(IAP) 

$1 million or 20% 

annual 

appropriation 

60% Grant, 40% 

loan. 

Interest free 5 years 

North Carolina Rail Industrial 

Access Program 50% Minimum 

60% Grant, 40% 

loan. 

Interest free 5 years 

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania Rail 

Freight Assistance 

Program (RFAP) 

30% Minimum Grant program 

$250,000 

construction or 70% 

Virginia

Virginia Rail 

Industrial Access 

Program (RIAP) 

1 to 1 match above 

$300,000 

$300,000 

unmatched funds 

per project. No 

more than $450,000 

to any one county, 

town, or city in one 

FY. 

Funds cannot be 

more than 15% of 

recipients capital 

outlay 

Wisconsin

Freight Rail 

Infrastructure 

Improvement 

Program 

$3 million per 

project. 

Loans require 

minimum of 2% 

annual interest 
 

6-12 

6.3 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS 

Several States have instituted policies and programs that encourage public-private 

partnerships (PPP) to help leverage private investment into transportation infrastructure. 

There are two distinct forms of PPP arrangements: one where private entities lease public 

infrastructure and one where investment in infrastructure is shared by public and private 

entities, regardless of ownership. 

There are a number of State and Federal programs that have been created to make public 

funds available to private railroads. Although public funds will benefit the private sector, 

public investment comes with restrictions and eligibility requirements. Projects generally 

have to provide measurable economic benefits, require matching funds, and in the case of rail 

may require accommodation of additional passenger service. The following are examples of 

existing PPP arrangements: 

Alameda Corridor – This is a $2 billion 20-mile rail expressway connecting Ports of 

Los Angeles and Long Beach to rail yards near Los Angeles. The project has allowed 

for faster, more efficient freight flows. 

Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency Program (CREATE) – 

This program is a partnership between the State of Illinois, City of Chicago, and the 

freight and passenger railroads. The program will upgrade track connections and 

expand routes, meaning faster connections and operations. The first stage of 

construction is underway now at $330 million. This program also received TIGER 

funds. 

Heartland Corridor – This project is a partnership between the Federal Highway 

Administration and a private railroad that will raise bridge and tunnel heights to allow 

double stacking between the East Coast and Chicago. 

Texas PPP Legislation – Recent legislation allows PPP agreements through 

Comprehensive Development Agreements (CDA) for project development and 

execution for transportation corridors with rail. 

Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation – This department accepts 

solicited and unsolicited proposals from private entities to construct, improve, 

maintain, and operate highways. 

CSX Boston/Worcester Line – The MBTA acquired the property rights of the Boston 

to Worcester rail line from CSX Corporation, increasing the potential for additional 

commuter service. As part of this transaction, the Commonwealth and CSX will 

increase the vertical clearances of bridges along the railroad main line between I-495 

and the New York State line to accommodate double-stack freight trains. The 

Commonwealth will assume responsibility for raising highway bridges, while CSX 

will be responsible for lowering tracks. 
 

6-13 

These partnerships allow private and public entities to pool resources together to make key 

infrastructure investments possible. For example, financing through public entities may 

allow for low interest loans that the private sector would not otherwise have access to, or key 

investments by both parties in land and rail could lead to improved access to 

intermodal/distribution facilities resulting in economic benefits. 

The public sector has fairly limited experience with PPP arrangements and must be careful 

when defining contractual terms to ensure that private interests are not out-weighing those of 

the public. As of now, PPP agreements have yet to be standardized and vary for each project 

and program. Effective PPP should provide positive public and private benefits, and offer 

equitable cost sharing arrangements between the parties. 

6.4 OLATHE CASE STUDY 

The freight railroad viaduct in Olathe, Kansas consisted of an 8,000-foot long viaduct built 

mostly on fill with four bridge structures for the BNSF railroad to cross over roadways to 

alleviate the roadway congestion and air quality issues caused by trains at at-grade crossings. 

The project is similar to, but smaller than, the Build Alternative and used a variety of funding 

mechanisms to finance the $45 million construction cost, including: 

 $20 million from Kansas Highway Bill funds; 

 $15 million from the sale of City bonds; 

 $5 million from Federal appropriations; 

 $3 million from the CMAQ program; and 

 $2 million from BNSF. 

The project utilized a PPP between the railroad and the City, and engaged funds from the 

State and Federal governments as well as secured grant funding through a Federal grant. 

This strategy allowed the project to move into design in 2005, and construction was 

completed in 2009. The Build Alternative would likely have to include a variety of funding 

mechanisms, as the Olathe project has done. 
 

 

7-1 

7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 

Ms. Kim Thurman 

Environmental Division Manager 

Mississippi Department of Transportation 

401 North West Street 

Jackson, Mississippi 39201 

Phone: (601) 359-7920 

kthurman@mdot.state.ms.us 

Mr. John A. Winkle 

Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Room W38-311 

Washington, DC 20590 

Phone: (202) 493-6067 

John.Winkle@dot.gov

Ms. Linda L. Martin 

Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

MS 10 

Washington, DC 20590 

Phone: (202) 493-6062 

Linda.Martin@dot.gov

Mr. James W. Lee, P.E. 

HDR Engineering, Inc 

315 E. Robinson Street, Suite 400 

Orlando, FL 32801-1949 

Phone: (407) 420-4200 

Mr. Kevin Keller, P.E. 

HDR Engineering, Inc 

4435 Main Street, Suite 1000 

Kansas City, MO 64111-1856 

Phone: (816) 360-2753 

Mr. Timothy G. Casey, QEP 

HDR Engineering, Inc 

701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 600 

Minneapolis, MN 55416-3636 

Phone: (763) 591-5400 
 

7-2 

Mr. Cory H. Wilkinson, AICP 

HDR Engineering, Inc. 

25 W. Cedar Street, Suite 200 

Pensacola, FL 32502-5945 

Phone: (850) 432-6800 

Mr. John H. Morton, P.E. 

HDR Engineering, Inc 

8404 Indian Hills Drive 

Omaha, NE 68114-4098 

Phone: (402) 399-1000 

Mr. Carnot W. Evans, P.E. 

HDR Engineering, Inc. 

315 E. Robinson Street, Suite 400 

Orlando, FL 32801-1949 

Phone: (407) 420-4200 

Mr. Eric Jefferson, P.E. 

ABMB 

200 N. Congress Street, Suite 600 

Jackson, MS 39201 

Phone: (601) 354-0696 

Mr. Cecil Vick, P.E. 

ABMB 

200 N. Congress Street, Suite 600 

Jackson, MS 39201 

Phone: (601) 354-0696 

Dr. Jim Epps, P.E., PTOE 

Cook Coggin 

703 Crossover Road 

Tupelo, MS 38802 

Phone: (662) 842-7381 

Ms. Lavelle Fitch 

Fitch Williamson 

8605 Huntleigh Way 

Germantown, TN 38138 

Phone: (901) 759-1864 
 

7-3 

Mr. Paul Brockington 

Brockington & Associates 

6611 Bay Circle, Suite 220 

Norcross, GA 30071 

Phone: (770) 662-5807 

Mr. Calvin Dean, P.E. 

Crown Engineering 

350 N. Mart Plaza, Suite F 

Jackson, MS 39206 

Phone: (601) 713-4346 

Mr. Donald W. Bates, Jr., R.P.G. 

Thompson Engineering 

102 Business Park Drive, Ste. G 

Ridgeland, MS 39157 

Phone: (601) 899-9252 
 

 

8-1 

8.0 DISTRIBUTION LIST 

Federal Cooperating Agencies

Mr. Andrew H. Hughes 

Division Administrator 

Federal Highway Administration 

666 North St., Suite 105 

Jackson, Mississippi 39202-3199 

Ms. Ntale Kajumba 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Atlanta Federal Center 

61 Forsyth Street SW 

Atlanta, GA 30303-8960 

Mr. D. Craig Stubblefield 

Chief Resource Management 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service – Natchez Trace Parkway 

2680 Natchez Trace Parkway 

Tupelo, MS 38804 

Mr. Casey H. Ehorn 

Project Manager – Regulatory Division 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Mobile District 

P.O. Box 2288 

Mobile, AL 36628-0001 

Anthony Lobred 

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Vicksburg District 

4155 East Clay St. 

Vicksburg, MS 39183-3435 

Mr. David Felder 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish & Wildlife Service 

6578 Dogwood View Pkwy., Suite A 

Jackson, MS 39213 
 

8-2 

Other Federal Agencies

Secretary Kathleen Sebelius 

U. S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 

200 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 50201 

Secretary Ken Salazar 

Department of the Interior 

1849 C Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20240 

Secretary Tom Vilsack 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

1400 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20250 

Secretary Steven Chu 

U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Ave., SW 

Washington, DC 20585 

Mr. Tom Kilgore 

President and Chief Executive Officer 

Tennessee Valley Authority 

400 W. Summit Hill Dr. 

Knoxville, TN 37902-1499 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Transit Administration 

East Building 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Executive Office of the President 

Office of Management and Budget 

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20503 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 
 

8-3 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

451 7th Street S.W. 

Washington, DC 20410 

General Services Administration 

1800 F Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20405 

Mr. William Straw 

Environment & Historic Preservation 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

3003 Chamblee Tucker Road 

Atlanta, GA 30341 

State Agencies

Mr. Bill Jameson, District Engineer 

Mississippi Department of Transportation 

1909 N. Gloster Street 

Tupelo, MS 38803 

Dr. Sam Polles, Executive Director 

Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks 

1505 Eastover Dr. 

Jackson, MS 39211 

Ms. Trudy Fisher, Executive Director 

Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality 

P. O. Box 2261 

Jackson, MS 39225 

Mr. H.T. Holmes 

State Historic Preservation Officer 

Ms Department of Archives and History 

P.O. Box 571 

Jackson, MS 39205-0571 

Mr. Don Underwood, Executive Director 

MS Soil and Water Conservation Commission 

680 Monroe Street 

P.O. Box 23005 

Jackson, Mississippi 39225 
 

8-4 

Mississippi Department of Human Services 

750 North State Street 

Jackson, MS 39202 

Mississippi Development Authority 

Division of Tourism Development 

P. O. Box 849 

Jackson, MS 39205 

Mississippi Public Service Commission 

P. O. Box 1174 

Jackson, MS 39215-1174 

Mississippi Development Authority 

P. O. Box 849 

Jackson, MS 39205 

Mississippi Forestry Commission 

660 North Street, Suite 300 

Jackson, Mississippi 39202 

Dr. Lester Spell, Jr. D.V.M., Commissioner 

MS Department of Agriculture and Commerce 

P.O. Box 1609 

Jackson, MS 39215 

Local Governments 

Mayor Jack Reed, Jr., Mayor 

City of Tupelo 

71 East Troy Street 

Tupelo, MS 38804 

Lee County Board of Supervisors 

200 West Jefferson St., #100 

Tupelo, MS 38804 

Native American Tribes

Mr. Kirk Perry 

The Chickasaw Nation 

P.O. Box 1548 

Ada, OK 74821-1548 
 

8-5 

Mr. Ken Carleton 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians 

P. O. Box 6257 

Philadelphia, MS 39350 

The Honorable Beasley Denson, Miko 

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians 

P. O. Box 6010 

Philadelphia, MS 39350 

The Honorable Christine Norris, Chief 

Jena Band of Choctaw 

P. O. Box 14 

Jena, LA 71342 

The Honorable Gregory E. Pyle, Chief 

Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma 

P. O. Box 1210 

Durant, OK 74702 

Mr. Terry Cole 

NAGPRA Representative 

Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma 

P. O. Box 1210 

Durant, OK 74702 

The Honorable John Berrey, Tribal Chairperson 

Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma 

P.O. Box 765 

Quapaw, OK 74363 

Mrs. Carrie V. Wilson, NAGPRA Representative 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma 

223 East Lafayette Street 

Fayetteville, AR 72701 

The Honorable Earl J. Barbry, Sr. 

Tribal Chairperson 

Tunica-Biloxi Indians of Louisiana, Inc. 

P.O. Box 1589 

Marksville, LA 71351 
 

8-6 

Others

U.S. Senator Roger Wicker 

Tupelo Office 

2801 West Main Street 

Tupelo, MS 38801 

U.S. Senator Thad Cochran 

245 East Capitol St., Suite 226 

Jackson, MS 39201 

U.S. Congressman Travis Childers 

2350 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Mr. Mike Scott, Superintendent 

Lee County School District 

1280 College View Drive 

Tupelo, MS 38801 

Tupelo Public School District 

72 South Green Street 

Tupelo, MS 38804 

Ms. Lou Ann McDonald, Director 

Lee-Itawamba Library System 

219 N. Madison St. 

Tupelo, MS 38804-3807 

Community Development Foundation 

Tupelo/Lee County 

300 West Main St. 

Tupelo, MS 38801 

David R. Sparks 

Town Creek Master Water Management District 

P. O. Box 716 

Tupelo, MS 38802 

Tim Huya 

Manager Special Projects 

BNSF 

5800 North Main Street 

Saginaw, TX 76179 
 

8-7 

Allen Pepper 

Manager Public Safety 

Kansas City Southern 

P.O. Box 219335 

Kansas City, MO 64121 
 

9-1

9.0 GLOSSARY 

A 

Adjacent Track: 

In relation to excepted track and for the purposes of the Track Safety Standards, any track or 

tracks next to a track that is designated as an excepted track. Any tracks with centerlines that 

are 30 feet or closer to the excepted track in question are considered as adjacent and speeds 

on those tracks must not exceed 10 mph. 

Advanced Signal: 

A fixed signal used in connection with one or more signals to govern the approach of a train 

or engine to such signal. 

Adverse: 

Negative or detrimental. 

Affected Environment: 

The physical, biological, social, and economic setting potentially affected by one or more of 

the alternatives being considered. 

Air Quality: 

A measure of the concentrations of pollutants, measured individually, in the air. 

Alignment: 

The horizontal and vertical general location for the centerline of railroad tracks or a roadway 

within study corridors. 

Alignment Alternatives: 

The general location for tracks, structures and systems for the system between logical points 

within study corridors. 

Alternative: 

As used in the transportation analysis in this EIS, a variation of a rail corridor segment to 

mitigate a potential adverse environmental or engineering factor. See variation, option, 

corridor. 

AREMA: 

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance Association. North American body for 

determination of railway engineering standards. 

At Grade: 

At ground surface level; a term used to describe roadways, river crossings, and track 

alignments. 
 

9-2

Attainment: 

An air basin is considered to be in attainment for a particular pollutant if it meets the federal 

or state standards set for that pollutant. See also Maintenance, Nonattainment. 

A-Weighted Sound Level: 

A measure of sound intensity that is weighted to approximate the response of the human ear, 

so it describes the way sound will affect people in the vicinity of a noise source. 

B 

Ballast: 

Rock, gravel or other granular material placed on a road bed to support cross ties and rails 

and to aid in holding the desired track geometry. 

Borrow: 

Material, such as sand and gravel, which is extracted from an excavation or pit area that can 

be used to fill another site. 

Branch:

A portion of a division designated by a time table. Rules and instructions pertaining to 

subdivisions apply on branches. 

Branch Line: 

A secondary, local or feeder line of railway connecting with the main line; also any line other 

than a main line. See Main Line. 

Branch Line Tracks: 

These are secondary line track(s) on a railway. Trains and engines might be operated with or 

without time table, train order, or block signal. 

BNSF: 

BNSF Railway Company. 

C 

Capital Cost: 

The total cost of acquiring an asset or constructing a project. 

Carbon Dioxide: (CO2): 

A colorless, odorless gas that occurs naturally in the earth’s atmosphere; significant 

quantities are also emitted into the air by fossil fuel combustion. 

Carbon Monoxide (CO): 
 

9-3

A colorless, odorless gas that is generated in the urban environment, primarily by the 

incomplete combustion of fossil fuels in motor vehicles. 

Classes of Track: 

A categorization of track based on the maximum allowable operating speed. 

Classification: 

The act of switching rail cars for sorting, segregating or grouping according to their kind, 

contents or destination. 

Classification Yard: 

A set of tracks where rail cars are sorted, segregated or grouped according to their kind, 

contents or destination. 

Clearance Limits: 

The dimensions beyond which the size of, or projections of a shipment may not extend in 

order to clear such things as switch stands, platforms, tunnels, and low bridges. 

Community Cohesion: 

The degree to which residents have a sense of belonging to their neighborhood, a 

commitment to the community, or a strong attachment to neighbors, groups, and institutions, 

usually as a result of continued association over time. 

Concrete Ties: 

Ties made of concrete are gaining wider use as the demand and cost of wood increases. For 

large-scale projects, the cost for concrete ties is generally comparable to wooden ties. 

Concrete ties are reported to be stronger and have a longer life than wooden ties, but they 

lack the elasticity of wood. Some companies use concrete ties on curves or grades where 

their strength is an asset. Abrasion from the ballast sometimes leads to concrete tie failure. 

Rail clips are used to fasten the rail concrete ties. 

Conductor: 

The person officially in charge of the train’s overall operation. S/he also does most of the 

paperwork associated with the handling of the train. 

Consist: 

A listing showing the train number, the dates and times of departure as well as arrival; the 

locomotive, radio and caboose number; the initial and car numbers of each car on the train; 

the billing of these cars; the special handling of the cars and the name of the conductor. It 

reflects all activities that took place on the movement of cars between any two stations. 
 

9-4

Continuous Welded Rail (CWR): 

Traditionally, track was laid in lengths of 39’ with a joint between each to allow for 

expansion and contraction due to heat and cold. Joints were points of high maintenance. 

Continuous Welded Rail typically consists of lengths between 400 and 1,600 feet in length 

and the joints between them are eliminated by in-place welding using portable equipment. 

Without joints, expansion and contraction can result in buckling in high temperatures and 

breaking in cold conditions. 

Construction: 

Any activity related to building projects, including highways or rail infrastructure (e.g., track, 

yards, bridges) that directly alters the environment. 

Cooperating agency: 

Under NEPA, any agency other than the lead agency that has legal jurisdiction over, or 

technical expertise regarding, environmental impacts associated with a proposed action and 

has agreed to participate. 

Corridor: 

A geographic belt or band that follows the general route of a transportation facility (highway, 

railroad, etc). See also Study corridors. 

Crossbucks: 

A term for railway crossing sign with crossed arms. 

Crossing (Track): 

A structure, used where one track crosses another at grade, and consisting of four connected 

frogs. See Rail Crossing, Diamond 

Crosstown: 

The intersection of Main Street (US 278/MS 6) and Gloster Street (MS 145) in central 

Tupelo, MS. 

Cultural Resources: 

Resources related to the tangible and intangible aspects of cultural systems, living and dead, 

that are valued by a given culture or contain information about the culture. These include, 

but are not limited to sites, structures, buildings, districts, and objects associated with or 

representative of people, cultures, and human activities and events. 

Cumulative Impact: 

As defined by NEPA, and impact on the environment that results from the incremental 

impact of the action when added to other past, present, reasonably foreseeable future actions. 
 

9-5

Curved Track: 

Curved track is measured by degrees, with most main track curves falling between 1 and 5 

degrees. The degree of curvature is the angle subtended at the center of a simple curve by a 

100-foot chord. Curves require more power from locomotives, and the forces present while a 

train negotiates a curve increases rail and car wear. Stronger track, ties and additional spikes 

are used in curves in order to take the added loads. 

D 

Dangerous or Hazardous Goods: 

Articles or substances, which are capable of posing a significant risk to health, safety or 

property when transported. 

Decibel (dB): 

A logarithmic measurement of noise intensity. 

Dewatering: 

The process of removing water from an area or substance, such as fill material. 

Diamond: 

A place where two railway tracks cross each other. 

Division: 

A portion of the railroad designated by time table. 

E 

Electric Switch Lock: 

An electric lock connected with a hand-operated switch to prevent its operation until the lock 

is released. 

Endangered Species: 

A species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant part of its range, and 

has a formal listing of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act. 

Engine (Eng): 

A unit propelled by any form of energy, or a combination of such units operated from a 

single control, used in train or yard service. 

Environment: 

Includes water, air and land and all plants and humans and other animals living therein, and 

the interrelationship existing among these. 
 

9-6

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): 

A detailed information document that analyzes a project’s potential effects and identifies 

mitigation measures and reasonable alternatives to reduce the significant effects. This 

document is part of the NEPA environmental review process. 

Environmental Justice: 

Identifying and addressing the potential for disproportionately high and adverse effects of 

programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. 

Erosion: 

Process by which earth materials are worn down by the action of flowing water, ice, or wind. 

Ethnicity: 

A grouping or category of people based on shared cultural traits, such as ancestral origin, 

language, custom or social attitude. 

F 

Farmland of Local Importance: 

Farmlands that are important to the local agricultural community, as determined by each 

county’s board of supervisors and local advisory committee. See also Farmland of Statewide 

Importance, Prime Farmland.

Farmland of Statewide Importance: 

Farmlands similar to prime farmlands but that have been evaluated as less valuable because 

they have steeper slopes, less ability to retain moisture in the soil, or other characteristics that 

limit their use. To qualify as farmland of statewide importance, a property must have been 

used for production of irrigated crops at some time during the previous four years. 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA): 

A Federal agency attached to the Department of Transportation. The FRA serves as the 

principal organization for assistance to the Secretary of Transportation on all matters relating 

to rail transport and safety. 

Floodplain: 

The lowlands adjoining inland and coastal waters and relatively flat areas and floodprone 

areas of offshore islands including, at a minimum, that area inundated by a 1% or greater 

chance flood in any given year. The base floodplain is defined as the 100-year (1.0%) 

floodplain. The critical action floodplain is defined as the 500-year (0.2%) floodplain. 

Flyover: 

A bridge that carries one road or rail alignment aerially over another. 
 

9-7

G 

Gauge (of Track): 

The distance between the rails, measured at right angles thereto 5/8 inches below the top of 

the rail. (Standard gauge is 4 feet 8-1/2 inches or 56-1/2inches.) 

Geographic Information Systems (GIS): 

An information management system designed to store and analyze data referenced by spatial 

or geographic coordinates. 

Grade Crossing: 

The intersection of a railroad and a highway at the same elevation (grade); an intersection of 

two or more highways; an intersection of two railroads. 

Grade Separated: 

At different elevations; on separate levels. 

Gross Ton Miles: 

The movement in line-haul service of transportation equipment and contents, for a distance 

of one mile. The weight of the haul is expressed in tons (2,000 pounds). 

Gross Ton Miles Per Train Mile: 

The number of gross ton miles divided by the number of train miles. Gross ton miles of 

locomotive and tender are excluded unless otherwise stated. 

Ground Vibration: 

The rapid linear motion of a compression wave in the ground caused by a single or repeated 

force or impact to the ground as in the action of a pile driver or a tire hitting a bump or 

pothole in a road. 

Groundwater: 

Water contained and transmitted through open spaces in rock and sediment below the ground 

surface. 

H 

Habitat: 

An environment where plants or animals naturally occur; an ecological setting used by 

animals for a particular purpose, such as roosting or breeding. 

Hazardous Materials: 

Cargo that poses a risk to individuals and/or the environment, the movement of which is 

governed by the Department of Transportation and other regulations. Hazardous Materials 

(hazmat) include corrosive materials, poisons and explosives among other substances. 
 

9-8

High Visual Impact: 

Impact sustained if features of a project alternative are very obvious, such that they begin to 

dominate the landscape and detract from the existing landscape characteristics or scenic 

qualities. 

High/Wide Load: 

A load that exceeds clearance limits. 

Hours of Service: 

A government regulation which determines the number of hours covered employees (defined 

by law and regulations) may work before going off duty for a specified length of time. 

I 

Impact: 

For an EIS, the positive or negative effect of an action (past, present, or future) on the natural 

environment (land use, air quality, water resources, geological resources, ecological 

resources, aesthetic and scenic resources) and the human environment (infrastructure, 

economics, social, and cultural). 

In-Situ:

In the original or natural position. 

Insulated Joint: 

A rail joint designed to arrest the flow of electric current from rail to rail by means of 

insulation so placed as to separate the rail ends and other metal parts connecting them. 

Interchange or Interchange Point: 

A place where the line of a railway company connects the line of another railway company 

and where loaded or empty cars may be stored until delivered or received by that other 

company.

Interlocking: 

A configuration of switches and signals interconnected to direct trains along different routes, 

the limits of which are governed by interlocking signals. An arrangement of interconnected 

signals and signal appliances for which interlocking rules are in effect. An arrangement of 

signal appliances so interconnected that their movements must succeed each other in proper 

sequence. It may be operated manually or automatically. Interlocking consists for most of 

them of controlled block signals with dual-control switches that are controlled by the 

dispatcher. 

Interlocking Limits: 

The tracks between the extreme or outer opposing interlocking signals of an interlocking. 
 

9-9

Interlocking Signals: 

The fixed signals of an interlocking, governing trains and engines using the interlocking 

limits. 

Intermodal Traffic: 

Traffic, which moves in containers, trailers on flatcars. Traffic, which moves in via two or 

more different modes of transport. 

Invasive Species: 

An alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental 

harm or harm to human health. 

J 

Joint Facility: 

Two or more railways jointly operating on the same segment of tracks, covered by agreement 

between the affected railroads. 

K 

KCS: 

Kansas City Southern Railroad 

L 

Lading: 

That which constitutes a load. The freight in a car, vessel, or truck. 

Land Use Compatibility Assessment: 

An assessment of the compatibility of a proposed project or land use with existing and 

projected land uses in nearby areas, based on the sensitivity of various land uses to change 

related to the alternatives and the impact of these changes on the land use. 

Lead Agency: 

The public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project 

or action and is thus responsible for preparing environmental review documents in 

compliance with NEPA. 

Leq: 

A measure of the average noise level during a specified period of time. 
 

9-10

Leq(h), dBA: 

Equivalent or average noise level for the noisiest hour, expressed in A-weighted decibels. 

See also A-Weighted Sound Level.

Level of Service (LOS): 

A rating using qualitative measures that characterizes operational conditions within a traffic 

stream and the perception by motorists and passengers of these conditions. 

Limits: 

A segment of track that can be controlled by signals or other identifiable means. 

Line: 

The condition of the track in regard to uniformity in direction over short distances on 

tangents, or uniformity in variation in direction over short distances on curves. 

Line Capacity: 

The maximum possible number of trains capable of being operated over a line in one 

direction. Usually expressed as trains per hour, it will depend on all trains running at the 

same speed, having equal braking capacity and on how the signaling is arranged. 

Local Train: 

A train, which stops at all stations, as required, on its route. 

Locomotive: 

A unit propelled by any energy form, or a combination of such units, operated from a single 

control, as defined in the railroads Operating Rules (an engine). 

Low-Income Population: 

One in which 20% or more of the persons in the population live in poverty, as reported by the 

Bureau of the Census in accordance with Office of Management and Budget requirements. 

For the purposes of Environmental Justice analysis used in this document, low-income 

households are considered as those who have an annual household income below 80% of the 

median income of Tupelo, or a household income of $28,932 or less. 

Low Visual Impact 

Impact sustained if features of a project alternative are consistent with the existing line, form, 

texture, and color of other elements in the landscape and do no stand out. 
 

9-11

M 

Main Line: 

A main line track is the principal line of a given railroad company’s rail network. Main lines 

consist of either single, double or multiple track lines extending between major stations. 

Trains are operated by time table, train order, or governed by block signals. A track 

extending through yards and between stations, upon which trains or engines are authorized 

and operated by time table or train order, or both, or the use of which is governed by block 

signals by one or more methods of control. May not be occupied without proper authority or 

protection. 

Main Track: 

For the purposes of the Track Safety Standards, a track other than an auxiliary track 

extending through yards and between stations. 

Maintenance of Way (MOW): 

On-track maintenance of repairing, testing, and inspecting track, including ties, ballast, and 

rail. MOW work is usually conducted by the Engineering Department of a railway. 

Manifest Train: 

Manifest traffic refers to the freight trains that carry the bulk of the freight along regularly 

scheduled runs. Manifest traffic routes are advertised as regularly occurring, yet the actual 

composition of the train will vary from day to day based upon the specific commodities 

being shipped. Regularly scheduled mixed freight trains can be referred to as manifest trains. 

Mechanical Services: 

The railroad’s Mechanical Services Department is responsible for the maintenance, repair 

and inspection of engines and rail cars. 

Medium Visual Impact: 

Impacts sustained if features of a project alternative are readily discernable but do not 

dominate the landscape or detract from existing dominant features. 

Mile Post: 

Post along a railroad right of way, which indicates the distance, in miles, to or from a given 

point. 

Million Gross Tons Of Traffic (MGT): 

The total amount of traffic on a track based on the sum of the weight of all trains that operate 

over the track over a period of one year. 

Minority Population: 

A community, census block, or block group in which the portion of the population of a racial 

or ethnic minority is 50% or greater. 
 

9-12

Mitigation: 

Action or measure undertaken to minimize, reduce, eliminate, or rectify the adverse impacts 

of a project, practice, action or activity. 

MSDEQ: 

Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality 

N 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): 

Federal standards stipulating the allowable ambient concentrations of specific criteria 

pollutants. 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): 

Federal legislation requiring federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of major 

federal projects or decisions, to share information with the public, to identity and assess 

reasonable alternatives, and to coordinate efforts with other planning and environmental 

reviews taking place. 

Native Species: 

With respect to a particular ecosystem, a species that, other than as a result of an 

introduction, historically occurred or currently occurs in that ecosystem. 

No Action: 

Under NEPA, refers to an alternative under which no action would be taken (no 

infrastructure would be built and no new management or operational practices would be 

instituted). 

No-Build Alternative: 

Represents the region’s (and state’s) transportation system (highway, air, and conventional 

rail) as it is today and with implementation of programs or projects that are in regional 

transportation plans and have identified funds for implementation by 2030. 

Noise: 

Any sound that is undesirable because it interferes with speech and hearing; if intense 

enough, it can damage hearing. 

O 

On-track Equipment: 

A machine that operates on a railway track and is used in connection with construction or 

work on, or inspection of, a railway track. 
 

9-13

Operating Employee: 

Means on board train employees directly involved in operating or assisting in the operation 

of the train, including those employees who are trainee candidates for such positions. 

P 

Poverty Level: 

A federally established income guideline published each year by the U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Service used to define persons who are economically disadvantaged. For 

2008, in the contiguous U.S., this level is set at income less than $21,200 per year for a 

family of four. 

Preferred Alternative:

The alternative identified as preferred by the lead agency. 

Prime Farmland: 

Land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing 

food, feed, fiber, forage, oilseed, and other agricultural crops with minimum inputs of fuel, 

fertilizer, pesticides, and labor, and without intolerable soil erosion. 

Pull: 

Picking up loaded cars and moving them to switching districts or yards where they will be 

classified according to destination.

Purpose and Need: 

The reason(s) why a project or action is undertaken, and the need(s) it is intended to meet or 

fulfill. 

Q 

Qualitative: 

With regard to a variable, a parameter, or data, an expression or description of an aspect in 

terms of non-numeric qualities or attributes. 

Quantitative: 

A numeric expression or variable.
 

9-14

R 

Rail (Track): 

A rolled steel shape, commonly a T-section, designed to be laid end to end in two parallel 

lines on crossties or other suitable supports to form a track for railway rolling stock. It has 

three main parts: 

1. The head that comes into contact with car wheels. 

2. The web, which is the thinner, middle part of the rail; and 

3. The base. 

Rail Anchors: 

Rail anchors are fastening devices that put contact pressure on the rail to keep it stationary. 

Rail anchors are used with CWR to prevent longitudinal movement due to thermal expansion 

or train movement. 

Rail Classification Yard 

A railroad switching yard where railcars arriving in inbound freight trains are classified and 

reassembled according to their routing to make up outbound freight trains. 

Rail Fasteners: 

Rail fasteners (except for rail anchors) keep the rail in gauge and prevent rail roll over. The 

weight of the train and the design of the rails keep the rails upright. Rail fasteners also 

prevent the rail from stretching lengthwise under the force of the train. 

Rail Joints: 

Rail joints are plates of metal with holes used to join two pieces of rail end-to-end. 

Rail Section: 

The shape of the end of a rail cut at right angles to its length. The rail mills identify the 

different shapes and types of rails by code numbers, as for example 131-28 for the 131 RE 

rail section. 

Record of Decision: 

A document that provides a concise public record of a decision made by a government 

agency. Under NEPA, a federal agency must issue a record of decision following the 

issuance of the final EIS, and explain therein: 1) its decision; 2) the alternatives and reasons 

for deciding upon them; 3) any significant expected impacts; and 4) a mitigation plan for 

those impacts. 

Resource Study Areas (RSA): 

Areas examined for potential environmental impacts as part of the NEPA analysis process. 

Examples include air quality, hydrology, and biological resources. 
 

9-15

Right of Way: 

The property owned by a railway company on which tracks have been laid, including the 

track and land surrounding that track. 

S 

Set Off (Set Out): 

A car left by a train at a station. Also when a railroad delivers a car to another railroad at one 

of its terminals so that it can be placed within that terminal. 

Scoping: 

A process used under NEPA to determine the scope of issues to be addressed and to identify 

the significant issues related to the proposed action or project to be addressed in an EIS. 

Section 4(f): 

Provisions originally enacted as Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 

1966 (23 C.F.R. 771.135) and subsequently codified in 49 U.S.C., Subtitle I, Section 303(c). 

The Section 4(f) provisions address the potential for conflicts between transportation needs 

and the protection of lands for recreational use and resource conservation by regulating the 

use of publicly owned parkland, recreation areas, and historic sites. Specifically, they 

prohibit the Secretary of Transportation from approving any program or project that would 

require the use of any publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, wildlife or 

waterfowl refuge, or land of an historic site of national significance as determined by the 

officials having jurisdiction over these lands, unless there are no feasible and prudent 

alternatives to the use of these lands. In addition, a proposed program or project must 

include all possible planning to minimize harm resulting from the proposed use. 

Shoulder of Track: 

The outside portion of the track comprised of the ballast. The width of the shoulder is usually 

expressed as the level top portion of the ballast up to the point where is begins to slope down. 

Siding: 

A track auxiliary to the main track, for meeting and passing trains, which is so designated in 

Timetable, General Bulletin Order, or Dispatchers Operations Bulletin. 

Signal: 

Visual indication passed to the locomotive engineer to advise the speed, direction or route of 

the train. Some signals are: engine whistle signals, display of headlights, markers, blue 

signal protection, signals imperfectly displayed, and emergency protection signals. 

Signaled Turnout: 

A turnout that is controlled by signals. 
 

9-16

Single Track: 

One main track upon which trains are operated in both directions. 

Slow Order: 

A train speed restriction order. 

Speed: 

Note: speed definitions may vary from one railroad to another and from one country to 

another. However, for purposes of this document, speed has the following meanings: 

Limited Speed: A speed not exceeding 45 mph. 

Maximum Authorized Speed: The fastest speed that trains are permitted to operate 

over a track as designated in a railroad timetable or special instruction. 

Medium Speed: A speed not exceeding 30 mph. 

Reduced Speed: A speed that permits complying with flagging signals and stopping 

short of train or obstruction. 

Restricted Speed: A speed that will permit stopping within half of the range of 

vision of equipment, also prepared to stop short of a switch not properly lined and in 

no case exceeding Slow Speed. At restricted speed, the engineer should be on the 

lookout for broken rails. 

Slow Speed: A speed not exceeding 15 mph. 

Special Instructions: 

Instructions located in a time table or other publication that modify railroad operating rules 

and procedures. 

Speed Restriction: 

An imposed speed restriction of a train to below the maximum speed for the railroad, 

division, or subdivision, caused by track, signal, train equipment, or environmental 

conditions. 

Spoil: 

Material composed of a variety of rocks and minerals having different chemical and physical 

characteristics and in varying proportions and sizes. 

Spur Track: 

Side track that is connected at one end only to a running track. Some form of bumping post 

or other solid obstruction usually protects the other end. 

Stakeholder: 

A person or organization with an interest in or affected by FRA actions (representatives from 

Federal, state, tribal, or local agencies; members of Congress or state legislatures; unions; 

educational groups; environmental groups; industrial groups, etc.; and members of the 

general public). 
 

9-17

Standard Gauge: 

The distance between the rails of railway track. Standard gauge in North America is four feet 

eight and one-half inches (56-1/2 inches). 

Station: 

A location designated in the time table by name. 

Subballast: 

Any material of a superior character, which is spread on the finished subgrade of the roadbed 

and below the top ballast, to provide better drainage, prevent upheaval by frost, and better 

distribute the load over the roadbed. 

Subgrade: 

The finished surface of the roadbed below the ballast and track. 

Superelevation: 

As a train goes around a curve, the cars tend to tip towards the outside of the curve, 

especially with tall and top-heavy loads. To compensate, the outside rail is raised or 

superelevated to force the load back toward the inside of the curve. The amount of 

superelevation is determined by the degree of the curve and the intended train speed. 

Surface (Track): 

The condition of the track as to vertical evenness or smoothness. Track surface may need to 

be measured while under load, since some setting of the track can occur. 

Switch: 

A track structure used to divert rolling stock from one track to another. 

Switching: 

The physical movement of rail cars from one place to another within the limits of a yard, 

terminal or station. 

T 

Tail Room: 

In yard operations, the track space available to pull out of one track and then switch over to 

another. Desirable tail room is as long as the longest yard track. 

Terminal Area: 

A location that includes one or more yards together with the tracks connecting the yard or 

yards and the industries within that area. 

Thalweg Elevation 

The elevation of a stream channel bed at the deepest part of the channel. 
 

9-18

Threatened Species: 

A species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant part of its range. 

Tie, Cross: 

The transverse member of the track structure to which the rails are spiked or otherwise 

fastened to provide proper gauge and to cushion, distribute, and transmit the stresses of 

traffic through the ballast to the roadbed. 

Tie, Switch: 

The transverse member of the track structure, which is longer than but functions as does the 

crosstie and in addition supports a crossover or turnout. 

Time Table: 

The document, which contains subdivision information footnotes and special instructions 

relating to movements of trains, engines and track units. 

Track: 

An assembly of rails, ties, and fastenings over which cars, locomotives, and trains are moved. 

Body: Each of the parallel tracks of a yard upon which cars are placed or stored. 

Classification: One of the body tracks in a classification yard, or a track used for 

classification purposes. 

Connecting: Two turnouts with the track between the frogs arranged to form a 

continuous passage between one track and another intersecting or oblique track or 

another remote parallel track. 

Departure: Tracks where rail cars are classified and assembled into trains for linehaul movement. 

House: A track alongside of, or entering a freight house, and used for cars receiving 

or delivering freight at the house. 

Interchange: A track on which cars are delivered or received, as between railways. 

Ladder: A track connecting successively the body tracks of a yard. 

Lead: An extended track connecting either end of a yard with the main track. 

Main Track: For the purposes of the Track Safety Standards, a track other than an 

auxiliary track extending through yards and between stations. 

Passing: A track auxiliary to the main track for meeting or passing trains. Same as a 

Siding. The correct term to use is “Siding” for repairs. 

Receiving Track: Tracks where incoming trains are received. 

Running: A track reserved for movement through a yard. 

Scale: A track leading to and from and passing over a track scale. 

Side: A track auxiliary to the main track for purposes other than for meeting and 

passing trains. 

Spur: A stub track diverging from a main or other track. 

Storage: One of the body tracks in storage yards or one of the tracks used for storing 

equipment. 
 

9-19

Stub: A track connected with another one at one end only. 

Team: A track on which cars are placed for transfer of freight between cars and 

highway vehicles. 

Wye: Railway tracks arranged in the form of a “Y” which are used for turning 

locomotives and rail cars in the opposite direction. 

Track Gauge: 

Measured at right angles, the distance between running rails of a track at the gauge lines, 

which are 5/8 inches below top of rail. 

Train: 

An engine or more than one engine coupled, with or without cars, or a track unit(s) so 

designated by its operating authority, displaying a marker(s). 

Turnout: 

An arrangement of a switch and a frog with closure rails, by means of which rolling stock 

may be diverted from one track to another. 

U 

Unique Farmland: 

Land other than prime farmland that is used for the production of specific high-value food 

and fiber crops such as citrus, tree nuts, olives, cranberries, fruits and vegetables. 

V 

Viaduct: 

A bridge that conveys a road or a railroad over a valley; often constructed of a series of 

arches supported by piers. 

Viewshed: 

A total field of vision or a vista. In particular, an area with visual boundaries seen from 

various points within the area. 

W 

Watershed: 

The area that contributes water to a drainage system or stream. 
 

9-20

Water Table: 

(1)The upper limit of the saturated zone (the portion of the ground wholly saturated with 

water). (2)The upper surface of a zone of saturation above which the majority of pore spaces 

and fractures are less than 100% saturated with water most of the time (unsaturated zone) and 

below which the opposite is true (saturated zone). 

Wetland: 

An area of ground that is saturated with water either permanently or seasonally. A 

community composed of hydric soil and hydrophytes. 

Wildlife Corridor: 

A belt of habitat that is essentially free of physical barriers such as fences, walls, and 

development and connects two or more larger areas of habitat, allowing wildlife to move 

between physically separate areas. 

Wood Trestle: 

A wood structure composed of bents supporting stringers, the whole forming a support for 

loads applied to the stringers through the deck. 

X 

Y 

Yard: 

A system of tracks within defined limits provided for making up trains, storing cars, and 

other purposes, over which movements not authorized by time table or by train-order may be 

made, subject to prescribed signals and rules, or special instructions. Under freight yard, the 

definition is: “A network of tracks set aside for a railway’s own working purpose, such as 

classification, switching and holding rail equipment.” It is common to use the words yard and 

track interchangeable in some instances, but they are basically tracks used for a specific 

purpose and located within the yard limits. 

Yard Limits: 

That portion of the main track or main tracks within limits defined by yard limit signs. 

Z
 

 

A-1 

APPENDIX A – Agency Correspondence 
37158 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 125 / Thursday, June 29, 2006 / Notices 

Analysis in Section 3011 of SAFETEA–

LU, codified at 49 U.S.C. 5309(a)(1), 

aligns it more closely with the MPO 

planning process; and (b) section 6002 

requires that the ‘‘type of work’’ be 

identified by the project sponsor at the 

initiation of the environmental review 

process. The FTA seeks comment on 

any implications of these provisions for 

the New Starts Alternatives Analysis 

and the NEPA review of the New Starts 

project. 

The FHWA specifically seeks 

comment on the following questions 

and issues: 

1. Flexibility. Are there specific areas 

where the guidance could and should 

provide greater flexibility, while still 

complying with the relevant section 

6002 requirement? Within the limits of 

section 6002, would flexibility in a 

particular area allow for customization 

by the State departments of 

transportation, transit agencies, and 

FHWA and FTA field offices in 

response to issues of greater regional 

concern? 

2. Adequacy of guidance. Are there 

areas that need additional guidance or 

instruction on how best to implement 

the new requirement? 

3. Lead agency responsibilities. Some 

responsibilities of the lead agency have 

been retained by FHWA and FTA, some 

have been essentially assigned to the 

State or local lead agency, and some 

have been left for the Federal and nonFederal lead agencies to allocate 

between themselves, project by project 

as they see fit. Does the description of 

the roles of the various lead agencies 

adequately communicate their 

respective responsibilities, authorities, 

and limitations? Is the division of labor, 

responsibility, and authority 

appropriate? 

4. Methodologies for project analyses. 

Is the process for involving participating 

agencies in the development of 

methodologies adequate? Will it serve to 

minimize late-in-the-process 

methodological debates between 

transportation agencies and resource 

agencies? 

5. Coordination with participating 

agencies. Does the proposed guidance 

present the required coordination with 

participating agencies, including the 

development of a schedule and its 

resulting implications, in sufficient 

detail? Should changes in the schedule 

require coordination with all 

participating agencies or just with the 

cooperating agencies, as stated in 

SAFETEA–LU? 

The FTA and FHWA will respond to 

comments on the guidance generated by 

this Notice in a second Federal Register 

notice to be published after the close of 

the comment period. That second notice 

will also announce the availability of 

the revised Section 6002 guidance that 

reflects the changes implemented as a 

result of comments received. In the 

meantime, the proposed guidance 

provides the current FHWA and FTA 

interpretation of Section 6002, the 

requirements of which became effective 

on August 10, 2005, the date of 

SAFETEA–LU’s enactment. 

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 315; Pub. L. 109–59, 

119 Stat. 1144; 49 U.S.C. 5334; 23 U.S.C. 139; 

49 CFR 1.48; 49 CFR 1.51. 

Issued on: June 23, 2006. 

Sandra K. Bushue, 

Deputy Administrator, Federal Transit 

Administration. 

J. Richard Capka, 

Administrator, Federal Highway 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E6–10217 Filed 6–28–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–57–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Environmental Impact Statement: 

Relocation or Reconstruction of Rail 

Lines in Tupelo, MS 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) is issuing this 

notice to advise the public that FRA will 

prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) for the relocation or 

reconstruction of railroad lines in the 

Tupelo, Mississippi central business 

district. The study area is defined to 

extend from the vicinity of Plantersville, 

MS, southeast of Tupelo, to the vicinity 

of Sherman, northwest of Tupelo. 

Tupelo is the primary business center of 

northeast Mississippi. 

Currently, within the central business 

district there are more than 25 at-grade 

rail crossings on two railroad lines. One 

of the rail lines is owned by the BNSF 

Railway Company (BNSF) and the other 

by the Kansas City Southern Railroad 

(KCS). The two rail lines cross at an 

interchange near downtown Tupelo. 

There are between twenty and twentyfive trains per day on the BNSF line, 

and three or four per day on the KCS 

line. There are few rail customers 

remaining in the central business 

district, and most of the trains are 

through trains operating in the 

Birmingham, Alabama to Memphis, 

Tennessee corridor. 

Traffic congestion is already a 

significant problem in the central 

business district, and the current rail 

line configuration is a contributing 

cause to this congestion. The switchyard 

between the two lines is within the 

central business district, and the BNSF 

line runs diagonally through the highest 

volume intersection in the city. Tupelo’s 

employment has been growing at a 

steady pace of about 1,000 jobs per year 

for the last few years, which only 

increases vehicular traffic to the area 

and further exacerbates the situation. 

Moreover, issues with access to 

emergency facilities exist in that many 

Tupelo residents may be cut off from the 

regional medical center due to delays 

caused by the rail line and switching 

station. 

The FRA has entered into a 

cooperative agreement with the 

Mississippi Department of 

Transportation (MDOT), with FRA as 

the lead Federal agency and MDOT as 

the lead state agency. Funding for the 

EIS was provided through an 

appropriation in the Transportation, 

Treasury, and Independent Agencies 

Appropriations Act, 2004, Public Law 

108–199 (January 23, 2004). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Wayne Parrish, Planning Division, 

Mississippi Department of 

Transportation, 401 N. West Street, 

Jackson, MS 39201, telephone number 

(601) 359–7685; Mr. John Winkle, 

Project Manager, Federal Railroad 

Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20590, telephone 

number (202) 493–6067. 

Environmental Issues: Possible 

environmental impacts include 

displacement of commercial and 

residential properties, increased noise 

in some areas, effects to historical 

properties or archaeological sites, 

impacts to parks and recreational 

resources, viewshed effects, impacts to 

water resources, wetlands, and sensitive 

biological species and habitat, land use 

compatibility impacts, energy use, and 

impacts to agricultural lands. 

Alternatives: The EIS will consider 

alternatives that include: (1) Taking no 

action; (2) reconstruction with grade 

separation of rail and highway facilities 

within the existing corridors; and (3) 

relocation and construction of the 

railroad line(s) in new location(s). 

Scoping and Comment: FRA 

encourages broad participation in the 

EIS process and review of the resulting 

environmental documents. Comments, 

questions, and suggestions related to the 

project and potential environmental 

concerns are invited from all interested 

agencies and the public at large to 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 125 / Thursday, June 29, 2006 / Notices 37159 

ensure that the full range of issues 

related to the proposed action and all 

reasonable alternatives are addressed 

and all significant issues are identified. 

These comments, questions, and 

suggestions should be addressed to the 

MDOT or the FRA at the addresses 

provided above. The public is invited to 

participate in the scoping process, to 

review the Draft EIS when published, 

and to provide input at all public 

meetings. Letters describing the 

proposed scope of the EIS and soliciting 

comments will be sent to appropriate 

Federal, State, and local agencies, 

elected officials, community 

organizations, and to private 

organizations and citizens who express 

interest in this proposal. Several public 

meetings to be advertised in the local 

media will be held in the project area 

regarding this proposal. Release of the 

Draft EIS for public comment and public 

meetings and hearings related to that 

document will be announced as those 

dates are established. A scoping meeting 

will be conducted in the Tupelo area at 

a date and place, which will be widely 

publicized well in advance of the 

meeting. 

Persons interested in providing 

comments on the scope of the EIS 

should do so within 30 days of the 

publication of this Notice of Intent. 

Comments can be sent in writing to the 

points of contact listed above. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on June 23, 

2006. 

Mark E. Yachmetz, 

Associate Administrator for Railroad 

Development, Federal Railroad 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 06–5822 Filed 6–28–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2006–24964] 

Highway Safety Programs; Model 

Specifications for Devices To Measure 

Breath Alcohol 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice amends the 

Conforming Products List published in 

2004 (69 FR 42237) for instruments that 

conform to the Model Specifications for 

Evidential Breath Testing Devices (58 

FR 48705). 

DATES: Effective Date: June 29, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Maria E. Vegega, Office of Behavioral 

Safety Research, Behavioral Research 

Division (NTI–131), National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20590; Telephone: (202) 366–4892. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

November 5, 1973, the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) published the Standards for 

Devices to Measure Breath Alcohol (38 

FR 30459). A Qualified Products List of 

Evidential Breath Measurement Devices 

comprised of instruments that met this 

standard was first issued on November 

21, 1974 (39 FR 41399). 

On December 14, 1984 (49 FR 48854), 

NHTSA converted this standard to 

Model Specifications for Evidential 

Breath Testing Devices (Model 

Specifications), and published a 

Conforming Products List (CPL) of 

instruments that were found to conform 

to the Model Specifications as 

Appendix D to that notice (49 FR 

48864). 

On September 17, 1993, NHTSA 

published a notice (58 FR 48705) to 

amend the Model Specifications. The 

notice changed the alcohol 

concentration levels at which 

instruments are evaluated, from 0.000, 

0.050, 0.101, and 0.151 BAC, to 0.000, 

0.020, 0.040, 0.080, and 0.160 BAC; 

added a test for the presence of acetone; 

and expanded the definition of alcohol 

to include other low molecular weight 

alcohols including methyl or isopropyl. 

On July 14, 2004, the most recent 

amendment to the Conforming Products 

List (CPL) was published (69 FR 42237), 

identifying those instruments found to 

conform with the Model Specifications. 

Since the last publication of the CPL, 

five (5) instruments have been evaluated 

and found to meet the Model 

Specifications, as amended on 

September 17, 1993, for mobile and 

non-mobile use. In alphabetical order by 

company, they are: 

(1) The ‘‘Alcotest 6810’’ manufactured 

by Draeger Safety, Inc., Durango, 

Colorado. This is a hand held device 

intended for use in stationary or 

roadside operation and is powered by 

an internal battery. It uses a fuel cell 

sensor. 

(2) & (3) The ‘‘Alcotector BAC–100’’

and the ‘‘Alcotector C2H5OH’’, both 

sold by Guth Laboratories, Inc. of 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. These devices 

are hand held devices intended for use 

in stationary or roadside operations. 

Both devices use fuel cell sensors and 

are powered by 4 ‘‘AA’’ batteries. The 

two devices are identical except for 

their printers. The BAC–100 has an 

internal printer. The C2H5OH does not 

have an internal printer, but can use an 

optional wireless printer. 

(4) The ‘‘EV 30’’ manufactured by 

Lifeloc Technologies, Inc. of Wheat 

Ridge, Colorado. This device is a hand 

held device that uses a fuel cell sensor 

and is powered by an internal battery. 

It is intended for stationary or roadside 

operations. 

(5) The ‘‘DataMaster DMT’’, 

manufactured by National Patent 

Analytical Systems, Inc. of Mansfield, 

Ohio. This is a bench-top, AC powered, 

infrared type breath tester with an 

analytical filter at 3.44 microns, and 

interference filters at 3.37 and 3.50 

microns. 

The CPL has been amended to add the 

five instruments identified above. 

In accordance with the foregoing, the 

CPL is therefore amended, as set forth 

below. 

CONFORMING PRODUCTS LIST OF EVIDENTIAL BREATH MEASUREMENT DEVICES

Manufacturer and Model Mobile Nonmobile 

Alcohol Countermeasure Systems Corp. 

Mississauga, Ontario, Canada: 

Alert J3AD* ............................................................................................................................................................... X X 

Alert J4X.ec .............................................................................................................................................................. X X 

PBA3000C ................................................................................................................................................................ X X 

BAC Systems, Inc., Ontario, Canada: 

Breath Analysis Computer* ...................................................................................................................................... X X 

CAMEC Ltd., North Shields, Tyne and Ware, England: 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES





July 26, 2006 

«Name» 

«Title» 

«Agency» 

«Address» 

«City», «State» «Zip_Code» 

Re: The Tupelo Railroad Relocation Planning and Environmental Study 

MDOT project number FRA-0430-00 (013) / 104289 101000 

«Greeting» 

Federal Rail Administration in conjunction with Mississippi Department of Transportation is conducting an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the impacts of relocating or rebuilding the two railroad lines 

which currently traverse downtown Tupelo. The firms of HDR, Inc and ABMB Engineers, Inc along with 

others have been contracted to conduct the EIS and related studies. 

We would like to take this opportunity to invite you to an Agency Scoping Meeting to discuss the 

environmental impacts of the proposed project. The meeting will be held Monday, August 14, 2006 at the 

Tupelo Community Development Foundation Boardroom in Tupelo, MS at 1:00 pm. A map is attached 

for your convenience. 

300 W Main St 

Tupelo, MS 38804 

(662) 842-4521 

You are also invited to attend an open-house style public meeting the following day at 4:00 pm. The public 

meeting will be held at the Bancorpsouth Conference Center, located at 375 E. Main St. between Monaghan 

and Mulberry Streets. 

 

Please find enclosed, a CD containing the Feasibility Study recently completed for this project. The 

Feasibility Study outlines the project area, preliminary environmental constraints and proposed alternatives. 

These alternatives were developed to determine feasibility of the project only. 

Your input and suggestions would be appreciated in this endeavor. If you have any questions please contact 

MDOT Project Managers Wayne Parrish at (601) 359-7685 in the Planning Division or Kim Thurman at (601) 

359-7920 in the Environmental Division. 

Sincerely, 

Jeffrey Pierce, PE 

Planning Division Engineer, Project Director 

Mississippi Department of Transportation 

Enclosure 
The Tupelo Railroad Relocation Planning and Environmental Study 

MDOT project number FRA-0430-00 (013) / 104289 101000 Tupelo CommunAgency Scoping Meeting Monday, August 14, 2006 
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

(P.O. Box 1850, Jackson, MS 39215-1850) 

Dr. Sam Polles 

MS Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks 

1505 Eastover Drive 

Jackson, MS 39211-6322 

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

(P.O. Box 1850, Jackson, MS 39215-1850) 

Mr. Cecil Vick 

Federal Highway Administration 

666 North St., Ste. 105 

Jackson, MS 39202-3199 

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

(P.O. Box 1850, Jackson, MS 39215-1850) 

Mr. Andy Hughes 

Federal Highway Administration 

666 North St., Ste. 105 

Jackson, MS 39202-3199 

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

(P.O. Box 1850, Jackson, MS 39215-1850) 

Mr. Charles Chisolm 

MS Department of Environmental Quality 

P.O. Box 20305 

Jackson, MS 39289-1305 

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

(P.O. Box 1850, Jackson, MS 39215-1850) 

Mr. Craig Stubblefield 

NPS-Natchez Trace Parkway 

2680 Natchez Trace Parkway 

Tupelo, MS 38804 

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

(P.O. Box 1850, Jackson, MS 39215-1850) 

Mr. Dave Hobbie 

Mobile District, Corps of Engineers 

109 St. Joseph Street 

Mobile, AL 36628 
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

(P.O. Box 1850, Jackson, MS 39215-1850) 

Mr. David Felder 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

6578 Dogwood View Parkway 

Jackson, MS 39213 

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

(P.O. Box 1850, Jackson, MS 39215-1850) 

Mr. Don Neal 

National Forests in Mississippi 

100 West Capitol St., Ste. 1141 

Jackson, MS 39269 

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

(P.O. Box 1850, Jackson, MS 39215-1850) 

Mr. Don Underwood 

MS Soil & Water Conservation Commission 

P.O. Box 23005 

Jackson, MS 39225-3005 

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

(P.O. Box 1850, Jackson, MS 39215-1850) 

Mr. H.T. Holmes 

MS Department of Archives and History 

P.O. Box 571 

Jackson, MS 39205-0571 

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

(P.O. Box 1850, Jackson, MS 39215-1850) 

Mr. Homer Wilkes 

USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service 

100 West Capitol St., Ste. 1321 

Jackson, MS 39269 

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

(P.O. Box 1850, Jackson, MS 39215-1850) 

Mr. James Sledge 

MS Forestry Commission 

301 North Lamar St., Ste.300 

Jackson, MS 39201 
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

(P.O. Box 1850, Jackson, MS 39215-1850) 

Mr. Jim Woodrick 

MS Department of Archives and History 

P.O. Box 571 

Jackson, MS 39205-0571 

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

(P.O. Box 1850, Jackson, MS 39215-1850) 

Mr. Matthew Hicks 

MS Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks 

2148 Riverside Drive 

Jackson, MS 39202 

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

(P.O. Box 1850, Jackson, MS 39215-1850) 

Mr. Ray Aycock 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

6578 Dogwood View Parkway 

Jackson, MS 39213 

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

(P.O. Box 1850, Jackson, MS 39215-1850) 

Mr. Robert Seyfarth 

MS Department of Environmental Quality 

P.O. Box 10385 

Jackson, MS 39289-0385 

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

(P.O. Box 1850, Jackson, MS 39215-1850) 

Mr. Ted Leininger 

U.S. Forestry Service 

P.O. Box 227 

Stoneville, MS 38776-0227 

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

(P.O. Box 1850, Jackson, MS 39215-1850) 

Mr. Tom Mann 

MS Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks 

2148 Riverside Drive 

Jackson, MS 39202 
 MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

(P.O. Box 1850, Jackson, MS 39215-1850) 

Mr. Tony Dixon 

National Forests in Mississippi 

100 West Capitol St., Ste.1141 

Jackson, MS 39269 

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

(P.O. Box 1850, Jackson, MS 39215-1850) 

Ms. Beth Guynes 

Vicksburg District, Corps of Engineers 

4155 Clay Street 

Vicksburg, MS 39183-3435 

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

(P.O. Box 1850, Jackson, MS 39215-1850) 

Ms. Ntale Kajumba 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth St., SW 

Atlanta, GA 30303-8960 

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

(P.O. Box 1850, Jackson, MS 39215-1850) 

Ms. Susan Jarvis 

Vicksburg District, Corps of Engineers 

4155 Clay Street 

Vicksburg, MS 39183-3435 

 
Tupelo Railroad Relocation Planning and Environmental Study 

Public Involvement Plan 

Agency Scoping Meeting 

August 14, 2006 

1:00 pm 

AGENDA 

 Introduction of Project – Wayne Parrish (MDOT)

 Federal Rail Administration role – John Winkle (FRA)

 Jim Lee, PE (HDR) 

o Introduce Consultant Team 

o Guide the Agency introductions 

o Outline 4-Phase Study Process 

 Chad Luedtke, PE (HDR) 

o Brief overview of feasibility study and outcomes 

o Outline the Purpose and Need of the Project 

 John Morton, PE (HDR); Joce Pritchett, PE (ABMB) – NEPA Discussion 

o Purpose and Need 

o Environmental Streamlining issues 

o Cooperating / Participating Agencies 

o Establish Project Communication patterns 

o Environmental Information Sharing 

o GIS data sharing 

o Set Field Trip Agenda 

2006-08-03 USFS Coop agency decline.txt

From: Thurman, Kim [kthurman@mdot.state.ms.us]

Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 3:18 PM

To: Parrish, Wayne; Joce Pritchett

Subject: FW: railroad realignment project in Tupelo

FYI

Kim 

Kim D. Thurman

Environmental Manager

Mississippi Department of Transportation

Phone: (601) 359-7922

Fax: (601) 359-7355

e-mail: kthurman@mdot.state.ms.us

-----Original Message-----

From: Don R Neal [mailto:donneal@fs.fed.us]

Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 1:58 PM

To: john.winkle@dot.gov

Cc: Thurman, Kim; Barnwell, Claiborne; Antoine L Dixon; R E Vann; Gerald D Lawrence;

John Baswell; Vick, Cecil; Don R Neal

Subject: railroad realignment project in Tupelo

John,

I have reviewed the Tupelo Railroad Relocation Planning and

Environmental Study CD and discussed the project with Kim Thurman

(MDOT). The realignment alternatives in Tupelo are well outside the

proclaimed boundaries of the Tombigbee National Forest and Holly Springs

National Forest. The Forest Service does not need to be established as a

Cooperating Agency to this proposed project. I appreciate your contact

with me on this project.

Thanks, Don

Richard D. (Don) Neal

Staff Officer

Fire/Safety/Lands/Minerals

100 W. Capitol St.

Suite 1141

Jackson, MS 39269

(601) 965-4391 office

(601) 209-4764 cell

(601) 965-5524 Fax

donneal@fs.fed.us

Page 1


















The purpose of this document is to serve as a record of meetings and Public Involvement held for the Tupelo Railroad Relocation EIS. 

 Page 1 of 1 

Public Involvement Record Sheet 

Tupelo Railroad Relocation EIS 

Date of Meeting February 5, 2008 

Location of 

Meeting Natchez Trace Parkway offices, Tupelo, MS 

Meeting Style Conference style meeting 

Duration of 

meeting About 1 hour 

Parties involved MDOT: Claiborne Barnwell, Kim Thurman 

Natchez Trace Parkway Officials 

Exhibits Used 

Original Objective Discuss the 2 proposed build alternatives with the Natchez 

Trace 

Accomplishment The Natchez Trace Parkway’s position remains the same. 

They prefer Alternative M. 

Summary of 

Meeting 

The City of Tupelo has met with the Natchez Trace Parkway 

about the Coley Road Extension and it seems that the issues 

with the ROW have been worked out to move forward with the 

City’s plan. However, the Natchez Trace Parkway informed 

the City that they would require an EA for the Natchez Trace 

Parkway Crossing and the EA would determine the best 

location to cross the Parkway not where the ROW has been 

negotiated. Based on our conversation with the Natchez 

Trace Parkway, the City has hired ESI, Inc., to conduct the EA. 

We discussed the possible of the elevated rail structure being 

double tracked and the Natchez Trace Parkway raised an 

issue about bridge width. We will need to assess whether or 

not the existing Natchez Trace Railroad Bridge has the width 

to accommodate double tracks. We need to assess this soon. 



The purpose of this document is to serve as a record of meetings and Public Involvement held for the Tupelo Railroad Relocation EIS. 

 Page 1 of 3 

Public Involvement Record Sheet 

Tupelo Railroad Relocation EIS 

Date of Meeting September 9, 2008 

Location of 

Meeting Mayor’s office, Tupelo, MS 

Meeting Style Conference style meeting 

Duration of 

meeting About 1 hour 

Parties involved 

MDOT: Claiborne Barnwell, Bill Jamison, John Underwood 

HDR: Jim Lee, Chad Luedke, Carnot Evans 

ABMB: Joce Pritchett, Eric Jefferson, Wendel Ruff 

(See attached sign-in sheet) 

Exhibits Used Powerpoint presentation handout 

Original Objective Update the Mayor on the progress of the project and upcoming 

deadlines 

Accomplishment 

Summary of 

Meeting 

Jim Lee presented the update on the history and development 

of the project, which is an attempt to address the traffic delay 

problems in Tupelo resulting from the BNSF and KCS at-grade 

crossings such as Crosstown. From the feasibility study 

performed by HDR and ABMB and the public meetings 

conducted to date, three build alternatives emerged for 

consideration: 

Alt. K – The “Coonewah Creek” Alternative 

Alt. L – The “Coley Road” Alternative 

Alt. M – The “In-town” elevated rail Alternative 

Alt. K was dismissed due to anticipated significant cultural and 

archeological impacts, opposition from the National Park 

Service to a new crossing of the Natchez Trace Pkwy, and 

BNSF objection that the route was too long. 
The purpose of this document is to serve as a record of meetings and Public Involvement held for the Tupelo Railroad Relocation EIS. 

 Page 2 of 3 

Alt. L received negative feedback from the Thoroughfare 

Committee which feared that it would jeopardize their 

negotiations with property owners along the new Coley Road 

Extension route who have agreed to transfer property for 

Right-of-Way to build the new roadway project in exchange for 

new access. 

Alt. M is considered the preferred option based on public 

comment and relatively fewer impacts on the human and 

natural environment and support from National Park Service, 

the City, and both railroads. 

Due to the potential cost, the project could be phased with the 

operational improvement at the KCS switching yard being the 

first phase of construction. 

A “rails-to-trails” concept to convert the proposed temporary 

track that would be built prior to construction of the elevated 

structure to a multi-use path for the City of Tupelo was 

suggested during the last meeting with the Community 

Development Foundation (CDF). The railroad has concerns 

about liability resulting from having a public park or trail 

adjacent or near to its structure. Decorative fencing between 

the trail and the viaduct is one option that has been discussed 

to reduce incursions. Mr. Barnwell suggested that the walk be 

placed on the south and west side of the alignment away from 

the backyard of adjacent residences. 

The Mayor stated his pleasure with the project and the 

preferred alternative, especially with the placement of the 

Toyota plant and the anticipated increase in freight rail traffic in 

the coming years. He also liked the multi-use path idea. 

Jim and Claiborne mentioned that former MDOT staff member 

Wayne Parrish thought there was a federal rail reconstruction 

fund available that could be tapped for this project, but it would 

required congressional assistance to be secured. 

The City engineer asked about the expected schedule. 

Claiborne’s response was that the environmental phase must 

be completed first, which is anticipated by the end of 2009, 

and that a funding source must then be indentified to move 

into design phase. Wendel Ruff added that funding for the 

entire project must be secured before project can begin even if 

it is intended to be phased work. Claiborne then mentioned 

that the railroads must commit to a fair share of the funding 

since they receive a significant benefit as users of the viaduct. 
The purpose of this document is to serve as a record of meetings and Public Involvement held for the Tupelo Railroad Relocation EIS. 

 Page 3 of 3 

Action Items None
The purpose of this document is to serve as a record of meetings and Public Involvement held for the Tupelo Railroad Relocation EIS. 

 Page 1 of 4 

Public Involvement Record Sheet 

Tupelo Railroad Relocation EIS 

Date of Meeting September 9, 2008 

Location of 

Meeting CDF Boardroom, Tupelo, MS 

Meeting Style Conference style meeting 

Duration of 

meeting About 1-1/2 hour 

Parties involved 

MDOT: Claiborne Barnwell, John Underwood, Bill Jamison 

HDR: Jim Lee, Chad Luedtke, Carnot Evans 

ABMB: Joce Pritchett, Eric Jefferson, Wendel Ruff 

(See attached sign-in sheet) 

Exhibits Used Powerpoint presentation handout, Roll Plot of the project 

concept design 

Original Objective Update the City, CDF, and Natchez Trace on the progress of 

the project and upcoming deadlines 

Accomplishment 

Summary of 

Meeting 

Jim Lee provided a slideshow presentation on the history and 

development of the project, which is an attempt to address the 

traffic delay problems in Tupelo resulting from the BNSF and 

KCS at-grade crossings such as Crosstown. From the 

feasibility study performed by HDR and ABMB and the public 

meetings conducted to date, three build alternatives emerged 

for consideration: 

Alt. K – The “Coonewah Creek” Alternative 

Alt. L – The “Coley Road” Alternative 

Alt. M – The “In-town” elevated rail Alternative 

Alt. K was dismissed due to anticipated significant cultural and 

archeological impacts, as well as opposition from the National 

Park Service to a new crossing of the Natchez Trace Pkwy 

and BNSF objection that the route was too long. 
The purpose of this document is to serve as a record of meetings and Public Involvement held for the Tupelo Railroad Relocation EIS. 

 Page 2 of 4 

Alt. L received negative feedback from the Major Thoroughfare 

Committee which feared that it would jeopardize their 

negotiations with property owners along the new Coley Road 

Extension route who have agreed to transfer property for 

Right-of-Way to build the new roadway project. 

Alt. M is considered the preferred option based on public 

comment and relatively fewer impacts on the human and 

natural environment and supported by the railroads. 

Commenting on archeological impacts, John Underwood 

explained the history of settlements by the Chickasaw around 

the Coonewah, Town Creek, Kings Creek drainage basins. 

These areas have been known to be rich with artifacts and it is 

generally anticipated the alternatives would have negative 

impacts on cultural resources. However, Alternate M is 

considered to have the least impacts on cultural or 

archeological artifacts since it follows an existing route that has 

already been significantly disturbed. 

Patricia Stallings then mentioned that the Mill Village and 

South Church Street area are historical districts which would 

receive significant visual impacts from Alternative M. 

Brockington intends to work w/MDOT to determine the impacts 

to these historical districts. 

Representatives from the National Park Service were generally 

supportive of Alt. M because it did not include a new crossing 

of the Natchez Trace Parkway and commented on the 

importance of creating visual appealing structure. 

Shane Holman reiterated his comments that he would prefer 

structure over walls. He also added there could be 

opportunities resulting from this project to redevelop the 

brownfield sections in industrial areas downtown that could 

benefit from an attractive structure. 

John B asked if the temporary track could be reused as local 

trolley connection by the City. Claiborne replied that it could 

be considered but thought there may be liability issues with a 

trolley track located next to walking trail, in addition to the 

liability issues that need to be considered for the elevated 

railroad being adjacent to the multi-use path. Shane Holman 

suggested that the City should assume ownership of R/W to 

resolve liability issues, which would allow the City the flexibility 

to develop land below the structure for a multi-use path. He 

mentioned a “Rail banking” process/mechanism could be used 
The purpose of this document is to serve as a record of meetings and Public Involvement held for the Tupelo Railroad Relocation EIS. 

 Page 3 of 4 

to transfer title of the R/W from railroad to the City. 

Claiborne stressed the need for a local “champion” to work 

with the necessary officials to secure financing for the project, 

as well as assisting in working out legal and liability issues and 

agreements. 

Chad Luedtke added that there needs to be an understanding 

w/ the railroads on who assumes liability and responsibility for 

maintenance of the viaduct to prevent vandalism that could 

damage or ruin the structure. 

Shane also asked if there an environmental impact associated 

with the trail. His concern is that if the trail is included as part 

of the recommended design without showing some 

environmental benefit, the railroad won’t approve or commit to 

including it as part of the final design. The design team added 

that the trail was included in the recommendations in response 

to public comments that suggested it would be beneficial to the 

City of Tupelo. Ultimately FRA will make the final 

determination as to whether a trail can be included. 

The City commented that several old-growth trees were either 

within or immediately adjacent to the existing R/W and asked 

how the loss of trees and the green canopy effect created by 

them was to be mitigated within the railroad R/W. The City 

suggested that a landscaped trail could mitigate the loss of 

trees resulting from the viaduct construction. The City is also 

interested in knowing who would maintain the trail and 

landscaping? Claiborne responded that the City would likely 

have to assume maintenance responsibilities since MDOT 

typically doesn’t include such local projects in its budget. 

Bill Jamison added that MDOT does not have funds for 

maintenance of the structure or associated landscaping. 

Resolutions 

Further discussion with the railroads revealed that the 

temporary tracks would be removed as part of the construction 

of the maintenance access road along the entire length of 

structure (fill or bridge), so the idea of keeping the temporary 

rail for the use of a trolley was dismissed. Even if the tracks 

were to remain, the railroads would not want an adjacent 

active track within 40 feet of elevated structure. The 

development of a trolley would require a separate 

environmental study and would not be included in this EIS. 
The purpose of this document is to serve as a record of meetings and Public Involvement held for the Tupelo Railroad Relocation EIS. 

 Page 4 of 4 

Action Items 

• Further coordination with BNSF, KCS, and FRA required 

regarding the multi-use trail. The City considers the 

exclusion of a trail a deal-breaker. 

• Brockington will work w/MDOT to determine the impacts 

to historical districts. 

• Maintenance and liability commitments regarding 

structure and landscaping need to be resolved. 
The purpose of this document is to serve as a record of meetings and Public Involvement held for the Tupelo Railroad Relocation EIS. 

 Page 1 of 3 

Public Involvement Record Sheet 

Tupelo Railroad Relocation EIS 

Date of Meeting September 10, 2008 

Location of 

Meeting Hilton Garden Inn, Oak Room, Tupelo, MS 

Meeting Style Conference style meeting 

Duration of 

meeting About 2 hours 

Parties involved 

MDOT: Claiborne Barnwell, Robby Burt 

HDR: Jim Lee, Chad Luedke, Carnot Evans 

ABMB: Joce Pritchett, Eric Jefferson, Wendel Ruff 

(See attached sign-in sheet) 

Exhibits Used 

August 18 Draft Letters from HDR to BNSF and KCS regarding 

commitments to the RR by the EIS document, Roll Plot of the 

project concept design, 11x17 prints of the project 

Original Objective 

Discuss project issues with the railroad companies, get 

feedback on the concepts developed for the Alternative M 

alignment 

Accomplishment 

Summary of 

Meeting 

Presentation of railroad improvements was made by Jim Lee 

in person and by Larry Romaine via conference call. 

The temporary (“shoo-fly”) track would be constructed on the 

south & west side of the existing tracks, including an at-grade 

crossing of the KCS. 

It was mentioned that the CDF wants more structure & less Twall. 

BNSF stated that Evergreen wall was preferred to T-wall 

because Evergreen has fewer problems, but stated that this is 

a design preference which would be worked out in subsequent 

phases of this project. 
The purpose of this document is to serve as a record of meetings and Public Involvement held for the Tupelo Railroad Relocation EIS. 

 Page 2 of 3 

BNSF and HDR estimated a possible 1.5 – 2 year timeframe 

for temporary rail operation. 

MDOT Doesn’t want maintenance responsibility for bridge. 

BNSF does not want the maintenance responsibility for the 

bridge or retaining wall as it does not have the expertise or 

experience in dealing with a structure of this magnitude. 

BNSF wants to review a final typical section including 

structure, fence, bike trail, and maintenance road. BNSF also 

wants a detail included in the concept plans to show how trail 

& fencing would terminate at the intersecting local roads. 

BNSF trails policy (BNSF) recommends trail to be 50’-100’ 

from track to edge of trail based on 30 mph train speed. 

Typically trail should be near the outer edge of R/W. 

From the 9/9/08 meeting at the CDF, the question was asked if 

the temporary track could be left in place for future trolley 

operation: 

HDR: The temporary track was to be removed as part of 

construction of the maintenance access road, so it was 

not planned to remain. Also, the trolley would require a 

separate study and should not be included in this EIS. 

BNSF: Tim Huya added that any development by Tupelo 

within the BNSF R/W would restrict the railroad’s ability to 

expand, which might make BNSF less willing to go along 

with the idea. 

BNSF stated that it is typically the railroad policy to resist 

selling R/W, except as a last resort, and that it is typical for 

railroad to only grant easements and require liability insurance. 

With an easement, the BNSF still owns the R/W and can 

expand. If they sell the R/W, BNSF cannot expand without 

repurchase. The trail could be built on an easement, the 

trolley could not. 

BNSF stated that the interchange track should be built by a 

contractor to save on construction cost. 

MDOT suggested that most of the details on liability & property 

exchanges should be worked out after environmental process. 

KCS wanted to confirm that the trail would not cross KCS. The 

trail was planned to run from Lumpkin Ave. to Spring St and 

not cross the KCS. KCS also stated that they would oppose 

any trolley crossing of their tracks. 
The purpose of this document is to serve as a record of meetings and Public Involvement held for the Tupelo Railroad Relocation EIS. 

 Page 3 of 3 

KCS requested that the interchange track connect to their 

main line and not to the yard track, as originally proposed. 

KCS would allow for a reduction of the length of the yard 

tracks to accommodate this intersection. 

KCS wants north leg of wye to be included in the interchange 

to allow KCS to continue share agreement to use BNSF tracks 

to New Albany. HDR is developing a redesign of the 

interchange yard to include this north wye on the elevated 

viaduct. The details are still being worked out. 

KCS also wanted to know about vertical clearance of the 

structure over the KCS line. KCS would want to elevate their 

line at the existing diamond location to remove the existing 

depression required to cross the BNSF at-grade. 

Action Items 

HDR to revise the response letter and concept drawings to 

BNSF to reduce the amount of items that may be considered 

commitments in the EIS document. 

HDR to write letter to KCS (John Jacobsen) in response to the 

interchange design comments. 

Further coordination required between BNSF, MDOT, and the 

City of Tupelo regarding commitments to maintenance of the 

structure and landscaping. 





RECORD OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

Cultural Resource Impacts Discussion 

Community Development Foundation Boardroom 

300 West Main St., Tupelo, MS 

April 14, 2009 at 9 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. 

The purpose of this document is to serve as a record of meetings and Public Involvement held for the Tupelo Railroad Relocation EIS.

 Page 1 of 6                                         

Meeting Notes:

This meeting was held to explain the history of the project, discuss the alternatives 

considered, present the preferred option, discuss findings in the cultural resources 

investigation, propose mitigation for impacts to cultural and historic resources along the 

preferred alternative, and initiate the Section 106 consultation process. The following 

paragraphs summarize the major items discussed during this meeting. 

Eighteen individuals attended the meeting. They represented: the Tupelo Historic 

Preservation Commission, the Mill Village Historic District, the Oren Dunn City Museum, 

the City of Tupelo, the Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT), the 

Mississippi Department of Archives and History (SHPO), the Tupelo Community 

Development Foundation (CDF), HDR, Brockington and Associates, and ABMB 

Engineers. 

After opening remarks by Tupelo Mayor Ed Neelly and MDOT’s Environmental Division 

Engineer, Claiborne Barnwell, Mr. Barnwell asked that each person in attendance 

introduce themselves. Introductions were made. A sign-up sheet is attached. 

Mr. Jim Lee with HDR then explained the purpose of the meeting; 

• To summarize the alternative analysis process, 

• To review the recent cultural resource assessment, 

• To discuss potential options for mitigating adverse effects on historic properties, 

• To review 4(f) requirements. 

Mr. Carnot Evans with HDR then presented a PowerPoint giving the project history, 

including the purpose and need for the project. He explained that the process began 

with a feasibility study. He discussed operational improvements and the development of 

numerous relocation alternatives. The PowerPoint showed how the location alternatives 

were analyzed and gradually eliminated as one by one they turned out to have fatal 

flaws. Finally, the study was left with two alternatives--the “no-build” alternative and a 

build alternative that would elevate the BNSF railroad through central Tupelo in its 

present location and within existing railroad Right-of-Way and incorporate operational 

improvements to relocate the BNSF/KCS interchange yard. 

A representative of the Historic Preservation Commission asked where the railroad 

would be on bridge and where it would be on fill. Mr. Evans explained that railroad 

would be on fill with retaining walls as it transitioned from ground level to its full height 
RECORD OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

Cultural Resource Impacts Discussion 

Community Development Foundation Boardroom 

300 West Main St., Tupelo, MS 

April 14, 2009 at 9 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. 

The purpose of this document is to serve as a record of meetings and Public Involvement held for the Tupelo Railroad Relocation EIS.

 Page 2 of 6                                         

and between Crosstown and Church Street. In other areas it would be on structure. 

Approximately 30% of the elevated structure would be on fill. 

John Underwood, MDOT’s Chief Archeologist, and Patricia Stallings with Brockington 

and Associates began a discussion of the Section 106 process and how it fits into the 

process of conducting an environmental impact study. Mr. Underwood concentrated on 

archeological issues, and Ms. Stallings concentrated on architectural issues. 

John Underwood discussed the purpose of the National Environmental Policies Act 

(NEPA) and the reasons for conducting an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). His 

point was that EIS’s are conducted when it is known or expected that a project will have 

significant environmental impacts. Thus, it comes as no surprise that the project 

adversely affects some National Register listed and eligible properties. He then 

discussed the National Historic Preservation Act and how it relates to Section 106. This 

was followed with a discussion of the archeological findings of the project’s Cultural 

Resources Study. Mr. Underwood gave a good explanation of how the American Indian 

Tribes fit into the process and of the special concerns of the Chickasaw Nation 

whenever public works projects are undertaken in the Tupelo area. 

Patricia Stallings then provided an overview of the results of the architectural 

investigations. She explained that her firm had surveyed every structure within a 1,000 

foot wide swath centered on Alternative M. Within that area she found three properties 

listed on the National Register—the main house at the fish hatchery, the Mill Village 

Historic District, and the South Church Street Historic District. There was a discussion of 

the fact that the Tupelo Historic Preservation Commission considers the Mill Village 

Historic District to occupy both sides of the railroad while the National Register shows it 

as only being on one side. Ms. Stallings also showed photographs of Register eligible 

houses that had been in the historic districts when her original survey was undertaken, 

but had since been demolished. 

John Underwood then described coordination efforts that are underway to resolve the 

adverse effects of the proposed project on historic properties. MDOT and the Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA) have received the SHPO’s comments on the effects of 

the proposed project on historic properties. The SHPO is actively working with MDOT 

and FRA to minimize and address those effects. MDOT and FRA began coordinating 

with the Native American Tribes in January, 2007, and that coordination is still 

underway. The tribes were sent a copy of the latest cultural resources survey in April 

2009. 
RECORD OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

Cultural Resource Impacts Discussion 

Community Development Foundation Boardroom 

300 West Main St., Tupelo, MS 

April 14, 2009 at 9 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. 

The purpose of this document is to serve as a record of meetings and Public Involvement held for the Tupelo Railroad Relocation EIS.

 Page 3 of 6                                         

Following the discussion of ongoing coordination, John Underwood (MDOT) presented 

a PowerPoint showing conceptual renderings of possible viewsheds in the historic areas 

after the elevated railroad is in service. The PowerPoint also included photographs of 

aesthetic treatments used on elevated railroads in other areas. This prompted 

considerable discussion: 

• Karen Keeney with the Tupelo Historic Preservation Commission asked why the 

renderings did not include a railroad service road and fencing of the railroad’s 

right of way. She believes fencing would make the proposed walking trail 

unusable. 

Claiborne Barnwell, MDOT’s Environmental Division Engineer, said he did not 

believe a separate service road would be needed since there would be dual 

tracks. It should not be necessary to fence the right of way of an elevated 

railroad. He believes the City and the railroad can negotiate these items to 

everyone’s satisfaction. The final EIS can include firm commitments to such 

things as a viable walking trail and no right of way fencing. He also said that 

some members of the public favored a fence between their homes and a walking 

trail. 

• John Milstead, Director of Planning with the CDF, said that while the project 

would have great economic benefits for Tupelo, he believes Tupelo does not 

wish to sacrifice its communities and culture. He noted that the renderings are 

not an architectural match for surrounding features like the buildings in Mill 

Village. 

John Underwood replied that environmental studies are limited in their level of 

detail. 

Claiborne Barnwell suggested a charette or design contest in Tupelo to find 

ways to blend the elevated railroad into its surroundings. 

• Karen Keeney said that she believes Tupelo should not celebrate the industrial 

use of the railroad. She stated that an elevated railroad would completely divide 

the city into the “right side of the tracks” and the “wrong side of the tracks.” The 

railroad would be the tallest structure in the city and would be visible from a great 

distance. She fears that commitments to aesthetic design made today would be 

cut for financial reasons later. She believes an elevated railroad would further 

cripple economic development in the city core. 
RECORD OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

Cultural Resource Impacts Discussion 

Community Development Foundation Boardroom 

300 West Main St., Tupelo, MS 

April 14, 2009 at 9 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. 

The purpose of this document is to serve as a record of meetings and Public Involvement held for the Tupelo Railroad Relocation EIS.

 Page 4 of 6                                         

Claiborne Barnwell said that the Commitment Sheet, or Gold Sheet, that MDOT 

will have in the final EIS assures that guarantees to the public and to agencies 

will be met. The entire community should decide what aesthetic treatments will 

be used. The tracks already divide Tupelo and will continue to do so whether 

they are elevated or not. The number of trains is going to increase, and elevating 

the tracks will increase traffic safety. 

• Kenneth McGhee with the Oren Dunn Museum and the Tupelo Historic 

Preservation Commission said that he fears the view of the railroad will 

discourage development and the redevelopment of blighted neighborhoods. 

Based on his observation of elevated trains in Chicago, elevated railroads are 

noisy and project pollution into the air. 

Carnot Evans explained that concrete structures which include rail ballast would 

be much quieter than the open-deck steel structures in Chicago. 

• Karen Keeney said that the Historic Commission wants what is best for Tupelo, 

not what is best for the Natchez Trace Parkway or for the railroad. 

Jim Lee pointed out that 80% of the attendees at the project’s previous public 

meetings preferred the elevated structure through the City. 

Karen Keeney asked that MDOT and FRA consider upgrading all railroad 

crossings with crossing arms and construct the operational improvement instead 

of elevating the railroad. She pointed out that most trains only block local roads 

for two to three minutes. If upgrading the crossings did not alleviate the 

congestion and safety problems, additional improvements could be considered 

later. 

Kenneth McGhee asked if, since double tracks are coming, wouldn’t some of 

them be crossing at a given street simultaneously? Would that not reduce delays 

at crossings? 

Jim Lee responded that the increases in train traffic through downtown would 

increase delays and avoiding those delays was the major purpose and need for 

undertaking the study. 

Cecil Vick with ABMB then discussed 4(f). He gave a history of the regulation and 

explained how it works. Someone asked if the “no-build” alternative were not a feasible 

and prudent alternative. Mr. Vick said yes, but only if no other alternatives are viable. He 

explained that alternatives that do not meet a project’s stated purpose and need are not 

considered feasible and prudent. 
RECORD OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

Cultural Resource Impacts Discussion 

Community Development Foundation Boardroom 

300 West Main St., Tupelo, MS 

April 14, 2009 at 9 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. 

The purpose of this document is to serve as a record of meetings and Public Involvement held for the Tupelo Railroad Relocation EIS.

 Page 5 of 6                                         

Mayor Neelly presented the City’s view of the project. He thinks there is popular support 

for the project. As fuel becomes more expensive, the costs of delays to commerce and 

to the public will require consideration of the elevated alternative. Certainly the elevated 

railroad should be made aesthetically pleasing. The mayor felt that a walking/biking trail 

would be a great benefit to the City. The mayor knows that not everyone is going to be 

happy with the proposed solution, but thinks we should proceed with the project, 

because it is the best solution we have. He said that everyone needs to also consider 

emergency response times due to delays from the at-grade crossings. 

Mr. Underwood then discussed the role of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in the 

Section 106 process. He explained that it is an agreement between the consulting 

parties on actions to be taken to avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse effects on 

historic properties. As a minimum MDOT, FRA, and the SHPO must agree. The 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation can be a party to the MOA if it wishes. John 

Underwood and Patricia Stallings will be leading the consulting parties through the 106 

process. Mr. Underwood thinks visual impacts should be the primary focus. It was noted 

that of the 2.8 miles of elevated railroad, approximately one mile will be constructed on 

fill. 

Karen Keeney reiterated that the historic districts do not think an elevated railroad is a 

good solution. They prefer operational improvements and upgrading the crossings with 

protection devices such as crossing arms. She felt that $500 million is just too large an 

expenditure for convenience of travel. She suggested implementing the operational 

improvements, seeing how well they work, and then considering whether the elevated 

railroad is really needed. Mr. Barnwell told everyone that the comments received today 

will be incorporated into the Draft EIS document, which will be made available to the 

public and interested agencies for review and comment. A public hearing will be held, 

and decisions will be made based on the outcome of the process. 

In response to a question from Ms. Stallings, Jim Woodrick, the SHPO, said that he 

doesn’t believe adding crossing gates and lights would adversely affect historic 

properties. Mr. Woodrick when on to explain that aesthetic treatments for the proposed 

structures are not the only potential ways to mitigate adverse effects on the historic 

properties. Alternative mitigations would include such things as grant programs for 

rehabilitating endangered historic buildings and funding archeological studies. 

The Draft EIS will disclose many of the findings of the study to the public, but to protect 

individual properties and archeological resources from potential vandalism and theft, 
RECORD OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

Cultural Resource Impacts Discussion 

Community Development Foundation Boardroom 

300 West Main St., Tupelo, MS 

April 14, 2009 at 9 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. 

The purpose of this document is to serve as a record of meetings and Public Involvement held for the Tupelo Railroad Relocation EIS.

 Page 6 of 6                                         

detailed information regarding the locations and conditions of architectural and 

archeological resources may not be included as part of the EIS document. 

Mr. Barnwell felt that today was a helpful exchange of ideas and reiterated that 

comments received today will be incorporated into Draft EIS document. He said that 

that efforts will continue to be made to work with the community and with parties 

interested in the protection of historic structures as part of the development of the 

elevated rail alternative concept. 

Mr. Barnwell and Mr. Lee thanked everyone attending for their participation, and the 

meeting adjourned at approximately 11:30 a.m. 







 

United States Department of the Interior 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 

Richard B. Russell Federal Building 

75 Spring Street, S.W. 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303 

ER- 11/552 

9043.1 

March 9, 2012 

Mr. John A. Winkle 

Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Room W38-311 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Comments and Recommendations on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for 

Tupelo Railroad Relocation Planning and Environmental Study to Improve Mobility and 

Safety by Reducing Roadway Congestion in the City of Tupelo, Mississippi 

Dear Mr. Winkle: 

The Department of the Interior (Department) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(DEIS) for the Tupelo Railroad Relocation Planning and Environmental Study to improve mobility 

and safety by reducing roadway congestion. The Department offers the following comments and 

recommendations for your consideration. 

We welcome this opportunity to cooperate with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the 

Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT) in evaluating the proposed rail line 

improvements. 

Specific Comments 

General: The List of References cited in the text of the DEIS is missing. 

Sections 3.12 and 4.11

These sections contain many factual statements on surface and groundwater but do not provide 

references to support the statements. For example, (pg. 3-37) the document states that "The 

Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway has effectively lowered the thalweg elevation of all water bodies 

flowing into it. Upstream channels are adjusting to this lower elevation and are incising to meet the 
Page 2 

new downstream gradient. Due to this natural channel process, streams are receiving large sediment 

loads." Suggest the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) include a reference for this 

statement, and a discussion of the available sediment data and an assessment of how in channel 

construction activities may add to the already large sediment loads. In addition, section 4.11 would 

benefit from a discussion of mitigation to prevent further increases in the downstream sediment loads 

during construction. 

Sections 3.12.5 and 4.11.5 

These sections refer to U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) groundwater measurements, but no source 

reference is provided. For example, (pg. 3-40) the document states that the groundwater elevation is 

over 230 feet below land surface in the affected area. We suggest the FEIS include references for the 

USGS groundwater data. 

Summary Comments

We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. The Department has a continuing interest 

in working with the FRA and the MDOT to ensure that impacts to resources of concern to the 

Department are adequately addressed. If you have any questions concerning these comments, please 

contact Gary LeCain on (303) 236-1475 or via email at gdlecain@usgs.gov. I can be reached on 404) 

331-4524 or via email at joyce_stanley@ios.doi.gov. 

 Sincerely, 

 Joyce Stanley, MPA 

 Regional Environmental Protection Assistant 

 for 

 Gregory Hogue 

 Regional Environmental Officer 

cc: Jerry Ziewitz - FWS 

 Brenda Johnson - USGS 

 David Vela – NPS 

 OEPC – WASH 

 








 

 

B-1 

APPENDIX B – Public Comments 












































































APPENDIX E 

Letter to Representative Roger Wicker 

Jim High’s Handouts at the Public Meeting 





The purpose of this document is to serve as a record of meetings and Public Involvement held for the Tupelo Railroad Relocation EIS. 

 Page 1 of 2 

Public Involvement Record Sheet 

Tupelo Railroad Relocation EIS 

Date of Meeting February 5, 2008, 4:45 pm 

Location of 

Meeting 

Ms. Crowley’s home, Tupelo, MS 

Meeting Style Individual meeting with a citizen who lives on the track 

Duration of 

meeting 30 minutes 

Parties involved MDOT, ABMB, Fitch Williamson and Assoc. 

Exhibits Used none 

Original Objective To meet with a local citizen who is directly impacted by the 

train and evaluate how her day to day living is affected 

Accomplishment Met with Ms. Crowley in her home and back yard. 

Summary of 

Meeting 

• Trains appear to traverse the area more often on the 

weekends 

• Horn blowing is more frequent and longer on the 

weekends (maybe from the anticipation of more public 

activity in the area on weekends?) 

• Vibration is bad in the back of the house 

• Noise is not so bad in most of the house but is most 

negatively felt in the sunroom in the back. 

• Largest noise impact is from the horn blowing 

• The train interrupts phone calls – Ms crowly must stop 

phone conversations until the horn stops 

• Ms Crowley loves this neighborhood – she is close to 

work 

• She has lived her since 2005 and has lived in Tupelo for 

over 20 years 
The purpose of this document is to serve as a record of meetings and Public Involvement held for the Tupelo Railroad Relocation EIS. 

 Page 2 of 2 

• Traffic congestion at the nearby street crossing is an issue 

for her – the traffic backs up into her street when a train is 

crossing 

• Rising insurance rates was a question she had – would 

her homeowners insurance go up because of the elevated 

track in her neighborhood? 

• She also questioned the removal of trees on her property. 

She has some old growth oak trees along the back of her 

yard that provide a visual buffer from the train. She would 

like to see them remain. 

• Ms. Crowley was not open to the idea of a walking trail 

alongside the track in her neighborhood for safety 

reasons. Lighting might also be undesirable in that it 

would shine in her windows at night. 
The purpose of this document is to serve as a record of meetings and Public Involvement held for the Tupelo Railroad Relocation EIS. 

 Page 1 of 2 

Public Involvement Record Sheet 

Tupelo Railroad Relocation EIS 

Date of Meeting February 5, 2008, 6:00 pm 

Location of 

Meeting 

Inspirational Community Baptist Church, 405 Clayton Ave, 

Tupelo, MS 

Meeting Style Small public meeting for the neighborhood 

Duration of 

meeting 1 1⁄2 hours 

Parties involved 

MDOT: Claiborne Barnwell, Kim Thurman; ABMB: Joce 

Pritchett, Latonya Graham; Fitch Williamson & Cartwright, 

Inc.: Lavelle Fitch 

Exhibits Used Tupelo RR Relocation video, 24x36 poster plots of the rail 

bridge renderings and ortho renderings 

Original Objective To meet with citizens of the neighborhood that would be most 

affected by Alternative M, the in-town rail bridge alternative 

Accomplishment Met with 9 citizens and the pastor and discussed the 

implications of the in-town alternative 

Summary of 

Meeting 

• Church has a recording studio where they record services 

and music and they often have horn noise on their tapes. 

• Pastor stated that the proximity of the train is the reason 

the church has no windows – they were closed in to keep 

out the noise 

• Train horn can be heard from inside the church as far 

away as crosstown 

• Audible sounds heard were from the engine, wheels, and 

horn 

• The BNSF has upgraded their engines and the new 

engines are much quieter than they use to be. Most of 

the existing noise is from the track and the horn. 

• Pastor stated that there is a high turnover in apartments 

and rental housing in the area because of the train noise 

• Flashing lights and gate alarm are also a nuisance. 
The purpose of this document is to serve as a record of meetings and Public Involvement held for the Tupelo Railroad Relocation EIS. 

 Page 2 of 2 

• Much of the noise (other than the horn) seems to be from 

the train hitting the intersection. 

• Church does not limit children’s activities because of the 

train – they play in the front of the property. Train is 

actually an attraction or novelty for the children. 

• Citizens stated that the train interferes greatly with trips to 

work making people late for work and coming back from 

lunch. Workers with a 30 minute lunch are greatly 

impacted by a train event. 

• Citizens generally seemed to be of the consensus that the 

M-alternative was very much needed and a great idea 

• There didn’t seem to be much as much concern over the 

visual aspects of the elevated structure as there was the 

need to alleviate the congestion issues. 

• Concern for emergency vehicle mobility was discussed: 

ambulance and fire traffic is hampered now 

• The whole town shuts down as the train crosses the 

intersection of Main and Gloster. 

• It is difficult to hold conversations while standing outside 

of the church. The horn is so loud that is prevents one 

from hearing. You must wait until it passes. 

• There is some concern about safety. People speed after 

they hear a train coming. They attempt to cross the tracks 

before they are required to wait. There have been a few 

accidents. 







 

 

C-1 

APPENDIX C – Preferred Alternative Cost Estimates 
Cost Component Cost Cost Component Cost Cost Componen

Trackwork $3,555,000 Trackwork $4,017,000 Trackwork Site Work $3,396,000 Site Work $2,430,000 Site Work Signals $1,715,000 Signals $650,000 Signals 

Bridge Structures $10,164,000 Bridge Structures $169,000 Bridge Structures 

Mobilization $942,000 Mobilization $582,000 Mobilization 

Railroad Subtotal $19,772,000 Railroad Subtotal $7,848,000 Railroa

Eason Boulevard $4,038,000 Asphalt Overbuild $60,000 US 45 Bridge Structure over KCS $1,468,000 Bridge Structures over BNS

Bridge Structure over BNSF $16,293,000 Sidewalk Connections 

Retaining Walls $3,268,000 Pedestrian Trail 

Mobilization $2,507,000 Mobilization $12,000 Mobilization 

Maintenance of Traffic $5,014,000 Maintenance of Traffic $700,000 Maintenance of Traffic 

Roadway Subtotal $32,588,000 Roadway Subtotal $772,000 Roadwa

Construction Subtotal $52,360,000 Construction Subtotal $8,620,000 Constructio

Contingency (20%) $10,472,000 Contingency (20%) $1,724,000 Contingency (20%) 

Engineering (15%) $7,854,000 Engineering (15%) $1,293,000 Engineering (15%) 

Railroad Right-of-Way $3,510,000 Railroad Right-of-Way $0 Railroad Right-of-Way 

Roadway Right-of-Way $1,479,000 Roadway Right-of-Way $0 Roadway Right-of-Way 

Phase I Total $75,675,000 Phase II Total $11,637,000 Phas

Roadway Construction

Phase I - Interchange Construction Phase II - Temporary Track Construction Phase III - Final 

Total Construction Cost All Phases $384,745,000

Railroad ConstructionRoadway Construction

Railroad ConstructionRoadway Construction

Railroad Construction
Mobilization & De-Mobilization $ 2,856,000.00

Site Work $ 53,804,870.00

Trackwork

Material

Track 1,720,743.00 $ 

Turnouts - $ 

Road Crossings 7,200.00 $ 

Miscellaneous 453,931.00 $ 

Total Material 2,181,874.00 $ 

Labor

Track 941,120.00 $ 

Turnouts - $ 

Road Crossings 174,600.00 $ 

Total Material 1,115,720.00 $ 

Signals

Wayside - $ 

Crossings 615,000.00 $ 

Total Material 615,000.00 $ 

Sub Total 59,958,464.00 $ 

Contingencies 20% 11,991,693.00 $ 

Total Estimated Cost 71,950,157.00 $ 

BNSF Main Line Permanent Track Construction

Tupelo, Mississippi

Prepared by HDR Engineering 1 August 13, 2008
Mobilization & De-Mobilization $ 403,000.00

Site Work $ 3,902,426.00

Trackwork

Material

Track 1,533,155.00 $ 

Turnouts 805,000.00 $ 

Road Crossings 18,000.00 $ 

Miscellaneous 618,962.00 $ 

Total Material 2,975,117.00 $ 

Labor

Track 625,338.00 $ 

Turnouts 529,000.00 $ 

Road Crossings 24,000.00 $ 

Total Material 1,178,338.00 $ 

Signals

Wayside 2,050,000.00 $ 

Crossings 215,000.00 $ 

Total Material 2,265,000.00 $ 

Sub Total 8,458,881.00 $ 

Contingencies 20% 1,691,777.00 $ 

Total Estimated Cost 10,150,658.00 $ 

Interchange Track Construction (Including Wye)

Tupelo, Mississippi

Prepared by HDR Engineering 1 September 18, 2009
Mobilization & De-Mobilization $ 516,000.00

Site Work $ 2,430,306.00

Trackwork

Material

Track 1,816,702.00 $ 

Turnouts 140,000.00 $ 

Road Crossings 26,880.00 $ 

Miscellaneous 521,087.00 $ 

Total Material 2,504,669.00 $ 

Labor

Track 1,229,774.00 $ 

Turnouts 90,000.00 $ 

Road Crossings 192,000.00 $ 

Total Material 1,511,774.00 $ 

Signals

Wayside 50,000.00 $ 

Crossings 600,000.00 $ 

Total Material 650,000.00 $ 

Sub Total 7,612,749.00 $ 

Contingencies 20% 1,522,550.00 $ 

Total Estimated Cost 9,135,299.00 $ 

Temporary Track Construction

Tupelo, Mississippi

Prepared by HDR Engineering 1 July 25, 2008
Description Quantity Unit Length (LF) Total Unit Cost Per Unit Total Cost

Typical Section - Beams 8.00 EA/LF 5,994.50 47,956.00 LF 350.00 $ 16,784,600.00 $ 

Typical Section - Concrete 2.00 CY/LF 5,994.50 11,989.00 CY 900.00 $ 10,790,100.00 $ 

Typical Section - Reinforcing 300.00 LB/LF 5,994.50 1,798,350.00 LB 1.50 $ 2,697,525.00 $ 

Thru Plate Girder Section 8,500.00 LB/LF 1,124.71 9,560,053.07 LB 2.75 $ 26,290,145.94 $ 

Typical 24' PC Box Spans 2.00 EA/LF 1,128.00 2,256.00 LF 325.00 $ 733,200.00 $ 

Special Span - Gloster & Main 9,200.00 LB/LF 316.84 2,914,967.28 LB 4.00 $ 11,659,869.11 $ 

KCS over Kings Creek - Beams 13.00 EA/LF 109.78 1,427.19 LF 350.00 $ 499,516.22 $ 

KCS over Kings Creek - Concrete 2.40 CY/LF 109.78 263.48 CY 900.00 $ 237,132.97 $ 

KCS over Kings Creek - Reinforcing 360.00 LB/LF 109.78 39,522.16 LB 1.50 $ 59,283.24 $ 

24' spans for temporary bridge 2.00 EA/LF 72.00 144.00 LF 325.00 $ 46,800.00 $ 

Subtotal = $ 

Quantity Unit Piers Total Unit Cost Per Unit Total Cost

Main SpanConcrete - Substructure 500.00 CY/Pier 20.00 10,000.00 CY 1,000.00 $ 10,000,000.00 $ 

Reinforcing Steel - Substructure 75,000.00 LB/Pier 20.00 1,500,000.00 LB 1.50 $ 2,250,000.00 $ 

Concrete - Drilled Shafts 400.00 CY/Pier 20.00 8,000.00 CY 1,000.00 $ 8,000,000.00 $ 

Reinforcing Steel - Drilled Shafts 60,000.00 LB/Pier 20.00 1,200,000.00 LB 1.50 $ 1,800,000.00 $ 

$ 

Typical SpanConcrete - Substructure 350.00 CY/Pier 67.00 23,450.00 CY 1,000.00 $ 23,450,000.00 $ 

Reinforcing Steel - Substructure 52,500.00 LB/Pier 67.00 3,517,500.00 LB 1.50 $ 5,276,250.00 $ 

Concrete - Drilled Shafts 300.00 CY/Pier 67.00 20,100.00 CY 1,000.00 $ 20,100,000.00 $ 

Reinforcing Steel - Drilled Shafts 45,000.00 LB/Pier 67.00 3,015,000.00 LB 1.50 $ 4,522,500.00 $ 

$ 

Typical Span 24' BoxConcrete - Substructure 12.00 CY/Pier 43.00 516.00 CY 1,000.00 $ 516,000.00 $ 

Reinforcing Steel - Substructure 1,800.00 LB/Pier 43.00 77,400.00 LB 1.50 $ 116,100.00 $ 

Piles 360.00 LF/Pier 43.00 15,480.00 LF 115.00 $ 1,780,200.00 $ 

$ 

Special Span - Gloster & MainConcrete - Substructure 750.00 CY/Pier 2.00 1,500.00 CY 1,000.00 $ 1,500,000.00 $ 

Reinforcing Steel - Substructure 112,500.00 LB/Pier 2.00 225,000.00 LB 1.50 $ 337,500.00 $ 

Concrete - Drilled Shafts 600.00 CY/Pier 2.00 1,200.00 CY 1,000.00 $ 1,200,000.00 $ 

Reinforcing Steel - Drilled Shafts 90,000.00 LB/Pier 2.00 180,000.00 LB 1.50 $ 270,000.00 $ 

$ 

KCS over Kings CreekConcrete - Substructure 200.00 CY/Pier 2.00 400.00 CY 1,000.00 $ 400,000.00 $ 

Reinforcing Steel - Substructure 30,000.00 LB/Pier 2.00 60,000.00 LB 1.50 $ 90,000.00 $ 

Piles 1,560.00 LF/Pier 2.00 3,120.00 LF 115.00 $ 358,800.00 $ 

$ 

Temporary Span 24' Box

Concrete - Substructure 8.00 CY/Pier 4.00 32.00 CY 1,000.00 $ 32,000.00 $ 

Reinforcing Steel - Substructure 1,200.00 LB/Pier 4.00 4,800.00 LB 1.50 $ 7,200.00 $ 

Piles 180.00 LF/Pier 4.00 720.00 LF 115.00 $ 82,800.00 $ 

$ 

Total = 15

$ 

Rail Bridge Superstructure

Rail Bridge Substructure
Description Quantity Unit Length (LF) Total Unit Cost Per Unit Total Cost

US 45 - Beams 5.00 EA/LF 370.32 1,851.58 LF 350.00 $ 1,296,104.84 $ 

US 45 - Concrete 1.50 CY/LF 370.32 555.47 CY 900.00 $ 999,852.30 $ 

US 45 - Reinforcing 225.00 LB/LF 370.32 83,321.03 LB 1.50 $ 249,963.08 $ 

Eason Over BNSF - Beams 9.00 EA/LF 108.97 980.72 LF 350.00 $ 343,251.26 $ 

Eason Over BNSF - Concrete 2.50 CY/LF 108.97 272.42 CY 900.00 $ 245,179.47 $ 

Eason Over BNSF - Reinforcing 375.00 LB/LF 108.97 40,863.25 LB 1.50 $ 61,294.87 $ 

Eason Over KCS - Beams 9.00 EA/LF 85.31 767.77 LF 350.00 $ 268,720.73 $ 

Eason Over KCS - Concrete 2.50 CY/LF 85.31 213.27 CY 900.00 $ 191,943.38 $ 

Eason Over KCS - Reinforcing 375.00 LB/LF 85.31 31,990.56 LB 1.50 $ 47,985.84 $ 

Quantity Unit Piers Total Unit Cost Per Unit Total Cost

US 45Concrete - Substructure 30.00 CY/Pier 5.00 150.00 CY 1,000.00 $ 300,000.00 $ 

Reinforcing Steel - Substructure 4,500.00 LB/Pier 5.00 22,500.00 LB 1.50 $ 67,500.00 $ 

Concrete - Drilled Shafts 45.00 CY/Pier 5.00 225.00 CY 1,000.00 $ 450,000.00 $ 

Reinforcing Steel - Drilled Shafts 6,750.00 LB/Pier 5.00 33,750.00 LB 1.50 $ 101,250.00 $ 

Eason Over BNSFConcrete - Substructure 53.00 CY/Pier 2.00 106.00 CY 1,000.00 $ 106,000.00 $ 

Reinforcing Steel - Substructure 7,950.00 LB/Pier 2.00 15,900.00 LB 1.50 $ 23,850.00 $ 

Concrete - Drilled Shafts 90.00 CY/Pier 2.00 180.00 CY 1,000.00 $ 180,000.00 $ 

Reinforcing Steel - Drilled Shafts 13,500.00 LB/Pier 2.00 27,000.00 LB 1.50 $ 40,500.00 $ 

Eason Over KCSConcrete - Substructure 53.00 CY/Pier 2.00 106.00 CY 1,000.00 $ 106,000.00 $ 

Reinforcing Steel - Substructure 7,950.00 LB/Pier 2.00 15,900.00 LB 1.50 $ 23,850.00 $ 

Concrete - Drilled Shafts 90.00 CY/Pier 2.00 180.00 CY 1,000.00 $ 180,000.00 $ 

Reinforcing Steel - Drilled Shafts 13,500.00 LB/Pier 2.00 27,000.00 LB 1.50 $ 40,500.00 $ 

Total = 

Roadway Bridge Superstructure

Roadway Bridge Substructure
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Item Cost

Roadway

Roadway Clearing & Grubbing 15.30 AC 4,000.00 $ 61,200 $ 

Roadway Earthwork 140,800 CY 3.00 $ 422,400 $ 

Lime Stabilized Subgrade 37,192 SY 5.00 $ 185,959 $ 

Bituminous Base Course (Mainline) 41,430 SY 23.00 $ 952,890 $ 

Bituminous Base Course (Shoulder) 1,170 SY 12.00 $ 14,040 $ 

Asphalt Pavement (SP) (Traffic C) 9,211 TN 55.00 $ 506,612 $ 

Concrete Curb & Gutter (Type E) 2,195 LF 17.00 $ 37,315 $ 

Concrete Curb & Gutter (Type F) 18,312 LF 13.00 $ 238,050 $ 

Concrete Traffic Separator (6' Wide) 4,590 LF 26.00 $ 119,340 $ 

Concrete Barrier Wall (Rigid) 180 LF 145.00 $ 26,100 $ 

Turf Complete (Sod) 26,800 SY 7.00 $ 187,600 $ 

Roadway Subtotal: 2,751,506 $ 

Structures

Retaining Walls 86,000 SF 38.00 $ 3,268,000 $ 

Bridge over KCS 1 LS 1,467,700.00 $ 1,467,700 $ 

Bridge over creeks & BNSF 1 LS 16,292,800.00 $ 16,292,800 $ 

Structures Subtotal: 21,028,500 $ 

Drainage

Storm Sewer Pipe 9,750 LF 50.00 $ 487,500 $ 

Curb/Ditch Bottom Inlets 34 EA 4,000.00 $ 136,000 $ 

Drainage Subtotal: 623,500 $ 

Signing, Pavement Marking & Signalization

Multi-Post Sign 10 EA 1,500.00 $ 15,000 $ 

Single Post Sign 30 EA 200.00 $ 6,000 $ 

Pavement Markings 39,605 LF 2.50 $ 99,013 $ 

Signalization 0.25 EA 150,000.00 $ 37,500 $ 

Signing, Pavement Marking & Signalization Subtotal: 157,513 $ 

Lighting

Highway Aluminum Pole 37 EA 7,000.00 $ 259,000 $ 

Lighting Subtotal: 259,000 $ 

Miscellaneous

Mobilization 1 LS 10% 2,482,002 $ 

Maintenance of Traffic 1 LS 20% 4,964,004 $ 

Erosion & Sediment Control 12,330 LF 20.00 $ 246,600 $ 

Miscellaneous Subtotal: 7,692,606 $ 

Contingency (20%): 6,502,525 $ 

Right-of-Way $ 1,479,000

SUBTOTAL: 40,494,150 $ 

TOTAL: 40,495,000 $ 

Note: Right-of-way Cost for Retention Ponds, Earthwork for Retention Ponds,

 Landscaping, and Utility Relocations are not included in this estimate

Eason Boulevard Reconstruction

Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate

August 21, 2008
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Item Cost

Roadway

Roadway Clearing & Grubbing 23.10 AC 4,000.00 $ 92,400 $ 

Roadway Earthwork 42,100 CY 3.00 $ 126,300 $ 

Lime Stabilized Subgrade 23,664 SY 5.00 $ 118,319 $ 

Bituminous Base Course (Mainline) 16,240 SY 15.00 $ 243,600 $ 

Bituminous Base Course (Shoulder) 4,750 SY 12.00 $ 57,000 $ 

Miscellaneous Asphalt 54 TN 150.00 $ 8,100 $ 

Asphalt Pavement (SP) (Traffic C) 4,357 TN 55.00 $ 239,610 $ 

Friction Course 840 TN 55.00 $ 46,178 $ 

Guardrail 1,600 LF 15.00 $ 24,000 $ 

Guardrail End Treatments 4 EA 500.00 $ 2,000 $ 

Turf Complete (Sod) 90,300 SY 7.00 $ 632,100 $ 

Roadway Subtotal: 1,589,608 $ 

Structures

Bridge over BNSF 1 LS 3,464,670.00 $ 3,464,670 $ 

Structures Subtotal: 3,464,670 $ 

Signing, Pavement Marking & Signalization

Multi-Post Sign 1 EA 1,500.00 $ 1,500 $ 

Single Post Sign 2 EA 200.00 $ 400 $ 

Pavement Markings 20,213 LF 2.50 $ 50,533 $ 

Signing, Pavement Marking & Signalization Subtotal: 52,433 $ 

Miscellaneous

Mobilization 1 LS 10% 510,671 $ 

Maintenance of Traffic 1 LS 20% 1,021,342 $ 

Erosion & Sediment Control 3,623 LF 20.00 $ 72,460 $ 

Miscellaneous Subtotal: 1,604,473 $ 

Contingency (20%): 1,342,237 $ 

Right-of-Way $ -

SUBTOTAL: 8,053,420 $ 

TOTAL: 8,054,000 $ 

Note: Right-of-way Cost for Retention Ponds, Earthwork for Retention Ponds,

 Landscaping, and Utility Relocations are not included in this estimate

US 45/278 Reconstruction

Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate

August 21, 2008
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Item Cost

Roadway

Roadway Clearing & Grubbing 3.70 AC 4,000.00 $ 14,800 $ 

Roadway Earthwork 6,400 CY 3.00 $ 19,200 $ 

Lime Stabliized Subgrade 15,805 SY 5.00 $ 79,023 $ 

Bituminous Base Course 14,370 SY 12.00 $ 172,440 $ 

Asphalt Pavement (SP) (Traffic C) 1,581 TN 55.00 $ 86,939 $ 

Concrete Sidewalk (4" Thick) 160 SY 3.00 $ 480 $ 

Fencing (Decorative) 13,075 LF 20.00 $ 261,500 $ 

Turf Complete (Sod) 3,600 SY 7.00 $ 25,200 $ 

Roadway Subtotal: 659,581 $ 

Signing, Pavement Marking & Signalization

Single Post Sign 14 EA 200.00 $ 2,800 $ 

Pavement Markings 13,075 LF 1.00 $ 13,075 $ 

Signalization 1 EA 50,000.00 $ 50,000 $ 

Signing, Pavement Marking & Signalization Subtotal: 65,875 $ 

Miscellaneous

Mobilization 1 LS 10% 72,546 $ 

Maintenance of Traffic 1 LS 5% 36,273 $ 

Erosion & Sediment Control 13,075 LF 5.00 $ 65,375 $ 

Miscellaneous Subtotal: 174,193 $ 

Contingency (20%): 179,930 $ 

Right-of-Way $ -

SUBTOTAL: 1,079,580 $ 

TOTAL: 1,080,000 $ 

Note: Right-of-way Cost for Retention Ponds, Earthwork for Retention Ponds,

 Landscaping, and Utility Relocations are not included in this estimate

Trail Construction

Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate

August 21, 2008
Bridge

Name Description Begin Station End Station Length (LF) $/LF Total $ $/LF Total $ $/LF Total $ $/LF Total Concrete Beam Spans Concrete 30976+01.64 30980+31.64 430.00 15.00 6,450.00 16.22 6,976.32 16.87 7,255.37 17.55 7,545.BNSF over W. Jackson St. Steel TPG 30980+31.64 30981+75.60 143.95 50.00 7,197.71 54.08 7,785.05 56.24 8,096.45 58.49 8,420.Concrete Beam Spans Concrete 30981+75.60 30998+91.60 1716.00 15.00 25,740.00 16.22 27,840.38 16.87 28,954.00 17.55 30,112BNSF Over Blair St. Steel TPG 30998+91.60 31000+13.38 121.78 50.00 6,089.24 54.08 6,586.12 56.24 6,849.57 58.49 7,123.Concrete Beam Spans Concrete 31000+13.38 31012+85.38 1272.00 15.00 19,080.00 16.22 20,636.93 16.87 21,462.41 17.55 22,320BNSF Over W. Jefferson St. Steel TPG 31012+85.38 31014+06.34 120.97 50.00 6,048.30 54.08 6,541.84 56.24 6,803.51 58.49 7,075.Concrete Beam Spans Concrete 31014+06.34 31015+66.34 160.00 15.00 2,400.00 16.22 2,595.84 16.87 2,699.67 17.55 2,807.BNSF Over N. Park St. Steel TPG 31015+66.34 31016+79.00 112.67 50.00 5,633.50 54.08 6,093.19 56.24 6,336.92 58.49 6,590.Concrete Beam Spans Concrete 31016+79.00 31021+36.50 457.50 15.00 6,862.50 16.22 7,422.48 16.87 7,719.38 17.55 8,028.BNSF Over Gloster St. & W. Main St. Steel (Truss) 31021+36.50 31024+53.34 316.84 60.00 19,010.66 64.90 20,561.93 67.49 21,384.40 70.19 22,239Concrete Beam Spans Concrete 31024+53.34 31027+11.34 258.00 15.00 3,870.00 16.22 4,185.79 16.87 4,353.22 17.55 4,527.Concrete Beam Spans Concrete 31045+97.07 31046+77.07 80.00 15.00 1,200.00 16.22 1,297.92 16.87 1,349.84 17.55 1,403.BNSF Over S. Church St. Steel TPG 31046+77.07 31047+62.93 85.86 50.00 4,293.20 54.08 4,643.53 56.24 4,829.27 58.49 5,022.Concrete Beam Spans Concrete 31047+62.93 31051+62.93 400.00 15.00 6,000.00 16.22 6,489.60 16.87 6,749.18 17.55 7,019.BNSF Over S. Green St. Steel TPG 31051+62.93 31052+41.03 78.09 50.00 3,904.62 54.08 4,223.23 56.24 4,392.16 58.49 4,567.Concrete Beam Spans Concrete 31052+41.03 31059+61.03 720.00 15.00 10,800.00 16.22 11,681.28 16.87 12,148.53 17.55 12,634BNSF Over Spring St. Steel TPG 31059+61.03 31060+52.53 91.50 50.00 4,574.83 54.08 4,948.13 56.24 5,146.06 58.49 5,351.Concrete Beam Spans Concrete 31060+52.53 31061+97.53 145.00 15.00 2,175.00 16.22 2,352.48 16.87 2,446.58 17.55 2,544.BNSF Over KCS RR Steel TPG 31061+97.53 31063+01.25 103.72 50.00 5,185.97 54.08 5,609.15 56.24 5,833.51 58.49 6,066.BNSF Over Elizabeth St. Steel TPG 31078+63.92 31079+30.08 66.16 50.00 3,308.24 54.08 3,578.19 56.24 3,721.32 58.49 3,870.Concrete Beam Spans Concrete 31115+26.00 31117+90.00 264.00 15.00 3,960.00 16.22 4,283.14 16.87 4,454.46 17.55 4,632.BNSF Over Town Creek Steel TPG 31117+90.00 31118+90.00 100.00 50.00 5,000.00 54.08 5,408.00 56.24 5,624.32 58.49 5,849.Concrete Beam Spans Concrete 31118+90.00 31121+54.00 264.00 15.00 3,960.00 16.22 4,283.14 16.87 4,454.46 17.55 4,632.BNSF Over Mud Creek Steel TPG 31121+56.00 31122+56.00 100.00 50.00 5,000.00 54.08 5,408.00 56.24 5,624.32 58.49 5,849.Concrete Beam Spans Concrete 31122+56.00 31127+84.00 528.00 15.00 7,920.00 16.22 8,566.27 16.87 8,908.92 17.55 9,265.KCS Over Kings Creek 20+45 to 21+55 Concrete 20+45.11 21+54.89 109.78 20.00 2,195.68 21.63 2,374.84 22.50 2,469.84 23.40 2,568.KCS (New) Concrete 5+80.00 11+82.00 602.00 15.00 9,030.00 16.22 9,766.85 16.87 10,157.52 17.55 10,563Note: $/LF estimates are based on structure types at each bridge. Annual inspections and general maintenance have been included in price per LF. A single paint job for steel spNote: Avg. rate of inflation used for this estimate is 4%

20 Year Maintenance Estimate

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 
$/LF Total $ $/LF Total $ $/LF Total $ $/LF Total $ $/LF Total $ $/LF Total $ $/LF Total $ $/LF Total $ $/LF Total $ 

21.35 9,180.36 22.20 9,547.58 23.09 9,929.48 24.02 10,326.66 24.98 10,739.72 25.98 11,169.31 27.01 11,616.09 28.09 12,080.73 29.22 12,563.971.17 10,244.59 74.01 43,763.85 76.97 11,080.55 80.05 11,523.77 83.25 11,984.72 86.58 12,464.11 90.05 12,962.67 93.65 13,481.18 97.40 14,020.421.35 36,636.05 22.20 38,101.49 23.09 39,625.55 24.02 41,210.57 24.98 42,858.99 25.98 44,573.35 27.01 46,356.29 28.09 48,210.54 29.22 50,138.971.17 8,666.89 74.01 37,024.08 76.97 9,374.11 80.05 9,749.07 83.25 10,139.03 86.58 10,544.60 90.05 10,966.38 93.65 11,405.04 97.40 11,861.221.35 27,156.79 22.20 28,243.06 23.09 29,372.78 24.02 30,547.69 24.98 31,769.60 25.98 33,040.39 27.01 34,362.00 28.09 35,736.48 29.22 37,165.971.17 8,608.61 74.01 36,775.12 76.97 9,311.07 80.05 9,683.52 83.25 10,070.86 86.58 10,473.69 90.05 10,892.64 93.65 11,328.35 97.40 11,781.421.35 3,415.95 22.20 3,552.59 23.09 3,694.69 24.02 3,842.48 24.98 3,996.18 25.98 4,156.02 27.01 4,322.26 28.09 4,495.15 29.22 4,674.971.17 8,018.23 74.01 34,253.05 76.97 8,672.51 80.05 9,019.41 83.25 9,380.19 86.58 9,755.40 90.05 10,145.61 93.65 10,551.44 97.40 10,973.521.35 9,767.48 22.20 10,158.18 23.09 10,564.50 24.02 10,987.08 24.98 11,426.57 25.98 11,883.63 27.01 12,358.97 28.09 12,853.33 29.22 13,367.485.40 27,058.09 88.81 260,070.42 92.37 29,266.03 96.06 30,436.67 99.90 31,654.14 103.90 32,920.31 108.06 34,237.12 112.38 35,606.60 116.87 37,030.821.35 5,508.22 22.20 5,728.55 23.09 5,957.69 24.02 6,195.99 24.98 6,443.83 25.98 6,701.59 27.01 6,969.65 28.09 7,248.44 29.22 7,538.321.35 1,707.97 22.20 1,776.29 23.09 1,847.34 24.02 1,921.24 24.98 1,998.09 25.98 2,078.01 27.01 2,161.13 28.09 2,247.58 29.22 2,337.471.17 6,110.56 74.01 26,103.71 76.97 6,609.19 80.05 6,873.55 83.25 7,148.49 86.58 7,434.43 90.05 7,731.81 93.65 8,041.08 97.40 8,362.721.35 8,539.87 22.20 8,881.47 23.09 9,236.72 24.02 9,606.19 24.98 9,990.44 25.98 10,390.06 27.01 10,805.66 28.09 11,237.89 29.22 11,687.471.17 5,557.49 74.01 23,741.03 76.97 6,010.98 80.05 6,251.42 83.25 6,501.48 86.58 6,761.54 90.05 7,032.00 93.65 7,313.28 97.40 7,605.821.35 15,371.77 22.20 15,986.64 23.09 16,626.10 24.02 17,291.15 24.98 17,982.79 25.98 18,702.11 27.01 19,450.19 28.09 20,228.20 29.22 21,037.371.17 6,511.40 74.01 27,816.06 76.97 7,042.73 80.05 7,324.44 83.25 7,617.42 86.58 7,922.12 90.05 8,239.00 93.65 8,568.56 97.40 8,911.321.35 3,095.70 22.20 3,219.53 23.09 3,348.31 24.02 3,482.25 24.98 3,621.53 25.98 3,766.40 27.01 3,917.05 28.09 4,073.73 29.22 4,236.671.17 7,381.26 74.01 31,531.98 76.97 7,983.57 80.05 8,302.91 83.25 8,635.02 86.58 8,980.43 90.05 9,339.64 93.65 9,713.23 97.40 10,101.771.17 4,708.66 74.01 20,114.90 76.97 5,092.88 80.05 5,296.60 83.25 5,508.46 86.58 5,728.80 90.05 5,957.95 93.65 6,196.27 97.40 6,444.121.35 5,636.31 22.20 5,861.77 23.09 6,096.24 24.02 6,340.09 24.98 6,593.69 25.98 6,857.44 27.01 7,131.74 28.09 7,417.01 29.22 7,713.671.17 7,116.56 74.01 30,401.22 76.97 7,697.27 80.05 8,005.16 83.25 8,325.37 86.58 8,658.38 90.05 9,004.72 93.65 9,364.91 97.40 9,739.521.35 5,636.31 22.20 5,861.77 23.09 6,096.24 24.02 6,340.09 24.98 6,593.69 25.98 6,857.44 27.01 7,131.74 28.09 7,417.01 29.22 7,713.671.17 7,116.56 74.01 30,401.22 76.97 7,697.27 80.05 8,005.16 83.25 8,325.37 86.58 8,658.38 90.05 9,004.72 93.65 9,364.91 97.40 9,739.521.35 11,272.63 22.20 11,723.53 23.09 12,192.48 24.02 12,680.18 24.98 13,187.38 25.98 13,714.88 27.01 14,263.47 28.09 14,834.01 29.22 15,427.328.47 3,125.13 29.60 83,611.87 30.79 3,380.14 32.02 3,515.35 33.30 3,655.96 34.63 3,802.20 36.02 3,954.29 37.46 4,112.46 38.96 4,276.921.35 12,852.51 22.20 13,366.61 23.09 13,901.27 24.02 14,457.32 24.98 15,035.61 25.98 15,637.04 27.01 16,262.52 28.09 16,913.02 29.22 17,589.5

Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17
Mobilization & De-Mobilization $ 28,000.00

Site Work $ -

Trackwork

Material

Track 367,600.00 $ 

Turnouts - $ 

Road Crossings - $ 

Miscellaneous 126,000.00 $ 

Total Material 493,600.00 $ 

Labor

Track 55,000.00 $ 

Turnouts - $ 

Road Crossings - $ 

Total Material 55,000.00 $ 

Signals

Wayside 325,000.00 $ 

Crossings

Total Material 325,000.00 $ 

Sub Total 576,600.00 $ 

Contingencies 20% 115,320.00 $ 

Total Estimated Cost 691,920.00 $ 

Relocation Track Construction

Tupelo, Mississippi

Prepared by HDR Engineering 1 August 13, 2008
Environmen

Appendix 

Prepared For:
BEGIN PROJECTSTA. 30923+29.78

END PROJECT

STA. 31173+61.57

2

LEE COUNTY PROJECT LAYOUT BNSF MAIN LINE, INTERCHANGE, AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS

Sh. No.

Wk. Sh.

MISS.STATE PROJECT NO.

END INTERCHANGE TRACK

STA. 14673+00 (KCS) = 55+16.68

BEGIN KCS INTERCHANGE TRACKSTA. 31080+29.77 (BNSF) = 1+00.00

BEGIN INTERCHANGE TRACKSTA. 31103+73.07 (BNSF) = 1+00.00

104289-101000
3

N.T.S.

PROPOSED1st MAIN

5’ 12’

9’

3.2’

8’

SECTION LOOKING UP-STATION

20’

48’

20’

48’

1st MAINPROPOSED

5’ 15.2’

RAIL TYPICAL SECTION W/BRIDGE STRUCTURE

N.T.S.

RAIL TYPICAL SECTION W/RETAINING WALL

RAILROAD TYPICAL SECTION

LANDSCAPE BARRIERLANDSCAPE BARRIER

BALLAST

DEPRESSED GROUND FOR STORMWATERRUNOFF ATTENUTATIONDEPRESSED GROUND FOR STORMWATERRUNOFF ATTENUTATION

STATE PROJECT NO.MISS.

Wk. Sh.

Sh. No.

104289-101000

LEE COUNTY RAILROAD MOT CONCEPT PLAN BNSF MAINLINE
N.T.S.

* MIN. WALL HEIGHT = * MAX. WALL HEIGHT = 

 4.5’~ 

PROPOSED1st MAIN

31’

5’ 12’

9’

3.2’

MAINEXIST.

25’

8’

RELOCATE MAIN TRACK 19’~

SECTION LOOKING UP-STATION

 38’~ 

4

LANDSCAPE BARRIER

RAIL TYPICAL SECTION W/ELEVATED STRUCTURE & TEMPORARY RAIL

TEMPORARY RELOCATEDMAIN

STATE PROJECT NO.MISS.

Wk. Sh.

Sh. No.

104289-101000

LEE COUNTY
14’-0" 15’-0" 14’-0"

7’-6" 13’-0"

12" 12" 12" 12"

PROFILE GRADE

CROWNSUBGRADE

EXISTING GROUND

EMBANKMENT

LAST

BALLAST

{ ACCESSROAD

BALLAST

SUBBALLAST

15’-0"

12" 12"

PROFILE GRADE

EXISTING GROUND

BALLAST

E TRACK - TANGENT WITH 13’ ACCESS ROADWAY (NEW CONSTRUCTION)

{ FUTURE TRACK { MAIN TRACK

{ STORAGE TRACK No. 1

12" 12"

13"

BALLAST

{ STORAGE TRACK No. 2

25’-0"

{ EXISTING TRACK

AT-GRADE STORAGE TRACK - WITH EXISTING TRACKAGE

TING BALLAST

EXISTING SUBBALLAST

SUBBALLAST

5

RAILROAD TYPICAL SECTION

STATE PROJECT NO.MISS.

Wk. Sh.

Sh. No.

104289-101000

LEE COUNTY
15’-0"

5’-0" 5’-0" 5’-0"

 RAIL

.02’/FT. .02’/FT. 12" MIN.

9"

FLOOR BEAM

1" DECK PLATE

C C

CL GIRDER

15’-0"

AREMA CLEARANCE DIAGRAM

BALLAST

 RAIL

L FUTURE 2ND MAIN

15’-2"

45’-4"

2" BITUMINOUS MASTIC

(MIN.)

12"

TIE

TE

2)

TE)

1/16" WATERPROFING

15’-2"

TIE

BALLAST

46’-10"

5’-0" 5’-0" 5’-0"

L PROPOSED 1ST MAIN

6’-9"

CL FUTURE 2ND MAIN CL PROPOSED 1ST MAIN

THRU-PLATE GIRDER BRIDGE SECTION

PRE-CAST 8 - BEAM BRIDGE SECTION

6

RAILROAD BRIDGE TYPICAL SECTIONS BNSF MAIN LINE

STATE PROJECT NO.MISS.

Wk. Sh.

Sh. No.

104289-101000

LEE COUNTY
15’-0"

C C

5’-0" 5’-0"

 RAIL

L MAIN

.02’/FT. .02’/FT. 12" MIN.

9"

BALLAST

5’-0" 5’-0" 5’-0" 5’-0"

13’-3" (MAX) 14’-0"

67’-10"

5’-0" 5’-0" 5’-0"

15’-0"

28’-0"

6’-6" 6’-6"

5’-0"

CL SERVICE ROAD

RAGE 2 L STORAGE 1

CL STORAGE 1 CL STORAGE 2

PRE-CAST BOX BEAM BRIDGE SECTION

PRE-CAST 13 - BEAM BRIDGE SECTION

7

RAILROAD BRIDGE TYPICAL SECTIONS BNSF MAIN LINE AND INTERCHANGE

STATE PROJECT NO.MISS.

Wk. Sh.

Sh. No.

104289-101000

LEE COUNTY
SECTION AT END PORTAL SECTION AT MID-SPAN 

L

33’-0" 

C BRIDGE & TRACK 

36’-0"

13’-6" 

15’-0"

13’-6" 3’-0" 

C TRUSS L

THRU-TRUSS BRIDGE SECTION

CL STORAGE 2 CL STORAGE 1

AREMA CLEARANCE ENVELOPE

8

RAILROAD BRIDGE TYPICAL SECTIONS BNSF MAIN LINE

STATE PROJECT NO.MISS.

Wk. Sh.

Sh. No.

104289-101000

LEE COUNTY
STATE PROJECT NO.

MISS.

Wk. Sh.

Sh. No.

104289-101000

LEE COUNTY CONCEPT PLAN & PROFILE BNSF MAIN LINE

30920 30925

EXISTING TOP OF RAIL

BEGIN FUTURE TRACK

STA. 30923+29.78

BEGIN PROJECT

30920+00 30925+00

280220300310
STATE PROJECT NO.

MISS.

Wk. Sh.

Sh. No.

104289-101000

LEE COUNTY CONCEPT PLAN & PROFILE BNSF MAIN LINE

1,086’ V.C.

PROPOSED TOP OF RAIL
EXTEND 2-24" CMP

EXTEND 2-48" CMP

T-WALL (FILL)

30950+00 30955+00

280290300310

11
T-WALL (FILL)

500’ V.C.

EXISTING TOP OF RAIL

ROPOSED TOP OF RAIL

30965+00 30970+00

280290300310
STATE PROJECT NO.

MISS.

Wk. Sh.

Sh. No.

104289-101000

LEE COUNTY CONCEPT PLAN & PROFILE BNSF MAIN LINE

280’ V.C.

(+) 0.000%

THRU-PLATE GIRDER BRIDGE

430’ 1716’

EXISTING TOP OF RAIL

PROPOSED TOP OF RAIL

144’

PRE-CAST 8-BEAM BRIDGE PRE-CAST 8-BEAM BRIDGE

30980+00 30985+00

280290300310
STATE PROJECT NO.

MISS.

Wk. Sh.

Sh. No.

104289-101000

LEE COUNTY CONCEPT PLAN & PROFILE BNSF MAIN LINE

DOWNTOWN PARTNERS LLC

WILLIAM

DEAS

REMOVE 3’x 3’ CONC. BOX CULV.

REESE

MILTON WHITENTON

DAVIS

D D & MARY

LEATHERS

G HARDIN

PATTERSON

HAZEL

LANGLEY

STEPHEN &

LINDA

WEIL

OLA

HUTSON

TOMMY

MCDANIEL

30995 31000

MP. 587

960’ V.C.

ED TOP OF RAIL

THRU-PLATE

GIRDER BRIDGE

PRE-CAST

PRE-CAST 8-BEAM BRIDGE 8-BEAM BRIDGE

30995+00 31000+00

280290300310

10’ SHARED-USE PATH
STATE PROJECT NO.

MISS.

Wk. Sh.

Sh. No.

104289-101000

LEE COUNTY CONCEPT PLAN & PROFILE BNSF MAIN LINE

KROGER

ESTELLE

DILLARD

WILLIAM &

MARTHA

LUCIOUS

RENA

MCVAY

BILLY

PUTT

BURT PARK

LIBERTY

GARDENS

31010 31015

EXISTING TOP OF RAIL

PROPOSED TOP OF RAIL

THRU-PLATE

PRE-CAST 8-BEAM BRIDGE GIRDER BRIDGE PRE-CAST 8-BEAM BRIDGE

THRU-PLATE

GIRDER BRIDGE

31010+00 31015+00

280290300310
STATE PROJECT NO.

MISS.

Wk. Sh.

Sh. No.

104289-101000

LEE COUNTY CONCEPT PLAN & PROFILE BNSF MAIN LINE

T-WALL (FILL)

THRU-PLATE TRUSS BRIDGE PRE-CAST 8-BEAM BRIDGE

31025+00 31030+00

270290300

16

260
STATE PROJECT NO.

MISS.

Wk. Sh.

Sh. No.

104289-101000

LEE COUNTY CONCEPT PLAN & PROFILE BNSF MAIN LINE

EXTEND 8’x 6’ CONC. BOX CULV.

T-WALL (FILL)

PROPOSED TOP OF RAIL

EXISTING TOP OF RAIL

31040+00 31045+00

280290300
STATE PROJECT NO.

MISS.

Wk. Sh.

Sh. No.

104289-101000

LEE COUNTY CONCEPT PLAN & PROFILE BNSF MAIN LINE

MP. 588

1,100’ V.C.

GIRDER BRIDGE

THRU-PLATE

GIRDER BRIDGE

THRU-PLATE

PROPOSED TOP OF RAIL

PRE-CAST 8-BEAM BRIDGE

EXISTING TOP OF RAIL

PRE-CAST

8-BEAM BRIDGE

31055+00 31060+00

280290300
FACILITY TO BE RELOCATED
31085 31090

PROPOSED #15 T.O.

BEGIN KCS INTERCHANGE TRACKSTA. 31080+29.77 (BNSF) = 1+00.00
STATE PROJECT NO.

MISS.

Wk. Sh.

Sh. No.

104289-101000

LEE COUNTY CONCEPT PLAN & PROFILE BNSF MAIN LINE

31100 31105

MP. 589

800’ V.C.

(+) 0.000%

F RAIL

31100 31105

31100+00 31105+00

260270280290
31120

EXISTING TOP OF RAIL

THRU-PLATE

GIRDER BRIDGE

PRE-CAST

BOX BEAM BRIDGE

PRE-CAST

BOX BEAM BRIDGE

120’ 100’ 254’

END PROPOSED

31115+00 31120+00

260270280290

22
STATE PROJECT NO.

MISS.

Wk. Sh.

Sh. No.

104289-101000

LEE COUNTY CONCEPT PLAN & PROFILE BNSF MAIN LINE

2425’ (CLEAR)5455’ (CLEAR)

31130 31135

EXISTING TOP OF RAIL

31130+00 31135+00

250260270280

23
STATE PROJECT NO.

MISS.

Wk. Sh.

Sh. No.

104289-101000

LEE COUNTY CONCEPT PLAN & PROFILE BNSF MAIN LINE

No. 10 T.O.

PROPOSED 12’ GRAVEL ACCESS ROADFINAL LOCATION TO BE DETERMINEDON FINAL DESIGN

EXISTING TOP OF RAIL

31145+00 31150+00

250260270280
31160 31165

5455’ (CLEAR)

PROPOSED 12’ GRAVEL ACCESS ROADFINAL LOCATION TO BE DETERMINEDON FINAL DESIGN
STATE PROJECT NO.

MISS.

Wk. Sh.

Sh. No.

104289-101000

LEE COUNTY CONCEPT PLAN & PROFILE BNSF MAIN LINE

No. 10 T.O.

EXISTING TOP OF RAIL

MATCH EXISTINGEL. 259.00END STORAGE TRACKSTA. 31173+61.57END PROJECT

31175+00 31180+00

250260270280

26
STATE PROJECT NO.

MISS.

Wk. Sh.

Sh. No.

104289-101000

LEE COUNTY CONCEPT PLAN & PROFILE BNSF MAIN LINE

5+00

240250260270
PROPOSED TOP OF RAIL

EXISTING GROUND

13-BEAM BRIDGE

PRE-CAST
STATE PROJECT NO.

MISS.

Wk. Sh.

Sh. No.

104289-101000

LEE COUNTY CONCEPT PLAN & PROFILE BNSF MAIN LINE

PROPOSED CULVERT

PROPOSED TOP OF RAIL

EXISTING GROUND

35+00 30+00

240250260270
STATE PROJECT NO.

MISS.

Wk. Sh.

Sh. No.

104289-101000

LEE COUNTY CONCEPT PLAN & PROFILE BNSF MAIN LINE

#8 T.O.

45
STATE PROJECT NO.

MISS.

Wk. Sh.

Sh. No.

104289-101000

LEE COUNTY CONCEPT PLAN & PROFILE BNSF MAIN LINE

PROPOSED TOP OF RAIL

EXISTING GROUND

 (FILL)

’

PRE-CAST 8-BEAM BRIDGE

1317’

FILL

5+00 10+00

260270280290

EXTEND 2-72" CMP

KCS WYE TRACK
STATE PROJECT NO.

MISS.

Wk. Sh.

Sh. No.

104289-101000

LEE COUNTY CONCEPT PLAN & PROFILE BNSF MAIN LINE

EXISTING GROUND

500’ V.C.

13-BEAM BRIDGE

PRE-CAST

1317’

FILL

20+00 25+00

250260270280

PROPOSED #11 T.O.

PROPOSED #11 T.O.

PROPOSED #11 T.O.

KCS LOOP TRACK
ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTIONS US 45 / US 278

33

0.02

LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION

STANDARD CLEARING AND GRUBBING

12’ 12’

24’ 12’

6:1 Natural Ground

20’

10’

SHLDR.

PAVT.

PROFILE GRADE 

POINT

FRICTION COURSE

LA R/W LINE

4’ SHLDR. PAVT.

TYPE A FENCE

8’

R/W VARIES (150’ MIN.)

12"

6"

12’

12"

TURF TURF

0.02

6:1

6:1 FOR FILLS TO 5’6:1 TO EDGE OF CLEAR ZONE & 3:1 FOR FILLS 10’ TO 20’ 2:1 (WITH GUARDRAIL) FILLS OVER 20’

106’ MIN.

SUBGRADE

12"

0.04 0.04 0.02

NSTRUCTION

12’ 12’

12’ 24’

6:1

20’

10’

SHLDR.

PAVT.

PROFILE GRADE 

POINT

FRICTION COURSE

8’

/W VARIES (150’ MIN.)

12"

12’

12"

0.02

SUBGRADE

12"

0.04 0.04

6:1 FOR FILLS TO 5’6:1 TO EDGE OF CLEAR ZONE & 3:1 FOR FILLS 10’ TO 20’ 2:1 (WITH GUARDRAIL) FILLS OVER 20’

{ CONST.

TYPICAL SECTION

US 45 / US 278

RECONSTRUCTION

STATE PROJECT NO.MISS.

Wk. Sh.

Sh. No.

104289-101000

LEE COUNTY
ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTIONS EASON BOULEVARD

34

STATE PROJECT NO.MISS.

Wk. Sh.

Sh. No.

104289-101000

LEE COUNTY

Natural Ground

AND GUTTER

TYPE F

:1 OR 2:1

0.02

12’ 12’

24’ 12’

R/W LINE

PROFILE GRADEPOINT

Natural Ground

6’

12"

0.02

SUBGRADE

0.02

{ CONST.

0.02

12’ 12’

24’

STANDARD CLEARING AND GRUBBING

R/W LINE

Natural Ground

6’

CURB AND GUTTERTYPE F

0.02

8’

0.02

45’ R/W 45’ R/W

10:1

CURB AND GUTTERTYPE F

10:1

8’

MSE WALL MSE WALL

6’ CONCRETETRAFFICSEPARATOR

TYPICAL SECTION

EASON BOULEVARD

RECONSTRUCTION WITH MSE WALL

0.02

12’ 12’

24’ 12’

PROFILE GRADEPOINT

6’

12"

0.02 0.02

{ CONST.

0.02

12’ 12’

24’

STANDARD CLEARING AND GRUBBING

R/W LINE

6’

CURB AND GUTTERTYPE F

0.02

8’

0.02

CURB AND GUTTERTYPE F

10:1

8’

MSE WALL MSE WALL

SUBGRADE

6’ CONCRETETRAFFICSEPARATOR

20’

10:1

3:1 OR 2:1

0.02

5’

0.02

15’

Natural Ground

20’

R/W VARIES (71’ MIN.) R/W VARIES (71’ MIN.)

TYPICAL SECTION

EASON BOULEVARD

RECONSTRUCTION WITH MSE WALL

AND FRONTAGE ROADS
BRIDGE TYPICAL SECTIONS US 45 / US 278 & EASON BOULEVARD

35

STATE PROJECT NO.MISS.

Wk. Sh.

Sh. No.

104289-101000

LEE COUNTY

SHOULDER

6’-0"

LOPE: .02 FT/FT

4’-012"

1’-6 1/2" BARRIER

AASHTO TYPE IV BEAM (TYP.)

PRE-CAST 5 - BEAM BRIDGE SECTION (US 45 /US 278)

SLOPE: .02 FT/FT

SHOULDER

10’-0"

43’-1"

SHOULDER

6’-0"

SLOPE: .02 FT/FT

4’-012" 4 SPACES @ 9’-9" = 39’-0" 4’-012"

1’-6 1/2" BARRIER 2 LANES @ 12’-0" = 24’-0" 1’-6 1/2" BARRIER

8 1/2" SLAB AASHTO TYPE IV BEAM (TYP.)

40’-0"

SLOPE: .02 FT/FT

83’-1"

SHOULDER

10’-0"

SLOPE: .02 FT/FT

1’-6 1/2" BARRIER

8 1/2" SLAB

8 SPACES @ 9’-4 1/2" = 75’-0" 4’-012"

2 LANES @ 12’-0" = 24’-0" 2 LANES @ 12’-0" = 24’-0"

PRE-CAST 9 - BEAM BRIDGE SECTION (EASON BOULEVARD)

12’-0"

6’ CONCRETETRAFFIC SEPARATOR
600’ V.C.

K = 132

SSD = 735’

K = 250

1,500’ V.C.

250260270280

635+00 640+00

EXISTING LA R/W

EXISTING LA R/W

RECONSTRUCT 205’ OF SB OFF-RAMP

RECONSTRUCT 100’ OF NB ON-RAMP

PROPOSED PROFILE GRADE LINE

EXISTING PROFILE GRADE LINE
STATE PROJECT NO.

MISS.

Wk. Sh.

Sh. No.

104289-101000

LEE COUNTY CONCEPT PLAN & PROFILE US 45 / US 278

260270280

650+00

290

END SB BRIDGE STA. 650+78.01

END NB BRIDGE STA. 650+31.39

EXISTING LA R/W

PROPOSED MAIN LINE

END BRIDGESTA. 650+54.28

TING RADIO TOWER

ESS ROAD

EXISTING DITCH

EXISTINGBNSF LINE

PROPOSED RR R/W

37

655+00
STATE PROJECT NO.

MISS.

Wk. Sh.

Sh. No.

104289-101000

LEE COUNTY CONCEPT PLAN & PROFILE US 45 / US 278

500’ V.C.

K = 161

260270280

0+00 665+00

290

50 0 50 100

SCALE: 1"=100’

END US 45/US 278 RECONSTRUCTIONSTA. 654+98.06

END US 45/US 278 RECONSTRUCTIONSTA. 664+98.06 EL. 263.07

38
STATE PROJECT NO.

MISS.

Wk. Sh.

Sh. No.

104289-101000

LEE COUNTY ROADWAY CONCEPT PLAN EASON BOULEVARD

ANE ENTRANCE

R ROAD

REMOVE DRIVEWAYS

REMOVE DRIVEWAYS

D. RECONSTRUCTION

PROPOSED R/W

PROPOSED R/W

EXISTING R/W

EXISTING R/W

BEGIN MSE WALL LTSTA. 5+00.00

BEGIN MSE WALL RTSTA. 5+00.00

BEGIN 6’ CONCRETETRAFFIC SEPARATORSTA. 5+00.00

50 0 50 100

SCALE: 1"=100’

39
STATE PROJECT NO.

MISS.

Wk. Sh.

Sh. No.

104289-101000

LEE COUNTY ROADWAY CONCEPT PLAN EASON BOULEVARD

EXISTING R/W

EXISTING R/W

EXISTING LA R/W

END 6’ CONCRETETRAFFIC SEPARATORBEGIN RAISED MEDIANSTA. 20+00.00

END MSE WALL LTSTA. 21+84.71

END MSE WALL RT.STA. 21+86.83

CONSTRUCT ONE-WAYAT-GRADEFRONTAGE ROAD

CONSTRUCT ONE-WAYAT-GRADEFRONTAGE ROAD

END RECONSTRUCTIONBEGIN WIDENINGEASON BLVD.STA. 25+41.82

LL RT

40
30

STATE PROJECT NO.MISS.

Wk. Sh.

Sh. No.

104289-101000

LEE COUNTY ROADWAY CONCEPT PLAN EASON BOULEVARD

50 0 50 100

SCALE: 1"=100’

EXISTING R/W

REMOVE SLIP RAMP

EXISTING LA R/W

CONSTRUCT RIGHTTURN LANE
STATE PROJECT NO.

MISS.

Wk. Sh.

Sh. No.

104289-101000

LEE COUNTY ROADWAY CONCEPT PLAN EASON BOULEVARD

50 0 50 100

SCALE: 1"=100’
EXISTING RR R/W

PROPOSED RR R/W

PROPOSED R/W

PROPOSED R/W

/W

EXISTING R/W

CONSTRUCT ONE-WAYAT-GRADEFRONTAGE ROAD

CONSTRUCT ONE-WAYAT-GRADEFRONTAGE ROAD

END BRIDGESTA. 60+86.19

BEGIN MSE WALL LTSTA. 60+86.19

BEGIN MSE WALL RTSTA. 60+86.19

EXISTING RR R/W

/W
STATE PROJECT NO.

MISS.

Wk. Sh.

Sh. No.

104289-101000

LEE COUNTY ROADWAY CONCEPT PLAN EASON BOULEVARD

EXISTING R/W

END RECONSTRUCTION EASON BLVD.STA. 72+65.03MATCH EXISTING 5-LANE ROADWAY

CONCRETE

C SEPARATOR

+65.03

CONSTRUCT 2-LANE ENTRANCE
STATE PROJECT NO.

MISS.

Wk. Sh.

Sh. No.

104289-101000

LEE COUNTY ROADWAY CONCEPT PROFILE EASON BOULEVARD

PI +50.00

EL. 298.67

(+) 4.000% (-) 4.000%

1,000’ V.C.

K = 125

SSD = 519’

+50.00 EL. 278.67

10+00 15+00

EXISTING PROFILE GRADE LINE

PROPOSED PROFILE GRADE LINE

BEGIN MSE WALLLT & RTSTA. 5+00.00

BEGIN BRIDGESTA. 13+22.55 END BRIDGE

STA. 14+80.65

23.7’

EXISTING KCS LINE

PROPOSED FRONTAGE ROAD

22.9’

45

23.7’

PROPOSED INTERCHANGE TRACK
STATE PROJECT NO.

MISS.

Wk. Sh.

Sh. No.

104289-101000

LEE COUNTY ROADWAY CONCEPT PROFILE EASON BOULEVARD

PI +41.82

EL. 259.00

(-) 4.000% (+) 0.000%

400’ V.C.

K = 100

+41.82 EL. 267.00

+41.82 EL. 259.00

20+00 25+00

240250260270280290300310320

END MSE WALL LTSTA. 21+84.71

END MSE WALL RTSTA. 21+86.83

END RECONSTRUCTIONBEGIN WIDENINGEASON BLVD.STA. 25+41.82 EL. 259.00MATCH EXISTING

RADE LINE

46
STATE PROJECT NO.

MISS.

Wk. Sh.

Sh. No.

104289-101000

LEE COUNTY ROADWAY CONCEPT PROFILE EASON BOULEVARD

PI +30.00

EL. 259.00

(+) 0.000%

(+) 4.000%

350’ V.C.

K = 87

+55.00 EL. 259.00

+05.00 EL. 266.00

45+00 50+00

240250260270280290300310320

PROPOSED PROFILE GRADE LINE

EXISTING GROUND

NGS CREEK TOWN CREEK

EXISTING PROFILE GRADE LINE

EXISTING GROUND

47
STATE PROJECT NO.

MISS.

Wk. Sh.

Sh. No.

104289-101000

LEE COUNTY ROADWAY CONCEPT PROFILE EASON BOULEVARD

PI +00.81

EL. 297.83

(+) 4.000% (-) 4.000%

900’ V.C.

K = 112

SSD = 493’

+50.81 EL. 279.83

+50.00 EL. 275.86

60+00 65+00

230240250260270280290300310

23.8’

23.8’

23.8’

PROPOSED STORAGE TRACK #2

PROPOSED STORAGE TRACK #1

EXISTING BNSF LINE

END BRIDGEBEGIN RECONSTRUCTIONEASON BLVD.STA. 60+86.19

48
STATE PROJECT NO.

MISS.

Wk. Sh.

Sh. No.

104289-101000

LEE COUNTY ROADWAY CONCEPT PROFILE EASON BOULEVARD

75+00

EXISTING PROFILE GRADE LINE

END RECONSTRUCTIONBEGIN WIDENINGEASON BLVD.STA. 70+50.00 EL. 272.00

END WIDENINGEND CONSTRUCTIONEASON BLVD.STA. 72+65.03

49
18’-0"

28’-6"

6’-0"

39’-0"

5’-0" 7’-0"

C

CL PIER

ELEVATION END VIEW

(VARIES)

(VARIES)

1’-3" 1’-3"

6’-0"

4’-3" 20’-0" 4’-3"

CL SHAFT CL SHAFT

3" (TYP.)

72" DRILLED SHAFT (TYP.)

L COLUMN

10’-6"

19’-6"

6"

(MIN.)

CL BEARING

1’-0"

(TYP.)

5’-0" 5’-0"

28’-6"

2" DRILLED 

HAFT (TYP.)

28’-6"

(AASHTO TYPE VI GIRDER SPACING)

19’-6"

5’-0"

4’-3" 20’-0" 4’-3"

CL SHAFT CL SHAFT

INTERMEDIATE PIER (TYPE I)

50

RAILROAD BRIDGE STRUCTURE DETAILS BNSF MAIN LINE

STATE PROJECT NO.MISS.

Wk. Sh.

Sh. No.

104289-101000

LEE COUNTY
20’-0"

9’-0"

ELEVATION END VIEW

50’-0"

1’-7"

CL GIRDER

C

CL PIER

(VARIES)

4’-6"

9’-0"

4’-2" 5’-0" 7’-0" (VARIES)

30’-0"

4’-0" 22’-0" 4’-0"

CL SHAFT CL SHAFT

30’-0"

4’-0" 22’-0" 4’-0"

CL SHAFT CL SHAFT

6" (TYP.)

L COLUMN

25’-0"

72" DRILLED SHAFT (TYP.)

2’-9"

1’-3"

CL BEARING

LLED 

TYP.)

6’-11" 5’-0"

15’-0"

25’-0"

+-

(AASHTO TYPE VI GIRDER SPACING)

INTERMEDIATE PIER (TYPE II)

51

RAILROAD BRIDGE STRUCTURE DETAILS BNSF MAIN LINE

STATE PROJECT NO.MISS.

Wk. Sh.

Sh. No.

104289-101000

LEE COUNTY
30920 30925

30935 30940

STATE PROJECT NO.MISS.

Wk. Sh.

Sh. No.

104289-101000

LEE COUNTY RAILROAD MOT CONCEPT PLAN BNSF MAINLINE

EXTEND 3’x 3’ CONC. BOX CULV.

54

STATE PROJECT NO.MISS.

Wk. Sh.

Sh. No.

104289-101000

LEE COUNTY RAILROAD MOT CONCEPT PLAN BNSF MAINLINE
KROGER

ESTELLE

DILLARD

WILLIAM &

MARTHA

LUCIOUS

RENA

MCVAY

BILLY

PUTT

BURT PARK

LIBERTY

GARDENS

WALGREENS

KWIK-N-GO

CULLIGAN

THE SHOP

STONE JEWELRY

FAMILY DOLLAR

HANCOCK L D CO.

CASA MONTEREY

(CLOSED)

VINCENT

BOOT &

SHOE

W. MAIN

LAUNDRY

COMPUTER

UNIVERSE

TAX

PREPARATION

COSTUME

WORLD

STATE PROJECT NO.MISS.

Wk. Sh.

Sh. No.

104289-101000

LEE COUNTY RAILROAD MOT CONCEPT PLAN BNSF MAINLINE
REMOVE #10 X.O.

REMOVE #10 T.O.

STATE PROJECT NO.MISS.

Wk. Sh.

Sh. No.

104289-101000

LEE COUNTY RAILROAD MOT CONCEPT PLAN BNSF MAINLINE
REMOVE #11 T.O.

31085 31090

57

50 0 50 100

SCALE: 1"=100’

STATE PROJECT NO.MISS.

Wk. Sh.

Sh. No.

104289-101000

LEE COUNTY RAILROAD MOT CONCEPT PLAN BNSF MAINLINE
2684’ (CLEAR)

5617’ (CLEAR)

STATE PROJECT NO.MISS.

Wk. Sh.

Sh. No.

104289-101000

LEE COUNTY RAILROAD MOT CONCEPT PLAN BNSF MAINLINE
31130 31135

2684’ (CLEAR)5617’ (CLEAR)

31145 31150

No. 10 T.O.

59

50 0 50 100

SCALE: 1"=100’

STATE PROJECT NO.MISS.

Wk. Sh.

Sh. No.

104289-101000

LEE COUNTY RAILROAD MOT CONCEPT PLAN BNSF MAINLINE
31160 31165

5617’ (CLEAR)

31175 31180

No. 10 T.O.
 

 

EEE

E-1 

APPENDIX E – Draft Noise and Vibration Study 
NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT 

TUPELO MISSISSIPPI RAILROAD RELOCATION 

DRAFT 

June 20, 2008 

Prepared for: 

Mississippi Department of Transportation 

Prepared by: 

HDR Engineering, Inc. 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Mississippi Railroad Relocation

June 20, 2008 Page ii 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 1

1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Assessment Approach ................................................................................................................ 2

1.2 Noise and Vibration Sources from BNSF Operations in Tupelo ............................................... 3

2. Noise and Vibration Criteria................................................................................................................. 4

2.1 Sensitive Receptors .................................................................................................................... 4

Noise Impact .............................................................................................................................. 4

Vibration Impact ........................................................................................................................ 6

3. Existing Conditions .............................................................................................................................. 7

3.1 24-Hour Measurement Locations............................................................................................... 7

3.2 24-Hour Noise Measurement Results ........................................................................................ 9

3.3 Short-Term Measurements....................................................................................................... 10

4. Noise Impact Assessment................................................................................................................... 10

4.1 Noise Prediction Model Input Parameters ............................................................................... 10

4.2 Model Application ................................................................................................................... 11

4.3 Predicted Noise Impacts........................................................................................................... 12

4.3.1 No Build ................................................................................................................ 12

4.3.2 Alternative M (Elevated BNSF Mainline) ............................................................ 18

4.3.3 Alternative L.......................................................................................................... 24

5. Vibration Impact Assessment............................................................................................................. 30

5.1 Vibration Prediction Model...................................................................................................... 31

5.2 Predicted Vibration Impacts..................................................................................................... 33

5.2.1 No-Build................................................................................................................ 33

5.2.2 Alternative M ........................................................................................................ 36

5.2.3 Alternative L.......................................................................................................... 39

Appendix A. Fundamentals of Noise and Vibration.................................................................................. 43

Appendix B. Photos of 24-Hour Sound Measurement Sites...................................................................... 47

Appendix C. Measurement Procedures and Equipment ............................................................................ 52

List of Figures 

Figure 1. FTA and FRA Noise Impact Criteria ...........................................................................................5

Figure 2. Aerial Photograph Showing Project Area and Measurement Sites ..............................................8

Figure 3 A-E. No-Build Noise Impact Contours .......................................................................................13

Figure 4 A-E. Alternative M Noise Impact Contours.................................................................................19

Figure 5 A-E. Alternative L Noise Impact Contours ..................................................................................25

Figure 6. Generalized Ground Surface Vibration Curves..........................................................................31

Figure 7 A-B. No-Build Vibration Impact Contour...................................................................................34

Figure 8 A-B. Alternative M – Vibration Impact Contours.......................................................................37

Figure 9 A-B. Alternative L Vibration Impact Contours............................................................................40

Figure 10. Graph of Typical Indoor & Outdoor Noise Sources and Levels ..............................................44

Figure 11. Typical Vibration Levels..........................................................................................................46

List of Tables 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Mississippi Railroad Relocation

June 20, 2008 Page iii 

Table 1. FTA/FRA Land Use Categories and Noise Metrics ......................................................................5

Table 2. FTA/FRA Impact Thresholds for Ground-Borne Vibration ..........................................................6

Table 3. 24-Hour Noise Monitoring Data....................................................................................................9

Table 4. Summary of Existing and Future Train Volumes and Consists...................................................11

Table 5. Summary of FTA Land Use Noise Impacts Predicted for No Build and Build Alternatives ......30

Table 6. Project Specific Vibration Impact Thresholds.............................................................................33

Table 7. Summary of FTA Land Use Vibration Impacts Predicted for No Build and Build Alternatives 42
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Tupelo is a community with a population of approximately 35,000 located in the northeast region of 

Mississippi and is the region's major employment center. During the daytime, the population of the city 

multiplies between two to three times. Two rail lines pass through Tupelo, the Burlington Northern Santa 

Fe Railway (BNSF) main line and the Kansas City Southern Railway (KCS) branch line. The BNSF 

currently operates approximately 20 to 25 trains per day through the city and the KCS operates 

approximately 2 to 3 trains per day. The two railroads have an interchange near downtown Tupelo. There 

are approximately 16 at-grade highway/rail crossings near the interchange in downtown Tupelo. 

Congestion and delays to highway traffic are caused by the movement of trains in and through the city. It 

has been estimated that the volume of the BNSF trains could grow to approximately 40 trains per day in 

the year 2030. The KCS is estimated to grow to approximately 4 trains per day in the year 2030. 

This report documents the evaluation of potential noise and vibration emissions from freight train activity 

on each of two proposed alternative alignments for the BNSF mainline and affected areas of the KCS 

branch line. 

 

1. INTRODUCTION 

The BNSF Railway Company ("BNSF") plans to construct one of two alternative alignments for the 

north-south mainline that transects Tupelo, Mississippi. Alternative L will abandon the portion of 

existing track that runs through the center of Tupelo and build a new track to the east and north of Tupelo. 

Alternative M will construct an elevated mainline near downtown Tupelo that will provide separated 

crossings at several intersections near downtown Tupelo. Both alternatives will also include operational 

improvements to allow for the exchange of BNSF and KCS cars south of the downtown area. The 

alternatives are discussed in more detail below. 

Alternative L is approximately 25.6 miles long and would leave the existing BNSF line north of MS 178, 

cross under MS 178 then parallel Town Creek and cross under the Coley Road Extension and Mount 

Vernon Road. The alignment would cross over Yonaba Creek, Natchez Trace Parkway and Town Creek 

as part of a long bridge structure (approximately 4,400 feet). The alignment then turns south to cross over 

US 78 via a 400 feet bridge. The alternative crosses over both Gloster Street and US 45 as part of another 

long bridge structure (approximately 3,500 feet). It would then cross over the KCS line, continue south, 

cross over Main Street, and merge with the BNSF line. Approximately 10.7 miles of new track, including 

approximately 9,350 feet of rail bridges for roadway and rail crossings would be constructed for 

Alignment L. Thus, approximately 14.9 miles of existing track would not require additional 

improvements. The length of rail bridges and trestle required to span floodplains and other water features 

would be approximately 10,360 feet. 

This alternative will eliminate 14 at-grade roadway crossings and the BNSF/KCS railroad crossing in 

Tupelo; The at-grade roadway crossings will include Endville Rd., Colonial Estates Rd., Trace Ave., 

Jackson St., Blair St., Jefferson St., Park St., Gloster St., Main St., Church St., Green St., Spring St., 

Elizabeth St. and the KCS crossing at Eason Blvd. 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 2 

Alternative M consists of an elevated rail viaduct within the existing railroad right-of-way, to grade 

separate the BNSF line over the at-grade road crossings through Tupelo and the KCS line. The route 

would parallel the existing track, except where modified curvature will allow trains to travel at 40 mph. 

The Alternative is approximately 2.85 miles long and would begin the elevation change east of the 

Natchez Trace Parkway and remain elevated until near the US 45 grade separation. The length of rail 

bridge will be approximately 1,200 feet minimum, but is expected to increase to approximately 7,500 feet 

based upon visual impacts from Blair Street to the KCS crossing. 

Alternative M would eliminate the BNSF/KCS interchange and 11 at-grade roadway crossings; BNSF 

(Jackson St., Blair St., Jefferson St., Park St., Gloster St., Main St., Church St., Green St., Spring St., 

Elizabeth St.) and KCS (Eason Blvd.). 

Operational Improvements (Both Proposed Alternatives) 

The amount of rail traffic through Tupelo contributes directly to the auto traffic delay and safety concerns 

at the at-grade crossing locations. A portion of the delay occurring in-town is due to the exchange of rail 

cars between BNSF and KCS. This exchange of cargo, while serving the needs of the community, blocks 

the major north-south and east-west arterial roadways. The BNSF and KCS crossing is located 

approximately 3,600 feet east of the Main Street and Gloster Street at-grade intersection (locally known 

as Crosstown). 

The proposed operational improvement would move the interchange to the southeast along the BNSF 

line. It would be located south of the Pvt. John Allen National Fish Hatchery and north of US Highway 

45. Additional three (3) rail storage tracks, turnouts and electric lock-out switches would be constructed 

along both BNSF and KCS lines for the exchange of rail cars. Roadway improvements which would also 

reduce auto traffic delay and remove potential rail and vehicular conflicts would be the grade separation 

of Eason Boulevard at both the BNSF and KCS crossings. The existing highway overpass for US 

Highway 45 would also require reconstruction to facilitate the additional storage track. 

1.1 Assessment Approach 

This analysis is based on FTA and FRA guidance documents. Following is a general outline of the 

approach used for noise & vibration analyses. 

1. Identify potential sensitive receptors: The term “sensitive receptors” normally is used to refer to 

land uses such as residences, schools, and churches. Representative locations of sensitive receptors 

were identified through a site visit to the project area and through examining aerial photographs. 

2. Determine appropriate impact thresholds: This includes the standard criteria for human exposure 

to rail related noise and vibration. 

3. Document existing conditions: Noise and vibration measurements were performed at several 

representative locations within the project area. 

4. Develop noise and vibration prediction models: The noise measurement results were used to 

develop models of train noise based on the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) document, “Transit 

Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment” (FTA report FTA-VA-90-1003-06 May 2006), referred to 

herein as the FTA Guidance Manual with input parameters including distance from the tracks to 

sensitive receptors, train speed, and average train consist and daily train volumes. The vibration 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 3 

prediction model was based on the vibration screening methodology contained in the FTA 

methodology with input parameters including, average train consist and daily train volumes, train 

speeds and adjustment factors such as, track condition, special trackwork, path and receiver 

characteristics. 

5. Predict potential impacts: The prediction models were used along with the forecasted operations 

provided by BNSF to estimate future noise and vibration levels at each sensitive receptor. 

1.2 Noise and Vibration Sources from BNSF Operations in Tupelo 

Following is a discussion of the primary noise and vibration sources from freight train operations in 

Tupelo. 

Locomotive engines: Noise from the locomotive engine is caused by the engines, cooling fans, and 

exhaust. The locomotive reference noise level used in this analysis was based on pass-by noise 

monitoring data collected in the project area. 

Wheel/rail noise: This noise is caused by the interaction of the train’s steel wheels rolling on the steel 

rails. This noise increases with speed and can be relatively low up to speeds of approximately 60 mph for 

trains operating on tangent (straight) track with wheels and rails that are in good condition. Factors that 

increase levels of wheel-rail noise are wheel squeal on tight radius curves, wheel impacts at rail joints, 

and poor condition of the wheel or rail operating surface. The currently existing and proposed tracks on 

the BNSF mainline are continuously welded rail (i.e. no rail joints) and do not operate through any tight 

corners. A portion of the KCS branchline located north of Tupelo contains jointed rail, however this area 

is located outside of the area affected by the project and is therefore not included in the noise analysis. 

Wheel/rail vibration: Vibration from trains is caused by the wheels rolling on the rails. The forces 

caused by the interaction of the wheels, rails and trackbed cause vibration in the ground that propagates 

away from the track. When there are residences 200 feet or less from the tracks, the ground vibration 

interacting with building structures will sometimes cause perceptible vibration of the floors and walls of 

living spaces or rattling of windows, items on shelves, or items hanging on walls. It is very unusual for 

train generated vibration to be sufficient to cause even minor cosmetic damage to buildings. Vibration 

levels will increase at special trackwork for switches and turnouts because of wheel impacts where two 

rails cross. Note that standard practice for BNSF is to use continuously welded rail on it’s mainline. This 

eliminates the additional vibration that can be generated by wheel impacts at rail joints. 

Train horns: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) regulations require that the lead locomotive be 

equipped with an audible warning device that generates a minimum of 96 dBA at 100 ft from the front of 

the locomotive and a maximum of 110 dBA. On freight trains, the warning device is usually a set of air 

horns mounted on the top of the lead locomotive. FRA regulations require sounding the train horn prior 

to all at-grade rail/highway crossings, otherwise the horn is used only when the locomotive engineer 

perceives that an audible warning is needed. Train horns are currently used throughout Tupelo at all atgrade roadway crossings and at the BNSF/KCS intersection at the southeast end of town. 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 4 

2. NOISE AND VIBRATION CRITERIA 

The criteria used to assess each type of potential noise and vibration impact are discussed in the following 

sections. 

2.1 Sensitive Receptors 

This category includes traditional noise sensitive receptors such as residences, schools, libraries, and 

churches. Criteria for noise and vibration impacts from federally-funded transit projects are usually based 

on criteria given in the FTA Guidance Manual. The FTA noise criteria are founded on well-documented 

research on community reaction to noise. Virtually identical noise and vibration impact criteria are 

included in the recently released Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) document “High-Speed Ground 

Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment” (October 2005). 

The FRA/FTA noise and vibration impact criteria are summarized below: 

Noise Impact 

Designed to prevent annoyance, the FTA criteria take into account (1) the startle effect on humans and 

wildlife, and (2) the noise sensitivity of different land uses. Table 1 includes a description of the three 

categories FTA used for noise-sensitive land uses and the applicable noise metric for each land use 

category. The residences in the vicinity of Tupelo, Mississippi are considered as Category 2. Outdoor 

day-night sound level (Ldn)1

 is the noise metric used by FTA criteria for Category 2 land uses. Category 

1 includes areas that have been officially designated as parks where “quiet is an essential element of their 

intended purpose.” None of the areas within the project area have been designated as such. Although 

portions of the project area include undeveloped rural landscapes, these areas were given a more sensitive 

Category 2 land use classification for purposes of this analysis. The predicted impact levels may 

therefore be considered conservative in these areas. 

The FTA noise criteria are a sliding scale as shown in Figure 1. The existing noise is shown on the 

horizontal axis and the amount of new noise created by the project is shown on the vertical axis. For 

Category 2 land uses, the left vertical axis is used and noise exposure is measured using Ldn. The right 

vertical axis is used for Category 3 land uses and noise exposure for Category 3 land uses is measured 

using hourly average sound level (Leq(h)). The basic concept of the FTA noise impact criteria is that 

more project noise is allowed to be added in areas where existing noise is higher, but that the decibel 

increase in total noise exposure (existing noise plus project noise) decreases. 2 This means that noise 

from the existing BNSF operations are part of the existing environment and affect the threshold for noise 

impact. Note that the FTA noise impact criteria are applied at the closest sensitive receptor, which 

generally means the closest sensitive human land use. 

 

1

 See Appendix A for definitions of key technical terms used in this report. 

2

 As discussed in the Appendix, noise is measured on a logarithmic scale such that the existing noise and the project 

noise in decibels cannot be added directly to one another. 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 5 

Table 1. FTA/FRA Land Use Categories and Noise Metrics 

Land Use 

Category 

Noise Metric(1)

(dBA) Description of Land Use Category 

1 Outdoor Leq(h)(2)

A tract of land where quiet is an essential element of their intended purpose. 

This includes lands set aside for serenity and quiet and such land uses as 

outdoor amphitheaters and concert pavilions, as well as National Historic 

Landmarks with significant outdoor use. 

2 Outdoor Ldn 

Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. This includes 

homes, hospitals and hotels where a nighttime sensitivity to noise is assumed 

to be of utmost importance. 

3 Outdoor Leq(h)(2)

Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening uses. This 

includes schools, libraries, and churches where it is important to avoid 

interference with such activities as speech, meditation, and concentration on 

reading material. Buildings with interior spaces where quiet is important, 

such as medical offices, conference rooms, recording studios and concert 

halls fall into this category, as well as places for meditation or study 

associated with cemeteries, monuments, museums. Certain historical sites, 

parks and recreational facilities are also included. 

(1) For certain uses other than freight trains, “onset-rate” adjusted sound levels (Leq, Ldn) are used. There is no “onset-rate” 

adjustment for freight trains. 

(2) Leq for the noisiest hour of transit-related activity during hours of noise sensitivity. 

Figure 1. FTA and FRA Noise Impact Criteria 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 6 

Vibration Impact 

The FTA/FRA vibration criteria also are designed to prevent annoyance from operations and are far 

below the damage thresholds for normal structures. The impact thresholds are based on the maximum 

RMS ground vibration caused by a typical train pass by, and are lower for frequent events than for 

infrequent events. FTA defines “frequent” service to be more than 70 vibration events per day. Because 

the BNSF trains average more than 3 locomotives and more than 70 cars per day, through Tupelo, the 

frequent criteria were applied to both the locomotives and rail cars for the project. The KCS trains which 

average 2 trains per day with typically less than 70 cars were considered to be infrequent events. 

Similar to the FTA noise criteria, the FTA vibration criteria are based on three land use categories, 

although the categories are slightly different than for noise. One important difference is that FTA did not 

include outdoor spaces in Category 3 for vibration. This is because human annoyance from ground-borne 

vibration typically requires the interaction of the ground vibration with a building structure. 

Table 2 shows FTA/FRA criteria for ground-borne vibration from rail systems. The values in Table 2 are 

in terms of decibel units termed vibration decibels with a reference unit of 1 micro-inch per second 

(VdB). 

Table 2. FTA/FRA Impact Thresholds for Ground-Borne Vibration 

Vibration Impact Levels 

(VdB re 1 μin/sec) Land Use Category Frequent 

Events (1)

Infrequent 

Events (2)

Category 1. Buildings where low ambient 

vibration is essential for interior operations. 65 65 

Category 2. Residences and buildings where 

people normally sleep. 72 80 

Category 3. Institutional land uses with 

primarily daytime use. 75 83 

Notes: 

(1) Frequent events defined as more than 70 vibration events per day. 

(2) Infrequent events defined as less than 70 events per day. 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 7 

3. EXISTING CONDITIONS 

Existing noise conditions in Tupelo were documented through a series of 24-hour continuous 

measurements performed at seven sites and short term measurements measured at two sites on May 12 

through 15, 2008. The 24-hour measurements sites were selected within the project area to be 

representative of the sensitive receptors near the existing and proposed BNSF alignments. The short term 

measurements sites were located within 50 feet of the BNSF mainline to capture the pass by noise levels 

of BNSF trains. 

3.1 24-Hour Measurement Locations 

Based on a site visit and review of aerial photographs, the noise measurements were performed at the 

seven sites labeled 1 through 7 in Figure 2. Photographs of individual measurement sites 1 through 5 are 

presented in Appendix B. 

Site 1 (337 King Street, Single-Family Residence): HDR performed a 24-Hour continuous 

measurement of noise on May 12-13, 2008 near the single-family residence located at 337 King Street 

adjacent to and north of the BNSF mainline ROW. This residence is near the at-grade crossings of 

Jefferson and Park Streets and is affected by train horn noise from north and south bound trains. 

Site 2 (330 Rankin Boulevard, Single Family Residence): HDR performed a 24-Hour continuous 

measurement of noise on May 12-13, 2008 in the back yard of the single-family residence located at 330 

Rankin Street, adjacent to and south of the BNSF mainline ROW. This residence is near the at-grade 

crossings of Jackson Street and Rankin Boulevard and is affected by train horn noise from north and 

south bound trains. 

Site 3 (130 Madison Street, Madison Arms Apartments): HDR performed a 24-Hour continuous 

measurement of noise on May 12-13, 2008 near the Madison Arms Apartments located adjacent to and 

north of the BNSF mainline ROW. The apartments are near the at-grade crossings of Church and Green 

Streets and are affected by train horn noise from north and south bound trains. 

Site 4 (Heardtown Estates, Residential Development, County Road 1740): HDR performed a 24-

Hour continuous measurement of noise on May 12-13, 2008 near the entrance to the Heardtown Estates 

Residential Development located along County Road 1740. This area is located to the north of the 

proposed Alternative L alignment. The surrounding area is rural with the primary noise sources identified 

as roadway traffic and agricultural activities. 

Site 5 (1505 Trace Avenue, Single Family Residence): HDR performed a 24-Hour continuous 

measurement of noise on May 13-14, 2008 in the side yard of the single-family residence located at 1505 

Trace Avenue, north of the BNSF mainline ROW. This residence is near the at-grade crossing of Trace 

Avenue and is affected by train horn noise from north and south bound trains. 

Site 6 (Abby Lane, Single Family Residence): HDR performed a 24-Hour continuous measurement of 

noise on May 13-14, 2008 near a single-family residence located on Abby Lane adjacent to and north of 

the BNSF mainline ROW. This residence is near the at-grade crossing of Endville Road and is affected by 

train horn noise from north and south bound trains. 

Site 7 (Hilda Avenue, Single Family Residence): HDR performed a 24-Hour continuous measurement 

of noise on May 14-15, 2008 near a single-family residence located on Hilda Avenue adjacent to and west 

of the KCS branch line and proposed BNSF Alternative L alignment. The surrounding area is primarily 

undeveloped with noise sources identified as roadway traffic and KCS train pass bys. 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 8 

Figure 2. Aerial Photograph Showing Project Area and Measurement Sites 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 9 

3.2 24-Hour Noise Measurement Results 

As discussed above, the noise monitoring consisted of continuous 24-hour measurements at seven sites in 

the Tupelo, Mississippi project area (Sites 1-7). The project team collected the 24-hour noise monitoring 

data using Larson Davis 820 sound level meters (Appendix C). Twenty-four consecutive one-hour Leq 

measurements were performed at these locations, and an Ldn was determined at each site. The results of 

the 24-hour noise measurements are summarized in Table 3. 

Table 3. 24-Hour Noise Monitoring Data 

Receptor 

ID Location 

Land Use Category/

Noise Metric 

Measured 

Ldn 

FTA 

Moderate 

Impact 

Threshold 

(Ldn) 

FTA 

Severe 

Impact 

Threshold 

(Ldn) 

Site 1 337 King Street - Residence 2/ 

Outdoor Ldn 82 66 dBA 75 dBA 

Site 2 330 Rankin Boulevard - 

Residence 

2/ 

Outdoor Ldn 83 66 dBA 75 dBA 

Site 3 130 Madison Street - 

Madison Arms Apartments 

2/ 

Outdoor Ldn 72 66 dBA 71 dBA 

Site 4 Heardtown Estates – 

Cty Road 1740 

2/ 

Outdoor Ldn 63 60 dBA 65 dBA 

Site 5 1505 Trace Avenue - 

Residence 

2/ 

Outdoor Ldn 79 66 dBA 75 dBA 

Site 6 Abby Lane - Residence 

2/ 

Outdoor Ldn 78 66 dBA 75 dBA 

Site 7 Hilda Avenue - Residence 

2/ 

Outdoor Ldn 62 59 dBA 64 dBA 

Existing noise levels exceed FTA’s moderate noise impact thresholds at all of the monitoring locations. 

Existing noise levels also exceed FTA’s severe noise impact thresholds at five of the seven monitoring 

locations. 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 10 

3.3 Short-Term Measurements 

In addition to looking at the overall noise levels, short term measurement data was collected to 

characterize the noise emissions of the freight trains. Sound Exposure Levels (SEL) were measured 

utilizing Larson Davis 824 and 812 Sound Level Meters at two locations within 50 feet of the BNSF 

mainline to characterize the noise emissions specific to the locomotives, rail cars and train horns 

(Appendix C). This data was then used in the Noise Prediction Model. An SEL is defined as a measure 

of the total acoustic energy of a noise event. It is a useful intermediate quantity for estimating Leq(h) and 

Ldn from train pass bys. 

A total of 6 train pass bys were recorded during the short-term measurements. At a distance of 50 feet 

from the tracks, the measured SEL for locomotives ranged from 86 to 90 dBA, 96 to 105 dBA for rail 

cars, and 101 to 117 dBA for train horns. 

4. NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Predicted noise levels for future operation of the two proposed Build alternatives and the no-build 

condition for the BNSF mainline through Tupelo were modeled using the measurements of noise from the 

existing rail line. As discussed in Section 3, those noise measurements consisted of seven 24-hour 

measurements and short-term measurements. The noise from the train pass bys was used to calculate the 

average noise generated by a single train. The future noise levels were then predicted at representative 

sensitive receptors based on the estimated future train volumes, consists and speeds. 

The following sections summarize the noise prediction model and the predicted levels at sensitive 

receptors. 

4.1 Noise Prediction Model Input Parameters 

As discussed in Section 2, the noise impact criteria are based on the amount of additional noise that would 

result from the proposed project. Based on the projections by BNSF and KCS that are summarized in 

Table 4, by 2030 there would be an average of an additional 16 trains per day using the BNSF mainline 

and 3 trains per day using the KCS branch line through the project area. 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 11 

Table 4. Summary of Existing and Future Train Volumes and Consists 

Existing Trains Future Trains (2030) 

Train 

service 

Average 

number of 

locomotives 

Average 

number of 

cars 

Trains per 

day 

Average 

number of 

locomotives 

Average 

number of 

cars 

Trains per 

day 

BNSF - Coal 5 135 8 6 160 13 

BNSF - Freight 3 125 16 4 150 28 

KCS - Through 2 95 1 3 110 3 

KCS - Local 1 25 1 1 25 2 

The model predicts the train noise emissions based on the train consists, volumes, train speeds, pathway 

between the noise source and receiver, and train horn use. The existing BNSF speeds throughout the 

project area vary between 20 miles per hour within downtown Tupelo to 60 mph north and south of 

Tupelo. Future train speeds on the elevated portion of the BNSF mainline under Alternative M are 

predicted to be 40 mph and 60 mph for the entire length of the Alternative L alignment. The KCS branch 

line existing and future speed within Tupelo is 20 mph. 

4.2 Model Application 

The following sections explain the development of the noise model used to evaluate future conditions in 

the project area. These sections define the study areas and discuss how the model was applied to evaluate 

future noise impacts. 

To establish background noise levels for comparison to future conditions, existing 24-hour noise levels 

were measured at several locations in the project area. Section 3.0, Existing Conditions, describes the 

monitoring locations and presents the noise monitoring results. 

The study area for the train activities was defined as the northern point of the BNSF rail corridor 

northwest of I-78 where the Alternative L alignment will re-connect with the existing BNSF mainline 

northwest of Tupelo. The southern terminus is southeast of Tupelo near the Veteran’s Boulevard 

Crossing. The entire BNSF rail corridor through Tupelo, Alternative L Alignment area, and a small 

section of KCS branch line through Tupelo were considered affected by the project because new track 

alignments and grade crossing changes will occur as part of the projected project and an increase in train 

traffic is predicted for 2030. 

The first step in the FTA noise analysis is to individually calculate a Leq(h) for locomotives, railcars, and 

locomotive horns, then combine them into an overall Leq(h) using the equations in Table 6-4 of the FTA 

manual. SEL values for locomotives and railcars used in this step were determined by collecting 

measurements of train pass-bys throughout the project area and are as follows: 92 dBA for locomotives 

and 88 dBA for railcars. The default reference SEL of 110 dBA provided in the FRA manual for 

locomotive horns was also used. All reference SELs are based on a distance of 50 feet from the source. 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 12 

The second step in the analysis is to individually calculate a daytime Leq for locomotives, railcars, and 

locomotive horns, then combine them into an overall daytime Leq. Next, the nighttime Leqs for all three 

items are also calculated independently, and summed for an overall nighttime Leq. Using the daytime 

and nighttime Leq, the Ldn at 50 feet is calculated. 

The third step in the moving train analysis is to evaluate the propagation path between source and 

receiver. The FTA manual provides calculations (FTA Table 6-5) to determine the effective path height 

and from it a ground factor for soft or acoustically absorptive groundcover using distance and elevation as 

variables. The distances between the source and receivers, the terrain features and elevations in the 

proposed project area were confirmed by evaluating digital aerial photographs using Arcview, a 

geographic information system, and plan drawings. For this analysis, the equation for calculating the 

effective source height for a source and receiver on flat ground was used throughout the corridor except in 

the area of the proposed elevated track alignment under Alternative M. Results of this analysis can be 

considered to be conservatively high in areas where the terrain between the proposed tracks and the 

nearest receptors are not completely flat. 

The fourth step in the moving train analysis evaluated the shielding of wayside or grade-crossing noise 

provided by the first and subsequent rows of buildings adjacent to the rail corridor. During the final step, 

the existing noise levels were compared to predicted future freight and passenger generated noise levels 

for the Build Alternatives to determine project related noise impacts. 

4.3 Predicted Noise Impacts 

4.3.1 No Build 

Train volumes are predicted to increase to approximately 40 trains per day on the BNSF mainline through 

Tupleo and to approximately 4 trains on the KCS branch line by the build year of 2030. The No-Build 

Alternative was modeled using the projected train traffic data, with train consist information as shown in 

Table 4, to determine distances to the wayside noise impact contours and to the grade-crossing noise 

impact contours where train horns are used. Figures 3A-E present the noise impact contours for the NoBuild condition. 

Four hundred fourteen (414) noise impacts, 128 of which are classified as severe were identified under 

the No Build Alternative. Table 5 summarizes the number of impacts by project area location. 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 13 

Figure 3 A-E. No-Build Noise Impact Contours 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 14 

B. 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 15 

C. 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 16 

D. 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 17 

E.
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 18 

4.3.2 Alternative M (Elevated BNSF Mainline) 

Alternative M was modeled using train traffic projected for the Build year of 2030 to determine distances 

to the wayside noise impact contours and to the grade-crossing contours where train horns are used. 

Figures 4A-E present the contours for Alternative M. Under Alternative M, the mainline will be elevated 

and grade separated through downtown Tupelo eliminating 11 grade crossings and the BNSF/KCS 

interchange causing a decrease in predicted Ldn levels and impacted receivers when compared to the NoBuild condition due to a decrease in train horn use. 

Three hundred eighty-five (385) noise impacts, 76 of which are classified as Severe, were identified for 

Alternative M. Table 5 summarizes the number of noise impacts by project area location. 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 19 

Figure 4 A-E. Alternative M Noise Impact Contours 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 20 

B. 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 21 

C. 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 22 

D. 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 23 

E. 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 24 

4.3.3 Alternative L 

Alternative L was modeled using train traffic projected for the Build year of 2030 to determine distances 

to the wayside noise impact contours and to the grade-crossing contours where train horns are used. 

Figures 5A-E present the contours for Alternative L. Under Alternative L, the mainline will be relocated 

to the east and north of Tupelo eliminating the mainline track, 14 grade crossings and the BNSF/KCS 

interchange in the town of Tupelo. 

Two hundred twenty-two (222) noise impacts, 22 of which are classified as Severe, were identified for 

Alternative L. Table 5 summarizes the number of noise impacts by project area location. 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 25 

Figure 5 A-E. Alternative L Noise Impact Contours 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 26 

B. 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 27 

C. 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 28 

D. 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 29 

E. 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 30 

Table 5. Summary of FTA Land Use Noise Impacts Predicted for No Build and Build Alternatives 

Alternative 

Predicted 

 Moderate 

Noise Impacts (as defined 

by FTA) 

Predicted 

 Severe Noise Impacts (as 

defined by FTA) 

Total 

Impacts 

Total 

Benefits 

No-Build 286 128 414 -- 

Alternative 

M 309 76 385 29** 

Alternative 

L 222 22 244 170 

**Does not account for 23 reductions from severe to moderate. 

Analysis results show that predicted noise levels associated with Alternative M reach FTA’s severe noise 

impact threshold at 52 fewer receptors than are predicted to occur under the No-Build Alternative. This is 

a net benefit associated with Alternative M. Analysis results also show an increase in the total number of 

moderate noise impacts under Alternative M vs. the No-Build alternative. However under this 

alternative, predicted noise impacts at 23 noise-sensitive receptors change from severe to moderate noise 

impacts (as defined by FTA). This is a benefit associated with Alternative M that a simple comparison of 

overall predicted noise impacts may not otherwise communicate. The noise-sensitive receptors predicted 

to experience noise impacts associated with Alternative M are also predicted to experience train noise 

levels that exceed FTA impact thresholds under the No-Build Alternative. 

Analysis results show that predicted noise levels associated with Alternative L reach FTA’s severe noise 

impact threshold at 64 fewer receptors than are predicted to occur under the No-Build Alternative. This is 

a net benefit associated with Alternative L. Analysis results also show a decrease in the total number of 

moderate noise impacts under Alternative L vs. the No-Build alternative. Finally, analysis results show a 

net benefit (reduction in the number of predicted noise impacts) at 170 receptors associated with 

Alternative L. Most of the noise-sensitive receptors predicted to experience noise impacts associated with 

Alternative L are not predicted to experience train noise levels that exceed FTA impact thresholds under 

the No-Build Alternative. In this regard, Alternative L displaces or relocates most of the noise impacts to 

areas that currently are not affected by train noise. 

5. VIBRATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

To estimate potential vibration effects from the future No-Build and Build alternatives, HDR applied the 

FTA General Vibration Assessment methodology to develop a prediction curve of vibration velocity as a 

function of distance from the tracks. This curve was used to estimate future vibration levels at each 

vibration sensitive receptor that were compared to vibration impact thresholds discussed in Section 2. 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 31 

5.1 Vibration Prediction Model 

The vibration analysis study area utilized the same area defined for the noise analysis. Vibration impacts 

are determined based on train speed and average number of vibration events during single train pass-bys, 

therefore distances to Category 2 impacts changed where track realignments and upgrades are proposed as 

well as where the predicted speed and number of events changed. These areas include the existing BNSF 

mainline and the proposed alignment under Alternative L. 

The General Vibration Assessment uses generalized data to develop a curve of vibration levels as a 

function of distance from the track. The vibration levels at specific buildings are estimated by reading 

values from the curve and applying adjustments to account for factors such as track support system, 

vehicle speed, type of building, and track and wheel condition. 

The first step in a general vibration assessment is the selection of an appropriate base curve for use in 

estimating project-related vibration emission levels. Figure 6 (Figure 10-1 in the FTA manual) shows the 

base curve options. Locomotives and railcars have different vibration emission characteristics. Diesel 

locomotives are typically much heavier than railcars, and therefore have greater potential to generate 

ground-borne vibration than railcars do. This information is used to identify the appropriate vibration 

emissions curve in Figure 12. The upper curve (Locomotive Powered Passenger or Freight) is 

representative of locomotive-induced ground-borne vibration in the project area. For the purposes of this 

assessment, the middle curve (Rapid Transit or Light Rail Vehicles) is considered representative of 

railcar-induced, ground-borne vibration in the project area. 

Source: FTA, 2006. 

Figure 6. Generalized Ground Surface Vibration Curves 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 32 

Once the base curve has been selected, adjustments are used to develop vibration projections for specific 

receiver positions. The adjustment parameters include speed, wheel and rail type and condition, type of 

track support system, type of building foundation, geologic conditions and number of floors above the 

basement level. The full list of adjustment parameters is contained in Table 10-1of the FTA manual. 

The adjustments for the BNSF mainline under the existing conditions, No-Build, and Build Alternatives 

were considered identical. However, train speeds varied throughout the project area and therefore the 

General Vibration Assessment applies lower adjustments to the slower train movements. In addition to 

the adjustment for train speed, HDR applied a conservative adjustment for ground-borne propagation 

effects to account for efficient propagation of the vibration from the source to the receptors throughout the 

project area. This adjustment adds 10 VdB to each of the vibration projections. 

Because the adjusted vibration level for the locomotives is more than 10 VdB greater than the vibration 

level for the railcars, the railcar component of the vibration has been eliminated from further discussion. 

As stated in Section 2.1 above, approximately 40 trains are predicted to travel through Tupelo on the 

BNSF mainline each day and 4 trains on the KCS branch line daily in 2030. This frequency of trains 

leads to the following ground-borne vibration impact criteria (Table 6): 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 33 

Table 6. Project Specific Vibration Impact Thresholds 

Location Category Land Use Events Classification Vibration Impact 

Threshold (VdB) 

BNSF Mainline Category 2 Frequent 72 

KCS Branchline Category 2 Infrequent 80 

Operational Track Category 3 Infrequent 83 

The difference between the adjusted vibration level at the screening distance and the impact threshold was 

then used to determine the distance to the impact contour line. By extending the base curve in Figure 6 

(FTA’s Figure 10-1) the distance to the vibration impact contour line for Category 2 land uses was 

determined to range from 60 to 170 feet from the BNSF mainline (mainly due to the range of operating 

speeds), and 76 feet from the KCS Branch Line. For Category 3 land uses near the proposed operational 

connection between the BNSF and KCS the vibration contour was determined to be 110 feet from the 

track connection centerline. 

This vibration impact contours were overlaid upon a digital aerial photograph of the project areas using 

Geographic Information System (GIS) technologies. The number of residences inside the vibration 

contour was determined. 

5.2 Predicted Vibration Impacts 

5.2.1 No-Build 

Twenty-eight (28) vibration impacts were identified under the No-Build Alternative. Table 7 summarizes 

the number of vibration impacts by location. 

Figures 7A and 7B present vibration impact contours for the No-Build Alternative. 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 34 

Figure 7 A-B. No-Build Vibration Impact Contour 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 35 

B.
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 36 

5.2.2 Alternative M 

Forty-six (46) vibration impacts were identified under Alternative M. Table 7 summarizes the number of 

vibration impacts by location. 

Figures 8A and 8B present vibration impact contours for Alternative M. 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 37 

Figure 8 A-B. Alternative M – Vibration Impact Contours 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 38 

B.
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 39 

5.2.3 Alternative L 

One vibration impacts were identified under Alternative L. Table 7 summarizes the number of vibration 

impacts by location. 

Figures 9A and 9B present vibration impact contours for Alternative L. 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 40 

Figure 9 A-B. Alternative L Vibration Impact Contours 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 41 

B. 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 42 

Table 7. Summary of FTA Land Use Vibration Impacts Predicted for No Build and Build 

Alternatives 

Alternative Predicted Category 2 

Vibration Impacts 

Predicted Category 3 

Vibration Impacts 

Operational Connection 

between BNSF & KCS 

No-Build 28 NA1

Alternative M 46 0 

Alternative L 1 0 

1. Not applicable. 

Analysis results show that predicted vibration velocity levels associated with Alternative M reach FTA’s 

vibration impact threshold at 18 additional receptors than are predicted to occur under the No-Build 

Alternative. The increase in the number of predicted vibration impacts is due to the increase in train 

speed, from 20 mph to 40 mph. 

Analysis results also show that predicted vibration velocity levels associated with Alternative L reach 

FTA’s vibration impact threshold at 1 receptor. The predicted impact exists immediately adjacent to the 

BNSF-KCS intersection, and also occurs under Alternative M. 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 43 

APPENDIX A. FUNDAMENTALS OF NOISE AND VIBRATION 

Fundamentals of Noise 

Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air. Noise 

is generally defined as unwanted or excessive sound. Sound can vary in intensity by over one million 

times within the range of human hearing. Therefore, a logarithmic scale, known as the decibel scale (dB), 

is used to quantify sound intensity and to compress the scale to a more manageable range.

Sound is characterized by both its amplitude and frequency (or pitch). The human ear does not hear all 

frequencies equally. In particular, the ear deemphasizes low and very high frequencies. To better 

approximate the sensitivity of human hearing, the A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) has been developed. 

On this scale, the human range of hearing extends from approximately 3 dBA to around 140 dBA. Figure 

10 shows a range of typical noise levels from common indoor and outdoor activities. 

Using the decibel scale, sound levels from two or more sources cannot be directly added together to 

determine the overall sound level. Rather, the combination of two sounds at the same level yields an 

increase of 3 dB. The smallest recognizable change in sound level is approximately 1 dB. A 3-dB 

increase in the A-weighted sound level is generally considered noticeable, whereas a 5-dB increase is 

readily noticeable. A 10-dB increase is judged by most people as an approximate doubling of the 

perceived loudness. 

The two primary factors that reduce levels of environmental sounds are increasing the distance between 

the sound source and the receiver and having intervening obstacles such as walls, buildings, or terrain 

features that block the direct path between the sound source and the receiver. Factors that act to make 

environmental sounds louder include moving the sound source closer to the receiver, sound enhancements 

caused by reflections, and focusing caused by various meteorological conditions. 

Below are brief definitions of the measurements and other terminology used in this report: 

• Root Mean Square (RMS): The average of the squared amplitude of the vibration signal. The 

amplitudes of sound are almost always given in terms of the RMS sound level. 

• Equivalent Sound Level (Leq): Environmental sound fluctuates constantly. The equivalent sound 

level (Leq), sometimes referred to as the energy average sound level, is the most common means of 

characterizing community noise. Leq represents a constant sound that, over the specified period, has 

the same sound energy as the time-varying sound. 

• Maximum Sound Level (Lmax): Lmax is the maximum sound level over the measurement period. 

Sound level meters usually have a selector for measuring sound with either the fast or slow meter 

setting, which represent time constants of 0.25 and 1 second respectively. Lmax measured using the 

fast meter setting will typically be 1 to 3 decibels higher than when measured using the slow meter 

setting. If not stated, the term Lmax is usually taken to indicate the fast sound level meter setting. 

• Sound Exposure Level (SEL): SEL describes a receiver’s cumulative noise exposure from a single 

noise event. It is represented by the total A-weighted sound energy during the event, normalized to a 

one-second interval. SEL is used in the FRA manual on high-speed train noise to define thresholds 

for noise impact on wildlife. It is also a useful intermediate quantity for estimating Ldn from train 

pass bys. 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 44 

• Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn): Ldn is basically a 24-hour Leq with an adjustment to reflect the 

greater sensitivity of most people to nighttime noise. The adjustment is a 10-dB penalty for all sound 

that occurs between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. The effect of the penalty is that, when 

calculating Ldn, any event that occurs during the nighttime is equivalent to 10 of the same event 

during the daytime. Ldn is the most common measure of total community noise over a 24-hour 

period and is used by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to evaluate residential noise impacts 

from proposed transit projects. 

Figure 10. Graph of Typical Indoor & Outdoor Noise Sources and Levels 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 45 

Fundamentals of Vibration 

Vibration is an oscillatory motion that can be described in terms of displacement, velocity, or 

acceleration. The response of humans to vibration is very complex. However, the general consensus is 

that for the vibration frequencies generated by sources such as rail trains, human response is best 

approximated by the vibration velocity level. Therefore, vibration velocity has been used in this study to 

describe train-generated vibration levels. 

Train-generated vibration, which is caused by the interaction of the wheels and rails, may be perceived by 

building occupants as perceptible vibration. It is also common for ground-borne vibration to cause 

windows, pictures on walls, or items on shelves to rattle. Although the perceived vibration from train 

pass bys can be intrusive to building occupants, the vibration is almost never of sufficient magnitude to 

cause even minor cosmetic damage to buildings. 

When evaluating human response, ground-borne vibration is usually expressed in terms of root mean 

square (RMS) vibration velocity. RMS is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the vibration 

signal. 

Figure 11 shows typical vibration levels from rail and non-rail sources as well as the human and structure 

response to such levels. The threshold of perception for most people is around 65 VdB. Vibration levels 

below 72 VdB are often noticeable but acceptable and levels in excess of 80 VdB are often considered 

unacceptable. 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 46 

 Source: FTA, 2006

Figure 11. Typical Vibration Levels 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 47 

 APPENDIX B. PHOTOS OF 24-HOUR SOUND MEASUREMENT SITES 

SITE 1. 337 KING STREET 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 48 

SITE 2. 330 RANKIN BOULEVARD 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 49 

SITE 3. MADISON ARMS APARTMENTS, 130 MADISON AVENUE 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 50 

SITE 4. HEARDTOWN ESTATES, COUNTY ROAD 1740 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 51 

SITE 5. 1505 TRACE AVENUE 
DRAFT: Noise and Vibration Study, Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project

June 20, 2008 

Page 52 

APPENDIX C. MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES AND EQUIPMENT 

The noise measurements discussed in this report were all performed with measurement equipment that is 

in conformance with ANSI S1.4-1983 Type 1, ANSI S1.43-1997 Type 1, IEC 60651 type 1, IEC 60804 

type 1 and IEC 61672-1, class 1. An acoustic calibrator was used to check the instrument calibrations 

immediately before and after each noise measurement. 

HDR used Larson Davis 820 sound level meters to record the 24-Hour continuous measurements at the 

seven sites that represent the project area. At the completion of each measurement, the data was 

downloaded, converted to a text file and imported to an Excel spreadsheet for analysis. 

The short-term noise measurements were performed using Larson Davis 824 and 812 sound level meters. 

Sound Exposure levels were measured during train pass bys. 
 

 

F

F-1 

APPENDIX F – Draft Historic Resources Memorandum of 

Agreement 
******REVISED DRAFT (02-2012)****** 

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT 

Among the Federal Railroad Administration, 

Mississippi Transportation Commission/Mississippi Department of Transportation, 

The Chickasaw Nation, 

Mississippi Department of Archives and History, 

City of Tupelo, Mississippi, 

and the Tupelo Historic Preservation Commission, 

Regarding Mitigation of Impacts to Historic Resources 

Associated with the Proposed Tupelo Railroad Relocation Study 

City of Tupelo, Lee County, Mississippi 

WHEREAS, the Mississippi Transportation Commission/Mississippi Department of 

Transportation (hereinafter MDOT) is proposing the relocation of the existing BNSF 

Railway Company (hereinafter BNSF) main line through the Tupelo, Lee County, 

Mississippi central business district (Undertaking); and 

WHEREAS, as the project sponsor, MDOT is seeking approval for the Undertaking 

from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and accordingly, FRA is the lead 

federal agency pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, codified at 42 

USC4312 et seq.) and is the federal agency responsible for compliance with Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act, and hereinafter 16 U.S.C. 470f (Section 106); 

and 

WHEREAS, FRA and MDOT, along with the Chickasaw Nation, “a federally 

recognized and sovereign Indian Nation” (Chickasaw), Mississippi Department of 

Archives and History (SHPO), the City of Tupelo (Tupelo), and the Tupelo Historic 

Preservation Commission (THPC), as a result of the consultation process in accordance 

with Section 106, have determined that it is appropriate to enter into this Memorandum of 

Agreement, pursuant to Section 800.6 of the regulations implementing Section 106 (36 

CFR Part 800, and hereinafter Section 106 Regulations), which will govern the 

implementation of the Undertaking and satisfy FRA’s compliance with Section 106; and 

WHEREAS, FRA has coordinated its compliance with Section 106 Regulations and 

NEPA, pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8 though the preparation of an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) for the Undertaking; and 

WHEREAS, through the process of preparing the EIS, FRA has determined that the 

Build Alternative will have an adverse effect on National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP) listed and eligible historic properties qualifying for protection under Section 

106. These properties are identified in Table 4-6 of the EIS and are mapped in Figure 4-6 

of the EIS (annexed as Appendix A); and 
WHEREAS, through the consultation process, FRA, the Chickasaw, MDOT, SHPO, 

City of Tupelo, and THPC have reviewed the undertakings to consider feasible and 

prudent alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, to avoid or satisfactorily mitigate 

adverse effects; and 

WHEREAS, the BNSF, who has jurisdiction over the management and operation of the 

existing main line through the City of Tupelo, has been notified of the adverse effect 

finding pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8 and elected to participate through submission of a 

Letter of Support (annexed as Appendix B); and 

WHEREAS, Signatory or Concurring Party status is achieved only through signing this 

MOA. 

NOW, THEREFORE, FRA, the Chickasaw, MDOT, SHPO, City of Tupelo, and THPC 

agree that if the Undertaking proceeds, the Undertaking shall be implemented in 

accordance with the following stipulations in order to take into account the effect of the 

Undertaking on historic properties, and further agree that these stipulations shall govern 

the Undertaking and all of its parts until this MOA expires or is terminated.

STIPULATIONS 

FRA shall ensure that the following measures are implemented: 

1. APPLICABILITY 

1.1 This MOA applies to areas of concern within the Build Alternative as described 

by the Chickasaw Nation and NRHP-listed and eligible historic properties listed in 

the EIS and determined to be adversely effected by The Build Alternative. 

1.2 The Build Alternative consists of elevating the existing BNSF mainline railroad 

on bridge or fill structure for approximately 2.8 miles within the BNSF’s current legal 

Right-of-Way (ROW) as described in more detail in the EIS. 

2. MITIGATION 

To mitigate impacts to historic properties, the below listed parties commit to use the 

following mitigation measures: 

2.1. FRA, MDOT, City of Tupelo, and THPC commit to use plantings and 

landscaping aimed at softening the appearance of the elevated railroad and 

providing a buffer to the surrounding viewscape. 

2.1.1.Plantings and other landscaping choices will be determined by a committee 

including but not limited to representatives of the FRA, MDOT, City of Tupelo, 

THPC, SHPO, and affected city neighborhood associations (Downtown, Joyner, 
and Gravlee). Only those considerations that receive a vote by at least fifty 

percent of the committee membership will be recommended for use. 

2.1.2.Plantings and other landscaping will be located at the outer edges of or 

immediately adjacent to the BNSF ROW, require BNSF review and approval for 

use, and be maintained by the City of Tupelo. 

2.2. FRA, MDOT, City of Tupelo, and THPC commit to eliminate proposed ROW 

fencing and maintenance service roads, where possible, during the design phase 

of the project, and to construct a pedestrian/multi-use trail within the outside 20 

feet of the BNSF ROW. 

2.2.1.Allowance of this pedestrian/multi-use trail will be subject to execution of a 

BNSF 30-day Cancellation License and procurement of required insurances and 

indemnifications by the project sponsor. 

2.2.2.The pedestrian/multi-use trail must provide an adequate, physical barrier 

between it and operating railroad and railroad structure for the length of the trail 

on BNSF ROW. Vegetation such as a row of hedges or decorative fencing is 

acceptable. 

2.3. FRA, MDOT, and the City of Tupelo shall commit to the incorporation of 

context sensitive design elements including but not limited to masonry walls, 

special lighting, long bridge spans, and brick paver treatments. All items relating 

to safety and structure are subject to FRA and BNSF approval prior to 

implementation. To fully achieve this, FRA, MDOT, and the City of Tupelo, 

shall utilize face-to-face meetings with residents adjacent to the project corridor 

(in this case affected citizens/citizen groups (e.g. THPC, Oren Dunn Museum, 

and city neighborhood associations [Downtown, Joyner, and Gravlee]) to 

generate ideas on how best to integrate the railroad and railroad structure into the 

fabric and character of the project area. The format of and venue for these 

meetings will be determined at a later date. 

2.4. FRA, MDOT, and the City of Tupelo shall commit to remove the existing sign in 

the form of an arrow, pointing to the Tupelo Business District and referring to 

Tupelo as the “First TVA City,” to temporary storage during construction, and 

return it to its present location when construction is complete. 

2.4.1.Since the TVA sign has been recently designated a local landmark by the 

THPC, FRA, MDOT, and the City of Tupelo will submit a scope of work 

detailing the removal, temporary storage, and reinstallation of the TVA sign to the 

THPC for review. 

2.4.2.Upon receipt of the draft of the scope, the THPC will have 60 calendar days 

from receipt to review and provide comments to FRA, MDOT, and the City of 

Tupelo. All comments shall be in writing with copies provided to the other 
consulting parties if requested. Lack of response within this review period will be 

taken as concurrence with the plan. 

2.4.3. If revisions to the scope are required, FRA, MDOT, and the City of Tupelo 

have 20 calendar days from receipt to review the revisions and submit a revised 

scope to the THPC. 

2.4.4.Once the scope is determined adequate by the THPC (with SHPO 

concurrence), the THPC shall issue a Certificate of Appropriateness to proceed 

with implementation of the scope. 

2.5. MDOT, in consultation with the City of Tupelo, the THPC, SHPO, and city 

neighborhood associations [Downtown, Joyner, and Gravlee]), shall fund an 

intensive architectural field survey and inventory of the Gravlee and Joyner 

neighborhoods, located within the incorporated limits of Tupelo, Mississippi. 

2.6. MDOT, in consultation with the City of Tupelo, the THPC, SHPO, and city 

neighborhood associations [Downtown, Joyner, and Gravlee]), shall design and 

erect interpretive public displays (signs), which will depict the City of Tupelo’s 

railroad history and be distributed in appropriate areas throughout the project 

area. 

2.7. FRA and MDOT, in consultation with the City of Tupelo and the SHPO, shall 

sponsor/fund a workshop/training session for the THPC in state and federal 

historical and archaeological preservation laws and regulations to assist the City 

of Tupelo and the THPC in promoting historic preservation at the “grass roots” 

level through existing Certified Local Government and Preserve America 

Community programs. These training sessions will also outline the responsibility 

of Federal agencies to consult with any Indian tribe that attaches religious and 

cultural significance to historic properties that may be affected by an undertaking 

in accordance with Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's (ACHP's) 

regulations, "Protection of Historic Properties" (36 CFR Part 800), implementing 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The regulations 

remind Federal agencies they should be respectful of tribal sovereignty in 

conducting consultation and must recognize the government-to-government 

relationship that exists between the Federal Government and federally recognized 

Indian tribes. 

2.8. FRA and MDOT shall ensure that any and all proposed ground disturbing 

activities associated with construction of the project will be monitored by 

professional archaeologists, qualified in accordance with the Secretary of the 

Interior’s “Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation,” 

and the guidelines for archeological fieldwork and report writing in Standards 

and Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations and Reports in Mississippi 

(2001) and MDOT’s Guidelines for Contractors on Archaeological 

Investigations and Reports (2007).
2.9. Pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.11(a), and prior to initiation of construction activities, 

FRA and MDOT shall ensure a plan of action is in place should archaeological 

resources be inadvertently or accidentally discovered during the construction 

phase of the project. In the event of a discovery, all construction or demolition 

activities will cease in the area of the discovery and consulting parties notified to 

provide for an assessment of the significance of the discovery and for data 

recovery/mitigation if necessary. If judged necessary, the FRA and MDOT will 

develop a treatment plan for historic properties which shall be reviewed and 

approved by the SHPO and the Chickasaw. 

2.10. Human remains are not expected to be discovered during this undertaking. 

However, prior to initiation of construction activities, FRA and MDOT shall 

ensure a plan of action is in place if they are encountered during implementation 

of the project. Should human remains be discovered, all activity in the vicinity 

of the discovery shall cease and the FRA and MDOT notified immediately. The 

FRA and MDOT shall then notify the SHPO and the Mississippi Band of 

Choctaw Indians, the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, the Chickasaw, the Jena 

Band of Choctaw Indians, the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma, the Tunica-Biloxi 

Tribe of Louisiana, and the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas. The treatment of 

human remains shall follow the guidelines in the ACHP’s “Policy Statement 

Regarding Treatment of Burial Sites, Human Remains, and Funerary Objects” 

published February 23, 2007. Additionally, the treatment of human remains shall 

follow the guidelines developed in accordance with Mississippi Code (hereinafter 

MC) §39-7-31, “The Antiquities Law of Mississippi” (1972, amended 1983) and 

§97-29-19, “Crimes against Public Morals and Decency.” 

3. SUBMITTALS 

3.1. Intensive Architectural Field Survey/Inventory of the Gravlee and Joyner 

Neighborhoods

3.1.1. MDOT, in consultation with the City of Tupelo, the THPC, SHPO, and 

city neighborhood associations [Downtown, Joyner, and Gravlee]), shall 

fund the inspection and documentation of all resources within these 

neighborhoods meeting the 50-year age guidelines for inclusion in the 

NRHP that fell outside the scope of the cultural resources survey 

conducted in association the DEIS (see the report Cultural Resources 

Investigations for the Tupelo Railroad Relocation Study [2009] by 

Brockington and Associates, Inc. [Brockington]).

3.1.2. All resources documented as part of this architectural survey shall be 

photographed and accompanied by notes as to the design, character 

defining features or any other architecturally significant components. 

Resource documentation should be done on approved SHPO forms and 

comply with SHPO survey guidelines (annexed as Appendix C). 
3.1.3. Historical information about the resources shall be gleaned from tax 

assessor’s records, real estate plats, and property owners when available. 

In addition, archived cartography, such as Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, 

as well as historic aerial photography, historic topographic and soil survey 

maps at the Natural Resources Conservation Service shall be consulted. 

3.1.4. The draft architectural survey report, summarizing the results and SHPO 

Historic Resources Inventory Forms, shall be submitted to FRA, MDOT, 

the SHPO, City of Tupelo, and the THPC for review and comment. 

3.1.5. The SHPO, City of Tupelo, and the THPC shall provide FRA and the 

MDOT review comments no later than 60 days after receipt of the draft 

architectural survey report. 

3.1.6. FRA and the MDOT shall take into consideration SHPO, City of Tupelo, 

and the THPC comments during preparation of the final architectural 

survey report. 

3.1.7. FRA and the MDOT shall provide the SHPO with the final report as well 

as final SHPO Historic Resources Inventory Forms upon completion of 

the study. Additional architectural survey reports will be made available 

to the City of Tupelo, THPC, and interested individuals and organizations 

such as libraries, historical societies, and museums. 

3.2 Interpretative Public Displays 

3.2.0 FRA and MDOT shall consult with the SHPO, the Chickasaw, the City of 

Tupelo, the THPC, and city neighborhood associations [Historic Mill 

Village, Downtown, Joyner, and Gravlee]) to identify appropriate sites for 

interpretive public displays (signs) and to determine the content of the 

displays. 

3.2.1 FRA and MDOT shall notify the SHPO, the Chickasaw, the City of 

Tupelo, THPC, and city neighborhood associations [Historic Mill Village, 

Downtown, Joyner, and Gravlee]) in writing regarding the content and 

completion of the display designs. 

3.2.2 The SHPO, the Chickasaw, the City of Tupelo, the THPC, and city 

neighborhood associations [Historic Mill Village, Downtown, Joyner, and 

Gravlee]) shall provide FRA and MDOT with review comments no later 

than 60 days after receipt of the notification letter described above 

(Section 3.2.1). 
3.2.3 FRA and the MDOT shall take into consideration SHPO, Chickasaw, City 

of Tupelo, THPC, and city neighborhood associations [Historic Mill 

Village, Downtown, Joyner, and Gravlee]) comments prior to fabrication 

and installation of the interpretive displays. 

4. PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS 

All work pursuant to this MOA requiring such oversight shall be prepared using 

documents developed by or with the assistance of a person or persons meeting the 

minimum professional qualifications for Historic Architect, Architectural Historian or 

Historian included in “Secretary of the Interior’s Historic Preservation Professional 

Qualification Standards” (Federal Register Vol. 62, No.119, pp. 33719). 

5. AMENDMENT 

The FRA, the Chickasaw, MDOT, SHPO, City of Tupelo, and THPC may request that 

this MOA be amended, whereupon they shall consult in accordance with 36 CFR Part 

800 to consider such amendment. No amendment shall take effect until it has been 

executed by the signatories to this MOA. 

6. TERMINATION 

The FRA, the Chickasaw, MDOT, SHPO, City of Tupelo, or THPC may propose to 

terminate this MOA by providing 30-calendar days notice to the other signatories 

explaining the reasons for the proposed termination. The parties shall consult during this 

period to seek agreement on amendments or other actions that shall avoid termination. 

7. DURATION 

This MOA shall become effective upon execution by FRA, MDOT, and SHPO and shall 

remain in effect until all terms of this MOA have been satisfactorily fulfilled. In the 

event that any obligation under the MOA cannot be performed, the FRA agrees to use its 

best efforts to renegotiate the provision, and if necessary, to initiate consultation 

regarding development of an amendment to this MOA. 

EXECUTION AND IMPLEMENTATION of this MOA evidences that FRA has 

consulted with the Chickasaw, MDOT, SHPO, City of Tupelo, and THPC on this 

Undertaking and its effects on historic properties, made assurances regarding and then to 

the extent possible mitigated the determined adverse effects of the undertaking on historic 

properties, and, therefore, satisfied its Section 106 responsibilities. All provisions and 

stipulations stated in this MOA shall not be executed and implemented until a Record of 

Decisions (ROD) has been signed by FRA.
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT 

Among the Federal Railroad Administration, 

Mississippi Transportation Commission/Mississippi Department of Transportation, 

The Chickasaw Nation, 

Mississippi Department of Archives and History, 

City of Tupelo, Mississippi, 

and the Tupelo Historic Preservation Commission, 

Regarding Mitigation of Impacts to Historic Resources 

Associated with the Proposed Tupelo Railroad Relocation Study 

City of Tupelo, Lee County, Mississippi 

Submitted to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.6(a) 

Execution of this MOA by FRA, the MDOT, the Chickasaw Nation, SHPO, City of 

Tupelo, and the THPC and implementation of its terms evidences that the FRA will 

ensure the aforementioned stipulations are carried forth in order to mitigate the effects of 

the undertaking upon NRHP- listed and eligible historic properties qualifying for 

protection under Section 106. 

THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION 

By: ____________________________________________ Date: ____________ 

 (Name, Title) 
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT 

Among the Federal Railroad Administration, 

Mississippi Transportation Commission/Mississippi Department of Transportation, 

The Chickasaw Nation, 

Mississippi Department of Archives and History, 

City of Tupelo, Mississippi, 

and the Tupelo Historic Preservation Commission, 

Regarding Mitigation of Impacts to Historic Resources 

Associated with the Proposed Tupelo Railroad Relocation Study 

City of Tupelo, Lee County, Mississippi 

Submitted to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.6(a) 

Execution of this MOA by FRA, the MDOT, the Chickasaw Nation, SHPO, City of 

Tupelo, and the THPC and implementation of its terms evidences that the FRA will 

ensure the aforementioned stipulations are carried forth in order to mitigate the effects of 

the undertaking upon NRHP- listed and eligible historic properties qualifying for 

protection under Section 106. 

MISSISSIPPI STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER 

By: ____________________________________________ Date: ____________ 

 H.T. Holmes, State Historic Preservation Officer 
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT 

Among the Federal Railroad Administration, 

Mississippi Transportation Commission/Mississippi Department of Transportation, 

The Chickasaw Nation, 

Mississippi Department of Archives and History, 

City of Tupelo, Mississippi, 

and the Tupelo Historic Preservation Commission, 

Regarding Mitigation of Impacts to Historic Resources 

Associated with the Proposed Tupelo Railroad Relocation Study 

City of Tupelo, Lee County, Mississippi 

Submitted to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.6(a) 

Execution of this MOA by FRA, the MDOT, the Chickasaw Nation, SHPO, City of 

Tupelo, and the THPC and implementation of its terms evidences that the FRA will 

ensure the aforementioned stipulations are carried forth in order to mitigate the effects of 

the undertaking upon NRHP- listed and eligible historic properties qualifying for 

protection under Section 106. 

CHICKASAW NATION 

By:______________________________________________Date:_________________ 

Governor Bill Anoatubby, Chickasaw Nation 

“Nothing contained in this agreement shall be construed to waive the sovereign rights of 

the Chickasaw Nation, its officers, employees or agents.” 
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT 

Among the Federal Railroad Administration, 

Mississippi Transportation Commission/Mississippi Department of Transportation, 

The Chickasaw Nation, 

Mississippi Department of Archives and History, 

City of Tupelo, Mississippi, 

and the Tupelo Historic Preservation Commission, 

Regarding Mitigation of Impacts to Historic Resources 

Associated with the Proposed Tupelo Railroad Relocation Study 

City of Tupelo, Lee County, Mississippi 

Submitted to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.6(a) 

Execution of this MOA by FRA, the MDOT, the Chickasaw Nation, SHPO, City of 

Tupelo, and the THPC and implementation of its terms evidences that the FRA will 

ensure the aforementioned stipulations are carried forth in order to mitigate the effects of 

the undertaking upon NRHP- listed and eligible historic properties qualifying for 

protection under Section 106. 

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

By: ____________________________________________ Date: ____________ 

 Executive Director 
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT 

Among the Federal Railroad Administration, 

Mississippi Transportation Commission/Mississippi Department of Transportation, 

The Chickasaw Nation, 

Mississippi Department of Archives and History, 

City of Tupelo, Mississippi, 

and the Tupelo Historic Preservation Commission, 

Regarding Mitigation of Impacts to Historic Resources 

Associated with the Proposed Tupelo Railroad Relocation Study 

City of Tupelo, Lee County, Mississippi 

Submitted to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.6(a) 

Execution of this MOA by FRA, the MDOT, the Chickasaw Nation, SHPO, City of 

Tupelo, and the THPC and implementation of its terms evidences that the FRA will 

ensure the aforementioned stipulations are carried forth in order to mitigate the effects of 

the undertaking upon NRHP- listed and eligible historic properties qualifying for 

protection under Section 106. 

CITY OF TUPELO 

By: _____________________________________________ Date: ____________ 

 (Name, Title) 
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT 

Among the Federal Railroad Administration, 

Mississippi Transportation Commission/Mississippi Department of Transportation, 

The Chickasaw Nation, 

Mississippi Department of Archives and History, 

City of Tupelo, Mississippi, 

and the Tupelo Historic Preservation Commission, 

Regarding Mitigation of Impacts to Historic Resources 

Associated with the Proposed Tupelo Railroad Relocation Study 

City of Tupelo, Lee County, Mississippi 

Submitted to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.6(a) 

Execution of this MOA by FRA, the MDOT, the Chickasaw Nation, SHPO, City of 

Tupelo, and the THPC and implementation of its terms evidences that the FRA will 

ensure the aforementioned stipulations are carried forth in order to mitigate the effects of 

the undertaking upon NRHP- listed and eligible historic properties qualifying for 

protection under Section 106. 

TUPELO HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 

By: _____________________________________________ Date: ____________ 

 (Name, Title) 
 

 

G-1 

APPENDIX G – Public Hearing Summary and Transcript 
200 North Congress Street 

Ste 600 

Jackson, MS 39202 

Phone (601) 354-0696 

Fax (601) 354-0433 

www.abmb.com 

Public Hearing Summary 

Report

To: Jim Lee, PE / HDR Project Manager 

From: Eric Jefferson, PE Project: Tupelo, MS RR Relocation 

Planning Study and EIS 

CC: Carnot Evans, PE (HDR), Rhea Vincent, PE (MDOT), Kim Thurman (MDOT) 

Date: September 28, 2011 Job No: ABMB P.N. 2034 
The purpose of this document is to serve as a record of meetings and Public Involvement held for the Tupelo Railroad Relocation EIS.

Page i

Public Hearing Summary Report

Table of Contents 

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1 

Pre-Hearing Publicity ................................................................................................................................... 1 

Staff ............................................................................................................................................................... 2 

Meeting Content ........................................................................................................................................... 2 

Tupelo City Officials Briefing ...................................................................................................................... 3 

Public Hearing .............................................................................................................................................. 3 

APPENDIX 

APPENDIX A Published Advertisement and Legal Notice 

APPENDIX B Sign-in Sheets 

APPENDIX C Handout and Presentation Materials 

APPENDIX D Summary of City Officials Briefing 

APPENDIX E Summary and Transcript of Hearing 

APPENDIX F Written Comments 
The purpose of this document is to serve as a record of meetings and Public Involvement held for the Tupelo Railroad Relocation EIS.

Page 1

Public Hearing Summary Report

Tupelo Railroad Relocation Planning and 

Environmental Study Public Hearing Summary 

Report 

Introduction 

The Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT) and the Federal Railroad Administration 

(FRA) held briefings for city officials and a public hearing for the Tupelo Railroad Relocation 

Planning and Environmental Study. The purpose of the hearing was to give all interested parties 

an opportunity to learn about the status of the project and to comment on their concerns to 

MDOT. Both the briefings and the hearing were held on Thursday, August 11 in rooms 3, 4, and 

5 at the BancorpSouth Arena at 375 East Main Street in Tupelo, Mississippi. The city officials’ 

briefings were conducted from 1:30 p.m. to 3:45 p.m., and the public hearing was held from 4:00 

p.m. to 7:00 p.m. This public hearing summary report documents these meetings and the 

comments captured. 

Pre-Hearing Publicity 

The date of the hearing was included in the Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement in the Federal Register that was issued on Thursday, July 14, 2011. A legal 

notice announcing the availability of the DEIS for public viewing and the date of the hearing was 

published in the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal on July 10 and July 26, 2011. To further 

publicize the hearing, a print advertisement was published in the Northeast Mississippi Daily 

Journal on July 30 and August 5. A copy of the advertisement and the legal notice are included 

in Appendix A of this report. 

Two articles about the project were found on the internet prior to the hearing: 

The Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal (NEMS360.COM). “Tupelo Rail Study Ends.” 

Last retrieved August 9, 2011 at http://nems360.com/view/full_story/14971583/articleTupelo-rail-study-ends?instance=commented

Mississippi Business Journal. “Officials to Unveil Findings of Railroad Study.” Last 

retrieved August 9, 2011 at http://msbusiness.com/2011/08/officials-to-unveil-findings-ofrailroad-study/
The purpose of this document is to serve as a record of meetings and Public Involvement held for the Tupelo Railroad Relocation EIS.

Page 2

Public Hearing Summary Report

Staff 

The following agency and consultant staff were in attendance during the local officials briefing 

and the public hearing. 

Kim Thurman – MDOT 

Rhea Vincent – MDOT 

Sedrick Durr – MDOT 

John Underwood – MDOT 

Kenny Foote – MDOT 

Ralph Farrell – MDOT 

Juan Flores – MDOT 

Bill Jamieson – MDOT 

John Winkle – FRA 

Jim Lee – HDR 

Carnot Evans – HDR 

John Morton – HDR 

Kevin Keller – HDR 

Tim Casey – HDR 

Cecil Vick – ABMB Engineers 

Eric Jefferson – ABMB Engineers 

Patricia Stallings – Brockington & Assoc. 

Brett Brooks – Cook Coggin Engineers 

A copy of the staff sign-in sheet is included in Appendix B of this report. Not all of the persons 

listed above signed the sign-in sheet, but their presence was noted. 

Meeting Content 

The following displays were presented at these meetings: 

 Welcome Sign Board 

 Purpose and Need Board 

 Evaluation Matrix Board 

 Impact Summary Board 

 Build Alternative Renderings Board 

 Alternative Alignments Overview Board 

 In-Town Alternatives Overview Board 

 The Build Alternative Board 

 The Build Alternative Details (Table layout) 
The purpose of this document is to serve as a record of meetings and Public Involvement held for the Tupelo Railroad Relocation EIS.

Page 3

Public Hearing Summary Report

Tupelo City Officials Briefing 

Mr. Carnot Evans gave a formal presentation, 

including a video, in two separate briefings with the 

Mayor and a few council members. The first briefing 

began at 1:30 p.m. and was attended by Mayor Jack 

Reed and Councilpersons Mike Bryan and Markel 

Whittington. The second briefing began at 

approximately 2:30 p.m. and was attended by Mayor 

Jack Reed, and Councilpersons Nettie Davis and 

Willie Jennings. The briefings were conducted in a 

conference style, with a question and comment 

period following the technical presentation. The city 

officials were also encouraged to view the display 

boards and ask questions about them. A copy of the PowerPoint presentation can be found in 

Appendix C. A summary of the city official briefings is included in Appendix D. 

Public Hearing 

The public hearing was conducted in an open house 

style from 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., followed by a 

formal presentation/public testimony session 

beginning at 5:30 p.m., and then resumed an open 

house format until 7:00 p.m. The formal 

presentation was given by Carnot Evans beginning 

at 5:30 pm and lasted approximately 30 minutes. 

Attendees were asked to fill out a sign-in sheet at the 

entrance to the meeting room; the sign-in sheets are 

included in Appendix B of this report. Handouts 

that explained to the public the purpose of the 

meeting, the alternatives that were considered, the 

Build Alternative, and how to provide comments to MDOT were available for attendees. A copy 

of the handout can be found in Appendix C. Comment cards were provided for written 

comments. The comment card included a self-mailer for participants who wanted to mail their 

comments at a later time. Persons who wished to express their opinions orally during the public 

testimony segment were asked to fill out and submit a speaker card to any member of the project 

team. The handouts also indicated that comments could be submitted until September 12th, 2011 

including by mail, fax, or e-mail. 

From the sign-in sheets, approximately 30 people attended the hearing, including members of the 

public, a representative from the KCS Railway, and elected officials. Written and verbal 

comments were received for this meeting. At the hearing, Cecil Vick of ABMB went around the 

room asking attendees about their concerns to determine how the public felt about the project; 

his summary is in Appendix E. 
The purpose of this document is to serve as a record of meetings and Public Involvement held for the Tupelo Railroad Relocation EIS.

Page 4

Public Hearing Summary Report

During the hearing, the public had an opportunity to give verbal comments following the 

technical presentation and also directly to a court reporter stationed at the hearing. The court 

reporter transcribed both the comments that were given to her directly and the comments openly 

expressed by attendees following the presentation. One person gave verbal comments directly to 

the court reporter, and nine people provided verbal comments after the presentation. The court 

reporter’s transcript is included in Appendix E. The following is a synopsis of the verbal 

comments received during the hearing. 

 The project is too expensive to build. How could it ever be funded? 

. 

 Concerns about potential safety issues with an elevated rail (derailments, flying debris). 

 Concerns about the impacts on property values and historic resources such as Mill 

Village. 

 Concerns about the aesthetic of the elevated rail sections; it won’t blend with the 

surrounding built environment. 

 Concerns about community cohesion; the elevated structure has the appearance of a wall 

that will further divide the city physically, socially, and psychologically. 

In addition to formal comments given verbally at the public hearing, MDOT also accepted 

written comments on the comment cards that were provided at the hearing. Attendees were also 

informed that they could provide written comments via fax or email to MDOT. One person 

provided a letter to the court reporter, which is transcribed in the reporter’s notes. Copies of all 

written comments are included in Appendix F of this report. There were 12 people who 

submitted written comments. Overall, the written comments tracked closely with the verbal 

comments described above, particularly the concerns about community cohesion and project 

cost. The comments submitted can be summarized as preferring the following: 

 No-build 2 

 Alternative L or J 2 

 Alternative M 2 

 Other preferences 6 

From those characterized as having “other preferences”, the comments ranged from suggesting 

that the crossings be double gated to silence the horns, to proposing that the rail line be located 

somewhere outside of Tupelo. There were a good mix of comments received for the Build 

Alternative both supporting and opposing it, but a predominant public opinion on the project 

could not be determined by these comments. 
The purpose of this document is to serve as a record of meetings and Public Involvement held for the Tupelo Railroad Relocation EIS.

Public Hearing Summary Report

APPENDIX A 

PUBLISHED ADVERTISEMENT and LEGAL NOTICE

 


The purpose of this document is to serve as a record of meetings and Public Involvement held for the Tupelo Railroad Relocation EIS.

Public Hearing Summary Report

APPENDIX B 

SIGN‐IN SHEETS

 




The purpose of this document is to serve as a record of meetings and Public Involvement held for the Tupelo Railroad Relocation EIS.

Public Hearing Summary Report

APPENDIX C 

HANDOUT AND PRESENTATION MATERIALS

 
simplifying IT

ConsulƟng

Sales

Staffing

Support

Presented By:

August 11, 2011

BancorpSouth Arena

375 East Main Street, Tupelo, MS 38804

4:00 PM to 7:00 PM  

Tonight’s Public Hearing is being held to inform

the general public of the preliminary study results

for alternatives  to relieve automotive / train traffic

conflicts that has been selected for presentation in

Tupelo, Mississippi.  The Build Alternative raises

the existing rail alignment  to an elevation suitable

for road traffic underneath while providing an effi‐

cient passageway for the rail line through Tupelo.

THINK UP!

Tupelo Railroad Relocation,  

Planning, & Environmental Study

Public Hearing
Think Up!

Background and History:

Tupelo is a community with a population of approximately

35,000 located in the northeast region of Mississippi and is the

region's major employment center.  Two rail lines pass through

Tupelo, the BNSF main line and the Kansas City Southern Rail‐

way (KCS) branch line. The BNSF main line currently operates

approximately 20 to 25 trains per day through the city and the

KCS rail line operates approximately 2 to 3 trains per day. The

two railroads exchange rail cars near downtown Tupelo.

In 2000, MDOT conducted a reconnaissance study which con‐

cluded that various improvement options, including re‐routing

the rail traffic around the City, were feasible and that further

study was warranted. MDOT and the City agreed that from both

feasibility and economic perspectives, further studies were justi‐

fied and necessary. In 2004, Congress provided funding necessary

to advance the project, and shortly thereafter, the Tupelo Rail‐

road Relocation Planning and Environmental Study commenced.  

The detailed Feasibility Analysis was completed in 2006. The En‐

vironmental Impact Statement began in 2006 and the prelimi‐

nary results are presented in tonight’s public hearing.

Introduction:

In recent years, the City of Tupelo has become concerned that

highway‐rail traffic conflicts are having an adverse impact on the

community. These impacts included congestion, safety, efficien‐

cy of railroad operations, and quality of life issues, such as rail‐

road and horn noise, vibration, and air pollution.

Points of Interest:

 Two Railroad Lines                  

the BNSF and the KCS

 20 t0 25 Trains per Day for

BNSF and 3 per Day for the

KCS

 Up to 40 Trains per Day in

2030

 955.5 Vehicle‐Hours Total

Daily Aggregate Delay for

2005
Figure 1. Think Up!
Think Up!

Purpose:

The purpose of the Tupelo Railroad Relocation Planning and En‐

vironmental Study is to improve mobility and safety by reducing

congestion caused by the movement of trains running through

the City of Tupelo.

The BNSF and KCS rail lines share an interchange to exchange

rail cars just south of downtown Tupelo. There are 16 at‐grade

highway/rail crossings within vicinity of downtown Tupelo,

shown on the previous page in Figure 1. Twelve of those are

owned by BNSF and four by KCS. The BNSF main line crosses

diagonally at‐grade at the Crosstown intersection. The Main

Street/Gloster Street intersection has an annual average daily

traffic  (AADT) count of 39,000 vehicles per day, making it one of

the busiest intersections in the City.  

The projected train traffic for 2030 indicates approximately 40

trains per day on the BNSF main line. This would result in all 12

BNSF crossings having unacceptable levels of service in 2030,

with traffic backups affecting 3 more intersections.

Need:

The proposed project will address the following identified needs:

 To reduce vehicular traffic delays in downtown Tupelo

 To improve response for emergency vehicles

 To improve the safety of the traveling public

 To improve efficiency of railroad operations in the Tupe‐

lo area

 To enhance quality of life with regard to traffic flow, noise,

and economic development

Why This Project?

 39,000 AADT Traffic Count

at the Crosstown Intersec‐

tion.

 16 Highway/ Railroad        

At‐grade Crossings in

Downtown

 Reduced Congestion and

Delays

 Improved Safety for the

Traveling Public

 Improved Response for

Emergency Vehicles

 Enhanced Quality of Life
Figure 2. Think Up!
Think Up!

Technology at work for you Build AlternaƟve:

The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) studied 16 alternatives

in and around the Tupelo area, as shown in Figure 2. on the pre‐

vious page. The study encompassed the No Build,  roadways

bridging the railroad, the railroad bridging the roadways, various

railroad alignments being relocated around the major metropoli‐

tan area, and the railroad being put in a trench.  The Alternatives

were evaluated based on the purpose and need for the project

through an iterative process. The study concluded that only one

Build Alternative was feasible.

The Build Alternative raises the existing rail line in place while

staying within existing right‐of‐way. The rail line would be raised

to a sufficient height on a combination of bridges and fill sections,

see Figure 3. below, as to allow road traffic to travel freely under‐

neath each existing crossing while providing a safe efficient pas‐

sageway for the rail line. This combination of structure and fill

allows for reduced noise from train horns, less traffic congestion,

and increases efficiency and safety of railroad operations in Tupe‐

lo.

 16 Alternatives Studied

 Railroad Line Speeds up to

4o mph

 Reduced Noise Impacts

 Cumulative Cost Savings of

over $1.2 Billion Dollars  

How We Got Here!

Figure 3.
Think Up! Figure 4.
Relocated Interchange:

Think Up!

Traffic delays are induced down‐

town due to major north‐south

and east‐west roadways being

blocked during the necessary ex‐

change of rail cars between BNSF

and KCS.

The proposed interchange reloca‐

tion, Figure 5. shown below, re‐

duces auto traffic delays by mov‐

ing the BNSF‐KCS interaction

away from downtown and placing

the exchange to the southeast

along the BNSF main line.  

The relocated interchange could

be the first phase of a phased con‐

struction strategy with subse‐

quent phases evaluated at a later

date.

Phased

Construction:

Figure 5.
1

P bli H i Public Hearing

August 11, 2011

1

Presented by:

Agenda

4:00 – 5:30 PM Open House

5:30 PM Public Hearing Presentation

-Alternatives Evaluation Process

-Build Alternative

-Summary of Impacts

2

7:00 PM Closing
2

• Share information with the public about proposed 

improvements, including the conceptual design, 

Public Hearing Purpose and Need

potential benefits, and adverse social, economic, 

and environmental impacts

• Provide an official forum for the public to express 

their opinions and concerns

• Maintain an official record of all proceedings, 

comments, and materials submitted

3

Public Comments

• Submit Comments to the Court Reporter Tonight

• Turn in Comment Forms Tonight Turn in Comment Forms Tonight

• Submit Written Comments, Exhibits, and/or 

Statements

• Postmarked, FAX, or E-mail by September 12, 2011

• Mail to: Mississippi Department of Transportation 

Environmental Division (87-01)

P.O. Box 1850

4

Jackson, MS 39215-9947

• FAX: 601-359-7355

• E-mail to: environmental_comments@mdot.state.ms.us

• Project Website: www.gomdot.com
3

Study Information

This Public Hearing is being held for:

Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT) Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT)

Project Number 104289-101000

In coordination with U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

5

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)

Public Hearing Compliance

• Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes

• Title VIII of the Civil Rig , hts Act of 1968, as amended

• Public Participation is Encouraged and Solicited 

without Regard to Race, Color, Creed, Religion, Sex, 

Age, National Origin, Disability, or Family Status

• Federal Codes

• U.S.C. Title 23 Section 128

• 23 CFR 771 – Environmental Impact

6

• 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508 – Protection of Environment

• Executive Orders

• 11593 – Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment

• 11988 – Floodplain Management

• 11990 – Protection of Wetlands

• 12898 – Environmental Justice

• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969
4

• Federal Agencies

• FRA (Lead Agency)

Agency Coordination

• Federal Highway Administration

• EPA

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

• National Park Service

• U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

• Other Entities

• Ci f T l City of Tupelo

• State and Local Agencies

• Native American Tribes

• Railroads (BNSF, KCS)

7

• Public Scoping Meeting (2006)

• Public Alternatives Meeting (2007)

Public Involvement Program

g( )

• Project briefings to local communities and special 

interest groups

• Coordination meetings with local, state, and federal 

agencies

• www.gomdot.com

8
5

Project Background

BNSF and KCS Railroads 

Interchange in Interchange in 

Downtown Tupelo 

Railroads Cross 16 

Streets in Central

Tupelo

(Main St. & Gloster St.)

9

(Main St. & Gloster St.)

Crosstown

Project Background

Delays Impact Tupelo

Vehicular and Emergency Service Delays

Extended Delay During Interchange 

Operations 

Federal Grant

MDOT Support

10

MDOT Support

Railroads’ Support
6

Project Purpose and Need

Reduce Vehicular Traffic Delays

I R f E V hi l Improve Response for Emergency Vehicles

Improve Safety of Traveling Public

Improve Efficiency of Rail Operations

Enhance Quality of Life

Additional Benefits

11

Economic Development

Access to Tupelo CBD

Multimodal Relationships

Railroad Operations

Existing Train Volumes (2005)

BNSF – 20 to 25 Trains Per Day

KCS – 2 to 3 Trains Per Day

Future Train Volumes (2030)

BNSF – 39 to 41 Trains Per Day

KCS 3t 5T i P D

12

– 3 to 5 Trains Per Day
7

At-Grade Traffic Delay Analysis

At-Grade Vehicle Delay (2005 & 2030)

16 At-Grade Crossings

Secondary Impacts on 13 Near-by 

Intersections

All At-Grade Crossings & 4 Near-by

Intersections Fail in the Design Year

13

Fail in the Design Year

(2030)

Cost of Congestion

Annual Cost of Congestion – 2005 and 2030

Cumulative Cost of Congestion – 2005 to 2030

14
8

Alternatives Considered

Operational Improvements

R l d R il d I h Relocated Railroad Interchange

Safety Improvements

In-Town Grade Separations

Roadways Over BNSF

BNSF Over Roadways

15

New Rail Bypass Alignments

Operational Improvements

Relocated Railroad Interchange

16
9

Operational Improvements

Disadvantages

Does Not Address Crosstown or Other 

In-town Crossings for Through Trains

Does Not Satisfy Project Purpose and 

Need

17

In-Town Grade Separations

2 Alternatives Elevating Roadways over BNSF

Crosstown over BNSF

Gloster Street over BNSF & Build New East-West Overpass 

Connection to Carnation Street

18
10

In-Town Grade Separations

3 Alternatives Elevating BNSF over Roadways

Central Overpass 

All Bridge Overpass Viaduct

Combination Bridge/Retaining Wall Overpass Viaduct

19

In-Town Grade Separations

Railroad Trench

30-35 feet of excavation 35 feet of excavation

5 Perennial Stream 

Crossings

Mostly Below Water Table

20

Railroad Trench in Reno, Nevada
11

In-Town Grade Separations

Disadvantages

Business Impacts on Main & Gloster Business Impacts on Main & Gloster

Some Alternatives Require Permanent Closure of 

Streets

Some Alternatives Do Not Address Noise Issue

Some Alternatives Do Not Address other HighVolume Crossings

T h N F ibl

21

Trench Not Feasible

Longer Elevated Viaduct Feasible

New Rail Bypass Alignments

8 Bypass Corridors

2 Western

2 to Share KCS

2 Eastern

1 to Parallel US 78

1 to Parallel Town

22

1 to Parallel Town

Creek
12

New Rail Bypass Alignments

Disadvantages

National Park Service Disapproved of New National Park Service Disapproved of New

Crossings of Natchez Trace Parkway

Railroads Disapproved of Shared Corridor

Saltillo Disapproved of New Track in City

Cultural Impacts to Native American Sites

Floodplain and Wetlands Impacts

23

Floodplain and Wetlands Impacts

Large Right-of-Way Acquisition

Increase in Railroad Operations Costs

No Public Support for Any Bypass Alternative at 

Public Meetings

Detailed Alternative Analysis

Engineering Refinements / Cost Analysis

Environmental Impacts

Iterative Process Narrowed Build Alternatives from 15 to 3 then to 1 Iterative Process Narrowed Build Alternatives from 15 to 3, then to 1

Analysis Concluded Only No-Build and Alternative M Viable

24
13

No-Build Alternative (Alternative A)

No New Improvements

25

No-Build Alternative Impacts

Increase in Traffic Delay at All At-Grade 

Crossings & 4 Near Crossings & 4 Near-by Intersections by Intersections

Increased Emergency Service 

Response Times

Noise from Train Horns

414 Noise Impacted Residences

26

128 Severely Impacted

Decreased Air Quality
14

Elevated Rail Viaduct

(Build Alternative)

Elevates Rail Through 

Town

Combination Bridge & Fill 

Structure

Lumpkin Ave. to US 45

Includes Relocated 

Railroad Interchange

New Grade Separations 

at Eason Blvd. 

27

(BNSF & KCS)

Pedestrian/Bicycle 

Path in R/W

Elevated Rail Viaduct

(Build Alternative)

Elevated Structure

28
15

Elevated Rail Viaduct

(Build Alternative)

Potential Benefits

12 Grade Crossings Eliminated with No Road Closures 

Creates “Quiet Zone” – No Train Horns on BNSF

Improves rail speed (25 MPH to 40 MPH)

Eliminates BNSF/KCS mainline crossing

No net increase in rail miles

Support from Public, BNSF, KCS, and NPS

Potential Impacts

29

Potential Impacts

Minimal R/W Required

Only for Interchange

One Relocation

Visual Impacts Due to Structure 

Elevated Rail Viaduct

(Build Alternative)

12 At-Grade Crossings Removed

11 BNSF

Jackson St.

Blair St.

Jefferson St.

Park St.

Gloster St. (MS 145)

Main St. (US 278/MS 6)

Church St.

S i St

30

Spring St.

Green St.

Elizabeth St.

Eason Blvd. (Roadway over Rail)

1 KCS

Eason Blvd. (Roadway over Rail)
16

Existing Spring Street 

Looking North

31

Spring Street w/ Proposed 

Improvement

32
17

Existing Green Street 

Looking North 33

Green Street w/ Proposed 

Improvement 34
18

Existing Carnation Street 

Looking North

35

Carnation Street w/ 

Proposed Improvement

36
19

Existing Magazine Street 

Looking South

37

Magazine Street w/ 

Proposed Improvement

38
20

Existing Gloster Street 

Looking North

39

Gloster Street w/ 

Proposed Improvement

40
21

Existing Riley Street 

Looking North

41

Riley Street w/ Proposed 

Improvement

42
22

Existing Rob Leake Park 

Looking West

43

Rob Leake Park w/ 

Proposed Improvement

44
23

Video

Video of Existing Delay at Crosstown

45

Video

Video Rendering of Proposed Structure w/ Drive-Under

46
24

Impacts of Build Alternative

Social Environment Impacts

Neighborhoods

Increased Access

Reduced Auto Traffic Delay

Increased Safety

Community Cohesion – No Impacts

Public Lands – No Impacts

47

Historic Resources

Visual Impacts to Viewshed

Mitigation Efforts Through Memorandum of Agreement

Design to Include Aesthetic Treatments

Survey of Historic Properties

Pedestrian/Bike Path

Impacts of Build Alternative

Natural Environment Impacts

Wate Qua ty r Quality – No pacts Impacts

May Improve Water Quality

Floodplains

10 Acres of 100-Year Floodplain

3 Crossings of Designated Floodways

All by Bridge Structures

48

Wetlands

Construction Impacts

Threatened & Endangered Species – No Impacts
25

Impacts of Build Alternative

Physical Environment

Noise

No Horn Soundings on BNSF through Central Tupelo

52 Sites Reduced Noise Severity

23 Severe Impact  Moderate Impact

29 Moderate Impact  No Impact

Structure Includes 6-foot Safety Railing Not Included in 

Noise Model

49

Impacts of Build Alternative

Physical Environment

No se deos ise Videos

Video of Existing Crossing w/ Noise

50
26

Impacts of Build Alternative

Physical Environment

Noise Videos

Video Rendering of Proposed Structure w/ Noise

51

Impacts of Build Alternative

Physical Environment

Vibration

Increase in Vibration Due to Faster Trains

Increase from 28 to 46 Impacted Sites

Vibration Impacts Would Fall Well Below Damage 

Threshold

Mitigation Measures Would Dramatically Increase Cost 

With Little Benefit

Air Quality – No Impact

Improvement of Air Quality Due to Reduction of

52

Improvement of Air Quality Due to Reduction of

Idling Vehicles

Contamination – No Impact

Energy

Reduced Energy Consumption
27

Impacts of Build Alternative

Phase I – Relocate Railroad Interchange

Includes Eason Blvd. Overpasses

$76 Million

Phases II & III – Build Elevated Railroad Viaduct

Phase II – Temporary Track Construction

Needed to Construct Elevated Viaduct

$12 Million

Phase III – Viaduct Construction

Includes US 45 Overpass Reconstruction

53

Includes Pedestrian/Bike Path

$297 Million

Total Construction Cost - $385 Million

Annual Maintenance Cost - $350,000

No Funds Identified for Design, Right-of-Way, or Construction

Public Comments

• Submit Comments to the Court Reporter Tonight

• Turn in Comment Forms Tonight Turn in Comment Forms Tonight

• Submit Written Comments, Exhibits, and/or 

Statements

• Postmarked, FAX, or E-mail by September 12, 2011

• Mail to: Mississippi Department of Transportation 

Environmental Division (87-01)

P.O. Box 1850

54

Jackson, MS 39215-9947

• FAX: 601-359-7355

• E-mail to: environmental_comments@mdot.state.ms.us

• Project Website: www.gomdot.com
28

P bli H i Public Hearing

August 11, 2011

55

Presented by:
The purpose of this document is to serve as a record of meetings and Public Involvement held for the Tupelo Railroad Relocation EIS.

Public Hearing Summary Report

APPENDIX D 

SUMMARY OF CITY OFFICIALS BRIEFING

   
The purpose of this document is to serve as a record of meetings and Public Involvement held for the Tupelo Railroad Relocation EIS. 

 Page 1 

Public Involvement Record Sheet 

Tupelo Railroad Relocation EIS 

MEETING WITH CITY OFFICIALS 

Date of Meeting August 11, 2011 

Time of Meeting 1:30 pm 

Location of Meeting BancorpSouth Arena, Tupelo, MS 

Meeting Style Conference style meeting 

Purpose of Meeting To brief the Mayor and interested City officials on the status of 

the project prior to the public hearing 

Duration of Meeting About 2 hours (2 sessions, approx.1 hour each) 

City Attendees – Meeting 1: 

Mayor Jack Reed 

Councilman Mike Bryan 

Councilman Markel Whittington 

City Attendees – Meeting 2: 

Mayor Jack Reed 

Councilwoman Nettie Davis 

Councilman Willie Jennings 

Summary: 

Rhea Vincent opened the first briefing with a round of self-introductions by attending staff from 

FRA, MDOT, HDR, ABMB, Brockington & Associates, and Cook Coggin Engineers. Carnot 

Evans explained that the purpose of the public hearing is to share information with the public 

and to provide a forum for them to express their opinions and provide comments about the 

project. The public hearing will be a combination of an open house style format from 4 – 5:30 

p.m. At 5:30, a formal presentation will be given immediately after which the public will be 

invited to ask questions. Following the formal presentation and Q&A period, the hearing will 

return to an open-house informal style format until 7 p.m. Mr. Evans then presented the 

PowerPoint presentation that would be shown to the public at 5:30 p.m. 

During the PowerPoint, the Mayor asked what the term “design year” means. Mr. Evans 

explained that future traffic is modeled from projections based on historic growth patterns to a 

future year, typically 20 - 25 years from the year the analysis was conducted. In this case, the 
The purpose of this document is to serve as a record of meetings and Public Involvement held for the Tupelo Railroad Relocation EIS. 

 Page 2 

base year is 2005 and the design year is 2025. Mr. Vincent and Mr. Evans also explained the 

concept of delay and cost of congestion. Future rail traffic projections were figured differently 

from vehicular traffic, however, since rail operations are driven by national economic conditions. 

Mr. Evans described the alternatives that were considered and studied, and how from the 16 

alternatives considered, Alternative M became the preferred alternative through the NEPA 

process. 

Mr. Evans described the features, benefits, and impacts of Alternative M, and presented a video 

“rendering” of how the elevated rail would look at various locations along the alignment in 

Tupelo. With an estimated total construction cost of $385 million, no funds have been allocated 

at this time to design or construct the facility. The City would be required to maintain the 

structure, while the railroad would maintain the track and surface. 

A few of the questions asked by the City officials: 

1.) How long will this project take to build? 

Response: Design would take about 1-1/2 to 2 years, and right-of-way acquisition would 

take about 1-1/2 to 2 years. Construction of the project will take up to 2 years. Construction 

would be phased. 

2.) What would the annual maintenance require? 

Response: Repainting the structure as needed, maintain the footpath below the structure, 

3.) How can this project be funded? 

Response: Congress is the most likely source for the majority of the funding. The City may 

be required to put up a match, typically 20%. 

4.) Would MDOT take the lead role in this project? 

Response: Only if requested by the City and permitted to by the Commission. 

5.) Could passenger service such as Amtrak be introduced as a potential funding source for the 

City? 

Response: Not likely. It would have to come from State, local, or private sources. 

Notes taken by: Eric Jefferson, PE, ABMB Engineers, Inc. 
The purpose of this document is to serve as a record of meetings and Public Involvement held for the Tupelo Railroad Relocation EIS.

Public Hearing Summary Report

APPENDIX E 

SUMMARY AND TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING

 












































CECIL VICK’S NOTES ON THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE TUPELO RAILS 

PROJECT 

Transcribed 09-13-2011 

Considering the attendance at other public meetings for this project, the formal public 

hearing had relatively low turnout. Despite that it went smoothly and well. It was an 

open forum hearing with two formal presentations and two question and answer 

sessions. This format worked well for both MDOT and for the public. Everyone I talked 

to was happy with the venue, the displays, and the presentations. 

The local politicians, representing the people, expressed these sentiments: 

The Mayor: 

 He clearly likes the preferred alternative more than any bypass. 

 He has concerns about the City assuming maintenance responsibilities for the 

proposed structure. 

 He recognizes that some citizens are concerned that a long railroad bridge could 

become a hangout for homeless people. 

 He thinks that it might be possible to elevate the railroad over Eason Boulevard 

only. 

 He has no idea where the city would get $400 million to construct the project. 

o The city does not have it. 

o MDOT said they do not have it. 

o Traditionally you build such projects with earmarks, but earmarks of that 

magnitude are very unlikely. 

The City Council: 

 At least one councilperson does not like construction on fill, because it would act 

as a wall to separate neighborhoods. 

 The Council is also concerned about the viaduct becoming a refuge for the 

homeless. 

The Historic Community: 

 The Historic Preservation Commission, and some residents of the historic 

community, opposed the preferred alternative. They say MDOT should put up 

more gates and increase the speeds of the trains. 

 A developer with investments in the Mill Village Community expressed his 

concerns that the project would destroy the area’s historic integrity and ruin his 

investment. 

The Public in general: 

 The citizens I talked to generally liked the proposal. 
 Generally any opposition was over historic concerns and how lessening the 

integrity of the historic district could diminish property values. 

 Basically, among the private citizens there was relatively little opposition—even 

by those who live adjacent to the tracks. 

 I talked to a heart patient who explained the critical nature of not having the train 

block access to the hospital. 

 Among the people I talked to, there was strong opposition to putting the structure 

on fill and using retaining walls. The people did not want aesthetically pleasing 

retaining walls—the wanted the transparency beneath a bridge. Otherwise, they 

saw the project as creating a wall dividing the City. 

 Most people though that $400 million was just too much money to spend to fix 

the existing problem. 
The purpose of this document is to serve as a record of meetings and Public Involvement held for the Tupelo Railroad Relocation EIS.

Public Hearing Summary Report

APPENDIX F 

WRITTEN COMMENTS


1

Eric Jefferson

From: Vincent, Rhea <vincent@mdot.state.ms.us>

Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 3:19 PM

To: Eric Jefferson

Subject: FW: Tupelo Railroad Relocation

From: Pat Falkner [mailto:Pat.Falkner@tupeloms.gov] 

Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 7:48 AM 

To: Environmental_Comments 

Subject: Tupelo Railroad Relocation 

The proposed elevated structure for the railroad would be visually disruptive to a large part of the older section of

Tupelo, which the city has been trying to make more attractive for residential location and reinvestment.  The elevated

structure would undermine this goal of our comprehensive plan.  The plan’s transportation goals refer to the need to

study the Crosstown intersection and the possibility of relocating the railroad, but this alternative would impose

unwanted change to the character of several older neighborhoods.  Preservation of those neighborhoods is of greater

importance than eliminating the train‐caused traffic delays.  Outside the question of environmental impact, the

estimated cost of the elevated structure makes the alternative financially unrealistic, to put it mildly.  Neither local

taxpayers nor any other taxpayers should be asked to pay for this.  

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any files or attachments may 

contain confidential and privileged information. 

If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender at 

the above e-mail address and delete it and 

all copies from your system.
1

Eric Jefferson

From: Vincent, Rhea <vincent@mdot.state.ms.us>

Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 3:20 PM

To: Eric Jefferson

Subject: FW: Tupelo Railroad changes 

From: Eric Feng [mailto:tfsincms@bellsouth.net] 

Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2011 7:42 AM 

To: Environmental_Comments 

Subject: Re: Tupelo Railroad changes 

I wonder what's the cost if the train go underground instead of raising it plus the underground structure can 

serve as shelter for people if tornado hits. 

Eric Feng 

President 

The Feng's System, Inc. 

 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any files or attachments may 

contain confidential and privileged information. 

If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender at 

the above e-mail address and delete it and 

all copies from your system.