He signed a document promising to protect this land — forever
This isn’t a fresh idea on untouched ground. The developer (James Beasley / Bull Lake Estates, LLC) has been building Bull Lake Estates under federal permits since 1999, and he has filled wetland here before. In 2003, as the required price for being allowed to do that, he signed a permanent conservation covenant on this very land and recorded it with the county.
In it, Bull Lake Estates, LLC dedicated this land “in perpetuity” as a conservancy area — binding on the owner and every future owner “forever” — and promised:
- No buildings or structures of any kind.
- No filling, draining, or excavating.
- No building of roads or paths, and no change to the topography.
The covenant can be changed or revoked only with the Army Corps’ written approval. This permit application is the request to revoke it.
Put plainly: the road and the seven lots would go exactly where he signed a document promising, forever, to build nothing.
And it’s not the first time he’s been told no
Concerns about this development go back decades — and they’re on the public record. In 1996, a Montana district court threw out the county’s approval of the Bull Lake Estates subdivision and ordered it back through proper review. The developer stepped in to defend the approval, and lost.
“From a wildlife perspective, the proposed Bull Lake Estates project is not a desirable location for a residential subdivision.” — Lincoln County’s own staff report, quoted in the 1996 court order
The court found the developer’s environmental assessment claimed there were no major fish or wildlife and no waterfowl habitat here — while the county’s own report documented the west shore as winter range for deer, elk, and moose, mountain goat range less than a mile away, and raptors nesting along the shoreline. Montana’s Attorney General called his attempt to keep this parcel out of review “ludicrous.”
The pattern, at a glance
- 1996 A Montana district court throws out the county’s approval of this subdivision and faults the developer’s environmental report for erasing the wildlife the county documented.
- 2003 To be allowed to fill wetland, he signs a permanent covenant — no roads, no fill, no changes to this land, ever.
- 2014 Lincoln County’s lakeshore rules bar filling wetlands and permanent structures in this protection zone.
- 2026 He asks the Corps to undo the covenant and fill the wetland anyway — for a road and seven lakefront lots.
Don’t take our word for any of this — read the records yourself:
A 7-lot subdivision, built on wetland
- The developer wants to build the “Fish Hook Subdivision” — seven lakefront lots on the undeveloped peninsula.
- To reach the lots they’d fill protected wetland for a 775-foot road, plus docks, decks, stairs, and paths along the shoreline.
- And they’re asking the Corps to undo the 2003 covenant — the protection that was the required payback for the developer’s earlier wetland damage.
- Permit No. NWO-2002-90609-MT.
Once it’s filled, it’s gone
- Water & the fishery. These wetlands filter the lake. Fill and construction mean sediment and turbidity — a direct hit to water clarity and to the lake’s fish, including federally threatened bull trout.
- It floods. This is low, seasonally flooded ground, partly in the 100-year floodplain. In December 2025, Lincoln County had historic, disaster-declared flooding and Highway 56 near Bull Lake was underwater. Wetlands absorb floodwater; filling them removes that buffer.
- Wildlife. Geese, swans, moose, deer, elk, bear, beaver, and bald eagles use this peninsula — plus protected species the Corps itself flagged (bull trout, grizzly, Canada lynx, wolverine).
- It won’t come back. Forested wetland takes 30–50 years to re-establish, if ever.
This ground is protected three times over
This isn’t lightly regulated land. It’s protected by three separate sets of rules — and this one permit asks to push past all of them at once:
- 1The federal Clean Water Act. The Corps cannot permit wetland fill when a less-damaging, workable alternative exists.
- 2His own 2003 covenant. A recorded, perpetual promise: no roads, no fill, no changes to this land, ever.
- 3Lincoln County’s lakeshore rules. In this protection zone they flatly prohibit filling wetlands, permanent structures, and sewage lines.
He had a far less damaging option — and skipped it
The developer’s own engineers drew three ways to cross the wetland, but the notice never plainly says which one they’re building. When you piece it together, it’s the fill road — not the bridge:
| Crossing option (all 3 in their own plans) | Wetland destroyed | |
|---|---|---|
| Fill road, no retaining walls | 8,063 sq ft | |
| Fill road with retaining walls | 7,105 sq ft | THEIR CHOICE |
| Bridge over the wetland | 360 sq ft | rejected |
How we know they’re building the fill road, not the bridge
- The notice says the road uses “vertical retaining walls” and permanently fills 0.1631 acre — that’s 7,105 sq ft, exactly Option 2.
- Its “Avoidance and Minimization” section credits those walls with saving 0.022 acre vs a “typical road” — the exact gap between Option 1 (8,063) and Option 2 (7,105).
- A summary exhibit is literally titled “Preferred Alternative” and lists that same 0.1631-acre road.
On the plat sheets this same road is also labeled “Road Alternative 1B” — same road, different label.
Bottom line: a bridge in their own plans would destroy roughly 20 times less wetland than the road they’re building, and the notice never explains why they rejected it. Federal law says the Corps cannot approve wetland fill when a less damaging, workable option exists. By their own drawings, one does. Ask the Corps to require the bridge, or deny the permit.
Other reasons to oppose it
- Death by a thousand cuts. The same developer has chipped at these wetlands under federal permits since 1999; the Corps must weigh the cumulative impact, not just this one road.
- Weak mitigation. Most of what’s offered is just preserving land that’s already wetland — that replaces no lost function.
- Seven new septic systems beside a cold, clean, bull-trout lake — more nutrients and runoff, forever.
How to comment — about 5 minutes
- Email your comment to Nathan Green at nathan.j.green@usace.army.mil (or comment online at rrs.usace.army.mil, searching the permit number).
- Put the permit number in it: NWO-2002-90609-MT.
- Say who you are and your connection to Bull Lake, name a couple of concerns in your own words, and ask the Corps to deny it. Add one line requesting a public hearing.
- Send it by Monday, June 16 to be safe (deadline is June 18).
Comment opposing Permit NWO-2002-90609-MT — Fish Hook Subdivision, Bull Lake
That last line — “I request that a public hearing be held on this application” — is fine to include word-for-word; it’s a procedural request, not a comment.