Park Board holds more discussions on proposed land swap
By Michael Howell
Officials from Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks hosted a tour last Saturday of the fishing access area at the Stevensville bridge and of Stevensville River Park. Adjoining land owner Roy Capp and FWP have presented a proposal for a land swap to the Town of Stevensville that would involve the town trading off eight and a half acres at the north end of its 23-acre park in exchange for three and half acres of Capp’s ranchland that lies to the south, between the park and the Stevensville Cut-off Road. The town would also get another couple of acres of land owned by the Capps along the Eastside Highway across from the Forest Service. If the Town agrees to the land swap, then FWP has agreed to put in about $250,000 in improvements, including a parking area and toilet. It also agreed to maintain the Fishing Access Site on a regular basis.
As explained on site by Regional Supervisor Randy Arnold, just because the public has been using the site for recreational purposes for a long time does not establish a “prescriptive easement.” He said the definition of a prescriptive easement involves “adverse” use by the public and “hostile” possession that goes uncontested for five years. In this case, he said, the public’s use of the site has always been permitted by the landowners.
“Permissive use nullifies any prescriptive claims,” said Arnold.
According to Stream Access Law, he said, the public’s right to access the river at the Stevensville bridge is confined to access through the public right of way. He said a person could park their vehicle on the roadside and walk down to the river along the roadside and within the road right-of-way to the river and then proceed up or down river up to the high water mark. But the area being accessed by vehicles and used for parking along the river bank and off the Town’s access road is private property. Arnold said that the Capps had the right to put a fence along the town’s right of way and keep people out.
Instead, he said, the Capps are willing to trade some property with the town and enable the installation of an official FWP Fishing Access Site that could be properly maintained.
“The Capps are not against public access,” said Arnold. “They are trying to make it better.”
Working with the Capps, FWP came up with a proposal that would include creating parking for 27 trucks and trailers, installation of a pit toilet and re-vegetation of the destroyed area of the river bank. Regional FAS Supervisor Rory Zarling said that nothing would be done to alter the already existing boat launch area as it is an excellent launch site as it sits without any improvement.
Zarling also stated that the number of trees being removed for the development of the site was minimal and that most were old and decrepit cottonwoods that could be easily replaced. Only two were healthy live pines, he said.
Due to the configuration of the land ownership, there is really no direct access to the river from the town’s property, according to Zarling, until you get north of the current parking area and the existing toilet next to the old dump site.
Zarling said that engineers had looked at the parkland north of the parking lot and in their estimation it was not amenable to the kind of development required for parking or for a road or for the installation of a boat ramp. He said attempting such a project in that area would cost substantially more than what was being proposed on the south end by the bridge and FWP did not have the money.
According to Zarling, the Capps want the land at the north end in order to move the boundary to the south to establish a more definite boundary. He said that having the property come to an end at a thin triangular point was confusing and that establishing a long fence line square to the river would be more effective in deterring trespassers. The proper spot for the line happened to leave about eight and a half acres of land north of the line. This is the land that would be turned over to the Capps.
One of the most common criticisms of the proposed trade is that the exchange is not equitable. Both the town’s eight and a half acres and the Capps’ three and half acres were appraised at the same value, about $5,500 per acre. (The additional two-acre piece located in Town along the roadside across from the Forest Service was not appraised.)
Both State Senator Fred Thomas, who has been instrumental in putting the proposed deal together, and County Commissioner Greg Chilcott said at an informal gathering at the Town Hall after the tour that they believed the Capp property along the road was worth more than the town’s property at the back of the park because it is more readily accessible and has the potential of being developed.
Thomas said his interest in the proposal was simply to get a very valuable Fishing Access Site installed and clean up the mess and mitigate the other problems that accompany public access.
Stevensville resident Loey Knapp said that she visits the park five days a week with her dog and enjoys the birdwatching. She said that the back part of the park was the most valuable part for her and for many other people and those values should be appreciated in the process. She said that fishing access was just one part of the public’s use and enjoyment of the place.
Knapp said that she believed the law required a public vote to sell or trade the park land. Senator Thomas disagreed. He said that the law allows the town council to make the decision.
While some members of the public have advocated for the outright purchase of the Capp land instead of a land trade, Zarling said that the Capps had made it clear to him that they were not interested in selling any land. He also stated that the Capps were considering closing the access if the land trade can’t be arranged.
Another possibility, according to Knapp, that would make diminishing the park’s size more palatable to her, would be to establish a trail along the river from the park boundary north to the Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge.
Senator Thomas expressed an interest in the idea, suggesting it might be something the Capps would consider. He encouraged others who are not happy with the proposal to come up with ideas that might improve the project.
Although no time line has been set, the Park Board is expected to make some recommendation to the town council about the land swap in the near future.