BY GAIL BINKLY

Proposed legislation to create a national conservation area in Montezuma County does not provide enough protection for Ancestral Puebloan ruins on the land, the president of Crow Canyon Archaeological Center said Tuesday.

"It doesn’t seem to me it’s offering archaeological and historic sites any protection at all," Ricky Lightfoot told the county commissioners at their weekly meeting.

The bill, which has been introduced in the Senate by Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell and in the House by Rep. Scott McInnis, calls for the creation of a national conservation area on 164,000 acres of BLM-owned land in Montezuma and Dolores counties. A management plan for the area is to be developed within four years of the act’s passage.

The bill is supported by the Montezuma County commissioners, Colorado Farm Bureau, state Sen. Jim Dyer (D-Durango), and state Rep. Mark Larson (R-Cortez) as a moderate alternative to the creation of a national monument — something that Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt has threatened if no legislation is enacted to protect the area.

State Rep. Kay Alexander (R-Montrose), saying she has "real reservations" about the bill, has withdrawn her support for the proposal, but is not actually opposing it.

But Lightfoot said the language of the bill does not make it clear that the purpose of the conservation area is to preserve the ruins.

The bill states that the purpose of the act "is to establish the Canyons of the Ancients, Colorado, as a National Conservation Area."

"The only purpose stated is to create the NCA," Lightfoot said. "Either in the ‘purpose’ or in the ‘management’ section, it seems like it’s worth a mention that the purpose is protection. So I found that to be troubling."

The management section of the bill has specific headings and sub-headings regarding vehicular activity, oil and gas leasing, hunting and trapping, and grazing, Lightfoot said, but none for protection of archaeological resources.

"If that’s the reason for creating the area, why doesn’t it get a line item that’s at least equal to grazing?" Lightfoot asked.

Mike Preston, the county’s federal-lands coordinator, said several different parties have objected to aspects of the bill.

"We’re kind of getting the same reaction from everybody, reading their own interpretations into it," Preston said. The Rocky Mountain chapter of the Sierra Club and the Colorado Environmental Coalition oppose the bill as not being strict enough, while the Southwest Colorado Landowners Association recently lambasted it for being too restrictive.

Commission Chairman Gene Story said he believes the bill does make it clear that protection of cultural resources is its goal.

He pointed out a section stating, "The Secretary shall manage the Conservation Area in a manner that conserves, protects and enhances the resources of the Conservation Area specified in section 2(a)."

Section 2(a) refers to the area’s "unique and valuable historical, cultural, scientific, archaeological, natural, and educational resources."

"Maybe I missed that," Lightfoot said, but he maintained that the resources do not get "the priority they deserve" in the legislation.

He said the bill doesn’t make it clear that management of the area would even change after the new designation.

"All the existing practices are grandfathered in," Lightfoot said. "What does the act do that’s any different from the status quo? I don’t think it does anything."

It is past the time, Lightfoot said, that the area’s Anasazi ruins and relics can be protected just by keeping them secret.

"We’re beyond the point of managing by pretending nothing’s out there," he said. "There was a time when our policy was simply not to tell people where the sites are. But there’s a lot more people trooping around out there who know where the sites are. We have to change our strategy now to keep these from being maliciously destroyed or passively destroyed."

He said both increased law enforcement and the cooperation of surrounding landowners will be needed to protect the ruins.

"If you have cooperative landowners who surround the area and see their role as being stewards, that will be a better approach," he said, adding that the landowners must feel supportive of rather than hostile toward the area. "If they feel their needs haven’t been met, I don’t think 10 guys with badges will cover it."

Preston said users know that, if the archaeological resources deteriorate, it is likely restrictions will increase, so they are motivated to protect the lands.

But Lightfoot said merely reacting after the fact to damage and deterioration won’t do, and changes — such as closing some roads — will probably be necessary to preserve the area’s artifacts.

"The farther you get from roads, the better the ruins are," he said. "Everybody can’t get everything they want. The whole point is there will be some changes that ultimately make it better in terms of protection of sites."