In a Letter to the Editor of Sound Publishing regarding the so-called “preferred route” from Kingston to Port Gamble article, Doug Hayman writes:

“The majority of the public is in opposition to plans to go through NKHP.”

There were three public meetings about this study.  The first had a long talk by David Forte and the external consultant followed by a limited public comment period of 2-minutes per person. There was overwhelming opposition to the trail going through the North Kitsap Heritage Park and instead, calls for paths to connect various communities.

In the two remaining public meetings, they took out of the agenda an element of question and answer or public comment with both Forte and then Commissioner Rob Gelder saying it was too contentious.

The public was left with submitting comments online that were fielded by David Forte.  Only on doing a public records request were we initially able to glean the public’s opinion.  Something like 40 out of 43 of the initial submissions were opposed to a paved path through the NKHP in early comments submitted. The final total after all public meetings still had 2/3rds of the public in opposition to a paved path through the park.

Cost of the proposed preferred route not shown in typical manner used for such reports.

Page 80 of the final Trail Planning Study showed columns for 9 phases but conveniently failed to show a total of all of those phases needed to complete this roughly 8 mile path.  The total cost is more like $89.4 million dollars and not the $13 to $15.5 million you mention in your second paragraph.  Meanwhile, the county is lacking in non-motorized routes throughout Kitsap County to truly connect communities to each other.

String of Pearls not really a grassroots effort.

There has been a lot of spin when talking of the “String of Pearls” as a grassroots effort.  One only needs to look at early text in the String of Pearls report to find the following:

‘In 2007, the Olympic Property Group (OPG), proposed a trail system as one of several key elements in a plan for 8,000 acres in the Port Gamble area. A trail system was viewed as a viable and progressive way of adding value to OPG’s existing real estate holdings in preparation for the land’s future use.’  [Page 6 of the document linked above]

This would link Olympic Property Group’s Port Gamble real estate holdings with their Arborwood holdings. Arborwood was later sold off to two large firms, Pulte (phase 1, 2 and 3 of Arborwood) and Taylor Morrison (phases 4, 5 and 6) and yet there has been a concerted effort by Jon Rose (formerly with OPG which is now Raydient) to push for this connectivity, almost as if the new Arborwood owners were promised such a path near the site of the new homes they’ll build

Bridge over Beaver Pond left out of plans.

The proposed path would route over the environmentally sensitive beaver pond before going up and over Beaver Ridge.  The protection of beaver habitat is an important focus of local tribes like the Suquamish and Port Gamble S’Klallam.  The current gravel path goes over a culvert and is inadequate for widening and paving.

Travel through sensitive natural areas that would damage prime wildlife habitat.

While the proposed segment travelling east to west in the northern part of NKHP is relatively level, it would travel in a currently undisturbed wildlife habitat just up from a wetland.  This would ignore necessary buffers to protect sensitive wetlands.  Having explored this zone, there is ample evidence of bears living in this northern zone, undisturbed by those using the trails further up hill on the current dirt paths.

Accessibility as a selling point not truly taken into full consideration.

From the outset of public meetings on this proposed paved path through NKHP has been talk of it being accessible to all.  Many early path segments were as far from being wheelchair accessible as is possible.

The park is roughly 70-feet in elevation at the Miller Bay parking lot and climbs to over 300-feet in elevation in several areas.  A few early segments failed to show realistic switch backed paths that would comply with the necessary rise over run ratio of 1:20.

Early in the process I forwarded links to David Forte on such outdoor accessibility standards.  Please look over the Forest Service Trail Accessibility Guidelines to see what all would truly be involved to make trails in hilly areas accessible to wheelchair users, in particular the details starting at page 10.

I’d suggest taking a look at this accessible path in New York including the construction phases to see the required slopes and retaining walls. This too I had forwarded to David Forte.

Please note that I have worked in the service of people with disabilities as an assistive technology specialist and electronic content specialist for over 25 years, so I truly care about meeting the needs of people with a wide variety of disabilities both in the physical world and the electronic world they interact with.

Destruction during construction may be as wide as 30-feet followed by the need for many retaining walls on both the upslope and downslope sides of paths.

Early in this public engagement process we were shown a variety of path segments but nothing in the way of detail as had been done by the same external consultant for a study of a path through the Divide Block.  That earlier study showed paths that were more realistic in the way of switch-backed paths, showed retaining walls, and had clear language to note the likely disturbance of up to 30 feet in width in some areas to then have a similar 10-foot-wide paved path with 2-additional feet of gravel on either side.

Unlike the Port Gamble Heritage Park which had provisions to allow one more timber harvest in all areas, the North Kitsap Heritage Park is in recovery from being used for timber production.

There have been efforts to thin parts of the park for overall tree health and plans to increase the diversity of trees and plants in this park.  We should not be going in clear-cutting 14 to 30-foot wide paths through this treasure.”

Doug Hayman, Indianola

An edited version of this letter appeared in the Bainbridge Island Review on 7.12.24.