Still incomplete. Still unanswered. Every resident must act.

What did happen

• The applicants filed a 121-page response on August 26, 2026, before the District’s September 14 outside response date.
• The package contains revised plans, credit calculations, cost tables, draft legal instruments, and written responses.
• SWFWMD’s Documents tab lists resident E-mail Record entries dated August 27 and September 2.

What the reviewed record still did not show

• No District completeness determination.
• No permit approval.
• No later recorded ownership instrument curing the package’s statement that deed transfer and recordation remained in process.
• No public, point-by-point agency response to the substance of the two resident letters identified below.

RAI Challenge Letter

Requests one controlling signed-and-sealed map, defensible credit accounting, floodway and drainage analysis, current wildlife review, soil and planting investigation, measurable hydrologic success criteria, enforceable financial assurance, and remedies for default or abandonment.

SWFWMD entered this letter in the public docket on August 27. The stable campaign PDF matches the official-file letter. It remains resident advocacy, not an agency finding or decision.

Supplemental Formal Demand

Preserves every earlier issue and adds the extension chronology, the prior application records, current survey questions, the homeowner floodway-modeling comparison, fee accounting, independent review, and a preservation demand covering communications and records associated with all three applications.

The letter is dated September 1 and was transmitted and docketed September 2. SWFWMD's official combined email record contains the transmittal and both letters. Filing is not proof that the District adopted any allegation or conclusion.

Ownership, boundaries, and acreage

• Where is the current recorded proof of ownership and authority to encumber the full proposed bank area?
• Which survey, title schedule, security map, and conservation-easement boundary controls?
• Why do the current survey and Figure 14 security map appear to treat Parcel 3 differently?
• How does every wetland, upland-support, preservation, buffer, floodway, and credit acre reconcile without overlap or double counting?

Floodway, drainage, and storage

• Overlay the effective FEMA regulatory floodway, floodplain, drainage easements, historic basin storage, access routes, work areas, and credit polygons on one signed-and-sealed plan.
• Show that ditch work, planting, equipment access, fencing, or other activities will not obstruct conveyance, reduce storage, redirect drainage, raise flood elevations, or shift risk to neighbors.
• Provide project-specific Brooker Creek modeling and address the drainage-easement capacities demanded in comparable homeowner review.

Credits and ecological gain

• Identify the existing wetlands and ecological functions before work begins.
• Demonstrate genuine incremental functional gain rather than relabeling existing wetlands, habitat, floodway, or regulatory protection as new mitigation value.
• Explain the proposed 37.88 credits, including the large share attributed to upland supporting habitat, with reviewable UMAM assumptions and maps.

Ground disturbance, soil, and biomass

• Reconcile “no earthwork” with ditch restoration, more than 60,000 plantings, thinning, removals, fencing, monitoring equipment, access, and any well or utility work.
• Identify plant sizes, planting-hole and root-ball dimensions, equipment routes, displaced soil and belowground biomass, and the destination of excess material.
• Perform qualified, site-specific environmental testing wherever soil will be disturbed, driven on, planted, stockpiled, transported, or disposed, with lawful worker and public protections triggered by results.

Planting, wildlife, and success standards

• Provide a current, project-wide wildlife survey and current agency consultation appropriate to the work proposed.
• Supply a precise planting plan that can be checked against field conditions, soil results, densities, species, sizes, survival assumptions, and available space.
• Resolve inconsistent pine-tree densities and establish measurable wetland hydroperiod, water-level, vegetation, invasive-species, and corrective-action triggers.

Cost, security, and long-term accountability

• Replace generalized or apparently inconsistent cost assumptions with certified quantities, unit costs, labor, equipment, monitoring, correction, contamination-response, and disposal estimates.
• Require enforceable, adequately funded financial assurance for construction, correction, default, successor responsibility, and perpetual management before credit release.
• Reconcile the present application with two withdrawn application records and explain material changes in acreage, design, earthwork, structures, credits, and commitments.

SWFWMD Governing Board meeting

SWFWMD Tampa Service Office
7601 U.S. Highway 301 North
Tampa, FL 33637

Bring a concise statement, identify Application 930235 / ERP 47575.002, and ask what must happen before the District can call the application complete.

Pinellas County Commission meeting

Pinellas County Communications, Palm Room
333 Chestnut Street
Clearwater, FL 33756

Preregistration is encouraged for in-person comment and required by the stated cutoff for remote participation. Review the County’s official instructions and agenda first.