One of the many comments about the PROS Plan delivered to the Planning Commission Hearing on the PROS Plan: 5.20.25

Members of the Planning Commission and Carmen Smith, KC Parks Planner,

In the Draft 2025 PROS Update that you are considering, the Kitsap County Parks Department is proposing significant changes in the way it manages our parks. The new plan emphasizes active recreation and sports at the expense of natural recreation such as walking, hiking, observing native plants and wildlife, and quiet enjoyment. In my opinion, the proposed PROS Update reveals a serious lack of vision on the part of the Parks Department.

Kitsap Environmental Coalition (KEC) spent hours going over the Draft Update. I am attaching specific comments regarding trails that several of us put together. If you read nothing else in this email, please read the last paragraph of my attachment. As development expands here in Kitsap, it is urgent that we protect habitat and natural spaces, peaceful trails, and sanctuary that parks can provide.

Please consider the following changes to the PROS Plan Update to better preserve the natural habitat of all of our parks including Heritage Parks. I have altered this list a bit–it originated from KEC:

• Prioritize the preservation of natural spaces and habitats utilizing regeneration and restoration practices in all parks.
• Provide pedestrian-only trails throughout the KC Parks system.
• Support and enhance the volunteer Park Stewardship program, including stewardship groups for each park.
• Maintain Port Gamble Heritage Forest’s status as a Heritage Park; do not convert it to a regional park.
• Do a better job of involving the community in decision-making; involve Park Stewards and Stewardship groups in planning. 
• Enhance public participation through rigorous community outreach, Q&A sessions, and extended public comment periods. KC Parks needs to engage in a real conversation with Kitsap residents.

Thank you all for your time and consideration,

Carol Price (30 year resident of Kitsap county, KEC member for over 6 years, WA Sea Grant Crab Team volunteer, frequent parks visitor and walker of many trails, and sometimes parks volunteer)

Trails

 The trails in Kitsap Parks come in many varieties, from quiet paths under tree canopy to steep, carved, and bermed trails built for mountain bikers. Park visitors may prefer a stroll, some want to walk their dog, some come for a physical challenge, and so on–different users want different trails. While by no means comprehensive, the following paragraphs address specific trails’ issues found in the 2025 PROS Plan.

Action 6.4.2 (pg 112): I support the utilization of environmentally friendly trail construction materials and techniques to minimize ecological footprint and erosion risks.

On page 16 in the Plan, “aquifer recharge zones…influence land use decisions that often limit intensive recreational development.” Further this Plan notes that “public recreation and critical areas are not always mutually supportive.” Sensitive habitats, intermittently wet areas, wetlands, and streams must be protected “to safeguard ecological functions”. And the Plan notes that “thoughtful planning is essential”. The process for carrying out such planning needs to be formalized and included in the 2025 PROS Plan. I urge KC Parks to follow through on these protections. Even low-impact activities like hiking and nature observation in these areas needs to be monitored carefully.

On pg 19 in the non-motorized transportation section from the 2018 PROS Plan, it’s stated that the KC Facility Plan “strives to provide a region-wide vision for a connected system of off-road shared use paths.”  Please state directly if this is a reference to the STO, and if the path(s) will be paved. This lengthy phrase is used often by Parks and the County. Clarity please.

The PROS Plan should not encourage transportation routes passing through the Parks, especially Heritage Parks. On page 138, a trail is defined: “A trail is a recreational facility that also can serve as a non-motorized route for transportation.” I believe that this definition is bad. Heritage Park trails should allow users to appreciate the Park and its wildlife, not provide transportation.

It is clear from the definition in Appendix B that the STO is a bikeway not a trail. Bikeways are distinct from recreational trails in that they prioritize efficient, non-motorized transportation. Designed for bicycle commuters, fitness riders, and competitive cyclists, bikeways emphasize direct routes, speed, and connectivity to roadway networks. Yet, the STO promoted by the County is not a direct route. The County has purposefully altered the routes to take advantage of the free land available in Heritage Parks, essentially ignoring their own definition of bikeway to save some money and satisfy corporate sponsors.

Volunteers help maintain the extensive network of trails, as noted on pg 44. Since the stewardship groups for the parks have been disbanded, it is unclear who will work with and oversee these groups. This Plan is vague about who will be building new trails. We understand the Washington Trails Association has been contracted by Parks to do trail management. We maintain that the residents of the County need to be active participants in trail planning and decision making.

Regarding the survey results on pg 75, the new Eglon park will need assessments and wetland delineations, not to mention thoughtful planning, well before any trail building occurs.

The “Parks Bucks” survey, pg 79, showed that trails are a priority for the majority of users. Trail usage increased notably during COVID and has remained elevated even post pandemic (pg 93). The Popular Amenities survey, pg 58, revealed that trails for “walking, hiking, biking, running” were the park amenities used most frequently. But if separate options for pedestrian and biking usage had been offered, this survey would have been more revealing. The RCO Activity Assessment on page 92 also lumps these activities together, finding that walking, hiking, or using a “mobility device” were the leading outdoor recreational activities in our state. (The assumption is that mobility devices are bikes?). However in the 2018 PROS Plan, a survey from the state RCO, clearly showed that the top Recreation Activities were walking (94%) and nature activities, while biking was way down the list at 28%. Yet Parks continues to insist that trails be built and maintained for multiple uses including biking and horseback riding. Finally the kinds of trails preferred by mountain bikers are built differently than trails that pedestrians enjoy. This is most apparent at PGFHP. We urge Parks to scale back multi-use trails, and designate separate trails for user types. Adding to all of this, there has been a recent down-turn in the mountain bike industry which further supports reducing the amount of trails for this sport.

Regarding survey results on safety improvements, pg 77, if KC Parks dealt with the resentments of multi-use trail users first, perhaps there wouldn’t be actual conflicts. Safety measures such as posting speed limits for bikers will be impossible to enforce. The multi-use trail model needs real examination and revision; designating separate-trails-by-use needs to be assessed as a solution to both resentment and conflict.

While this Parks Plan addresses user conflict as a safety issue, the inherent danger of mountain biking is ignored. There have been at least 2 life altering accidents on the Ranger Corridor at PGFHP, and yet as far as we know there are no official records kept on emergency medical events in our parks. I urge Parks to be transparent regarding accidents; safety records need to be maintained and the Parks Advisory Board notified. Knowing what the safety issues are will inform us what improvements are needed.

While there is no reference to motorized mobility devices, such as electric bikes, in this PROS Plan, they already pose serious safety issues for all park users. Such devices do not belong in a park to begin with, but they certainly have no place on park trails. Trail users on mountain bikes or motorized devices move much faster than pedestrians, increasing chances of accidents and conflict.

On pg 64, Parks acknowledges suggestions by the public for no-bike areas to increase pedestrian safety, but offers no follow-up in the PROS safety section.

I urge our local officials to shift their focus in the PROS Plan from the usage of parks to an emphasis on responsibility for parklands and wildlife; shift the emphasis from park users to humans as park visitors. At the same time, conservation, restoration, and protection for parklands need to be prioritized over the PROS Plan’s single-minded focus on access for all humans to recreate. This approach can encourage stewardship, improve the quality of our parks, and increase support and advocacy for wildlife and native plants. Let’s grow a deeper appreciation and responsibility for the true wealth of the natural world found in Kitsap’s 11,600 acres of parks. This is a necessity not an ideal.

Carol Price, Kitsap Resident

Send your own comment by email to the Planning Commission by May 27, 5 pm.

> Return to Community Comments