Assembly-Line Environmental Permits For St. Joe Company To Be Issued Soon

Coalition of growth management activists and environmentalists denounce permit plans as another give-away to St. Joe. Fast-track permits will cause severe impacts for Bay/Walton Counties. Citizens to be shut out of process.


Citizen groups have learned that outgoing Florida Department of Environmental Protection Secretary David Struhs intends to issue an agreement between FDEP and the St. Joe Company before his departure at the end of February. These groups today denounced both the Ecosystem Management Agreement (EMA) being proposed by FDEP and the Regional General Permit (RGP) being developed by the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) as giveaways to the St. Joe Company, the state’s largest developer. The groups said the permits would have potentially severe impacts on the Northwest Florida environment, and also accelerate runaway growth.

Both the EMA and the RGP set up an expedited permitting process in a 40,000 acre St. Joe project area in western Bay and Walton counties. Once the agreements are in place there will be little review of individual projects, no public notice given, and no public challenges allowed. The permits give St Joe additional regulatory advantages over other developers, and with renewals, these permits will never expire.

Struhs announced his resignation last month to work for International Paper as their Vice-President of Environmental Affairs. Many environmental groups are relieved to see him depart, due to his regulatory tilt towards big industries. He lowered standards for them, and made deals that required the taxpayers to foot the bill for addressing pollution problems. “He will be joining the staff of a polluter that he gave sweetheart deals to when he was regulating them. Now as one of his last acts in FDEP, he will give another such deal to the state’s largest landholder, “ said Art Stewart of the Panhandle Citizens’ Coalition.

"Issuance of the RGP would violate requirements of the Clean Water Act, because no public notice will be required. Therefore the public will not have a clear understanding of the nature and magnitude of the activities proposed, in order to generate meaningful comments and sustainable challenges,” said Linda Young of the Clean Water Network. “Also, the proposed wetland set-asides and conservation areas are a sham, since they could still be filled in by using a regular individual permit.”

“The EMA contains no specific information for any of the major projects to be considered under this agreement, contrary to state statutory requirements," said Sharon Maxwell of the Northwest Fla. Group of the Sierra Club. “FDEP is automatically giving away 20% of so-called 'low-quality' wetlands throughout the entire project area. There is no incentive to destroy less, which is contrary to its rules of avoidance and minimization. Impact ‘credits’ may also be transferred to other projects, where up to 100% of wetlands may be destroyed. . This brand-new impact transfer provision has no statutory authority," said Maxwell. “These wetlands are needed to control flooding, recharge groundwater and provide wildlife habitat. Merely enhancing other wetlands will not replace them.”

"Instead of following the rules that require that a compelling public interest exists for these permits, these agencies seem more interested in making the agreements acceptable to the St. Joe Company. The company naturally would prefer to have one-stop shopping and one-size-fits-all permits in two ‘stores’ (COE and FDEP) where the public is not invited to enter," said Diane Brown, spokesperson for Citizens for the Bay.

"These permits are so flawed they should surely be subject to challenges in the administrative and legal arenas when they come up for final review," said Linda Young of the Clean Water Network. "There does not appear to be any alternatives’ analysis in either permit, and in the case of the RGP, there will be no Environmental Impact Statement. The impacts in the project area are so significant that an EIS should be required. The agencies seem mainly interested reducing their administrative burden and giving this particular landowner a huge benefit in developing its property. They seem to have forgotten why they were created."

Stewart concluded, "FDEP seems to be on a very fast track, trying to push out their permit so that Struhs can sign off on it before he leaves office. These far-reaching proposals should be stopped for now, reviewed and revised to address public concerns and allow public participation in the decision-making. Unless the public is allowed to enter the permitting process, an EIS is required, and all the environmental and statutory problems addressed, these permits should not be issued at all."

.... Citizens for the Bay, Sierra Club, Clean Water Network and Panhandle Citizens Coalition news release for 2/19/04