Your opportunity to comment on the 2025 draft PROS (Parks, Recreation, and Open Space) Plan ends Sunday, March 16, 2025. You will need to use the PROS Plan Public Comment Form to submit your comments by the deadline.
The 2025 draft PROS (Parks, Recreation, and Open Space) Plan is now available for public review. The public comment period ends in a few days—Sunday, March 16, 2025. You need to use the PROS Plan Public Comment Form to submit your comments.
This is the first and only time that the Parks Department has scheduled for you to review this policy document. (It is unusual that there is only one opportunity for public review of a draft of such an important policy document.) The document includes major changes in the Parks Classification system and the long-standing Stewardship Program, among other changes. While it is supposed to be an update of the 2018 PROS Plan it is actually a rewrite of the PROS Plan. The changes have major implications for our parks, their management, and use. The written document will be the guiding policy document for the next six years.
Please point out what you like, the problems you see with the document and/or propose what you do want the plan to include.
A KEC working group has identified the following topics and prepared some explanations to give you a jump start on selecting the areas that you may want to address in your comments. The public comment period was too short for the working group to develop their ideas as fully as they had hoped to do. (They requested a longer public comment of the County Commissioners but that request was not granted.) They present these ideas, however, to help KEC members and friends to develop their own ideas on the topics. Click on headings for more detail to inform your comments:
The Role of Park Stewardship Program in Heritage Parks
The park stewardship program has operated for decades as community-based park ambassadors organized to maintain and enhance the county’s heritage parks. The new Plan relegates stewards to the role of maintenance and would be a waste of valuable local knowledge to assist planning future park improvements.
Comparison of 2025 to 2018 PROS Plan
The 2025 PROS Plan has the task to build on and make updated improvements from the previous 2018 PROS Plan. Instead the draft 2025 version is a rewritten document that doesn’t reflect back to 2018, eliminates or adds goals not presented for public discussion and doesn’t always align with the current Comprehensive Plan. As stated in the 2025 PROS Plan Preface (p.5) “The PROS Plan is intended to refresh and update”, and as stated in the Purpose section (p. 4), “is an element of the Kitsap County’s Comprehensive Plan.”
The new plan was envisioned during a staff meeting (Nov 2023), not built on the foundation of the 2018 Plan. It lacks the policies of land use conservation established in 2018, and hints at divesting of parks that aren’t income-producing.
Park Classification
The new classification system needs further explanation of the purpose and consequences of its use. Also the draft PROS Plan uses the Washington State Parks Classification System inconsistently. For example, Kitsap Heritage Parks are not properly identified, and a Regional Park designation is questionable for Port Gamble Forest Heritage Park.
Parks Carrying Capacity
Parks can be loved to death –overuse and lack of enforcement threaten sustainability and safety. Entrance parking and trailheads need to be sized appropriately so as to not exceed park’s carrying capacity. There must be a balance between park sustainability versus promoting parks as a business opportunity or income stream.
Trail Usage
There is inadequate enforcement of proper trail use and nothing in the Plan addresses how this will be managed. For example, the 10-mph speed limit is not enforced, and the mixed use of trails by bikers, hikers, equestrians and pets put them all at risk. Moreover, crisscrossing cycle tracks have torn up trails, damaged tree roots, and impacted wildlife corridors.
Parks Advisory Board
The Parks Advisory Board (PAB) seems to be sidelined throughout the Draft PROS Plan. The PAB needs to be properly included in the development of the PROS Plan and its role presented in the Plan.
Parks Department Staff Roles
The role of the Parks Department staff seemed inappropriately elevated over the public’s involvement and the proper governance structure of the County.
Relationship to Existing County Policy Documents
The draft PROS Plan inadequately draws on important existing documents such as the 2024 Comprehensive Plan and the 2018 PROS Plan.
The draft PROS Plan is missing an analysis of the big picture documents—the policy documents—within which the new PROS Plan should be situated. The Kitsap County 2024 Comprehensive Plan, the Kitsap County Habitat Conservation Plans, the Kitsap County Non-Motorized Facility Plan, and the 2018 PROS plan present the policy context for the new PROS Plan. Yet this analysis is not provided in the draft PROS plan.
PROS Plan Vision
The relationship between the Draft PROS plan goals and the goals from the 2018 PROS plan and the 2024 Comp Plan PROS chapter is not clear. A comparison of the goals and rationale for the differences need to be explained.
Capital Improvement Plan
The foundation for the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is framed around four themes —(a) Conservation and Landscape Resiliency; (b) Connectivity and Trail Development; (c) Access and Safety; and (d) Recreation Facilities and Amenities. However, the prioritization among these themes is not clear nor are the priorities among the long list of possible CIP projects.
Public Involvement Survey Data Presentation and Analysis
There is a disconnect between the data collected from the Public Surveys and the interpretations and priorities set. The Public Involvement section (p. 46-84) has data presentation and analysis problems. The survey data have been inadequately analyzed and data from multiple data collection methods have not been integrated into meaningful presentations and interpretations.
Public Involvement (p. 8) “A description of how the planning process gave the public ample opportunity to be involved in plan development and adoption.” The public had no opportunity to view or comment on the draft or data analysis early in the draft process.
Organization of PROS Plan
The organization of the 2025 PROS Plan needs improvement. It is internally inconsistent and repetitive.
Use this information gathered by the KEC Working Group to inform your own comments (Overview section) here: PROS Plan Public Comment Form