Updates

Prepare now for the formal permit-challenge window

The newsletter tells residents how to request official SWFWMD notice, why comments and objections are not themselves Chapter 120 petitions, what evidence to preserve, and why the eventual Notice of Rights must be read immediately. Save Tarpon Woods is preparing the core petition now so it can be conformed to the final agency action and controlling deadline.

Record boundary: the archive preserves the exact newsletter wording as sent. Separate October 9 information is clearly labeled and does not silently alter the historical message.

District confirms receipt, review, and file placement

General Counsel Christopher A. Tumminia confirmed that SWFWMD received and reviewed the October 8 emergency notice and prior Save Tarpon Woods submissions and placed them in Application 930235’s file of record. He stated that the application remains under review and that any agency action will include notice of Chapter 120 rights.

Scope: the acknowledgment is not agency action and does not decide the permit or answer the notice’s individual technical requests.

Emergency notice sent after Brooker Creek’s rapid rise and observed overbank conditions

William R. Nobles, Jr. sent an emergency supplemental notice concerning Application 930235 after personally observing Brooker Creek outside its normal channel and preserving provisional USGS readings from the rain event. At 2:00 p.m., station 02307359 reported a gage height of 11.88 feet and discharge of 253 cubic feet per second—1.44 inches below the roadway-flooding level cited in that morning’s Alert Pinellas warning.

The notice demands preservation and field documentation of the event, watershed-scale existing- and proposed-condition hydraulic modeling, vertical-datum reconciliation, floodway no-rise and compensatory-storage review, drainage-easement and conveyance-capacity analysis, modeled construction and failure scenarios, independent peer review, and no floodway-connected disturbance until the required record is complete.

Evidence boundary: the event does not prove that an unbuilt project caused flooding. USGS readings are provisional, gage height is not creek depth, and measured rise rates are not a crest forecast. SWFWMD General Counsel confirmed District receipt, review, and file placement on October 9; that acknowledgment does not establish agreement, technical action, or permit action.

September legal-form submissions do not resolve the complete application record

William R. Nobles, Jr. submitted a second supplemental objection asking SWFWMD to explain how the September 18 and 21 proposed legal instruments affect the incomplete application, publish an itemized RAI determination, and resolve the still-open title, access, effluent, floodway and hydrology, wetland-credit, soil, wildlife, cost, and financial-assurance issues before any material agency action.

Evidence boundary: the letter recognizes that requested drafts need not already be executed or recorded, but argues that a draft cannot prove present legal rights. It treats metadata and facial legal-description issues as review indicators—not proof of fraud or failed title. The site does not represent the letter as docketed unless separately verified.

Formal consolidated demand sent: every outstanding deficiency must be answered

The separate September 16 follow-up restates all seventeen unresolved categories, requests a written status matrix and point-by-point response, and preserves every demand in the independently published August 27 and September 2 letters.

Still incomplete. Still unanswered. Every resident must act.

SWFWMD's public viewer still lists Application 930235 as Incomplete. The applicant filed a 121-page response, but unresolved ownership, boundary, floodway, hydrology, wetland-credit, soil, wildlife, cost, and perpetual-maintenance questions remain. Read the full community update, make the calls, send a personal letter, and use the verified public-meeting information.

Newsroom dossier and supplemental formal demand published

The package presents the precise deadline clock, three-application design history, current survey questions, DRM-24-00066, floodway and modeling evidence, wildlife and environmental baselines, costs, perpetual funding, preservation requests, and questions for independent oversight. It expressly distinguishes documented facts from unproved misconduct.

The newest survey does not resolve the project-map problem

The survey supplies a boundary and extensive topography, but Save Tarpon Woods asks the applicant to reconcile field and revision dates, Sheet 9 elevations, Schedule B-II deletions, Parcel 2 and Parcel 3, Figure 14 security lines, title-commitment versions, floodway, wetlands, credits, easements, access, and work areas on one controlling signed-and-sealed composite.

Application 907654 reveals the missing design bridge

The recovered 102-document public docket sits between the original withdrawn application and current Application 930235. Its 172.59-acre excavation, pond, ditch, material-disposition, and credit proposals were withdrawn, not approved—but Save Tarpon Woods asks that they be reconciled with the present “no earthwork” narrative.

The 398-page County/SWFWMD study belongs at the center of review

The study documents the Brooker Creek watershed’s complexity, severe historical flooding around Tarpon Woods, slow recession, model needs, and drainage-easement constraints. It is not a model of the current bank plan; it is the reason project-specific proof cannot be skipped.