Home > Newsletter Home > TOC > Article

LeFleur Lakes proposal could destroy 10,000 acres of wetlands
click for print view

12, 2004

The project could destroy nearly 10,000 acres of wetlands, threaten critical habitat for the endangered fish, and damage water quality in the nearby rivers and lakes.

State wildlife officials from both Mississippi and Louisiana have joined environmental groups in opposing plans for the "LeFleur Lakes" proposal for damming the Pearl River at Jackson, Miss. The project could destroy almost 10,000 acres of wetlands, threaten critical habitat for the endangered Gulf sturgeon and damage water quality in the Pearl River, the Mississippi South, Lake Pontchartrain and Lake Borgne.

"I think this could have some horrible impacts on the Pearl River," said Cynthia Sarthou, executive director of the Gulf Restoration Network, an umbrella organization for 50 conservation groups in the Gulf of Mexico region. "It could affect everyone in the Pearl River basin."

The LeFleur's Lake proposal by Jackson developer John McGowan would dam the Pearl River creating 12 miles of lakes in downtown Jackson. Although touted as "flood control", many in the environmental community suspect the opportunities for developers to make large sums of money at the taxpayer expenses are at the root of this proposed dam—just as developer profits are behind other dams being proposed on the Gulf Coast, George County and elsewhere in the state.

In comments made about the scope of what should be studied in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the proposal, GRN noted that revisiting this project, after failure of the State of Mississippi to obtain funding for construction of the levee system chosen as the preferred alternative for flood control in1996, is a waste of taxpayers dollars.

"The need for consideration of LeFleur Lakes Flood Control Plan and reconsideration of the original levee plan is questionable and the potential environmental impacts on downstream communities potentially significant," Sarthou said. "This is particularly true when it appears that private development interest, and not the public interest in flood control, is the impetus behind the present study."

The GRN asserts that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) must fully assess the following issues as part of the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS):

The GRN asserts that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) must fully assess the following issues as part of the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS):

1) The current rate of flooding in the project area and the average annual flood damage associated with that flooding.

2) A full range of alternatives, including wholly nonstructural alternatives, such as reestablishment of pivotal floodplain wetlands, that would address flooding problems in the area while minimizing the negative environmental impacts on downstream environments.

3) The potential impact of each proposed alternatives and all reasonable foreseeable induced development on river stages, flood stages, and the level and duration of inundation in the Pearl River downstream of the project area resulting from construction or maintenance by the project.

4) The potential impact of all proposed alternatives on river flows in the Lower Pearl River Basin and in freshwater inflows need to sustain estuaries of the Gulf of Mexico associated with each of the proposed alternatives and all reasonable foreseeable development induced by the proposed project.

5) The potential impacts of the proposed project and reasonably foreseeable induced development on flooding or increased water levels on adjacent and downstream properties and communities, including but not limited to Byram, Carthage, Columbia, Mendenhall and Richland, Mississippi, resulting from construction or maintenance of the proposed project and any and all reasonably foreseeable development induced by the project.

6) The unavoidable losses of wetland areas, particularly increasingly rare bottomland hardwood wetlands, associated with the construction and maintenance of each of the proposed alternatives and all reasonably foreseeable development induced by the project;

7) The unavoidable impacts to wildlife resources associated with destruction of habitat, including but not limited to, bottomland hardwood wetlands, as the result of construction of each of the proposed alternatives, and all reasonably foreseeable development induced by the project.

8) The impact of each proposed alternative (i.e., impacts of land clearing and construction on runoff and erosion) on water quality in the Pearl River and all associated waterbodies. This analysis consider that although the Pearl River in the vicinity of the project was partially meeting its designated uses in 1996, it is currently listed as potentially not meeting its designated uses (impaired) under the states 2002 list of impaired waters.

9) The impact of each of the proposed alternatives and reasonable foreseeable induced development on endangered species in the Pearl River Basin, including but not limited to the threatened ringed map (sawback) turtle, endangered gulf sturgeon, and endangered bald eagle, and their critical habitat such as riverine sandbars and other physical structures required by these species.

10) The impacts of each proposed alternative on mussels, amphibians,reptiles, bats, birds, waterfowl, and mammals both in the vicinity of the proposed project and in the lower Pearl River basin.

11) Any contamination of the sediments or water column of the Pearl River in the project area, with particular attention paid to toxaphene, DDT, and mercury contamination. Among other things, this evaluation should discuss in detail the depths, quantities, and toxicity of the contaminants in all stretches of river falling within the project area and must fully examine the impacts of using any contaminated water, sediments, or other materials in construction of any of the proposed alternatives.

12) The potential impact the proposed alternatives and reasonably foreseeable induced development on archeological resources in the project area or downstream thereof, including sites listed or eligible for listing under the National Register of Historic Places.

13) The potential for successful mitigation of unavoidable environmental impacts associated with each proposed alternative. The Corps’ mitigation analysis must consider the undeniable evidence that demonstrates that successful wetlands mitigation is extremely difficult and often fails, and the current mitigation backlog in the Vicksburg District in evaluating the real likelihood of successful implementation of mitigation required to compensate for construction of the proposed project.

14) The indirect and secondary impacts of all alternatives, includingreasonably foreseeable induced development on water quality, changes in land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems.

15) All cumulative impacts --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 -- of each of the proposed alternatives. This analysis must include, but cannot be limited to, an analysis of all other civil works projects in or affecting the Pearl River Basin, and wetland losses associated with the Corps’ implementation of the Clean Water Act § 404 permits program (individual, nationwide, and general permits) throughout the Pearl River Basin.