Comments to US Army Corps of Engineers, Scoping, 2023
Governmental Agencies (click logo to view comment)
EPA Region 4 comment letter, 2023: "The proposed action (Alternative C/"One Lake") may result in substantive impacts to riverine wetlands and streams. The EPA has environmental concerns that there may not be sufficient compensatory mitigation to offset the direct impacts to the Pearl River channel or the tributary streams." "The EPA is also concerned about the disruption in downstream freshwater flow, changes in water quality, water quality modeling, and habitat impacts which also may affect endangered species, fisheries, and oyster production. The EPA has also identified potential issues to evaluate in the EIS including environmental justice, contaminated sites’ proposed remediation, and critical infrastructure."
US Fish and Wildlife Service comment letter, 2023: "The Channel Improvements Plan (Alternative C/"One Lake") is the most damaging alternative for both terrestrial and aquatic resources." "There is a demonstrated need for flood protection within the Jackson area. The Service recommends examining existing non-structural alternatives along with a flood protection solution that doesn’t permanently alter water velocities and flow regimes within the action area. Such a solution may include non-structural alternatives including pinch-point removal, levee setbacks, channel improvements etc., without construction of a large weir or impoundment."
MS Dept Wildlife Fisheries and Parks comment letter, 2023: "We agree there is a demonstrated need for flood protection within the Jackson Area. As stated by your agency, we also anticipate that Alternatives A and A1 would have minimal impacts on natural resources. Selecting the proposed Channel Improvements Plan, Alternative C ("One Lake"), over other possible flood control alternatives that may be less damaging should be thoroughly vetted in terms of project costs, benefits and impacts. Furthermore, Alternative C ("One Lake") may impact over 1,500 acres of wetlands, including wetlands located within LeFleur's Bluff State Park. A combination of the best features from the current alternatives may provide the best project alternative."
US Fish and Wildlife Service comment letter, 2023: "The Channel Improvements Plan (Alternative C/"One Lake") is the most damaging alternative for both terrestrial and aquatic resources." "There is a demonstrated need for flood protection within the Jackson area. The Service recommends examining existing non-structural alternatives along with a flood protection solution that doesn’t permanently alter water velocities and flow regimes within the action area. Such a solution may include non-structural alternatives including pinch-point removal, levee setbacks, channel improvements etc., without construction of a large weir or impoundment."
MS Dept Wildlife Fisheries and Parks comment letter, 2023: "We agree there is a demonstrated need for flood protection within the Jackson Area. As stated by your agency, we also anticipate that Alternatives A and A1 would have minimal impacts on natural resources. Selecting the proposed Channel Improvements Plan, Alternative C ("One Lake"), over other possible flood control alternatives that may be less damaging should be thoroughly vetted in terms of project costs, benefits and impacts. Furthermore, Alternative C ("One Lake") may impact over 1,500 acres of wetlands, including wetlands located within LeFleur's Bluff State Park. A combination of the best features from the current alternatives may provide the best project alternative."
State and Local Government (click logo to view comment)
Non-Governmental Agencies (click logo to view comment)
Pearl Riverkeeper asks that everyone make his or her own decision regarding the Pearl River Flood Risk Management project using sound science and engineering. We encourage the review and thorough analysis of all available information. We welcome comments and feedback. Please email Pearl Riverkeeper or visit our Facebook for comment space. Our publishing, or re-publishing, of anyone else's research or opinions is not an endorsement on our part of those conclusions.
