Projects Analysis

This page is the “meat” of the website for those seeking hard data.

It is organized into three categories.

Projects We Oppose:
Projects We Are Studying:
- Dry dock project for Eastern Shipbuilding
Projects We Support:
- An educational facility to teach young and old about our waters and the life in and around them.

Projects We Oppose

After extensive evaluation, Gulf County Citizens Coalition believes strongly the projects listed below would be destructive for our community.

Oil Exploration on the Apalachicola River Floodplain

oil drilling

Background
In December of 2023, Clearwater Land & Minerals submitted an application to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) for a permit to drill an exploratory oil well in southern Calhoun County. Clearwater hopes to succeed by going down to 1400 feet (through the aquifer) and possibly using newer well-stimulation techniques such as acid-fracturing (chemical fracking).

The first drilling site is located in the floodplain between the Chipola River System, Dead Lakes, and the Apalachicola River, ≈8 miles northeast of Wewahitchka and 1.1 miles from the Apalachicola River bank. Five additional sites are in the works, some of them closer to Wewa and/or closer to the Dead Lakes. All the drilling pad(s) would be surrounded by water during flood events.

Why we oppose this project

1. Risk of drinking water contamination

Port Saint Joe’s freshwater canal intake is around 15 miles downstream of the initial oil well site. It is even less than that if other already constructed drilling platforms are utilized.
The rest of Gulf County depends on aquifer water. Our region of Florida has a shallow water table, high rainfall, and sandy soils overlying porous limestone, making our groundwater particularly vulnerable to contamination by any chemical or oil spills.
Despite recently adding "FLA" to its name, the drilling company Clearwater Land and Minerals FLA, LLC, is based in Louisiana. According to that state’s oil spill management system, data.losco.org, there have been repeated disasters in their oil regions, with 70 “incidents” reported in the just the last 18 months.

2. Risk to the citizens of Wewahitchka and the Tupelo Honey Industry

A 2019 NIH article by Johnston, Lim, and Roh: Impact of Upstream Oil Extraction and Environmental Public Health: a Review of the Evidence, looked at sixty-three peer-reviewed studies to determine the potential impacts of oil drilling on local communities. The study found that 28 of the chemicals used in oil operations are carcinogens, mutagens, reproductive and developmental toxins, neurotoxins, endocrine disruptors, or are acutely toxic.
The oil industry often uses nitrogen stripping to remove the hydrogen sulfide (rotten egg gas) from crude oil. Nitrogen is an inert gas that prevents the flammable hydrogen sulfide gases from igniting, hopefully decreasing the risk of explosions and fires. Once the hydrogen sulfide has been stripped from the oil, it is usually flared.
Other hazardous air pollutants, including benzene, toluene, n-hexane, xylene, methane, butane, and propane, among others, can be released during drilling operations.
Bees are just as susceptible as humans to toxin released in the air or that might land on the Tupelo flowers. Currently, Tupelo Honey is harvested in one of the most pristine environments on earth and is free of contaminants. This huge selling point for our producers will be lost if oil moves in. Out of the entire world, Tupelo honey is only produced HERE. It is valued for its taste and unique ratio of fructose and glucose which prevents crystallization and allows many diabetics to consume it. If a chemical or oil spill occurs, the Tupelo trees, which grow exclusively in the wetlands of this ONE region of Florida, would be completely wiped out, destroying this precious resource forever.

3. Risk to the connected environments of Gulf and Franklin Counties

The Apalachicola River, Chipola River, Dead Lakes, and Apalachicola and Saint Joe Bays are all interconected. They are designated as Outstanding Florida Waters (OFWs). Florida Statute 403.061(27) states that activities permitted within an OFW must be “clearly in the public interest.” Any activity that adversely affects public health, conservation of fish and wildlife, fishing, recreational value, or marine productivity is not in the public interest, according to FS 373.414.

4. Allowing oil drilling is a misuse of previously allocated taxpayer dollars

Millions of dollars have been spent to study, promote, advance, and protect the Tupelo Honey industry, recreational and commercial harvesting of fish and shellfish (including oysters), ecotourism enterprises, and the endangered populations of sea turtles that nest on our beaches and mature in our bays. All that money and effort is wasted if oil or chemical spills occur.

5. There is no deterrent to prevent environmental damage

Our best interpretation of the proposed drilling permit language finds that Clearwater must merely pay $4000 to join the Florida Minerals Trust Fund. We believe this creates nearly zero incentive for the company to prevent ecological damage.
The FDEP and this company are knowingly placing an oil well on a floodplain that would be inundated by a major flood and was devastated by Hurricane Michael. Yet, no one will be held to account for pollution caused by an "act of God." Florida Statute 377.371(3).

Update and Action

The Gulf County Citizens Coalition is a part of ninety organizations and businesses opposing oil exploration in our region as part of the "Kill the Drill" coalition. Hundreds of individuals sent letters to the FDEP. We also persuaded the Gulf and Franklin Boards of County Commissioners, and the city commissions of Wewahitchka, Port St. Joe, and Apalachicola to write. Despite our combined efforts, the FDEP has continued with its stated intent to permit the drilling.

The Apalachicola Riverkeepers has filed an administrative challenge, which was presented in court December 9th, 2024. We do not yet have a judgement. Public support is crucial during this time, and we have been working by publishing articles, speaking at press events, and distributing yard signs to raise awareness.

You can help the effort by calling Governor DeSantis at 850-488-7146 or emailing using this direct link. He is the executive head of the FDEP and can direct them not to issue a permit.

State Senator Cory Simon spoke strongly about his opposition of oil drilling in the river basin during his recent reelection. We are grateful he is on our side. If you wish to thank him and encourage him to take action to permanently remove this threat from us through legislative or other action his email page is found here.

Likewise, State Representative Jason Shoaf is on record as opposing the permit to drill. A letter of thanks and respectful request for him to actively help protect Gulf and Franklin county from this risk to our environment and economies can be sent through this link.

oil drilling

Cargo Port at Port St. Joe

Background

The Port of Port St. Joe’s Port Authority signed a contract with the consulting firm Gouras and Associates in November 2024. The stated goal is to seek funding for:

Fostering the growth of domestic and foreign commerce.
Dredging a shipping channel to receive modern commercial-sized vessels.
Developing the Port Authority-owned property at the old Arizona Chemical site.

The CEO of Tampa Bay Petrochemical spoke at the Port Authority meeting on January 8th, 2025. He indicated they were working with legislators, the military, and the governor’s office to grow the manufacturing of biodiesel, marine diesel, and jet fuel in western and northwestern Florida. He pitched the idea of a production plant in our area with a piped export terminal at our port. They would need the shipping channel dredged to -42 feet to allow for “feedstock” to be brought into the plant and for the product to be shipped out via tanker ships.

Through a grant approved by Triumph Gulf Coast, The Port Authority currently has $15,000,000 to dredge the shipping channel to reestablish Port St. Joe as a deepwater port. In December of 2024, they requested and received an extension to the deadline for the use of the funds. (See grant here) The total cost of dredging is now approximately $61,000,000. Gouras and Associates is tasked with obtaining funds from other sources to make up the difference.

Why we oppose this project

1. Water Pollution

Twenty-six sources of vessel-created water pollutants are regulated, but compliance and enforcement are far from 100%. Self-reporting of violations by shippers rather than actual inspections by authorities is common, especially at smaller ports. Pollution levels will thus depend on the number of ships visiting our bay. Port Panama City handles 350 ships per year. Tampa Bay Petrochemicals indicated they would expect approximately 228 ship movements per year for their facility if it were located here.

Ballast water brings invasive, non-native species.
Bilge water contains oil and other contaminants.
Emission scrubbers discharge sulfuric acid, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and heavy metals.
Sewage and gray water contain bacteria and promote algal blooms.
Wash and cooling water for equipment contains various contaminants.

2. Air Pollution

Unpredictable levels of odors and air pollution will accompany any refineries or heavy industries that port development may attract.
Ships themselves produce nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, volatile organics, soot, and other particulates.
Apalachicola Northern (AN) Railway is the current owner of the defunct line to Port St. Joe. This rail line would need to be reinstated for any cargo port to flourish. AN was sued in 2023 by the Justice Department and the EPA for significant violations of the Clean Air Act due to antiquated locomotives.

3. Inadequate infrastructure

The Port Masterplan calls for establishing PSJ as a commercial deepwater port. Even if the railroad is brought back, our road system is entirely inadequate for this plan.

4. Dredging Deeper and Wider

The new shipping channel would be cut three times deeper and wider than the original one to handle modern commercial-size vessels. It would impact 450 acres of our bay, remove 5.6 million cubic yards of bottom sediment, and require maintenance dredging every 3 years.

5. Plans are already obsolete

The current permit for the shipping channel is to -37 feet in depth, whereas the next generation of cargo vessels require -55 feet. In addition, the Army Corps of Engineers only has funds for maintenance dredging of port channels that surpass 1 million tons of shipping per year. This level will be unlikely as we will be competing with Port Panama City with all its established infrastructure and services.

6. Dredging up toxins in the bay

The sediment testing performed to permit dredging of the shipping channel has major technical flaws and is over 10 years old. Still, we learned that Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) and Dioxins are at significant levels. These chemicals are highly toxic, last for hundreds of years in the marine environment, stick to sediments, and are historically produced by paper mills. Currently, they are safely covered with sand and silt. There is NO accurate data for what will be left exposed to the environment post-dredging. (See Dredging section for in-depth details on the toxin risk.)

7. Industrial Blight

We cannot expect to maintain our natural resource-based economy with smoke stacks, flared gases, mechanical noise, and industrial infrastructure. Yet, in addition to cargo customers, the Port Masterplan has liquid natural gas (LNG), concrete, biodiesel, CO2 capture, and methanol plants listed as possible port clients. At the Port Authority’s recent meeting, Tampa Bay Petrochemicals presented itself as a potential client.

8. Beach Erosion

Windmark Beach and Highland View developments will struggle as their beaches erode from continuous commercial vessel wakes.

9. No local control of our bay

In 2021, the Florida Legislature passed a law preventing public ballot initiatives from regulating commerce in ports. No city or county can “interfere with maritime trade.” This legislation was in response to Key West residents attempting to regulate the size, number, and environmental record of vessels docking at their port. Their town is now regularly inundated with more tourists than they can handle, and their cherished coral reefs are at risk.

Update: We have members attending all Port Authority meetings to give us warning of any movement towards a working commercial port. At the same time, we are hoping to steer Port Authority members to consider commercial ideas for their lands that may significantly and positively impact the direction of Port St. Joe and all of Gulf County.

Cargo Port

Dredging through known Toxins in St. Joseph Bay

Background
In 2014, sediment testing was performed along a proposed commercial shipping channel in Saint Joseph Bay. In 2023, another sediment analysis was completed for dredging related to a proposed Eastern Shipbuilding dry dock.

The channel dredging project is approved and the dry dock project is under consideration for millions of dollars of grant money managed by Triumph Gulf Coast.

The paper mill existed for 60 years and produced 25-30 million gallons of wastewater per day, much of it ultimately deposited in the bay.
After 22 years of operation, mill consultants reported an eleven-foot-thick layer of waste along the bottom of the bay. Discharge of additional material and contaminants continued for at least another 14 years.
Even when the wastewater was diverted to a treatment plant, it was never tested for dioxins and other paper mill toxins.
Currently, the contaminated sediments are sequestered under a layer of silt and sand deposited since the mill’s closure. Dredging may expose the toxins again.
The mill was operational when the harmful effects of many toxins were relatively unknown and unregulated.

Why we are concerned
1. Paper mill toxins are dangerous to human health

Dioxin is the chemical in Agent Orange that caused numerous health issues for Vietnam Veterans. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) are ranked 9th by the CDC as chemicals threatening human health. Both these chemical groups are known to be produced during the paper milling process and are:

Highly toxic
Insoluble in water
Adhere to sediments
Last for decades in the environment (Dioxin’s half-life is over 100 years)
Last for years in the body of animals (Dioxin’s half-life in humans is 11 years)

2. The toxins are present today
The sediment reports from 2014 and 2023 confirm that these contaminants are present. 25% of the samples taken in 2023 had Dioxin levels so high that if the sample had been taken on land, a house could not be built there.

3. The core samples are truncated

The sediment sampling plan called for the sample cores to extend to the full proposed dredging depth. None of the cores did so. The average was 70%, and some only reached 40-50% down.
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) tells us that the truncated samples likely contain all the toxic layers, so they are unworried about the missing feet of the sample. However, they could give us no relevant data on which they base this statement. The actual depth and location of the toxins deposited during the mill’s operation is not known.

4. Toxin levels that will be exposed to the marine environment are unknown

Each core sample was sent whole to the laboratory not divided into sections. This sampling methodology cannot tell us how far down the toxic layers are located within the core. Hence, we do not know if dredging will remove the toxins entirely or remove the upper uncontaminated sediment layers and leave toxins exposed to the marine environment. If it is the latter, toxin levels will be higher than what the laboratories have reported due to the diluting effect of the uncontaminated sediments mixed in the sample bucket.
The 2014 data for the proposed shipping channel dredging is over 10 years old and unreliable due to Hurricane Michael's significant rearrangement of the bay floor, including the mill toxins. Additionally, we discovered a 1000-fold underreporting of dioxin levels due to a mathematical error in decimal point placement. This data was not corrected for the Environmental Assessment.

5. Oversight for the environment is lacking

There is no requirement for a full Environmental Impact Study before dredging is performed. Instead, a less in-depth Environmental Assessment (EA) is accepted.
The FDEP tells us they only oversee the proper handling of the dredged material deposited as spoils on land, but they are not mandated (in fact, they are not allowed) to address the risks posed by toxins left exposed in the marine ecosystem.

Recommendations

The sediment testing should be repeated to the full dredging depth plus one foot. This added foot should be separated from the main core as Sample B to represent the sediment that would be left exposed. Sample B should be analyzed to determine if the toxins that will be left exposed are at dangerous levels to human and environmental health.

Update

We have alerted the Army Corps of Engineers, FDEP regulatory and scientific branches, environmental scientists from area parks, preserves, and estuaries, and our Gulf County Board of County Commissioners that the data we have can not be utilized to accurately predict levels of toxins in the dredging spoils or in the exposed marine sediments post dredging. All of the scientists agree that our recommendation is the only way to obtain the data needed to be assured we will not expose St. Joe Bay to the paper mill toxins that are currently safely buried.

Our group has obtained a quote of approximately $64,000 to retest the sediments correctly. The BOCC has told us they can not write this $64,000 into their $126,000,000 grant application for the floating dry dock because they followed FDEP requirements when testing.

We are concerned that ignoring inaccurate data for the relatively small dry dock dredging would set a precedent with FDEP for allowing the much larger channel dredging to proceed, which has even less reliable data.

For primary data sources and additional concerns with sampling, see Learn More on this website.

Dredging through toxins

LNG Plant at Port St. Joe

Background

A liquid natural gas (LNG) company, Nopetro, attempted to move to Port St. Joe in 2023. LNG exporters are subject to the oversight of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). This oversight typically includes a rigorous evaluation of safety, economic, and environmental impacts that takes several years.

Nopetro applied for an exemption from FERC oversight by claiming they would not really be an export facility (even though they planned to export the product). The loophole they used was a plan to truck their LNG ~1300 feet to standard cargo container ships rather than use a pipeline to load specially equipped LNG vessels. FERC granted this ridiculous exemption despite opposition from our group and others. However, on 7/21/2023, after the remarkable turnouts at public meetings in Port Saint Joe, Nopetro issued a press release saying it will “no longer pursue the project due to market conditions.”

Why we opposed and will continue to oppose LNG in our community

1. Safety concerns

Too many Port St. Joe businesses and homes are in the one-mile evacuation zone of the port. We have no paid firefighters or siren warning system. Ethane and propane, both byproducts of the cooling process, are heavier than air and can pool in low-lying areas, where they become a fire hazard.

Freeport, TX - In 2022, piping at the terminal failed, resulting in an explosion and a 480-foot-high fireball.
Plymouth, WA - In 2014, an explosion and gas leak injured five and forced hundreds to evacuate. It propelled a 2000-pound hunk of metal a quarter of a mile. 14.3 million cubic feet of gas was released, sickening residents and first responders.

2. Economic concerns

Our community took years to recover from the Mill closure, and we have transitioned to a robust tourism-based economy. If we re-industrialize, we threaten that progress. Despite what officials supporting the plant claimed, an email obtained under the Sunshine Laws indicated that Nopetro projected that, due to automation, it would create only twelve jobs.

3. Pollution

Liquifying natural gas results in 85% to 95% pure liquid methane, which is clean-burning for the end user. Unfortunately, the procedure for those on the processing end is not so clean.

Impurities are removed from the LNG by burning off excess methane and refrigerant gasses. These flares are visible whenever the plant is in operation.
Venting of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrogen sulfide (stinky gas), Benzene, and carbon particles can also occur.

Update

On February 16th, 2024, the DC Circuit Court decided our case against FERC was "moot" based on Nopetro’s press release stating that they had no plans to proceed with the project at the time. This verdict was reached despite Nopetro’s lawyers stating under oath: “That doesn’t mean we have abandoned the idea completely at this port [Port St. Joe].”

We are relieved that Nopetro abandoned their plans, at least temporarily, but disappointed that the judge did not render a verdict on the legal question of whether the method of loading a vessel for export of LNG determines whether or not FERC must perform its duty.

Recommendations

The Gulf County Citizens Coalition will continue to monitor the situation and resurrect our challenge and public opposition if Nopetro or any other LNG company attempts to return to Port St. Joe without FERC oversight. Further, we believe our City and County Commissioners should seek public comment and require safety, economic, and environmental evaluations, whether required by FERC or not, before allowing such an industry to proceed.

LNG

Projects We Are Studying

We are currently analyzing the projects in this section to determine if we believe they can be done safely.

Dry Dock Project for Eastern Shipbuilding

Background:

St. Joe Company owns the lands where the paper mill once stood. The grounds are too contaminated to allow anything but commercial or industrial businesses. Once the LNG plant project fell through (see above), Eastern Shipbuilding took over the tenancy of the site to build, repair, and refit large commercial vessels. They employ between 200-400 people, depending on their workload.

The Gulf County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) has submitted a Floating Dry Dock project to Triumph Gulf Coast for a grant totaling 126 million. (See grant here). The dock will be used exclusively by Eastern Shipbuilding.

That some sort of water-related industry will likely occupy these lands is a reality. Many uses could be far worse than ship repairing.

Why we are concerned:

1. Will the floating dry dock lead to a commercial cargo port or stop one?

The BOCC has told us:

The dry dock will allow more vessels to be worked on, thus maintaining steady, good-paying jobs.
A floating dry dock can bring in deeper draft vessels for refitting without dredging the shipping channel.
The dock can be transported a distance by tugboat to bring in unseaworthy vessels needing repairs.
The dock will be used to expand Eastern Shipbuilding to full occupancy of the port quay. It will thus preclude utilizing the port for marine commerce or other industries.

Despite the assurances of the BOCC listed above, the Environmental Assessment for the dry dock authored by a BOCC-hired contractor states that:

The purpose of the dry dock project is to reestablish the Port of PSJ as a deep water port and support the Port Authority’s mission statement: … fostering the growth of domestic and foreign commerce.
Once [the dry dock permit] is approved, the work would begin immediately, and sizable, long-term work already in the pipeline will follow shortly thereafter. (There is no indication of what this sizable work entails.)
The proposed dredge area for the dry dock was minimized to assist the Port Authority to achieve its mission. [of commercial maritime commerce].

Due to these conflicting narratives, we are unsure whether the dry dock will prevent a commercial port and industrial growth on our waterfront or be a prelude to both.

2. Dredging

The dry dock project will necessitate some dredging directly at the quay wall of the port. This is the location where the old paper mill once stood, and toxins were deposited for 60 years. A 2023 report of the sediments in the proposed dredging site for the dry dock indicates significant levels of Dioxins.

However, compared to dredging for the shipping channel, the dry dock project will only impact 7 acres of the bay (versus 450 for the channel) and require the removal of 115,000 cubic yards of sediment (versus 5.6 million for the shipping channel).

While we still have the same concerns regarding the spreading of toxins as we have for the main shipping channel dredging, they are proportionately less for this far smaller project. Unfortunately, the FDEP seems concerned only about hazards such as turbidity during dredging, not the contaminants they should be monitoring. (See the Dredging section of this web page for more information on toxin risk and lack of FDEP oversight.)

3. Bay Water Pollution

Anytime a ship comes into our bay, there is a risk of pollution from ballast water containing invasive species, bilge water with oil and chemicals, scrubber water with sulfuric acids, PAHs, and heavy metals, sewage and gray water bringing bacteria.

We believe there will be less risk with a repair and refit facility such as Eastern Shipbuilding as opposed to a cargo port, simply due to the lower number of ships entering the port. Eastern spends months on each vessel and may only work on a dozen ships per year instead of the hundreds that would come in with a working commercial port.

However, water and air pollution from ship maintenance and repair could become problematic if not properly monitored. Since our group is not permitted on private property, we do not know if environmentally friendly equipment and practices are being utilized at Eastern Shipbuilding. We hope so, but we need to do more research on this issue.

Dry dock

Aquarium

Projects We Support

Gulf County Citizens Coalition believes the projects listed here move us forward in the direction we should be going, balancing economic growth with preserving the lands and waters of Gulf County.

Gulf County Ecology and Environmental Education Center

Background

The fast pace of growth in our county is both exciting and alarming. While the desire for good jobs and economic opportunities is a priority for many, it should not supersede the need to preserve our current natural resource-based economy and our responsibility to hand on a healthy Gulf County to the next generation.

This goal of preservation while we continue to grow can be most easily accomplished by educating residents, decision-makers, and tourists in an exciting and engaging way. The wonder and awe of our marine and freshwater ecosystems seen up close in an educational aquarium or ecology center can not fail to inspire proactive and dedicated guardians of the future.

It is this vision of altering attitudes long-term that has led us on our journey to becoming a 501c3 non-profit. Our goal is to raise funds and write grants for this proposal and other educational endeavors. This project is in its earliest planning stages; we need volunteers! Contact us if you want to be part of the team.

Why we support this project:

Knowledge leads to understanding, understanding leads to appreciation, appreciation leads to connection, connection leads to caring, and caring leads to preservation.

Such a facility would provide:

1. A place for our children to enjoy fun local activities while learning about our environment.

2. A site where young people can take a step toward exciting inspirational careers.

3. A way to encourage day-tourists from surrounding counties to spend their money here.

4. A stage to present our community as a place that values the waters and wildlife around us.

5. A catalyst to encourage non-polluting sustainable growth.

6. A central location for scientists, volunteers, students, teachers, and agencies to coordinate and complement efforts to study and preserve our delicate and unique environment.

7. A venue for our growing population of seniors to enjoy when they might have to curtail more strenuous recreation.