A Rancher’s Insights on Trails Planning Provide Lessons in Public Involvement
by Cindy Mendoza, CPRP, Portland, Oregon
This article first appear in the Dec 2012/Jan 2013 Issue of Western Planner.
The situation was a planner’s nightmare. The City of Billings and Yellowstone County had just adopted the Heritage Trail Plan, when a group of angry residents began complaining about its recommendations. One of those residents, Jim Newman, was my father. His insights reveal a perspective that planners rarely get to see—the views of rural residents. The event helps illustrate the need to increase public involvement in planning.
Jim Newman was surprised to learn that the Heritage Trail Plan included recommendations for his ranch. Photo provided by Cindy Mendoza.
Heritage Trail Plan
Nearly ten years ago, the City of Billings and Yellowstone County began developing Heritage Trail: the Greater Billings Non-Motorized Trail System to satisfy the non-motorized transportation element of the Billings Transportation Plan. The plan was highly regarded by bike, pedestrian, and transportation advocates alike. In May 2004, it was adopted by the Billings City Council. In June, it was adopted by the Yellowstone County Commissioners.
The adoption of the plan came as a surprise to Jim Newman, who owned a 480-acre ranch south of Billings, located in the heart of the projected greenway area. He was alerted by a neighbor, who went to the June county commissioners’ meeting for an unrelated reason and saw a map of proposed trails and greenways with corridors running across local private properties. Alarmed, the neighbor started making phone calls.
The Heritage Trail Plan used a transportation analysis (Bicycle-Compatibility Index and trip generator identification)1 to recommend bikeways and trails to support non-motorized transportation in the greater Billings area. The plan also identified historic, cultural, and natural sites around Billings that could be accessed or viewed from the proposed corridors. It included a map of priority projects for multi-use trails and greenways. This was the map the neighbor had seen at the final adoption hearing.
The adopted plan was lauded by bike advocates but not by rural residents.
This chance viewing mobilized many rural residents to fight the new plan. Eventually, it also changed how public outreach was conducted by the Planning Division, which provides services to Yellowstone County, the City of Billings, and the Town of Broadview.
Newman’s ranch
Newman lived in the Blue Creek Community, seven miles south of Billings. Although the area had been growing for the last 20 years, mixing residential and agricultural land uses, few rural residents imagined that trails and greenways would be proposed so far beyond the city limits.
When Newman’s family homesteaded the ranch in 1903, it was adjacent to the first stage coach stop south of town, a one day’s ride by horse-drawn wagon from Billings. Newman was very proud of this heritage. He loved to show people the ruts of the old wagon trail, the artifacts he saved from the historic stage stop, as well as the remnant buffalo trails and Crow Indian trail markers on his ranch. He also liked to show off the one-room school house that his family preserved, which served the area from 1912-1917. None of these resources was mentioned in the Heritage Trail Plan.
BLUE CREEK SCHOOLHOUSE: A one-room Blue Creek School (1912-1917) is preserved on the Newman ranch, but it wasn’t considered a heritage site in the Heritage Trail Plan. Illustration by J. Brock Lee.
In a transportation context, his ranch was accessible via a private gravel road off of Blue Creek Road. The ranch was located nearly five miles from Blue Creek Elementary, the nearest trip generator used in the trail analysis. Consequently, he had a hard time understanding how the “heart of his ranch” was designated as a greenway in the Heritage Trail Plan. He had a harder time understanding how a transportation analysis led to recommendations for a greenway, a conservation corridor, without a trail in it.2
Key issues and concerns
Upon obtaining copies of the Heritage Trail Plan, neighbors began asking questions. From a planning perspective, it looked like their concerns stemmed from private property rights and potential land takings. However, their questions were broader:
If the plan was about heritage trails, why weren’t historic wagon trails and stage coach stops noted? Why were transportation engineers leading the planning effort?
If greenways were recommended, why weren’t natural lands and resources evaluated?
Why were bike advocates represented in the planning process, but not rural residents and equestrian trail users? Why weren’t affected property owners notified?
Why did the plan establish uniform standards for both city and county areas? Were city planners trying to impose urban standards in rural communities?
If all new development was required to include provisions for trails, did this mean that residents would have to grant trail easements if they wanted to build new barns or houses on their properties?
Who would be responsible for keeping cattle off the trails and greenways? Who would educate trail users about the extreme fire risk on rangeland in dry summers?
On one level, the concern about the Heritage Trail Plan was one of private property rights. Several residents wanted disclaimers added to maps to indicate that proposed trails and greenways were conceptual only, with acquisition subject to land ownership, land use patterns, and other factors. In addition, they wanted a “landowner declaration,” a statement that private property rights would be respected, eminent domain would not be used, and all property owners would be notified in future projects.
“No one talked to me, even though my family was among the original pioneers in Billings, and we have taken care of this land for over a hundred years. How can that be good planning?”
On another level, however, the conflict was an issue of public involvement. Residents felt they had a right to be involved in developing plans for their community. Newman and his neighbors felt that they knew far more about the area’s natural resources, historical assets, and heritage trails than outside consultants and planners. Newman complained, “No one talked to me, even though my family was among the original pioneers in Billings, and we have taken care of this land for over a hundred years. How can that be good planning?”
Addendum to the plan
Local leaders and planners listened. From their perspective, they never intended to use eminent domain for trail development, nor was their intention to overlook any key stakeholders in the planning process. They simply faced the same challenges all planners face: finding the right balance in public outreach and involvement when given a limited budget and timeline for planning.
In March 2006, after more than a year of discussion with outraged residents, the Heritage Trail Plan was amended. A new chapter was added to incorporate a map disclaimer and landowner declaration. All dotted lines across private property, symbolizing trail corridors, were removed. Importantly, the plan also took a step towards defining the required level of public involvement in future plans by specifying that updates would include numerous community and neighborhood meetings and workshops, press releases, surveys and direct communication with affected individuals, landowners, and other organizations.
Future implications
The situation faced by the Planning Division is not unique. Project budgets and time constraints often make it difficult to notify everyone affected by plan recommendations. Today the Planning Division has developed a more proactive and community-oriented stance toward public involvement. For example, the 2009 Blue Creek Area Transportation Study was developed with considerable public input, which made it very appealing to local residents and organizations. Efforts included:
Advisory/guidance committee: A Project Guidance Committee consisted of representatives from government agencies, emergency service providers and area residents. Specifically, two of the strongest opponents were invited to join the committee, giving rural residents a strong voice in the planning process.
Public meetings: Two open houses were held to gain feedback from area residents and to collect comments on study results. These meetings were advertised in the local newspaper, and postcards were mailed to individual homeowners.
Stakeholder meetings: Four stakeholder meetings were held in different geographic areas in the Blue Creek community to ensure that residents from different parts of the study area were represented. Again, postcards were mailed.
Website posting: All working papers and draft/final reports from the Transportation Study were posted on the city’s website.
These efforts help set the stage for the 2011 update of the Heritage Trail Plan. Renamed the Billings Area Bikeway and Trail Master Plan, the project applied a systematic method for facilitating communication with agencies, stakeholders, and residents. Although the process included less outreach and direct communication than the Transportation Study, it provided two forums for residents to submit comments: public workshops and a project website. The process allowed community members to contribute to plan revisions before it was finalized and adopted.
The Planning Division continues to reach out to residents in new ways to ensure that their plans reflect the needs and interests of the entire community—including residents who live in rural, suburban and urban areas. This is a challenge because of the different interests and needs of residents who live inside and outside of Billings. However, current efforts have been rewarded with more community support, as well as continued success in implementing plans.
Community-supported planning
The conflict over the Heritage Trail Plan is a long-term success that planners can learn from. Lessons include:
Hire the right planning consultant: Planners should take time to build the right team for the type of plan desired. This team may include staff, consultants, and local experts in the community. This ensures that the right type of analysis is conducted to support recommendations consistent with stated goals. It helps establish community good will and decreases fears that there is an unstated agenda for the plan.
Represent varied interests: While encouraging interest groups and advocates to participate is easy, planners will need different tools and techniques to strategically reach out to others, including landowners, key stakeholders, representatives from different geographic areas, current and potential trail users, liaisons to community groups, and even people who may oppose the planning effort. In addition, different techniques should be used to notify, advertise and attract diverse groups to the planning process.
While extra public outreach can take more time and energy, these efforts are worth the investment. A strong public involvement process creates a more customized plan, as well as a strong planning constituency to support implementation. It also helps avoid eleventh-hour conflicts in the planning process. If due diligence is done in engaging the public throughout the planning effort, city councilors and county commissioners are more likely to approve a plan and move forward despite any last-minute protests.
GREAT TRAILS: Good planning has played an important role in developing trails throughout the Billings area. Photo provided by Nash Emrich, BikeNet.
A planning legacy
Newman died a few years ago. His ashes were spread at his ranch, in the same corridor the Heritage Trail Plan recommended as a greenway for conservation and potential trail development. He missed the recent efforts that local planners made in reaching out to his neighbors, but he would have been pleased that planners and community members are now talking and working together to make Billings a better place. That was his idea of good planning all along.
The author sincerely appreciates the assistance of the Billings City/County Planning Division in providing information for this article. Special thanks are extended to Candi Beaudry, Wyeth Friday, Scott Walker, and Lora Mattox. Their dedication and willingness to work with community members is exemplary.
For different types of planning efforts, have the right experts on the team:
Heritage trails: A cultural preservation/landscape planner can recommend trail access to culturally-valued assets and historically significant places for education, interpretation, recreation and historic preservation.
Trails and greenways: A natural resources planner or ecologist can identify linear corridors suited for open space protection, habitat conservation, nature interpretation, passive recreation, and non-motorized transportation.
Non-motorized transportation and multi-use trails: Transportation and recreation expertise can be combined to identify needs for on- and off-street trails to support a variety of uses. These plans may address pedestrian and bicycle routes, as well as needs for equestrian, mountain biking, interpretive, ATV/OHV trails and other recreational trail uses.
Parks, recreation facilities and trails: Parks, recreation and trails planners can evaluate options to create an interconnected system of parks and trails to improve park access, support recreation (including trail programs and events), and provide access to significant natural/cultural areas.
Community-based trails/visioning: Public involvement specialists can survey community-wide interests and attitudes to identify a trails vision that reflects the entire community, including advocates and opponents to trail development.
In addition to traditional forms of public outreach, consider the following:
Community intercept events: Interactive voting stations can be set up at community festivals, barbecues, and high-traffic areas to provide information and gauge community preferences.
Online forums and surveys: Online questionnaires and Townsquare™ forums allow people to learn about and participate in a project at their own convenience.
Interactive activities: Online or meeting games and mapping tools allow residents to map their preferred trail system and identify the trade-offs needed to implement priority projects.
Notification: A variety of methods and media tools can be used to broaden public awareness. Consider e-newsletters, social media, notes on utility bills, posts on related web pages, press releases, postcards, and flyers posted or distributed at schools, libraries, community centers, grocery stores, etc.
Workshop kits: Public involvement kits can be used by project ambassadors at community meetings to involve diverse people and ages (e.g., homeowner’s associations, civic associations, scouts, schools, 4-H, senior centers, community groups, coffee klatches, and other interest groups).
About the Author (at the time of the original writing)
Cindy Mendoza is a Project Manager for MIG, Inc., specializing in comprehensive, strategic and master planning for parks, recreation facilities, trails and natural areas throughout the West. Visit ww.migcom.com.
Endnotes
1. Developed by the Federal Highway Administration, the Bicycle Compatibility Index evaluates how well a current public roadway can accommodate the efficient operation of both bicycles and motor vehicles. A trip generator analysis evaluates opportunities to connect neighborhoods with major trip generators, such as schools, shopping and business centers, and parks and recreation facilities.
2. This greenway recommendation came from the 1994 Bike Net Plan. No opposition had been voiced to that greenway alignment in ten years, so it was carried forward into the Heritage Trail Plan.