The Valles Caldera National Preserve (VCNP) is often compared to the Presidio because both are managed by trusts created by Congress. Other than that, there are few other similarities. The VCNP has an expansive 89,000 acres while the Presidio consists of a puny 1,491. The VCNP has a few decaying buildings which badly need infusions of cash to make them ready for visitors while the Presidio has 768 buildings they inherited from the National Park Service as well as plentiful parking and roads. The VCNP is land-rich but, other than the stunning scenery, amenity poor while the Presidio burgeons with money-making assets on its strikingly green piece of oceanfront property in highly urbanized San Francisco.
The management of the Presidio is unique because the Presidio Trust in July 1998 took over management of Area B, which is the non-coastal interior 80% of the Presidio while the NPS retained management over the shoreline of the Presidio, the remaining 20% which is called Area A.
The May 2002 Presidio Trust Management Plan divides Area B into different planning districts, each with a slightly different focus such as educational, cultural and lodging. Crissy Field, for instance, is pure recreational open space while the Main Post, "Heart of the Presidio", functions as an area to orient visitors.
In the VCNP's upcoming planning for public use and access this year, would it be possible for the Valles Caldera National Preserve to also establish different use areas within the Preserve? Some of these areas could be purely for making money - perhaps a resort destination in an area of the caldera that is easily accessible from the main highway, NM4. Other more isolated areas of the Preserve could be reserved for uses that are more primitive like dispersed camping.
Perhaps the VCNP could even have different areas of the Preserve under different management like in the Presidio. What if, for instance, the Santa Fe National Forest managed the perimeter of the caldera, including the Valles Caldera rim, for primitive, wilderness uses while the Valles Caldera Trust (VCT) managed the interior, more developed areas of the Valles Caldera for intensive tourist use?
Looking at the Presidio's website, it appears that open space recreation is free. Since they have other lucrative venues that make beaucoup bucks - rent and lease of residences (1,147 housing units) and office space - they can afford not to charge.
The problem for the Preserve is that there is no ready source of the annual, large amounts of cash that are required to attain financial self sufficiency without first making a huge investment to build a destination resort with a visitor center and parking and all the amenities that top-paying tourists require. One worry is that such a development would spoil and endanger the natural beauty and natural resources of the Preserve. In the 2009 session of the New Mexico Legislature, Senate Memorial 32 has been introduced by Tim Eichenberg. This calls upon the New Mexico congressional delegation to hold hearings to reconsider the present management of the Valles Caldera National Preserve because it is not allowing people fair access to the Preserve; because of this, recreation and economic opportunities are being lost to New Mexicans.
One characteristic that both the VCNP and the Presidio have in common is no lack of dissatisfaction among the public. There is controversy over decisions of the Presidio Trust just as much as there is dissatisfaction about how things are going at the Preserve. The Los Alamos Monitor is running a two part article by Dave Menicucci, Albuquerque based freelance writer, on frustrations of New Mexicans with the current regime in place at the Preserve. Part one, cleverly titled Frustrations with Valles Caldera erupt into public debate, appeared on Sunday, March 1, 2009. Part two is slated to appear on Tuesday, March 3, 2009. It makes very interesting reading for those of us who have waited so long (if impatiently!) for untrammeled access to the Valles Caldera National Preserve!
I hope in the future that the situation at the Valles Caldera National Preserve changes and allows wider and fairer access to people but, for the meantime, I truly envy the people of San Francisco because the Presidio welcomes people to use its open spaces and the Presidio Trust is well on its way to achieving independence from federal appropriations by 2013.
The management of the Presidio is unique because the Presidio Trust in July 1998 took over management of Area B, which is the non-coastal interior 80% of the Presidio while the NPS retained management over the shoreline of the Presidio, the remaining 20% which is called Area A.
The May 2002 Presidio Trust Management Plan divides Area B into different planning districts, each with a slightly different focus such as educational, cultural and lodging. Crissy Field, for instance, is pure recreational open space while the Main Post, "Heart of the Presidio", functions as an area to orient visitors.
In the VCNP's upcoming planning for public use and access this year, would it be possible for the Valles Caldera National Preserve to also establish different use areas within the Preserve? Some of these areas could be purely for making money - perhaps a resort destination in an area of the caldera that is easily accessible from the main highway, NM4. Other more isolated areas of the Preserve could be reserved for uses that are more primitive like dispersed camping.
Perhaps the VCNP could even have different areas of the Preserve under different management like in the Presidio. What if, for instance, the Santa Fe National Forest managed the perimeter of the caldera, including the Valles Caldera rim, for primitive, wilderness uses while the Valles Caldera Trust (VCT) managed the interior, more developed areas of the Valles Caldera for intensive tourist use?
Looking at the Presidio's website, it appears that open space recreation is free. Since they have other lucrative venues that make beaucoup bucks - rent and lease of residences (1,147 housing units) and office space - they can afford not to charge.
The problem for the Preserve is that there is no ready source of the annual, large amounts of cash that are required to attain financial self sufficiency without first making a huge investment to build a destination resort with a visitor center and parking and all the amenities that top-paying tourists require. One worry is that such a development would spoil and endanger the natural beauty and natural resources of the Preserve. In the 2009 session of the New Mexico Legislature, Senate Memorial 32 has been introduced by Tim Eichenberg. This calls upon the New Mexico congressional delegation to hold hearings to reconsider the present management of the Valles Caldera National Preserve because it is not allowing people fair access to the Preserve; because of this, recreation and economic opportunities are being lost to New Mexicans.
One characteristic that both the VCNP and the Presidio have in common is no lack of dissatisfaction among the public. There is controversy over decisions of the Presidio Trust just as much as there is dissatisfaction about how things are going at the Preserve. The Los Alamos Monitor is running a two part article by Dave Menicucci, Albuquerque based freelance writer, on frustrations of New Mexicans with the current regime in place at the Preserve. Part one, cleverly titled Frustrations with Valles Caldera erupt into public debate, appeared on Sunday, March 1, 2009. Part two is slated to appear on Tuesday, March 3, 2009. It makes very interesting reading for those of us who have waited so long (if impatiently!) for untrammeled access to the Valles Caldera National Preserve!
I hope in the future that the situation at the Valles Caldera National Preserve changes and allows wider and fairer access to people but, for the meantime, I truly envy the people of San Francisco because the Presidio welcomes people to use its open spaces and the Presidio Trust is well on its way to achieving independence from federal appropriations by 2013.