Developer plans to span river
Susan Drynan visits with neighbor Ralph Fitzpatrick as Craig Drynan listens in while standing on the end of Gamma Road that turns right into the Drynans’ property. To the right is a public access road where one end of a proposed bridge would connect.
Craig Drynan kayaks along the Flathead River near his property. The proposed bridge would connect with Gamma Road, which is on the back side of Drynan’s property.
A proposed 16-foot-wide, 325-foot-long private bridge over the Flathead River near Hungry Horse would be put next to Craig and Susan Drynan’s home at right.
A developer’s proposal to build a private bridge across a narrow chasm on the Flathead River near Hungry Horse has riled homeowners on the county road that would lead to the bridge.
Bill Daggett, developer of the Flathead River Ranch development just east of Teakettle Mountain, filed a multi-agency application to build the clear-span bridge last September.
Since then, he has cleared much of the permitting process.
The gated, 16-foot-wide, 325-foot long bridge would be reached from Gamma Road in Hungry Horse, providing access to 20-acre Flathead River Ranch lots on the other side of the river.
The bridge would be built directly in front of a Gamma Road home owned by Craig and Susan Drynan, who only found out about Daggett’s plans when they saw surveyors near their property.
“It was like a kick in the stomach,” Susan Drynan said. “All of this has taken place behind the backs of the people it would most impact. No information has been volunteered to any of the residents of Gamma Road.”
The Drynans have put together a petition signed by nearly all Gamma Road residents to have the Flathead County commissioners abandon the road, with a provision allowing for continued public pedestrian access to the river. It has yet to be submitted to the commissioners.
That may be the only effective way of stopping the project.
In June, the Flathead Conservation District approved a 310 permit for the project mainly because the bridge would not have an impact on the river or its immediate banks, according to Ron Buentemeier, one of the district’s board members.
“We felt as a board that they met all of the requirements of the law,” he said. “There was no reason for us not to approve it.”
The bridge also does not conflict with flood-plain regulations, said Bailey Iott of Flathead County’s planning office.
She said Daggett’s consultants provided engineering and hydrology data that showed the bridge would be 35 feet above the 100-year flood plain and about 23 feet above the 500-year flood plain.
Because the clear-span bridge would not require a pier in the water and it would not involve removing or putting fill into the riverbanks, it escapes regulatory oversight of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
But the project appears to be meeting resistance from the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, which has jurisdiction over the Flathead riverbed.
“We’ve determined that that reach of the Flathead River is within our jurisdiction to regulate,” said Greg Poncin, the state land agency’s Kalispell Unit manager. “Any time that you build a structure on or over or even under someone else’s land, it requires an authorization of the landowner.”
Specifically, he said, the bridge requires an easement from the state.
Poncin noted that several years ago, Daggett acquired an easement from the DNRC allowing for utilities to be bored under the riverbed to provide power and other services to Flathead River Ranch properties.
In a letter sent to Daggett in February, Poncin said the agency does not intend to take further action on providing an easement.
“The department’s Access Road Easement Policy evaluation criteria states that where applicants possess existing legal access to their property, easement applications are discouraged and such easements are presumed to be disadvantageous to the state,” the letter states.
Flathead River Ranch properties are currently reached from the north by Blankenship and Rabe roads.
“Not only would it not be very popular ... but it’s also clearly out of our agency’s policy to grant it when they clearly have access already,” Poncin said.
Poncin’s letter also said the bridge may conflict with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968.
Michelle Dragoo, a planner with the Hungry Horse-Glacier View Ranger District of Flathead National Forest, said Flathead River corridors were designated under the act in 1976, and that designation extends to the Middle Fork Flathead River’s confluence with the South Fork Flathead River, well downstream from the proposed bridge site.
However, because the site is not directly adjacent to national forest lands, she does not believe the Forest Service has any permitting jurisdiction.
The Drynans contend that the bridge would be a blight on the river corridor that only provides convenience and enhanced value to Flathead River Ranch properties.
“Just because it makes a nice entryway to their development doesn’t make it right,” Susan Drynan said. “The fact that they are proposing this devastation of a scenic treasure for profit and exclusivity makes it despicable.”
“I’m a kayaker, and if I didn’t even live there, I would still be upset about this,” Craig Drynan said.
Contacted Thursday, Daggett declined to comment on the project.
“I’m not going to talk about it, because it’s not in our best interests to do so,” he said.
Reporter Jim Mann may be reached at 758-4407 or by e-mail at jmann@dailyinterlake.com.