One of the many comments about the PROS Plan delivered to the Planning Commission Hearing on the PROS Plan: 5.20.25
Dear Chairman Beam and members of the Planning Commission:
The County has worked on land acquisitions for parks going back to the mid-1960s. The concept of Heritage parks came about in 1998-2000 and was followed by additional purchases of large tracts. These future Heritage parks were intended to provide recreation, but importantly were considered large enough to protect wildlife and habitat—the latter an important point for generating community support.
I am concerned that the 2025 PROS Plan before you is a complete replacement that jettisons all the good work that has gone before. PROS Plans were written in 2006, 2012, and substantially expanded in 2018. The 2018 PROS Plan was a solid effort.
The 2018 PROS Plan incorporated three important elements for Heritage parks:
(1) Reliance on the stewardship groups.
(2) Protection of wildlife and habitat.
(3) A planning protocol for Heritage parks was detailed with sequential steps to
A. Assess resource and ecological assets,
B. Determine appropriate land use via a Landscape Classification system, and
C. Identify restoration and development activities.
The Landscape Classification was first used in the 2015 Port Gamble Forest Heritage Park master plan and all three steps of the planning protocol were followed for the North Kitsap Heritage Park master plan.
- First, the County recognized that it did not have resources or staffing to manage the Heritage parks and began creating stewardship groups to fill the need. (Formalized in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and the 2018 PROS Plan.) For over a decade and into COVID, the stewardship group system was nothing short of a wild success. There was a high level of community engagement and effective leveraging of citizen time and expertise that resulted in opening and maintaining trails, significant restoration projects, and completion of forestry and park plans. When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, and the County decimated Parks staff, maintenance and restoration activities in Heritage parks continued without a break due to the semi-autonomous stewardship groups. Since 2021, however, the stewardship groups have been progressively marginalized by the Parks Department (contrary to Comp and PROS Plans). Activities decreased and a number of stewards moved on. The 2025 PROS Plan would completely abandon stewardship groups and citizen engagement. There is not a single positive word about the stewardship groups. Citizen-stewards are now seen as just volunteers, to be managed by maintenance staff. The expertise and local knowledge that was formerly leveraged is being lost.
- Second, the importance of protecting wildlife and habitat was prominent in the 2018 PROS. The 2025 PROS apparently places more importance on greater access and development. There needs to be (1) recognition that protecting and repairing the ecosystems is a prime desire of the community and (2) that “quality habitat” will make for “quality recreation.” The idea of this NPS-like dual-mandate for environment and recreation should not be lost.
- Third, appropriate planning protocol is vital. The first draft of the 2025 PROS Plan had no protocol at all. Now, there is one paragraph. In coming years, new plans need to be written for Coulter Creek and “Eglon” Heritage parks and the master plan for Port Gamble Forest Heritage Park requires completion. The 2018 PROS Plan provided a protocol and set of sequential steps. Yes, it could be improved. No, it should not be abandoned.It is especially important that planning begin with resource and ecological assessments. Wetland and stream ecosystems must be identified at the beginning. Identification of developments must come last.
Overall, the Planning Commission should be very concerned with the weak planning and policy aspects of the 2025 PROS. In addition to the concerns above, the following elements need to be addressed:
(1) Carrying capacity of Heritage parks. We can love these parks to death. There have to be limitations on access and parking and, also, on trail locations and mileage. Studies on carrying capacities are necessary.
(2) Financial responsibility. Stewardship groups were essentially free and in 2026 Parks is projected to lose 2-5 FTEs. There is no Plan B.
(3) Meaningful community participation and engagement. Hasn’t that always been a desirable feature of county government?
(4) Electric and alternately powered mobility devices. E-bikes and their cousins can and do have deleterious effects on recreation in natural settings. This is a current issue that should have been addressed in the PROS Plan. Not to do so is irresponsible.
A fixed schedule has been set for approval of the proposed 2025 PROS Plan. That should go out the window. The public has not been allowed any opportunity to participate or comment on policy-level park issues until the final draft was recently released. I personally have attempted to engage since 2023, but without success. The process has been neither transparent nor participatory.
A PROS Plan should not be generalities that can be interpreted in myriad ways. This 2025 PROS Plan needs to be comprehensive and needs to have specifics. Abandoning the solid 2018 PROS Plan and bringing in an outside consultant has not proved to be a good strategy. As a result, the Planning Commission is faced with the uneasy task of changing course.
There is considerable community support for that task.
Good luck,
Joe Lubischer
Indianola
Send your own comment by email to the Planning Commission by May 27, 5 pm.
> Return to Community Comments