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

[Straight Arrow]

Ok point blank.
Are they building in the streambed, bank, immediate edge or floodplain?

I don't know the scope of development, but they are developing land "adjacent" to a Montana natural stream over which FCD has jurisdiction. "Adjacent" is a descriptive term found in the statute, which seems to cover this situation. But again, it's somewhat of a national park inholding anomaly, so it will be interesting to monitor the likely escalating court cases.
It may even find it's way up to the Montana Supreme Court level, which would be good to come to a decisive conclusion and get it out of the argumentative banter of you, from wherever(?) and me, one of those Montana "haters"!

 

[Straight Arrow]

But seeing users here condoning tearing a persons private property down

I don't know if anyone here is advocating in favor of that. But the FCD does have authority to impose protective measures on land "adjacent" to natural streams to mitigate adverse impacts of such development. IMO, that would be the best outcome for the private property owners and builder who have invested and for protection of treasured waterway of the Treasure State. Basic consideration is that the Amblers own the property but the state "owns" the waterway, with responsibility to protect it.
Assertion that the conservation district has no jurisdiction beyond the "streambank edge" is not accurate.

 

[trackerbacker]

I don't know the scope of development, but they are developing land "adjacent" to a Montana natural stream over which FCD has jurisdiction. "Adjacent" is a descriptive term found in the statute, which seems to cover this situation. But again, it's somewhat of a national park inholding anomaly, so it will be interesting to monitor the likely escalating court cases.
It may even find it's way up to the Montana Supreme Court level, which would be good to come to a decisive conclusion and get it out of the argumentative banter of you, from wherever(?) and me, one of those Montana "haters"!

Just answer

The 310 pertains to work done from immediate bank edge to opposing immediate bank edge and fema mapped 100/500.

If the project you are doing is not in that area, IBE<->IBE, there is no permit needed for the work, it doesn't matter the county, province, political subdivision.

In your opinion, provided the maps, photos, screenshots, the contours of adjacent streambanks, the tree line as that is a delineating factor of vegetation difference (which MT cares about) denoting transition from floodplain, streambank etc to immediate bank edge, are they building in a 310 or out of a 310?

Given what I see, and what I read, they are outside of 310, for all the posted reasons.

To postulate a tich more....if they are in 310-knowing the committee has retrod permits, do you condone the only option being complete demolition?

 

[Straight Arrow]

do you condone the only option being complete demolition?

I don't know what "retrod" means here. But I do not condone complete demolition. As stated above, there are other measures to mitigate potential adverse impacts. IMO, that's the much better solution.

 

[trackerbacker]

I don't know what "retrod" means here. But I do not condone complete demolition. As stated above, there are other measures to mitigate potential adverse impacts. IMO, that's the much better solution.

Retroactively, issued permits after the fact.

I'd agree, as I said, cash and correction, everyone moves on.

 

[Straight Arrow]

BTW, as a point of interest, that particular area of McDonald Creek at Apgar hosted the most numerous and dense population of bald eagles in Montana forty years ago when the kokanee salmon spawn attracted the eagles to that stretch of stream to feast on fish. Folks travelled from all over to observe and photograph the birds' feast and colorful fish.
No more, as the kokanee population plummeted.

 

[Sytes]

But seeing users here condoning tearing a persons private property down over nothing

I'm on board with seeing it removed - if found it should NOT be there.

and i get that, and what you mean...

the company you keep...

On our 1.5 lane wide dirt road north of Downtown Whitefish (NW MT) was a nice series of single home families. Kids riding bicycles to friends houses, etc. Children dropped off at the road junction to the main highway and walking / riding home was great until - you guessed it, California medical collective of employees thought it would be GREAT to develop a 20 acre "Glamping" setup with a draft up to 40 units with 20 currently...

Not happy about this. But hey... Legal? ..i.. The families have collectively placed $ to counter this commercial operation that massively exceeds our simple 4 mile dirt road, etc.

Not a fan of those who give far less than two chits about the setting. Be it a new building in plain sight on the river that runs through it to the Las Vegas Mogul wanting to make "The Last Best Place" his Paws Up claim to fame... Or Heuy Lewis claiming Montana Stream access does not apply to him, or...

In my book - Respect is not given until it's earned. And coming from another State to build another house in full view is not a good start though YMMV.

 

[trackerbacker]

I'm on board with seeing it removed - if found it should NOT be there.

the company you keep...

On our 1.5 lane wide dirt road north of Downtown Whitefish (NW MT) was a nice series of single home families. Kids riding bicycles to friends houses, etc. Children dropped off at the road junction to the main highway and walking / riding home was great until - you guessed it, California medical collective of employees thought it would be GREAT to develop a 20 acre "Glamping" setup with a draft up to 40 units with 20 currently...

Not happy about this. But hey... Legal? ..i.. The families have collectively placed $ to counter this commercial operation that massively exceeds our simple 4 mile dirt road, etc.

Not a fan of those who give far less than two chits about the setting. Be it a new building in plain sight on the river that runs through it to the Las Vegas Mogul wanting to make "The Last Best Place" his Paws Up claim to fame... Or Heuy Lewis claiming Montana Stream access does not apply to him, or...

In my book - Respect is not given until it's earned. And coming from another State to build another house in full view is not a good start though YMMV.

Respect, it's funny.

It always needs earned, but you only here that from your (generic) side.

What did you (generic) due to earn his? Tell him what to do right off the bat building house #2?

I don't particularly hold that concept near and dear.

 

[shoots-straight]

So I've done some building, (46years) and what you don't see in those pictures are what happened to get that foundation built. There very easily could have been machinery in the River, For sure rocks rolled into the river during excavation and backfilling the foundation. I'd guess that being that close to the river would be necessary for a 310 permit.

That being said, I'll bet that the attorneys they hired will save them from demolition and in a few years this will just be a eyesore on the landscape. We have lots of them now and not because of Native spineless Montanans but because of arrogant belligerent, transplants that moved in.

 

[Sytes]

I don't particularly hold that concept near and dear.

Look at that... We agree.

 

[trackerbacker]

So I've done some building, (46years) and what you don't see in those pictures are what happened to get that foundation built. There very easily could have been machinery in the River, For sure rocks rolled into the river during excavation and backfilling the foundation. I'd guess that being that close to the river would be necessary for a 310 permit.

That being said, I'll bet that the attorneys they hired will save them from demolition and in a few years this will just be a eyesore on the landscape. We have lots of them now and not because of Native spineless Montanans but because of arrogant belligerent, transplants that moved in.

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 one

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.




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 dream.

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

 

[rogerthat]

It's private property, with an agreement more than likely baked into the abstract from 1908, predating the 1910 park, that has remained private property, with a government agreement on the rights of said claim.

That image, is posted above,from the article.

That's their claim. Their claim is the county building department said (example) nah we don't issue building permits or only inspect x and z, let us know when we can do x and z.

In their court papers it said on x date 2019 we contacted the county that said blah blah blah, on x date 2021 we contacted gnp and they said blah blah blah, all answer pointing to not no.
View attachment 316038

Then a commission got prissy over 0, and seems until this property, it was all NBD.

Take you backbone, haunched over a keyboard, Google fema flood maps, go to that creek you are so invested in as a local MTian and look. The nearest 100/500 is OUT OF SIGHT. View attachment 316035

Their address or coordinates I won't post given the replies.

illegal by their viewpoint and opinion, but not illegal by the very defintions and statements IN AND OF the law. That's MCA 75.7.1

Here is your precious fcd
View attachment 316036View attachment 316037

That's the most they have for map, descriptions, visuals, gis, lidar, etc,besides the word of the law itself. So let's look.

Not in fema floodplain. Check.
Not in the stream. Check
Not on the stream bank edge (immediate bank) Check.
At, in or behind treeline. Check.

By golly, looks like a scorned government agency who didn't get their way on private property, maybe they were outbid, maybe the head of the commission was going to buy it personally and some cali guy hit on his wife, bought the land to build a swingers den, and now mr commissioner is using .gov to get his will. Idk, paint colors don't hurt my feelings.

Great analysis of the need for permitting. Did you do that for them? Lots of assumptions unfortunately. You know what they say about assuming. Maybe they should have dotted their i’s and crossed their t’s by utilizing the services of an engineer that deals in stream permitting if they were planning to build in a national park? Just a thought. Did you do some hydrologic analysis and 2d flow modeling on your determination the footprint was out of the 100 and 500 and gtg?

I think there is a solid chance Mother Nature will tear that biotch down anyway even if they are allowed to leave it. Hopefully they are required to fish every last piece of the debris out of where ever it floats to.

Just a thought, but just because you can should you? It’s a national park ya otc!

 

[trackerbacker]

Great analysis of the need for permitting. Did you do that for them? Lots of assumptions unfortunately. You know what they say about assuming. Maybe they should have dotted their i’s and crossed their t’s by utilizing the services of an engineer that deals in stream permitting if they were planning to build in a national park? Just a thought. Did you do some hydrologic analysis and 2d flow modeling on your determination the footprint was out of the 100 and 500 and gtg?

it's sad, actually, quite sad. Pathetic for you, slightly embarrassing no? That that's your rebuttal, so short on anything of substance and exceptionally thinly veiled attempts at sophomoric humor is all I gather from it.

HT group drool, must fill them rivers.

 

[golfer]

If I were to take a guess as to why they need the 310 it’s going to be sedimentation. The purpose states right on the states website that the intent of the permit is to keep rivers and streams in as natural or existing condition as possible, to minimize sedimentation and to recognize beneficial uses. The waterway we are all talking about would fall within the states definition of “state water”. Hardly ever do you see proper stormwater or sediment management taken seriously in MT. Everyone wants to cowboy shit in the same way they have for the last 50 years. Not many will take the time to properly install silt fence or other BMP’s to prevent sediment laden water from entering the nearby state water. So IMO they should have/need to have the permit, because they were doing work adjacent to the water way.

Trackerbacker- the photos you posted above are prime examples of why they need the permit. DEQ would have a hay day on that construction as no BMP’s are installed especially towards that water way.

I feel that water is necessary to everyone in our great state and this kinda stuff needs to be taken more seriously than we currently are in Montana. At some point we will be fighting for clean water.

 

[Straight Arrow]

This issue/debacle has been ongoing for over a year now, with complaints from locals to Flathead Conservation District (FCD) Jan, Feb, March of 2023. Contention grew immediately and the state DNRC finally held a public hearing in August which resulted in the Declaratory Ruling of jurisdiction within FCD 310 permitting process and authority. It seems the owner's litigation is attempting to fight that Declaratory Ruling, which stated three basic conclusions: 1. FCD has jurisdiction. 2. Ambler home, decks, roofline, and retaining wall are within the immediate banks of McDonald Creek. 3. There is no federal jurisdiction, as feds have essentially opted out, acknowledging FCD and state jurisdiction.

Other points of interest regarding this site and issues:
Lot size is merely 2209 square feet. The unstable bank will be eroded by house runoff. No silt fences were built. Fill was placed beyond the original extent of banks. Construction debris is found on banks. Nearby property owners reported floodwaters previously above the house pilings and FCD considered that the structure would "impede" flow during flood event. There is no garage or outside parking space on site. Generally, the site is inappropriate for home construction. (Unfortunately, the owners and builder had accomplished a great deal of work before a cease and desist order was issued by FCD.)

FCD had conducted site visit and discussed this issue at length, finally concluding that a 310 permit is required, but with the sole purpose of protecting the stream during and after removal of the structure. Obviously the waters are muddied here, but it seems Amblers and their builder are "in over their heads".

 

[VikingsGuy]

This

Not surprised - have a neighbor who lived in a home for a decade built too close to protected trout stream on north shore before first county complaint and that only came after an unrelated argument with an ajoining land owner over some unrelated issue cause concerns to be escalated to officials (tattle tail). Bureaucracies are slow, but alway prevail in the end. (the guys cabin was demoed after another 10 years of litigation)

 

[Straight Arrow]

'Don't know how this will play out with county and state regulations, but property line setback is measured in inches rather than feet!

 

[Rack Daniels]

Nope, prolly from this.

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

 

[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.