DNR commissioner defends park closures

A Spectrum, by Pat Pourchot

A recent "Spectrum" piece by Judith McKinley (June 4) and a recent letter by Senators Halford and Green (June 7) criticizing the Department of Natural Resources, the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, and me personally for state park closures warrant a response.

These authors charge that despite budget cuts, state park units did not have to be closed, and that parks in the Mat-Su Valley were targeted for closure for political reasons.

Although the administration asked for a modest increase in the state parks budget for next year just to keep pace with inflation and deteriorating facilities, the legislature cut the budget $186,000 below this year's level. We have no slack in the parks budget. For years we have met the demands of flat budgets through contracting out services, transferring facilities to local governments, partnering with private operators, recruiting of hundreds of volunteers, and establishing and raising user fees. To meet further budget cuts we have to layoff park personnel who do routine maintenance like trash removal, cleaning outhouses, staffing entrance stations, and campground supervision. It is simply irresponsible to leave facilities open when these services are not provided. We have some vivid experiences with damage to our park facilities and resources and dangers to the public when facilities are not maintained.

Our list of potential park closures has not changed in several years when faced with proposed budget cuts. We consistently told legislators which park units would be closed under various proposed reductions throughout this year's budget process. Fortunately, as the proposed cuts were reduced this year, the number of park units that would be closed was reduced. But in the end, nine units in the Mat-Su Valley and two in Fairbanks were subject to closure.

We manage our units most efficiently in "clusters" where a ranger and seasonal personnel can perform maintenance on several units in relative proximity. Under the cut proposals clusters have been analyzed and ranked taking into account revenue generated, visitation, and costs of operations. Both the Fairbanks and Mat-Su clusters scheduled for closure have relatively high operating costs, particularly in the case of the Mat-Su cluster where a number of smaller units extend over 150 miles up the Glenn Highway. Additionally, revenues from this cluster are comparatively small.

Concern was expressed over "early" closures of these park units. Some of these units were closed for the winter and not scheduled for opening until the end of May. It makes no sense to take the considerable time, effort and money to open park units that must be closed back down several weeks later. However, some units have been open and remained opened through Memorial Day, if not well into June. Other units will be left open for some uses such as boat launching and general public use where other facilities can be safely protected.

These park closures could have been easily avoided. The state parks takes in roughly $2 million in user fees. However, the legislature did not authorize state parks to retain all the revenues it will take in next fiscal year. The $186,000 cut to parks, and the Fairbanks and Mat-Su closures, could have been avoided through the authorization to retain existing park receipts.

Closing parks is not fun and not what DNR is supposed to be doing. If park monies were restored next year, I would like nothing better than to reopen all these units.

Pat Pourchot is the commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources.