By Gail Binkly

If Colorado’s congressional delegation doesn’t act promptly to protect Anasazi ruins west of Cortez, U.S. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt will seek to have the area declared a national monument, he has reiterated.

In a long-awaited response to the report of a local citizens’ working group concerning the 165,000-acre Anasazi Culture Multiple Use Area of Critical Environmental Concern on the McElmo Dome, Babbitt made it clear that he sees only two "realistic options" for managing the area: making it either a national monument or a national conservation area.

"In the absence of prompt legislative action, I will recommend to the President that he proceed with a proclamation to establish a National Monument under the Antiquities Act, which will take careful account of the recommendations and concerns raised in your final report," Babbitt said in his response to the working group, dated Nov. 9.

Babbitt’s reply drew a sharp response from the office of Sen. Wayne Allard, who along with Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell and Rep. Scott McInnis has been involved in the issue.

"To this point, the secretary has never presented the delegation any guidelines, any suggestions, or demonstrated a willingness to meet with us on this issue," said Allard press secretary Sean Conway on Wednesday afternoon after showing Babbitt’s response to the senator.

"Communication is a two-way street. It’s very difficult to work with the secretary on this issue when he’s not communicating."

Babbitt has never replied to an Oct. 7 letter sent by Allard, Campbell and McInnis, in which they expressed concerns about "any possible form of mandated change of land management" for the ACEC, Conway said.

"We sent a letter over a month ago, it’s Nov. 10, and he hasn’t had the courtesy to respond and begin a dialogue," Conway said. "So we’re kind of perplexed by the mixed messages we’re getting. He’s saying, unless the delegation becomes more proactive, he’s going to do something, but he’s unwilling to meet with us or talk with us. It’s kind of frustrating.

"Today is a typical example," he added. "We found out about this letter from you. Granted, they sent the letter to our office later today, but you’d think if they were trying to work with the congressional delegation, their actions would speak louder than their words and right now they’re not."

On Wednesday, Ed Zink, chairman of the citizens’ subcommittee that prepared the local report, said he was not surprised by Babbitt’s response, but that the politics involved in the issue were unfortunate.

"I think the thing that created a sense of urgency is political reality," Zink said. "It’s nearing the end of the Clinton administration and quite likely the end of Babbitt’s administration, so it’s a politically driven deadline as opposed to a resource-driven deadline, which is a little unfortunate."

Babbitt, who took a short tour of the ACEC in May, has insisted ever since that he believes the Ancestral Puebloan ruins sites need better protection through a change in status.

At issue are thousands of ancient sites and countless relics such as potsherds. Most of the sites are unremarkable to the average observer, but the Lowry Ruins west of Pleasant View and Sand Canyon west of Cortez contain better-preserved walls, dwellings and kivas.

Following Babbitt’s visit, the BLM’s Southwest Resource Advisory Council formed a subcommittee representing different recreational and land-use interests. After having public meetings to gather local input, the RAC subcommittee issued a report Aug. 19 stating that better protection could be achieved through stricter enforcement of existing regulations, increased funding, and stepped-up monitoring through volunteer organizations.

The report said the majority of local opinion was opposed to a change in status for the area.

But in his response to the report, Babbitt said that a change would probably be necessary.

"You know that I absolutely agree that we have to find ways to bring more resources to bear on taking care of this invaluable landscape; we are falling woefully short at the present time," Babbitt said.

"I will continue to seek support in Congress for securing necessary funds, but it is difficult to separate these 160,000 acres from the other 264 million acres that are competing for the BLM’s budget dollars without a special designation."

The local congressional delegation has steadfastly voiced opposition to a status change, urging Babbitt to heed the local voices. Babbitt, in return, has accused the delegation of being intransigent and not working with him on a legislative alternative to a national monument, such as a national conservation area, which must be created by Congress.

The Montezuma County commissioners have sought to bring the parties together for a meeting to hash out their differences, but so far none has been forthcoming.

On Wednesday, however, a spokesman for McInnis said such a meeting was "a definite possibility."

"It’s clear that the secretary has his sights set on this location," said Josh Penry, "so it behooves all of us to work with the secretary rather than set up a stone wall."

Mike Preston, federal-lands coordinator for Montezuma County, said he still hoped a meeting could be arranged.

"The commissioners are still working on trying to get some dialogue and communication going between Secretary Babbitt and the congressional delegation," Preston said. "We’re trying to resolve this thing within the consensus developed by the working group."

Opponents to the designation of the ACEC as a national monument have expressed concern about possible restrictions of the multiple uses now allowed in the area and greater degradation and looting brought about by publicity of the now little-known region.

However, in his response Babbitt repeated his belief that oil and gas development and livestock grazing are compatible with the management of the area.

"That does not mean there will never be any changes made to use authorizations or the way certain uses are managed," Babbitt said, "but those changes occur regardless of any new form of management of the area."

Other uses such as recreation may pose a greater threat because they are increasing, he indicated, and must be managed carefully.

He also said that, while "high-profile actions or announcements prior to some preparation could conceivably increase the threats to the landscape," visitation is increasing already and that simply not publicizing the area isn’t enough to protect it.

"Hiding our heads in the sand has never worked for the west and never will," Babbitt said.

But Conway, speaking for Allard, said Babbitt has refused to take the time to study the issue in depth.

"Senator Campbell’s effort to designate the Black Canyon as a national park was a 13-year effort," Conway said. "These things are not done overnight. There is a process that needs to involve the input of the local community and local elected officials.

"This fits a pattern of the secretary on public-lands issues. He doesn’t want to invest the staff time or the diligence required to deal with these complicated, very contentious issues.

"The attitude is, 'We’re going to do it our way -- it’s our way or the highway.’"

But Zink said the designation of a national monument might not be as restrictive as some locals fear.

"There’s a great deal of paranoia about what the ripple effects would be, and only time will tell," Zink said, adding that he thought it significant that Babbitt says the monument could remain under BLM supervision, similar to the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah. BLM management would allow greater leeway, Zink said.

"Then we almost have a clean slate to say, how are we going to do this?" Zink said.

When the RAC appointed its subcommittee, many locals said the whole public-input process was just "window-dressing" and that Babbitt and Clinton had already made up their minds.

On Wednesday, Zink said that question remains unanswered.

"Did Secretary Babbitt listen? We’ll know when we read those (management) guidelines," Zink said. "If in fact those guidelines say, 'Do this, this and this," following things that were contained in the subcommittee’s report, then I would say, yes, it had some influence and, yes, he listened.