Current statusRAI response filed
Verified permit record

Current Status

This page separates the latest agency action, the latest applicant filing, the current applicant deadline, and any verified public date.

Dates can change with a later filing or agency action. There is no countdown here. Check the official record before relying on a date.

Current Status

Applicant filed its RAI response; District review is next

The applicants filed a 121-page response on August 26, 2026 to SWFWMD's December 14, 2025 Request for Additional Information. Filing the response is not District acceptance, a completeness determination, or permit approval. No permit approval is shown in the reviewed record.

RAI response filed
Application
930235

Brooker Creek Mitigation Bank

Permit identifier
47575.002
Last agency action
August 18, 2026

SWFWMD approved another time extension. The District set September 14, 2026 as the new applicant response date.

Last applicant filing
August 26, 2026

Applicants filed a 121-page RAI response. The package contains revised plans, credit calculations, cost tables, legal drafts, and applicant responses. Its contents remain applicant assertions unless and until SWFWMD evaluates them.

Former outside response date
September 14, 2026

The applicants filed their response on August 26, before this outside date. September 14 is no longer an upcoming filing deadline on this site and was never a public hearing or universal petition deadline.

Next project-specific public date
None verified

No next project-specific public meeting, hearing, or public-comment date has been verified.

Last verified
September 1, 2026

Stale-data threshold: 7 days. Source access dates are listed below.

What changed: the applicants filed. What did not: SWFWMD has not accepted the response, found the application complete, or approved the permit.

Official permit recordOpen applicant RAI responseSWFWMD noticing information

Sources and access dates

Opposition review of the applicants’ filing

They filed 121 pages. The unresolved questions are now easier to see.

Save Tarpon Woods campaign analysis—not an agency finding. We oppose converting this neighborhood landscape into a private wetland-credit bank. The applicants’ August 26 response does not change that position. It gives SWFWMD more material to review, but filing a response does not prove the proposal meets the permitting standards.

What the applicants now propose

  • 37.88 mitigation credits, with approximately 81% attributed to upland supporting habitat.
  • No earthwork, while proposing pond-to-marsh and ditch-to-forested-wetland restoration.
  • Signs, cameras, and limited fencing first, with possible additional fencing later.
  • Release of 60% of the credits before an interim ecological success level is demonstrated.

What remains unresolved

  • The applicants say the deed transfer and recordation are still in process.
  • No current FWC letter or current project-wide wildlife survey was supplied.
  • The success table contains vegetation targets but no measurable wetland hydroperiod or water-level criteria.
  • The work plan expects 75 pine trees per acre while the cost table funds 40 per acre.
  • The cost package contains an apparent Year 15 arithmetic error and no visible professional certification.
Read the applicants’ RAI responseRead the detailed record analysisTake civic action

Applicant filing and public docket reviewed through September 1, 2026. The observations above are campaign analysis; SWFWMD had not posted a completeness determination or permit approval as of that review.

As last verified September 1, the public viewer had not shown a completeness determination or permit approval. A project FAQ cannot verify earthwork, easement effect, or Parcel 3. What’s at stake · Applications · Who · Pathways.

The useful status summary above works without JavaScript.

September 2 campaign accountability package

Additional campaign concerns now supplement the August 27 challenge.

Save Tarpon Woods campaign position—not an agency finding. The supplemental formal demand preserves every issue in the August 27 letter and adds the exact deadline chronology, the recovered 102-document Application 907654 docket, the current survey and Schedule B questions, County records DRM-23-00102 and DRM-24-00066, the homeowner floodway-modeling comparison, targeted environmental-history review, fee accounting, and preservation demands covering all three applications.

Procedural accountability

  • Identify the authority and facts supporting the post-date extension.
  • Explain why time “in-house” appeared in the recommendation.
  • Preserve emails, metadata, drafts, messages, routing, notes, and approval records.
  • Use an independent reviewer outside the immediate approval chain.

Technical accountability

  • Reconcile all three application designs, acreages, credits, structures, and earthwork.
  • Overlay floodway, floodplain, easements, work areas, credit polygons, and access.
  • Require current wildlife, hydrology, planting, soil, title, cost, and financial-assurance support.
  • Fund correction, default, and perpetual management before credit release.

Evidence boundary: No reviewed record establishes improper motive or misconduct. The request for independent review concerns procedure, consistency, documentation, and whether the same standards were applied to similarly situated applicants.

Read the supplemental formal demandOpen the newsroom dossierReview every application difference
Resident public-comment letter

What we are asking SWFWMD to investigate before this permit moves forward

Save Tarpon Woods campaign position—not an agency finding. The letter does not ask SWFWMD to assume that every feared outcome will occur. It asks the District to identify foreseeable failure modes, require evidence-based answers, and attach enforceable remedies before the applicants may receive or sell mitigation credits.

Map what exists and what would earn credit

  • Put the 172.46-acre boundary, existing wetlands, every proposed credit polygon, uplands, access routes, and the effective FEMA regulatory floodway on one controlling signed and sealed survey.
  • Require the applicants to demonstrate incremental functional gain under UMAM and mitigation-bank rules without counting existing ecological function or existing regulatory protection as new gain.
  • Reconcile every acre so wetland, upland-support, preservation, buffer, and floodway values are not counted twice.

Explain every ground disturbance

  • Reconcile the assertion of “no earthwork” with ditch work, planting, thinning, removals, fencing, monitoring equipment, access, and well or utility work.
  • Identify the number and size of more than 60,000 proposed plants, planting-hole and root-ball dimensions, equipment routes, displaced soil and biomass, and where excess material would go.
  • Demonstrate that work will not raise grades, reduce flood storage, redirect drainage, alter wetland hydroperiods, or damage protected root zones and belowground ecological networks.

Test before disturbing former golf-course soil

  • A resident filing reports an FDACS inquiry concerning alleged Target 6 Plus or related arsenical-herbicide use. Save Tarpon Woods has not independently verified that an inquiry remains open or identified an official disposition; no reviewed source establishes that Target 6 Plus was applied at this site or that the site is currently contaminated.
  • Require qualified environmental investigation, systematic and targeted sampling, planting-location testing, waste characterization, worker and neighborhood protections, and lawful transport and disposal when triggered by test results.
  • Provide certified expected and reasonably foreseeable worst-case costs rather than leaving cleanup risk with residents or the public.

Protect the project from default or abandonment

  • Require recorded ownership and easement instruments, a project-delivery and quality-assurance plan, qualified staffing, independent verification, and a replacement-manager process.
  • Require a fully funded, irrevocable trust, escrow, bond, letter of credit with standby trust, or stronger authorized combination adequate for corrective work and management in perpetuity.
  • Withhold credits until prerequisites are satisfied and preserve District authority to suspend releases, draw dedicated funds, intervene after default, and require restoration.
Read or download the full letter (PDF)Document detailsCheck the official permit file

Letter dated August 27, 2026. This is resident advocacy and technical comment, not a SWFWMD finding, completeness decision, or permit action.