Tag Archives: St Marys Earthkeepers

Thanks to organizations for the Okefenokee Swamp, against the Titanium Mine

Thanks to the more than two dozen organizations, local, regional, statewide in Florida and Georgia, national, and international, that oppose the titanium mine that would be far too close to the Okefenokee Swamp. The Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge (ONWR) provides boating, birding, fishing, and hunting nearby to the tune of more than $60 million a year and more than 700 jobs, making it the NWR of most economic benefit to each of Georgia and Florida. The Okefenokee Swamp is a unique ecological treasure, and is the headwaters of the Suwannee and St. Marys Rivers. The burden of proof is on the miners, and they have not met it.

[Organizations For Okefenokee Swamp, Against Titanium Mine]
Organizations For Okefenokee Swamp, Against Titanium Mine
PDF
Add your organization here: https://forms.gle/Dyqc77EBsjXBsz93A

You can still file a comment with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. If the Corps actually issues a permit, which they may in the next few weeks, anything filed can be used in any ensuing lawsuit.

Exactly how many organizations oppose that strip mine is hard to say, since Continue reading

Strip mine proposed near Okefenokee wildlife refuge 2019-07-18

Mindy Morris, Tribune & Georgian, July 18, 2019, Strip mine proposed near Okefenokee wildlife refuge,

[Front page]
Front page

It’s not the first time Okefenokee swamp became the pointed interest of a mining operation. DuPont Co, attempted in the 1990s and agreed to end their plan after a roughly $90 million deal. That deal was supposed to protect from future mining. Less than 20 years later, Twin Peaks [Pines] Minerals is proposing a strip mine.

Continue reading

For development, or not needed? US 84 widening from Homerville to Waycross

This paragraph sums it up:

300x388 Wetlands 29 and 31, in RE: SAS-2014-00862, Proposed U.S. Highway 84 Widening, by Gilbert B. Rogers, for WWALS.net, 28 May 2015 The project’s stated purpose in the EA is “economic development,” as part of the Governor’s Road Improvement Program created in the 1980s. See EA at 4. The NEPA regulations promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) require agencies to examine the indirect impacts of projects — those growth-inducing impacts caused by a project, such as changes in land use and development patterns. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8(b). Yet over and over, when purporting to examine the project’s potential for indirect impacts on various natural resources, the EA repeats, “The proposed project is not expected to precipitate substantial development along the corridor.”

Other questions include, why not use a narrower median? Why not leave trees on the median?

Below is the full text of the letter Continue reading