Californians build house in GNP. FCD demands halt and removal.

[noharleyyet]

That was a reply to me referring to the house in the Bridgers

Ah yes, I see it after reading it again, thanks.

 

[shoots-straight]

View attachment 316112
Here's 5100 sqft of excavation on 2 townhouse foundations. 8' walkout basements.

For reference-the lot, not house, the lot in MT is 0.06acres were discussing. The lot is half the amount of dirt vs the excavated qty in this picture

See the silt sock beyond the fill? See the concrete guy on the backside of the far foundation in front of the fill?

Here's a different angle, right on the edge of foundation 1, the far oneView attachment 316124

This foundation excavation is about the size of the lot in question. You can see the minimal tracks, from fill uphill.

This was done in a 320d. This specific 320d.
View attachment 316125



Now, with a straight face....Tell me exactly what and why you would put a piece of equipment to dig the foundation (or frame the house, you pick) in question in the river, that far out, requiring more boom or a long stick and why that made any sense to even suggest as logical thing they did provided there's not a shred of evidence to suggest that occurred in the homeowners drea
Rocks, probably, runoff, yes. Equipment in the river to dig or pour the foundation, No.

You really think those pictures are a close comparison to what we are discussing? Not even close in my estimation. I have no idea what went on there, but do know that large rocks have to be pulled up in the right direction to dislodge them, and certainly that building site looks very rocky and might hold very large solid boulders that would require the right pull. Have you operated a large excavator such as the one in the picture on the low boy? Drive that one around the home in question to dig and back fill then let me know if you get wet.

 

[trackerbacker]

Platte River canoe livery wins its lawsuit against the National Park Service

The owners of a canoe livery that has operated on the Platte River in northern Michigan since the early 1970s have staved off an effort by the federal government to make them pay for the privilege.

www.mlive.com

A case that mimic closely gnp. Agreements in place with the long ....too offensive of a word for here....of the law reneging of agreements.

Heck, maybe I'll connect amblers with the orrs.

 

[Nick87]

Rocks, probably, runoff, yes. Equipment in the river to dig or pour the foundation, No.

The idea that someone had to put equipment in the river to do any of the dig or the backfill is...well I'm not even sure what to say to that. As far as runoff maybe but I think it'd be minimal. Nothing to do with the argument at hand just an observation.

 

[OntarioHunter]

I don’t like the way the article ended.. it sounds like it’s a developing story so I’ll stay up on it but the article seemed to end abruptly IMO.

I hope they tare that sucker down. There was some white twinkling tyvek up high in the Bridgers kinda near the M last summer that just chapped my ass, but in the natl park?? right on the bank of the river/creek? The laws revolving around ownership and use within the park are interesting also… If they’re allowed to erect mansions in these areas I would be quite upset for the well being of these wild places.

It was my understanding when I worked for the NPS that the inholdings in Glacier could survive to the end of lifetime of owners in possession back in the 70s and that no significant improvements could be made to existing structures and NO new construction. At the end of owner's life, the NPS acquired the property by right of eminent domain. The terms were settled in courts a long time ago. I seem to recall one place on the other end of the lake that burned and couldn't be rebuilt. I'd like to know how the contractor got the materials and equipment through the gate. Some heads are gonna fall. Very stupid. Arrogant!

 

[Sytes]

Loophole allows construction of private home along McDonald Creek

A private landowner has built a home along the shore of Lower McDonald Creek in Glacier National Park and Flathead County planning officials say there’s nothing they can do about it.

dailyinterlake.com

However, there is no Federal Emergency Management Agency floodplain designation in the area, because the floodplain was never mapped.

“We can’t regulate a floodplain if there’s no designated floodplain,” said Zachary Moon, a planner with the county Planning and Zoning Office.

He also noted there’s no county zoning on private lands in Glacier, so there’s no other restrictions outside of sewer and water.

But Apgar is serviced by Glacier National Park’s sewer and water system, which serves both private and federal buildings and residences in the area.

FEMA confirmed it has not mapped the floodplain. It doesn’t typically map floodplains on federal lands, agency officials said.

“FEMA generally has not mapped flood risk on federal lands, e.g. national parks. There is some floodplain mapping near the area in question along the Middle Fork Flathead River, but that is on a contiguous area of Flathead County that is outside of the park boundary,” wrote Jennifer E Warren, agency spokesperson, in an email. “Although there are some private land withholdings in the park that fall under Flathead County jurisdiction, which include the area in question, a study of McDonald Creek would be almost entirely within Glacier Park and so that is likely the reason why no flood study has been performed here to date.”

 

[Dan O]

Has there been an investigation on the septic system to ensure no seepage or nitrates will get into the ground water or river? Just asking for a friend.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Loophole allows construction of private home along McDonald Creek

A private landowner has built a home along the shore of Lower McDonald Creek in Glacier National Park and Flathead County planning officials say there’s nothing they can do about it.

dailyinterlake.com

View attachment 319356

It makes sense.

The fema flood maps are what flood insurance is based on - if something is in the right level flood plane it is uninsurable.

Not much point in doing the extensive effort to determine risk of building in an area when its practically impossible to build there.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Loophole allows construction of private home along McDonald Creek

A private landowner has built a home along the shore of Lower McDonald Creek in Glacier National Park and Flathead County planning officials say there’s nothing they can do about it.

dailyinterlake.com

View attachment 319356

Not withstanding the findings of the Flathead County Planning and Zoning Dept and the county floodplain administration in concert with FEMA floodplain designation authority ... yet no court ruling has been seen as a result of the Flathead Conservation District (FCD) lawsuit and demands with regard to their authority. FCD actually comes under state Dept of Natural Resources and Conservation. FCD is not a county government department and unfortunately it seems (at least in Gallatin County) a huge disconnect between the floodplain administrator and the conservation district. So the FCD may yet put a halt to this streamside development. Please inform if something more recent contradicts the FCD stance described above.

Straight Arrow keeps yelling at the clouds, "Montana floodplains are inextricably connected to the Treasure State's treasured rivers and streams!!! State and county authorities ... don't you get it!!!"
Terrible example on the floodplain of the West Gallatin River is the Gallatin Floodplain Administrator's decision to allow digging out and expanding an "existing stock water pond" (which really never existed) and mucking up a natural spring creek on an island proposed for a sixteen acre, 58 unit "glampground" mostly in the floodplain. The Gallatin Conservation District imposed its authority and demanded a 310 permit application, then granted a 310 permit, but only to fill in the pond (pit) and restore the stream back to its original state. The money spent on lawyers, excavation and mucking up of the floodplain, and now on restoration is beyond my calculation ability. The developer is already under water (pun intended) and yet the glampground is a long way from turning a dime! It's still being opposed locally on several fronts.

 

[Sytes]

Ongoing...

San Diego couple asks for ruling in Glacier Park home removal case

The California couple who built a private home along the banks of McDonald Creek inside Glacier National Park have petitioned the Flathead County Conservation District for a declaratory ruling — another step in the regulatory process that could see the matter eventually go before a district...

dailyinterlake.com

 

[Straight Arrow]

Ongoing...

San Diego couple asks for ruling in Glacier Park home removal case

The California couple who built a private home along the banks of McDonald Creek inside Glacier National Park have petitioned the Flathead County Conservation District for a declaratory ruling — another step in the regulatory process that could see the matter eventually go before a district...

dailyinterlake.com

Excerpt from article: The board determined the stream bank had been excavated in violation of the 310 law.
In addition to ordering the removal of the home, the board also required the Amblers to obtain a 310 permit — the permit that’s necessary to do any sort of work near a stream in Montana — to tear the home down.
The Amblers never applied, or received, a free 310 permit when they began construction. They previously claimed they didn’t know they needed one.

The Conservation District board has history, experience, professional expertize, legal standing, and strong county and state authority, so I predict that structure will eventually be removed.
My basis for that prediction relates to the debacle of the glampground proposed for development in the floodplain of the Gallatin River, where the landowner dug a large pond and mucked up a natural spring creek, saying he didn't know he needed a 310 permit as he thought the natural creek was a man-made ditch. The issue was resolved through the process described above. Having lived close to the spring creek and being neighbors for decades with the former owners of the property, I testified at the hearing in person. My testimony was included in the arguments before the district judge and then again before the Montana Supreme Court. Judgement and result was the landowner / developer was issued a 310 permit ... but soley for the purpose of filling in the pond and restoring the creek and area to its original natural condition. As of this week, the pond is again floodplain pasture land and the restoration of the natural spring creek has begun. The sad thing is that the landowner has fought this for several years now and has spent thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars in excavation and subsequent restoration, design, engineering, permit fees (DEQ), legal fees, and who-knows-what. What a debacle! As is the Amblers' bumble cluster!

The point is that when the conservation district and the state DNRC seriously consider such an issue, concur on a mandate for remediation, and then pursue enforcement through the hearing and judicial system, their guns are loaded and their legal authority is well substantiated. Amblers' argument that they didn't know they needed a 310 permit is absurdly weak!