Resource Assessment and Study of Alternatives August 1989 A Planning Newsletter from the National Park Service Number 3 way imply that other sites are not im­ the national park system or trans­ INTRODUCTION portant or are not worthy of protec­ ferred to the NPS. tion. The National Park Service (NPS) is A visitor center/headquarters would continuing work on the Anasazi Na­ The alternative strategies are not be located near the entrance to Mesa tional Monument Resource Assess­ mutually exclusive. Each alternative Verde National Park and would orient ment and Study of Alternatives with could stand on its own or several visitors to Mesa Verde as well as the assistance from the Bureau of Land strategies - or individual elements northern Anasazi park. Depending Management (BLM), the U.S. Forest within them - could be combined or on future planning, small interpreta­ Service (USFS), the Colorado His­ implemented in phases. For example, tion and orientation centers could be torical Society, and the public. The alternative E could serve as phase one located at major sites or sites clusters. lirsl newsletter introduced you to the for any of the other alternatives. study, its purpose, and schedule. The Analysis second summarized the discussions at This alternative presents a national the public meetings in Corlez, Duran- ALTERNATIVES park concept that emphasizes ad­ go, and Denver. The purpose of this, ministration by a single agency. This the third and final newsletter, is to Alternative A: Establish a would result in a less complicated ad­ present the draft alternatives for your Northern Anasazi National Park ministrative framework, but it would review and comment. Please keep in require substantial funding for land mind as you review the alternatives Concept acquisition, and a substantial increase that the document will not identify a Under alternative A, a northern in the NPS budget for annual opera­ selected or preferred alternative: Anasazi national park would be estab­ tions and needed studies. therefore, you do not need to select a lished as a new unit of the national specific alternative. Instead, we en­ park system, and it would be ad­ courage you to look for anything we ministered by Mesa Verde National Alternative B: Establish a might have overlooked. Your com­ Northern Anasazi Cultural ments will help us ensure that the Park. This alternative would em­ Reserve document forwarded to Congress for phasize the federal ownership and protection of archeological sites as­ their consideration and decision is Concept both comprehensive and accurate. sociated with the northern Anasazi. The NPS would purchase sites, on a Alternative B would call for the crea­ willing seller basis, that represent por­ tion of a northern Anasazi cultural Five alternative strategies for com­ tions of the northern Anasazi not cur­ reserve in southwestern Colorado. memorating the Anasazi in south­ rently represented on publicly owned An interagency management group, western Colorado were developed. lands. consisting of representatives of the The purposes ol the alternatives arc to NPS, the USFS, the BLM, and the protect archeological resources and Site complexes that could be ac­ stale of Colorado, as well as other encourage public visitation. Because quired include the Yellowjacket com­ landowners, as appropriate, would be of the many sites and site complexes in plex, Mud Springs ruin, Lancaster established to coordinate manage­ the study area, no single strategy will ruin, Ansel Hall ruin, and the non- ment actions for the reserve. The ensure the total protection of all NPS portions of the Goodman Point management group would receive northern Anasazi resources. There­ complex. Hovenweep National funding to coordinate research, plan­ fore, the alternatives emphasize the Monument would retain its identity as ning, administration, and interpreta­ protection of sites that are as repre­ a separate national park system unit tion efforts among all part icipaling en­ sentative as possible of the full that is administered by Mesa Verde tities, and to prepare a cooperative chronology and variety of northern National Park. To ensure a full range research design. Anasazi culture, while minimizing the of northern Anasazi sites, selected federal acquisition of private lands. sites currently managed by the BLM Current ownership and management The identification of specific site or USFS could be either affiliated with of publicly owned sites would remain complexes in this study should in no as now. To ensure the preservation of additional archeological resources, vation area. It would encompass ap­ tion (visitor use) of those resources, while recognizing the valid existing proximately 10,600 acres of USFS and to coordinate efforts among local, rights of private landowners, private land, incorporating six areas, and ap­ state, and federal units of government owners would be encouraged to proximately 150,000 acres of BLM and the private sector. Similar com­ cooperate with the agencies by means land, incorporating 14 archeological missions have been successful in of cooperative agreements. Lands or complexes, only some of which were America's Industrial Heritage Project interests in lands could be acquired by evaluated for this study. in western Pennsylvania and Lowell agencies, which would be determined National Historical Park in Lowell. on a case-by-case basis. The Anasazi Heritage Center, Massachusetts. operated by the BLM, would be the Visitors would go to the various focal point for visitor orientation and The commission would establish agency sites and centers to learn about interpretation, research, and artifact criteria and recommend which sites opportunities throughout the region storage. Additional facilities would should be protected through the to visit additional Anasazi resources. be developed, depending on needs partnership, and it would develop There would be no central orientation identified in the plan. guidelines and standards to preserve point, but information and interpre­ site and to coordinate interpretation. tive programs would be coordinated Analysis Both privately and publicly owned among the participating agencies. Alternative C would result in the sites could be associated with the sys­ least disturbance to present and future tem upon approval of the commission, Analysis multiple-use of resources on BLM based on established criteria and standards. Additional sites could be This alternative emphasizes inter­ and USFS lands, although some uses purchased by individual agencies, as agency cooperation and coordination could be reduced if unacceptable im­ appropriate, following their own plan­ would be encouraged to integrate pacts on cultural resources were iden­ ning and mandates. planning, interpretation, resource tified. This alternative would also protection, research, and visitor ser­ result in a greater level of protection vices and facilities. By involving for many sites under the jurisdiction of A functional headquarters and several entities, the potential scope of the BLM, regardless of their level of visitor orientation center for south­ resource protection would be ex­ significance. The conservation area western Colorado would be estab­ panded, and site management and in­ concept would be administratively un­ lished in or near Corlez. In-depth in­ terpretative programs would be more complicated because both the BLM terpretation would be provided at the comprehensive and consistent than at and the USFS operate under multiple- Anasazi Heritage Center. present. use mandates. Analysis This alternative would provide a Alternative C: Establish a Alternative D: Develop an focal point for Anasazi-relaled ac­ Northern Anasazi Conservation Anasazi Cultural Heritage tivities by coordinating management, Area Partnership interpretation, and research. Visitor education and increased awareness Concept Concept would be the primary tools to protect Alternative C emphasizes the con- Alternative D would seek to com­ sites. Sites included in the system linuation of multiple resource memorate the entire Anasazi culture would be managed according to a management and use, while ensuring through a cooperative public/private mutually agreed upon set of manage­ the long-term protection of significant partnership to coordinate resource ment and preservation guidelines. cultural resources through the estab­ management, research, and inter­ lishment of a northern Anasazi con­ pretation. The partnership would be The use of public/private commis­ servation area. The USFS and the guided by a commission that would be sion would foster partnerships that BLM, under the authority of the appointed, funded, and empowered to could be flexible in directing money Federal Land Policy and Manage­ coordinate the project. Initially, only and would offer opportunities for ment Act, would be the lead agencies the northern Anasazi sites in south­ private sector incentives and involve­ for this alternative. western Colorado would be included ment. However, administration in the partnership. However, the con­ would be extremely complex and Sites would be evaluated and desig­ cept could be expanded to include the would depend on adequate base fund­ nated for preservation, research, in­ entire Anasazi cultural region if Utah, ing for the commission as well as on terpretation, or other appropriate Arizona, and New Mexico chose to dynamic input from the commission uses and management strategies by participate. members. In order for agencies to in­ the BLM and the USFS. Cooperation teract