Whitefish City Council votes to contest FWP denial of river-trail permit

The Whitefish City Council voted unanimously at a special meeting to notify Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP) that the city "significantly disagree[s]" with FWP’s denial of a Stream Protection Act (124) permit for a proposed Whitefish River boardwalk segment and to pursue whatever avenues FWP provides — including informal talks, binding arbitration or litigation — and to report back to the council.

The decision matters because the denied segment is part of the city’s planned river-trail backbone intended to provide an ADA-accessible, low-traffic corridor through Whitefish. City staff and dozens of residents who spoke during public comment said the project is a transportation and safety priority and that the FWP decision did not adequately weigh community benefits.

City staff explained that FWP concluded the proposed design would adversely affect fish or game habitat and therefore denied the 124 permit. Craig (staff member) told the council that FWP proposed an alternative the city analyzed and found unacceptable: the alternative would not meet ADA standards, would reduce the path to 4 feet in some locations, and would route pedestrians through a parking lot. "So, we don't feel that their proposed alternative, really even comes close to meeting the goals of the city, and the public, with this plan," Craig said.

Angie (staff member) described the procedural options under the Stream Protection Act. She said the statute gives FWP the authority to demand arbitration after the applicant notifies the agency it will not modify its proposal. "So it is a very weird process," Angie said, summarizing counsel’s view that the arbitration provision is unusual: district judges appoint three citizens to decide disputes and the resulting arbitration is binding. Angie and other staff recommended first asking FWP for informal discussions or a mediation before entering binding arbitration to preserve relationships and reduce legal expense.

Public commenters representing a broad cross-section of Whitefish urged the council to contest the denial and keep the proposed ADA-accessible design. Bruce Booty (resident) told the council the trail should be treated as transportation infrastructure, not only recreation: "This is a transportation system. And this is critical to the future of Whitefish." Julie Tickle, executive director of Dream Adaptive Recreation, said the city should aim above the minimum required by the Americans with Disabilities Act: "The ADA was formed in 1990 and it was intended to be the minimum standard, not the gold standard."

Speakers described technical and procedural objections to FWP’s environmental assessment (EA). Several commenters and at least one council member said the EA relied heavily on possible ("could") impacts and did not place sufficient weight on human-environment effects, long-standing community priorities for the river trail, or comparable permits FWP has approved elsewhere. Commenters also said the city lacks an easement offered in the past by the Riverbend Homeowners Association, which makes the HOA-proposed alternative infeasible.

After public comment, a council member moved that staff give the required notice to FWP that the city does not accept the agency’s findings, pursue available avenues to address the denial (including informal talks, mediation, binding arbitration or litigation), and return to council with options and next steps. The motion was seconded by Councilor Davis and carried unanimously; the transcript records the result as "the motion does carry unanimously," but does not list an exact roll-call tally.

The council made no final decision to initiate binding arbitration or litigation at the meeting. Staff said the city’s next steps would include asking FWP whether it would agree to extend the city’s short response window, attempting informal discussions or mediation about what arbitration would look like, and preparing for arbitration or litigation only if necessary. Staff also noted that arbitration under the statute is typically quicker and less costly than suing the state but is binding and procedurally unusual.

The council and public repeatedly framed the dispute as larger than the single segment at Riverbend: speakers said the denied segment is a key piece of a longer river corridor that the city has worked on for decades and that other future segments (Les Schwab property, Dalen property, old hospital site, areas near Walgreens) will face similar questions if the city does not secure a clear path forward.

The council directed staff to file the required notice with FWP within the statutory window and to report back with options for informal talks, arbitration mechanics, and potential litigation. The transcript shows the meeting was convened specifically because the statutory response deadline was too short to wait for a regular meeting.

The council’s action preserves multiple legal options while opening a dialog with FWP; it does not itself start binding arbitration or litigation.