Opponents of the state’s proposal to turn Miller Peninsula into a destination state park said they will continue to push against the proposal after it was spotlighted at a recent State Parks Commission work session and at a regular meeting the following day.

No action was taken at the meetings.

Miller Peninsula, a 2,800-acre undeveloped park east of Sequim, currently includes a trail system maintained by Back Country Horsemen through second-growth forest.

If the state’s ambitious plan comes to fruition, it will have more trails; a visitors center; a nature playground; interpretive elements; a multi-purpose open space area for community events and learning opportunities; picnic shelters; RV camping; standard bike and tent sites; standard state park cabins; two bunkhouses for field trips; and a state park first: six to 10 treehouses or free-standing structures among trees. Some who disagree would like the state to consider a simpler plan: a day-use park with educational opportunities.

Dissenters have included nearby residents, park users and other Olympic Peninsula residents. Although some expressed concerns that plans for a full-service park will continue to move forward despite their long-held objections, it is possible they won’t, at least not in the near future. An exchange between commissioner Holly Williams and Parks Director Diana Dupuis after a detailed presentation about the proposal seemed to put those plans in question.

Regardless, members of Friends of Miller Peninsula State Park and Preserve Miller Peninsula State Park Coalition indicated a determination to keep fighting the proposal.

“We’re hoping to organize to the extent that there are enough concerned citizens of the Peninsula that we can kind of coalesce around this,” said Warren Wilson, who lives near East Sequim Bay Road and is the newest member of Preserve Miller Peninsula State Park Coalition’s Steering Committee. The group has about 500 members and a website, preservempsp.wixsite.com/millerpeninsula.

“Bringing people on board is kind of our primary focus,” Wilson continued. “And then hopefully, with that, we will bring awareness to the Commission. I would say that we are very hopeful.”

The workshop, held Jan. 29, included a slide presentation on the project by Parks Planner Lauren Bromley. She updated the Commission on the process to develop a Classification and Management Plan (CAMP) and a Master Plan, along with an associated Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Her report detailed strides that have been made as well as goals for 2025, including selecting a preferred Master Plan development.

Debi Maloney, also a member of the Preserve Miller Peninsula State Park Coalition, said the plan that was presented, with the CAMP’s land designations, was different from what had been presented previously. The last public meeting for the Miller Peninsula project was in October 2022 at 7 Cedars Resort in Blyn. It drew about 300 people.

According to Wilson, “That was the last time people were really able to express their opposition.”

Maloney said, “We’re confused as to how they can make those designations… without having completed the Environment Impact Statement.” She noted that according to Bromley, another $300,000 is needed for the EIS, despite a one-time allotment of $600,000 last year from the governor and the Legislature, which was supposed to include the EIS.

Desires, concerns

Bromley said that in a statewide survey that drew more than 800 responses and at a public engagement event held at the Big Horn Outdoor Show in Spokane, both conducted in 2023, many participants expressed a desire to see overnight accommodations at Miller Peninsula as well as more trails and interpretive elements.

She said that concerns have fallen into six categories: traffic on Diamond Point Road; overdevelopment; water availability; forest fires; emergency response; and climate change.

Wilson said that “many issues are at play here” and that the Preserve Miller Peninsula group has been trying to get data from the state’s hydrologists so the group can hire its own expert to compare data.

Williams asked Bromley if the Commission could “scale down” the project or “go up incrementally.” Bromley indicated that this could be done and said that the first step for being able to move forward is to complete the EIS.

“We can’t move forward with any kind of development until that happens,” she said, adding that the state “could start with bike and tent sites and basic utilities and not move forward until funding is available,” a process that could take years.

The workshop did not include comments from the public, but speakers were allowed at the Commission’s regular meeting the next day. Four people spoke against the state’s plans for Miller Peninsula: Maloney and Darlene Shanfald, who participated virtually, and Sue Gilman and Ellen Massey, who addressed the Commission in person.

Gilman is with Preserve Miller Peninsula State Park Coalition. She and Maloney serve as the group’s main spokespersons. Shanfeld, who has advocated for Miller Peninsula for many years, told commissioners she was with Friends of Miller Peninsula State Park.

“I have to say that I am shocked and disappointed that the park planners want to, what I call, wage war on Miller Peninsula, both in the park and around the community,” Shanfeld said. She detailed concerns that included possible problems involving solid waste and on-site sewage.

“This park should not be built, and park funds should not be used to destroy the land and the community,” she said.

Funding challenges

After hearing public input, Williams, the vice chair, noted that “it’s a difficult budget session” and that, in light of that, she was wondering what “makes sense” where parks needs are concerned. There have already been “significant cuts” to the capital budget request, she said, and “lots and lots of deferred maintenance.”

Dupuis, the Parks director, responded that the budget challenges “could have a serious impact on the projects that we can devote time and energy to. So, while I don’t have anything conclusive, I think these are the types of projects where we’d be waiting for funding from the state to move forward.”

She added, “This is a time where we can kind of step back for a moment and say, okay, this may not be a priority for us right now.”