Chairman Wismer presented the following remarks regarding Bingaman’s advocacy of transferring the Valles Caldera to the National Park Service:

This Summer, the Senator has been very active in matters concerning the Valles Caldera National Preserve – acreage near Los Alamos that is near and dear to our community – and one that we hope will have a favorable outcome soon with congressional action. I was honored to be in Washington D.C. to testify last June when Senator Bingaman chaired the Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing to discuss legislation that he and Senator Tom Udall wrote to transfer the management of the Preserve to the National Park Service. We support the Senators’ bill which directs the Park Service to take over management in a way that protects the Preserve’s natural and cultural resources. The preserve is a national treasure and we hope the legislation will be successful.

Visitors line the highway, most peering through binoculars, as they strain to get a better look at dozens of brown specks in the distance.

The specks — members of Valles Caldera National Preserve’s infamous elk herd — are munching in green pastures that stretch for miles. They are surrounded by mountain peaks blanketed with ponderosa pine, spruce and fir trees.

The expansive preserve is a sight to behold, but caretakers say Valles Caldera’s forests, grasslands and wetlands are not as healthy as they look. Nearly a decade of research has provided them with statistics to say so, and now they have developed a 10-year plan to get the preserve back into shape by using everything from prescribed fire and thinning to weed control and wetland restoration.

ORIGINAL POST: The Valles Caldera Trust has debuted a new section of its web site designed to educate the public regarding its “10-year strategy for the restoration and management of the forest, grassland, shrubland, and riparian ecosystems” on the Valles Caldera National Preserve, and to take public input regarding this plan.

Click here to visit the new section of the Trust’s official government web site.

While replete with information and supporting documents, the web site does lack some particulars. Namely, it does not mention how the proposed strategy would change if the Valles Caldera National Preserve Management Act, legislation that would transfer management of the Preserve to the National Park Service, is passed by Congress. This bill has been unanimously approved by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and is now up for consideration by the full Senate. In fact, the National Park Service is not mentioned at all on the site. The document also mentions enhancing objectives of surrounding National Forest lands, but fails to discuss how to enhance objectives of the forests of the National Park Service’s Bandelier National Monument, which shares a boundary with the Preserve.

The Associated Press ran a story about the new section of the Preserve’s web site:

The web page includes documents, maps and other links related to the proposed 10-year strategy for restoring and managing the forests, grasslands and riparian ecosystems on the 89,000-acre Valles Caldera National Preserve.

Trust officials say restoration and management of the preserve’s resources is at the heart of their stewardship responsibilities and will be 1 of the most important planning efforts undertaken by the trust.

The plan will guide decisions on forest thinning, prescribed fire, wetland restoration, travel management and noxious weed control, among other things.

Comments will be accepted through Sept. 29.

UPDATE: Sept. 3: Marie Rodriguez, the Natural Resources Coordinator of the Valles Caldera National Preserve, sent the following email to VallesCaldera.com today in response to the above post:

In your posting regarding the proposed Landscape Restoration & Management Plan you noted that we had provided no information about how the possible transfer of the Preserve to the National Park Service would affect this plan.

We simply cannot provide any official statement of certainty as to how a transfer would affect the proposed restoration.

However, the Bill that was actually voted on in committee (your link is to the Bill as introduced, not as voted on) states, “The Secretary shall undertake activities to improve the health of forest, grassland, and riparian areas within the Preserve, including any activities carried out in accordance with title IV of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of
2009 (16 U.S.C. 7301 et seq.)”

Further, it allows the Secretary to continue activities and programs developed by the Trust until planning is completed in compliance with Interior regulations.

One administrative issue is funding. The funding awarded under title IV can only be expended on National Forest System land. Should the transfer occur the current funding would no longer be availble for expenditure on the Preserve. However, we would be optimistic that the Secretary would support the collaboration and commitments made by all stakeholders.

In policies and documents such as the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and the New Mexico Restoration Principles, federal land managers recognize that the management of ecosystems including habitats and disturbance must be considered across administrative boundaries.

The goals and objectives of the proposed plan are completely consistent with the current and proposed legislation that guides (or would guide) the management of the Preserve.

Hope this helps!

Sincerely,

Marie Rodriguez
Valles Caldera Trust
Natural Resource Coordinator

One aspect of his study consists of the enviable task of spending parts of his summer in the Jemez Mountains and asking people — both visitors and locals — to fill out a survey that quantifies what they’d like in terms of future management of the Preserve in terms of recreation offerings and access.

His survey can also easily be filled out online. Anyone with an interest in outdoor recreation on the Preserve can fill it out. The anonymous survey shouldn’t take respondents more than ten minutes.

Please take some time and fill out this survey. Not only will it assist a grad student with his thesis, but it will contribute a great deal of insight to what the public wants in terms of future management of our National Preserve.

Mr. Gagnon’s cover letter describing his study can be read here.

You can fill out the survey by clicking here.

Bill Wicker, spokesman for the committee, told VallesCaldera.com that bills such as this one are “rarely considered as standalone legislation” by the full Senate, and that the Senate would likely vote on the Valles Caldera National Preserve Management Act as part of an omnibus bill, a piece of legislation that packages together multiple measures into one. “Given the time constraints, this is the logical way forward,” Mr. Wicker said.

Mr. Wicker also provided some insight into the timeframe of the path forward for this legislation, predicting that an omnibus bill containing the Valles Caldera legislation would probably be voted on by the full Senate in late September or early October.

The legislation approved (or, officially, “reported”) yesterday was slightly different from the version originally submitted in May. Click here to read the revised version that was approved by the committee. While mostly identical, the most significant change regards the restrictions on motorized access (and constructing roads and facilities/buildings) on the Preserve’s volcanic domes. In the original version of the legislation, motorized access and construction on domes above 9,250 feet was restricted. Now, such access and construction is prohibited:

within the area of the domes and peaks above 9,600 feet in elevation or 250 feet below the top of the dome, whichever is lower.

New Mexico’s U.S. Senators Jeff Bingaman and Tom Udall, who co-sponsored this bill, touted the approval of this legislation by the committee.

From Sen. Bingaman:

The Valles Caldera is one of the most beautiful public landscapes in the country, and the nation would benefit from its inclusion in the National Park System. With [the] committee’s endorsement of this bill, we’re able to send it to the full Senate for consideration.

From Sen. Udall:

With this vote, we are another step closer to bringing one of New Mexico’s most stunning natural landscapes into the National Park System, where it will be protected for the enjoyment and appreciation of generations to come. I congratulate Senator Bingaman on his leadership in shepherding this critical legislation through his Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and I look forward to its consideration by the full Senate.

However, statements by spokesmen for several Republican senators in the online publication Environment and Energy Daily yesterday call into question the prospects of an omnibus bill passing the Senate this year:

“The chance of an omnibus bill is pretty much dead for the year,” said Robert Dillon, spokesman for Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, the Energy and Natural Resource Committee’s top Republican. “There’s just not a lot of Republican interest in moving such a big bill.”

Dillon also said there was unlikely to be time on the crowded Senate calendar, especially if the omnibus ran into opposition. “Even if it’s a bipartisan omnibus bill it can still be controversial,” he said.

Such was the case with the last omnibus, which Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) threatened to filibuster in the final months of 2008, delaying the bill through early last year.

The passage of another public lands omnibus by this Congress is “extremely unrealistic, if not impossible,” said Coburn spokesman John Hart, who added that his boss would demand any new spending in the bill be offset by cuts elsewhere.

Two important outdoor bills took major steps forward last week, raising the possibility they will be eligible for an omnibus lands bill this fall. Assuming of course an omnibus lands bill is assembled.
…
The Senate Energy Committee, which usually assembles the ingredients for an omnibus measure, has not yet begun to put together a new omnibus, but that doesn’t mean one will not be prepared. The ultimate call will be made by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).

Obvious candidates for the omnibus are a bill to transfer the Valles Caldera area in New Mexico to the Park Service, as well as measures to designate wilderness and trails in central Idaho, to extend a popular federal land sales bill, to designate a national park in Delaware (the state has none now), designate a handful of national heritage areas, and much more.

The Valles Caldera National Preserve Management Act was introduced in the Senate on May 27. Hearings on the bill in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee were held on June 30.

The first one was in the Santa Fe New Mexican:

‘Park’ Valles Caldera

The Valles Caldera needs our support, and it needs it now. On June 30 in Washington D.C., the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on S. 3452, the bill to dissolve the Valles Caldera National Preserve Trust and have the National Park Service assume management of the preserve.

How wonderful for this gorgeous preserve to get some experienced management, and who better than our beloved Park Service? Connecting Valles Caldera with the Park Service’s prestige and public outreach will gain it much needed visibility, opening it to greater enjoyment by New Mexicans and our out-of-state visitors alike. Don’t you just love it when the government does things we can be proud of? Thank you, Sen. Jeff Bingaman!

Kimberly MacLoud
Santa Fe

The second was printed in the Journal North:

Valles Caldera Better With NPS

New Mexicans could be relieved that our U.S. senators have advanced legislation to transfer the Valles Caldera National Preserve from the temporary experimental trust to the National Park Service, which would afford permanent protection to this national treasure. The Bingaman/Udall proposed legislation will help the regional economy, give the public quality access to the preserve, protect natural and cultural resources, expand hunting opportunities, and protect tribal interests.

The current managers of the preserve apparently will not let this necessary change happen without some discord. Valles Caldera National Preserve Trust Chairman Steve Henry has recently expressed great concern, in a Journal article dated July 14, about possible forest fires and the need to thin the forests on the preserve. It is hard to understand why he would mention this now. In 10 years, the Trust has only done only one small thinning project and has delayed its planning for fire and thinning up to 2013. Further, thinning and fire has rarely been mentioned in over a decade of Trust public meetings.

Meanwhile, neighboring Bandelier National Monument, operated by the National Park Service, has managed all wooded acres of the park with a combination of thinning and/or prescribed fire to make the monument fire resistant and restore it to a pre-European contact condition. All National Park Service areas in the West have detailed, publicly vetted forest or grassland restoration programs.

Chairman Henry also mentioned his concern about parts of the new Valles Caldera legislation which would protect the mountain peaks in the preserve from development and motorized access but which would allow hiking. Mr. Henry is worried that the public won’t have access to those peaks. Yet under his leadership, all of the peaks except one on the Preserve have been completely closed to public access, with a $200 fine for trespass. Likewise, his worry about hunting under the new law seems detached from recent history. Expensive private hunts and a nearly hopeless lottery under the Trust would be replaced under the new law by a system accessible to all hunters under New Mexico Game and Fish control.

Sen. Bingaman has long experience with public land legislation and knows that inserting micromanaging ideas would be both unnecessary and counterproductive. We fully support the bill in its current form and urge Congress to pass it as soon as possible.

TOM RIBE
Executive Director, Caldera Action
Santa Fe

Specifically, Mr. Henry misrepresented the portion of the Valles Caldera National Preserve Management Act (S.3452) that restricts certain activities on peaks above 9,250 feet in elevation on the Preserve. Henry is quoted in the article as stating:

“Ninety-two thousand feet [sic] also shuts down some of the major roads we have to transport people from one end of the preserve to another,” he said. “That can probably be changed, but who wants to run a national park known for its sightseeing, and no one can climb to the top of any peaks?”

However, despite Mr. Henry’s assertion, no restriction on climbing to the top of these peaks exists in the legislation.

Specifically, section 3(h)1 of the bill states that on 14 volcanic domes higher than 9,250 feet in elevation in the Preserve, “no roads or facilities shall be constructed; and no motorized access shall be allowed.” But the bill does not restrict hiking access to these peaks — it actually protects them from development and vehicular use.

As a matter of fact, in the nearly ten-year history of the Valles Caldera National Preserve, the public (with the exception of Pueblo members) has been entirely shut out of opportunities to legally hike to the top of all volcanic domes inside the rim of the Caldera at all times, apart from South Mountain, which was opened last year.

It is ironic, therefore, that Mr. Henry would be objecting to a bill by claiming that it would restrict hikers’ access to 14 stunning and dramatic volcanic domes, when under his leadership, the public has been forbidden to climb to the top of all but one of these peaks and savor the views of the scenic crown jewel of Northern New Mexico from nearly two miles high.

Mr. Henry also implies in the article that the legislation is inadequate because forest restoration and thinning priorities wouldn’t be tackled by the National Park Service if the bill passes. But the Journal article implicitly points out the weakness of this argument:

The new bill would specifically require the NPS “to protect and preserve the fish, wildlife, watershed, natural, scientific, scenic, geologic, historic, cultural, archeological and recreational values of the area.”

This would presumably allow for thinning to go on as it would at any other national park where tree density is a concern. Nearby Bandelier National Monument, for instance, conducts thinning operations.

During this crucial time in the post-Baca Ranch history of the Valles Caldera, debate should be encouraged as to the merits of the legislation. But all sides should stick to the facts.

However, on Friday, in a press release sent out by the Valles Caldera Trust, Mr. Henry unambiguously stated his opposition to the bill in its current form, proclaiming that it is “inadequate,” “rushed,” and does not address “complicated land management issues.”

There was no word from the Valles Caldera Trust regarding whether the two new members of the Board of Trustees that were appointed in May by President Obama, Melissa Savage and C. Kenneth Smith, agreed with the conclusions drawn by Mr. Henry, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush.

Friday’s press release is included below in its entirety:

During testimony before Congress on June 30th, Stephen Henry, Chairman of the Valles Caldera Trust, addressed proposed legislation (Senate Bill No. 3452) to designate the Valles Caldera National Preserve as a component of the National Park System. Chairman Henry urged continued protection of the nationally significant natural and cultural resources of the Valles Caldera National Preserve under either Park Service or Forest Service management.

However, Chairman Henry urges caution concerning the proposed legislation. “As written, we believe Senate Bill 3452 is inadequate to meet the needs of the Preserve. We fear this matter is being legislated too quickly, and our professional staff is concerned that complicated land management issues are not being adequately aired.” To address these complex land management issues, the Trust has supplemented its testimony to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to recommend several changes to the proposed law.

Forests cover over 60% of the Preserve, and restoration of those lands is the foremost management issue. Prior to the Federal land acquisition of the Preserve in 2000, the land was heavily logged by the former private landowners. Huge areas of merchantable Ponderosa Pine were removed, and were naturally replaced by dense stands of mixed conifers affecting tens of thousands of acres. To address the dangers of fire and insect infestation, these areas must be thinned and managed. The Trust proposes specific recommendations to amend the bill making forest restoration a management priority. Says Chairman Henry, “If we fail to restore and manage the forested lands, there will inevitably be catastrophic fires worse than the Cerro Grande Fire of May, 2000.”

The legislation needs to more specifically address wildlife management. Elk numbers have a profound environmental impact throughout the Jemez Mountains and have to be managed by hunting. The Trust recommends that the legislation require that hunting levels on the Preserve be determined by the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish based on game management units for the entire Jemez Mountains, including the Santa Fe National Forest.

Chairman Henry also recommends that the Senate consider other modifications to the proposed legislation including:

• Retention of existing laws providing for Native American religious use of Redondo Peak.
• Elimination of the limitation on activities on lands above 9,250 feet. Such an arbitrary restriction will inhibit necessary forest restoration.
• Broaden authorities for grazing based on scientifically based range management criteria.
• Recognition of the extraordinary public service by the staff of the Valles Caldera Trust by confirming their employment rights under any future management regime.

The Trust is also concerned that the current Senate Bill ignores the fact that the Preserve is located in the middle of a huge ecosystem of a million acres managed by the Forest Service. As written, the bill does not require the Park Service to coordinate its management with the Forest Service. The Trust urges that the legislation be amended to require such interagency cooperation and consultation.

The Valles Caldera Trust is concerned that the legislation is being rushed. Management of the Preserve is extraordinarily complicated, and the bill was drafted with little consultation among professional land managers. Speaking for the presidentially appointed Trustees, Chairman Henry believes, “A more judicious approach over the next year would afford the opportunities to address what is best for the land and its resources, and to devise a management regime that will best meet those needs. There is no emergency as the land is being well managed in the public interest. We urge the Committee to take the necessary time to consider all the relevant issues.”

The future of the scenic crown jewel of New Mexico was publicly discussed in Washington, D.C., today, as Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) presided over a meeting of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee examining the Valles Caldera National Preserve Management Act (S.3452), which would transfer the Caldera to the National Park Service. During the hearing, eight individuals who represent significant stakeholders in Northern New Mexico offered testimony regarding their positions on the legislation.

The Albuquerque Journal reported that the bill “earned widespread support” at the hearing. Click here to read the Journal article — nonsubscribers must click on the “trial access pass” button to read it. You can also watch a report on the hearing by KOAT-TV by clicking here.

Four of the eight witnesses expressed unqualified support for the legislation (Sen. Tom Udall, Los Alamos County Council Chairman Michael Wismer, New Mexico Wildlife Federation Executive Director Jeremy Vesbach, and National Park Service Deputy Director Daniel Wenk). Two witnesses — the governors of the Pueblo of Jemez (Joshua Madalena) and Pueblo of Santa Clara (Walter Dasheno) — offered conditional support for the bill. The two other witnesses, Valles Caldera Trust Chairman Stephen Henry and Harris Sherman, the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment (the official in charge of the U.S. Forest Service), did not express support.

The conditional backing offered by the pueblos during the hearing is significant because as recently as January, Jemez Pueblo Gov. Joshua Madalena publicly opposed transferring management from the Valles Caldera Trust.

A synopsis of each witness’ oral and written testimony follows, in order of appearance. Click on the name of a witness in order to download his prepared remarks.

Stephen Henry, Chairman, Valles Caldera Trust — Mr. Henry conveyed his “disappointment” that the bill has been introduced, verbally stressing two primary issues: he is concerned that the bill does not adequately provide for the staff of the Preserve being employed as professionals in the future, and he is concerned about the 60,000 acres of dense conifer forest on the preserve, an extreme fire danger. Whomever continues management of the Preserve must continue to work to abate this danger, Henry said. [Note: the bill states that upon passage, the "Secretary (of the Interior) and the Secretary of Agriculture may hire employees of the Trust on a noncompetitive basis for comparable positions at the Preserve or other units of the National Park System or National Forest System in the State."]

Harris Sherman, Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment, Department of Agriculture (U.S. Forest Service) — Mr. Sherman seemed to be advocating for the U.S. Forest Service to be considered as an alternative to Trust and Park Service management, stressing a strong commitment of the USFS to the Valles Caldera. He pointed out the following: 1) the USFS had a key role in acquiring the Baca Ranch on behalf of the American people (and the $101 million that was used to buy the ranch was taken from the Forest Service’s portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund), 2) technically the Preserve is a part of the Forest Service now, and under direct USFS management can utilize the “considerable resources” of the USFS, 3) the October 2009 GAO report found that the “Trust’s financial management has also been weak,” 3) the fact that 95% of the Preserve is surrounded by the Forest Service means that USFS management could provide for “continuity of natural resource management and for efficient restoration practices to be implemented on a landscape scale.” Additionally, Mr. Sherman stated that the Forest Service has an excellent relationship with the Pueblos in the area.

Daniel Wenk, Deputy Director, National Park Service — Mr. Wenk offered support of the legislation, except he suggested one change, noting that “this bill would repeal the Valles Caldera Preservation Act in which Congress authorized the acquisition of a fractional mineral interest under the Valles Caldera Preserve. We have been advised by the Department of Justice that although the condemnation action related to the mineral interest has concluded, the judgment and some fees have not yet been paid. Accordingly, we believe that the bill should state explicitly that it is not intended to affect the authority for the condemnation or the amount or source of any outstanding obligations of the United States related to the condemnation of the fractional mineral interest under the Preserve.”

Mr. Wenk also stated that the cost to operate and manage the park under the NPS would likely be approximately $22 million for developmental costs and $4 million for annual operational costs.

Pueblo of Jemez Governor Joshua Madalena — Gov. Madalena stated that “we are here to conditionally support” the legislation as an “interim solution” for management of the Preserve. His conditional support hinges on the addition of the following language to the legislation: “This Act shall not be deemed to terminate, adjudicate or adversely affect any valid existing rights within the Preserve, including Indian title and rights previously established pursuant to the public land laws.”

Mr. Madalena also insisted that the position of Jemez Pueblo is that the Caldera must “eventually be returned to our ownership and control.”

Pueblo of Santa Clara Governor Walter Dasheno — Gov. Dasheno testified that he “generally supports the legislation,” but with “serious concerns.”

Mr. Dasheno mentioned that he is particularly pleased with the portion of the legislation that provides for the protection of traditional cultural and religious sites in the Preserve, and offered that the absence of such language in the original Valles Caldera Preservation Act was a “glaring omission.”

The concerns that the Pueblo of Santa Clara has with this bill are: 1) the pueblo opposes the concept of a Caldera Rim Trail, as “the concept of a hiking trail is fundamentally incompatible with the Secretary’s obligation to protect and assure our access” to “vitally important traditional sites located throughout the Preserve,” 2) the legislation should make clear that the Preserve’s “existence as a vital place of worship for many Pueblo religious practitioners should be given prominent emphasis in any educational program designed by the Park Service for visitors to the Preserve,” 3) the bill should be amended to include “language making clear that nothing in the bill would supersede or otherwise limit any provision of the Conservation and Access Easement granted by the United States to Santa Clara with respect to the easement area on the Preserve side of the boundary” of the Preserve and Santa Clara Pueblo, and 4) the legislation should include language that would apply the Tribal Forest Protection Act to the area of the Preserve surrounding Santa Clara Pueblo. This act allows a tribe to enter into an agreement with the Forest Service by which the tribe could engage in fire-related management activities adjacent to tribal lands. Finally, Mr. Dasheno said that Santa Clara Pueblo wants language added to the bill that reinforces that the northeast corner of the Baca Ranch that was added to its tribal lands by the Valles Caldera Preservation Act of 2000 would continue to remain part of its reservation.

Michael Wismer, Chairman, Los Alamos County Council — Mr. Wismer stated that Los Alamos County “strongly supports the Preserve’s inclusion in the National Park System under the management of the National Park Service as set forth in S. 3452,” and noted that “on April 6th of this year, following weeks of extensive vetting with the public and the two formal public hearings, the County Council unanimously approved a resolution recommending the transfer of management of the Valles Caldera National Preserve from the Valles Caldera Trust to the National Park Service under the U.S. Department of the Interior—to be managed as a preserve.”

Jeremy Vesbach, Executive Director, New Mexico Wildlife Federation — Mr. Vesbach offered full support for the Valles Caldera National Preserve Management Act, describing high prices for hunting and fishing on the Preserve. He also mentioned that the New Mexico State Senate approved a resolution in 2008 “asking our congressional delegation to look at three options for new management at Valles Caldera—the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and the U.S. Park Service—and transfer management of the Valles Caldera over to the professional natural resource agency best designed to fit all the unique needs.” Mr. Vesbach also said that “the National Park Service (NPS) is best equipped in New Mexico to provide appropriate “people management” to protect a place with incredibly high visitor demand from over‐use while also opening it to one and all.”

The Honorable Senator Tom Udall — Sen. Udall’s statement has not been posted, but, as a co-sponsor of this legislation he offered wholehearted and unqualified support for S.3452.

You can watch the hearing live by clicking here.

Albuquerque’s ABC affiliate, KOAT-TV, filed a report today on this upcoming hearing, stating that “fireworks are expected in Washington Wednesday when the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee discusses the future of the Valles Caldera National Preserve.” Click here to watch this report.

The committee also released an updated witness list for the hearing. One change from the prior witness list is that Sen. Tom Udall is now scheduled to testify, replacing Barbara Johnson, the vice chair of Los Amigos de Valles Caldera. Here is the latest witness list:

Panel 1
The Honorable Tom Udall, U.S. Senate

Panel 2
Daniel Wenk, Deputy Director, National Park Service, Department of the Interior
The Honorable Harris Sherman, Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment, Department of Agriculture
Stephen Henry, Chairman, Valles Caldera Trust

Panel 3
The Honorable Joshua Madalena, Governor, Pueblo of Jemez
The Honorable Walter Dasheno, Governor, Pueblo of Santa Clara
The Honorable Michael Wismer, Chair, Los Alamos County Council
Jeremy Vesbach, Director, New Mexico Wildlife Federation

Trust in the trust

Regarding recent comments concerning the Valles Caldera Trust and its alleged elitism and restrictive public-access policies: The Valles Caldera Trust has had some bumps, but it has fulfilled its role as a working ranch and has provided access with educational workshops, seminars and van tours that cover subjects including archaeology, botany, ecology, geology, history and wildlife.

The Valles Caldera has become, in a very short period of time, an outstanding example of sustainable government management of public lands.

On the other hand, the National Park Service, which some say should now manage the Valles Caldera, has at times alienated and polarized the Native American community. The Valles Caldera Trust has managed what was once a private preserve as a very public entity that respects the multi-culturalism of New Mexico. Turning this to the National Park Service is not the best management direction.

Rudy Ríos
Placitas

As far as can be determined, there have been no letters to the editor printed in any New Mexico newspapers that oppose this bill.

The three letters below, printed on June 17 and June 18, were written in response to Courtney White’s June 12 op-ed, “A step back for Valles Caldera.”

In the right hands

Regarding the June 13 My View, “A step back for Valles Caldera,” by Courtney White: While I admire Mr. White, I disagree with his view regarding the Valles Caldera management; it smacked of elitism.

Direct and personal experience in the outdoors is the best way for anyone to sufficiently understand the magic and wonder of nature and to come to want to protect it. Increased access to, as well as the restoration and protection of, the Valles Caldera National Preserve under management of the National Park Service would fulfill not only its mandate to protect our public treasure but, as importantly in my mind, it would address the other mandate — to educate through recreation.

Common folk come to NPS units: The cost is not prohibitive and the opportunities for recreation are not only healthy but informative. I applaud our U.S. senators for their efforts to place the Valles Caldera in the hands of our National Park Service for all our enjoyment and to provide true protection of the resource.

Susan Tixier
Embudo

Make it a national park

When we think of America’s national parks, words that come to mind are: timeless, incomparable, archetypal, primal, vast, spiritual, essential. They have shaped us in ways that are difficult to fully catalog. They represent landscape that has survived political impulse that inevitably subjugates and destroys.

How odd, then, to read Courtney White’s June 13 My View, “A step back for Valles Caldera,” in which he asserts that the 19th-century national park concept is not “well suited” to the modern era, and that somehow “global challenges” have negated their value.

To the contrary: As growth exacts more and deeper impact on open spaces, forests, grasslands and rivers, we need parks more than ever.

We should redouble our efforts to realize the full vision of John Muir and others, and to establish more of them, expand them, protect them better, experience them more intimately, make them a larger part of our collective understanding of what we ought not to lose.

Bernard and Dawn Foy
Santa Fe

 

Courtney White’s June 13 My View, “A step back for Valles Caldera,” objects to the legislation proposed by Sens. Jeff Bingaman and Tom Udall to transfer management of the Valles Caldera National Preserve to the National Park Service. Most egregiously, he says that “America’s best idea,” our magnificent system of national parks, is “obsolete.” Few Americans would agree.

Although he cites no particular successes, he feels the trust management “experiment” should continue, and then he raises the possibility that hunting opportunities might be restricted.

However, the legislation directs that hunting “shall” be allowed, a strong guarantee of future opportunities.

More importantly, he ignores the many benefits of Park Service management in terms of public access, protection, and almost 100 years of experience managing a wide variety of landscapes, specializing in scientifically based land- and visitor-management services.

We should thank our senators for their recognition that the experiment has failed.

It is time to pass this legislation and move on.

Tom Jervis
Santa Fe

In his letter, the governor wrote: “I appreciate the good work of the Board Members of the Valles Caldera Trust and the Preserve staff over the last decade. However, I concur with you that transfer of management to the National Park Service is appropriate for the long-term preservation of the Valles Caldera.”

The letter is included below:

June 22, 2010
….
Dear Senator Bingaman and Senator Udall:

Thank you for your leadership in introducing the Valles Caldera National Preserve Management Act to ensure the long-term protection of one of New Mexico’s most magnificent natural areas. New Mexico’s Valles Caldera is one of only three supervolcanoes in the United States, in the company of Yellowstone, Wyoming and Long Valley, California. The Valles Caldera is home to important tribal and cultural sites as well as natural resources including elk, deer, and other wildlife. Permanently protecting this unusual landscape as a Preserve in out National Park Service system is the right thing to do.

I appreciate the good work of the Board Members of the Valles Caldera Trust and the Preserve staff over the last decade. However, I concur with you that transfer of management to the National Park Service is appropriate for the long-term preservation of the Valles Caldera.

It is critical that activities such as hunting, fishing, and cattle grazing continue to be permitted in the new Preserve, and your bill allows these traditional uses of the land to continue. The state will still have an important role in wildlife management. As this proposal moves forward, I request that your offices and the National Park Service work closely with the State, particularly the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish and State Game Commission, to ensure that traditional uses of this landscape are preserved for future generations.

I encourage timely passage of the Valles Caldera National Preserve Management act.

Sincerely,
Bill Richardson
Governor of New Mexico

According to the committee, the following individuals are scheduled to testify:

• The Honorable Harris Sherman, Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment, Department of Agriculture
• Daniel Wenk, Deputy Director, National Park Service, Department of the Interior
• Stephen Henry, Chairman, Valles Caldera Trust
• The Honorable Joshua Madalena, Governor, Pueblo of Jemez
• The Honorable Walter Dasheno, Governor, Pueblo of Santa Clara
• The Honorable Perry Martinez, Governor, Pueblo of San Ildefonso
• The Honorable Michael Wismer, Chair, Los Alamos County Council
• Jeremy Vesbach, Director, New Mexico Wildlife Federation
• Barbara Johnson, Vice Chair, Los Amigos de Valles Caldera

Mr. DeBuys, among whose books is Valles Caldera: A Vision for New Mexico’s National Preserve, wrote this piece in response to this week’s editorial written by Courtney White that was titled “A Step Backward: the Valles Caldera National Park.”  Mr. White’s piece argues against the legislation and questions whether the late Stewart Udall, who served as Secretary of the Interior under presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson (and is the father of Sen. Tom Udall), would have supported the bill that his son co-sponsored.  Click here to read Mr. DeBuys’ piece.

Mr. DeBuys includes some compelling insight, revealing that he visited with Stewart Udall a month before his death in March, and according to Mr. DeBuys, Mr. Udall “expressed deep satisfaction that introduction of the bill was imminent.”

Below is a portion of the editorial, headlined “Valles Caldera: What Would Stewart Udall Think?”

Courtney White has my sympathy. He regrets that the land management “experiment” of the Valles Caldera Trust should be abandoned. I share his regret, but not his conclusion. It is time for all of us to face facts and not entangle the fate of a peerless natural landscape in dreamy notions about “new approaches.” The caldera has been the subject of a new approach for nearly a decade. It hasn’t worked.
…
Lamentably, the complex and conflicted mission with which the Trust was charged has produced paralysis, not synthesis, and the public is understandably frustrated by the conspicuous lack of both progress and access at the preserve.

The trust would have better served its fortunes in recent years by focusing its energies on building a broad public constituency; ultimately, its failure is not that it cannot be self-sufficient in dollars, but that the people it should be serving have failed to care sufficiently about it. As a result, the enormous reservoir of public goodwill with which the Trust started its journey has largely been consumed. Let’s move on.

Mr. White’s assertion that the “national park idea… is not well-suited for the onrushing, global challenges of the 21st century” is nonsense, and it is offensive that he should utter this foolishness in reference to Stewart Udall. If Stewart were still alive, he would be the first to say that the national park idea has proved adaptable and enduring, not least in lands beyond the borders of the United States where the defense of the natural world is led by citizens with sharper vision than Mr. White’s. The national park idea continues to represent one of the best strategies yet devised for protecting the environmental commons against the relentless push to privatize and exploit the earth’s goods.

Making the Valles Caldera National Preserve a unit of the National Park System will assure the protection and effective stewardship of an extraordinary place. New Mexico Senators Bingaman and Udall are demonstrating realism and leadership in championing the necessary legislation. Their bill would permit continued grazing and hunting on the preserve, and it also calls for continuation of the preserve’s science and education program, one of the signal achievements of the Trust’s early years. When I last saw Stewart Udall, about a month before he passed away, he expressed deep satisfaction that introduction of the bill was imminent.

The first, in favor of keeping the current management structure at the Preserve and entitled “A step back for Valles Caldera,” was written by Santa Fe resident and 2007 Caldera cattle grazer Courtney White. Mr. White is founder of the Quivira Coalition, whose goal is to “build bridges among ranchers, conservationists, scientists and public land managers around concepts of progressive cattle management, innovative stewardship and improved land health.”

The second, entitled “Valles Caldera Bill a Step Forward,” which favors the legislation, was penned by Roger G. Kennedy, who served as director of the National Park Service in the 1990s.

Mr. White’s piece, which you can read by clicking here, was published in the Santa Fe New Mexican, as well as on the New West website. The conclusion of his piece is quoted below:

I know that the implementation of the preserve’s mission has been a rocky road so far. I have first-hand knowledge because I was part of the team that grazed the preserve with livestock in 2007. The preserve is nowhere near financial self-sufficiency yet. But is the answer to these problems abandonment of the vision?

The bill introduced by Sens. Udall and Bingaman replaces the original act entirely and eliminates the trust. It also eliminates the vision. While it allows livestock grazing and hunting to continue on the preserve, the bill uses the words “may allow,” meaning they’ll take place at the discretion of the secretary of the interior. And because hunting and livestock grazing are generally inimical to the mission of the Park Service, “may allow” will likely become “won’t allow” eventually.

I believe the transference of the Valles Caldera to the National Park Service is a step backward. That’s because the national park idea, whose roots extend back to the 19th century, is not well-suited for the onrushing, global challenges of the 21st century. In contrast, the Valles Caldera National Preserve, under its current mandate, has the potential to keep testing an innovative model that addresses pressing problems. For this reason, I think the experiment should run for a while longer.

It is important to note that while Mr. White is correct that the legislation states that the Park Service “may allow” cattle grazing, it mandates that the NPS “shall permit” hunting, a much more forceful endorsement of the latter activity.

Former Park Service director Kennedy’s responding editorial, which was also published on the New West website, can be read by clicking here. Mr. Kennedy’s article concludes as such below:

Courtney White, who wrote in opposition to the bill last week on New West, may consider the Caldera Trust an “audacious and visionary experiment” – but it was a stopgap—the best we – including Stewart Udall—could get. Stewart’s enthusiasm for the park concept never wavered, maybe because he, unlike Mr. White, understood what is and isn’t “inimical” to the mission of the National Park Service”: ranching is done on National Park land, rarely and carefully, as it can be done in the Caldera. The national parks aren’t all big remote western places – its mission since the New Deal has also been to serve urban populations – and New Mexico is urbanizing fast.

Mr. White asserts that “the national park idea, whose roots extend back to the 19th century, is not well-suited the [sic] onrushing, global challenges of the 21st century.” Wrong. That idea is about protecting special places for learning – and since the 20th century about places as accessible to cities as possible. Northern New Mexico is becoming like Colorado, where in the Front Range megalopolis Rocky Mountain National Park is Central Park — as the Santa Monicas are to Los Angeles. Nostalgia for cattle ranches is not a substitute for recognition of the need for nature close at hand – or for places where we can learn about each other and about nature.

Mr. White asserts that “the reason public land existed in the first place [was] to protect it from the profit motive.” No –our federal public lands were assembled in 1789. The public realm preceded the private, not the other way around. As for the “national park idea” – it isn’t a 19th century invention. It too goes back to George Washington, who insisted that the District of Columbia include open space and preserved wildness – that is why there is old growth in Rock Creek National Park. As for “challenges” – ours are severe, and so were Abraham Lincoln’s. He had a civil war to fight, but he coupled the Homestead Act, for purposeful privatization, with the encouragement of purposeful public protection of Yosemite. Challenges? President Franklin Roosevelt created the modern, comprehensive National Park System in the darkest days of the Depression – a System that almost included the Valles Caldera.

The Udall-Bingaman Bill accords with Stewart Udall’s aspirations for the Caldera, and with Theodore Roosevelt’s hopes for protection of American antiquity through the Antiquities Act of 1906. These traditions – of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries – are worthy of respect, as is the “noble experiment” in self-government that even in difficult times, does its duty to the land, and to the needs of our people.

SEN. UDALL: I’d like to open today’s call by talking about a bill Sen. Bingaman and I introduced before last week’s recess. Our legislation would bring the Valles Caldera into the National Park Service. The bill would direct the Park Service to take over management of the preserve in a way that protects its natural and cultural resources. Hunting, fishing, and cattle grazing would all remain permitted under the bill. The Park Service, of course, would manage these uses to protect the ecology, and on the basis of sustainability. Additionally, the measure respects protections for tribal, cultural and religious sites, and ensures pueblo access to the area.

For many generations, the Caldera has been a part of life for the pueblo tribes of Northern New Mexico. Today, it continues to have an important cultural and religious significance — something that must be respected and protected as the preserve moves under the management of the National Park Service. My staff and Sen. Bingaman’s staff met last week in New Mexico with the pueblos of Santa Clara, San Ildefonso, and Jemez, as well as with the Valles Caldera Trust employees. The feedback we received was pretty positive. Next, Sen. Bingaman has scheduled a hearing on the bill for the end of June in his Energy and Natural Resources Committee. And I hope to keep you updated on this as we move along.

[Later in the press conference, another Caldera-related question came up]

REPORTER: I’d like to go back to the Valles Caldera National Park. Having grown up on the side of this my whole life, is there any opposition, first question, to this idea?

SEN. UDALL: You know, I don’t know that there’s outright opposition. I think there are folks out there that have concerns. I mean, part of the reason that our staffs were in New Mexico over the break was to visit with everybody and give them a sense of what was happening. So I don’t know if I can really identify, at this point, any specific opposition. I just think that there are concerns out there. And the best thing to do is what you usually do in the legislative context: put a bill out there, listen to people, try to address their concerns. That’s what Sen. Bingaman is going to be doing in his hearings coming up. If there is any opposition, I would suspect it may surface at the hearing. Sen. Bingaman has always been good at letting people come and testify that don’t necessarily agree with legislation that’s pending before his committee. I would give the Organ Wilderness as an example of that. I mean, not only did he have people in Washington that testified in opposition, we came out to New Mexico — to Las Cruces — and had a field hearing with over 700 people there, and a number of people wanted to see changes, and we’re working on those changes now.

REPORTER: OK. Now, if the National Park Service were to take this over, do you have any ideas about what the plans are? Will there still be only one way in and one way out? Are they going to open up any of the back gates for hiking, camping?

SEN. UDALL: Well, the good thing about having the National Park Service in charge is, number one, they would have the resources to develop this in such a way to give the maximum experience to anybody that wants to come, and so I don’t know, specifically, what their plans would be. I know there’s been some talk about having a Rim Trail, with also respecting some of the other owners on the rim. There would, I think, be additional infrastructure put in so that you could get a good visitor experience. But, you know, the key with all Park Service land, is to protect the ecological integrity of the land, while at the same time having a good visitor experience. There needs to be a real balance there. There has been, since it has been a National Preserve, fishing, hunting, and cattle grazing, and that’s going to continue. We’re going to put that into the legislation. But it’s going to have to be done in such a way that you maintain the ecological integrity of the property, and you do it on a long-term basis so that it’s sustainable.

Under the headline “Valles Caldera Good Fit for Park Service,” the Journal editors stressed their preference for Park Service management of the Caldera. Click here to read the editorial (after clicking on this link, non-subscribers to the Journal must click on the “trial access pass” button in the lower left of the screen to read it).

The Journal editors stated the following:

Bingaman noted that while the trust has done its best to fulfill legislative directives, the current framework isn’t best suited for management.

The Park Service is the right agency to manage keen public interest in the area and the need to protect its unique cultural and geologic resources.

The first call to bring the Valles Caldera into the National Park Service came in 1899, so it’s more than past due.

The Santa Fe New Mexican, in an editorial headlined “Valles Caldera bill good idea, tough sell,” declared that “we’re delighted to see the creative approach of New Mexico’s senators toward making the Valles Caldera a more public-accessible piece of public land. Their bill, though, will have to be carefully crafted, and diplomatically guided, to get through a budgetary gun-shy Congress.” Click here to read the entire editorial. Below is part of the piece:

The preserve’s board of directors has done its best to achieve [former U.S. Senator Pete] Domenici’s goals — but there just isn’t enough money being generated. Meanwhile, entry to many parts of the property remains restricted.

Bingaman and Udall, who succeeded Domenici in the Senate, figure one way to allow America a better look at what we bought is to put it under National Park Service management; it still wouldn’t be a park per se, goes the pitch — but instead of having to sign up for semi-exclusive events allowing us into the place, New Mexicans and visitors from far and wide would just pay the kind of park-entrance fees we do at nearby Bandelier National Monument. In time, there might be a scenic road through it.

The New Mexican noted the conflicts between tourism and grazing inherent in the bill, as well as the price tags for building campgrounds and improving roads on the preserve, and concluded as such: “This will be a test of Bingaman’s congressional clout as chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee — and of Udall’s celebrated nature-conservation advocacy. We wish them both well.”

The hearing, which is open to the public, will take place on Thursday, June 24, 2010 at 9:30 AM (EDT), in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. (click here for a map to this building).