By David Grant Long

They’re far from kissing and making up.

But the latest positions of Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and the Colorado congressional delegation indicate some rapprochement might be possible on the future status of 160,000 acres of BLM land in Montezuma County known as the McElmo Dome.

Babbitt, along with some handpicked members of the national media, will be revisiting two atypical but photogenic sites in the Anasazi Area of Critical Environmental Concern today in an apparent effort to bolster his case for immediate action to protect all the ruins scattered through the remote sandstone canyons. (While most of the sites have long since been reduced to earth-covered mounds by the forces of nature, Lowry and Sand Canyon ruins still have the standing walls and other defined architectural features popularly associated with the term "ruin.")

After visiting those two sites and a more remote one in May, Babbitt raised the possibility of national-monument status for the ACEC but asked for local input though the BLM’s Southwest Resource Advisory Committee. This was accomplished last summer through a working group appointed by the RAC and that group’s report, which reflected a prevailing local sentiment against national-monument designation and in favor of increased protection through more stringent enforcement of the existing regulations, was presented to Babbitt in August.

The secretary recently responded, declaring the only acceptable alternative would be the designation of a national conservation area, which would permit a more flexible management plan but take Congressional action. He said that unless such action appears imminent he will recommend President Clinton designate the area a national monument, which would severely limit its current multiple uses.

And although Rep. Scott McInnis and senators Ben Nighthorse Campbell and Wayne Allard have repeatedly warned Babbitt to take no action without their approval as well as that of local officials, they’ve made no move toward formulating a legislative solution.

Until yesterday, that is.

In a joint press release, the GOP solons have announced they will soon initiate yet another round of "negotiations" with local officials, the RAC, the Colorado Department of Natural Resources and unnamed "others" to develop a consensus.

And "others" means Babbitt, according to Josh Penry, McInnis’s press secretary.

"He’s clearly part of this process," Penry said yesterday. "He has the trump card on this issue, and for anybody to deny that would be just kidding ourselves.

"Obviously, he’s going to be involved in these negotiations."

While denying the new talks would be only a delaying tactic (the Clinton administration is approaching its last year), Penry also refused to say if McInnis would ultimately be offering legislation to create a national conservation area, which Babbitt has specified as the only acceptable alternative.

"We’re leaving that open -- we’re not committing one way or the other as to exactly what we’re going to do," Penry said.

"We haven’t really gotten our hands on the issue yet," he added. "We’ve heard from the locals what they want to do, and now the Congressional delegation is going to step in, talk to the locals, talk to Babbitt and see if we can figure something out that all the parties can live with."

Whatever the future holds, it probably isn’t going to be revealed during Babbitt’s current visit, according to BLM Regional Manager Mark Stiles, who said Thursday he was unaware of any announcement being planned concerning designation of the ACEC.

And in a letter the Montezuma County Commission received Monday, the secretary expressed a willingness to leave the land under BLM control, although this could still include national-monument designation similar to that of the Grand Staircase/Escalante area in southeast Utah.

"I am very interested in reaching a solution in which the Bureau of Land Management is positioned to ensure the long-term protection of the area’s historic and scientific values," he wrote.

"I think most of the suggestions presented in the working group’s report can and should be built into the BLM’s management of the area," he added. "but I am also committed to finding methods to secure adequate and long-term funding and staffing to allow the Bureau to do the needed work.