GILA CLIFF DWELLINGS Administrative History

Transfer To The Forest Service

Meanwhile, far from the headwaters of the Gila River, an important controversy was unfolding around the acquisition by the Park Service of two large tracts of land—the Gateway National Recreation Area outside of New York and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area near San Francisco. Critics were concerned that the expensive operation of these urban recreational facilities had essentially been allotted to the Park Service by default, that these "gateways" benefited only the local population, and that they should consequently be managed by other agencies, preferably state or regional ones. Although the "Gateways" remained in the national park system, the director formally responded to the concerns by revising in 1975 the criteria for future parks. In short, the Park Service no longer—or at least not ordinarily—proposed to acquire areas that another agency could adequately protect without severe limitations to public access.

Even before the criteria were revised, George B. Hartzog, Jr., who had presided over the Park Service during the "Gateway" expansions, suggested to his regional directors that they watch for opportunities to reduce their administrative burdens by identifying assets that might logically be operated by other agencies. [72] Joseph Rumburg, the Southwestern Regional Director, recognized in Gila Cliff Dwellings National Monument just the kind of place Hartzog seemed to have in mind. [73] Already, the monument's headquarter facilities were shared with the Forest Service. The daily cooperation of staff was well-known, and the two agencies had demonstrated the compatibility of their management policies during the coordinated development of the monument, the Scorpion campgrounds, and the joint administrative site.

In August 1974, the retirement of Elroy Bohlins, who had a few years earlier replaced Lukens as superintendent, presented an opportunity to experiment with Hartzog's suggestion. Within a month, Rumburg wrote to the regional forester, proposing that the Forest Service assume primary responsibility for operations at the monument. He cited as justification the elimination of needlessly duplicated efforts, financial economy, and the proportionally deeper commitment to the area that managing the Southwest's largest wilderness required of the Forest Service. [74] A joint feasibility study in October revealed that $35,000 in annual operating costs could be saved were the monument to be managed by a single agency. [75]

In January 1975, Robert Williamson, supervisor of the Gila National Forest, endorsed the study. [76] Concurring with Rumberg's justifications, he also noted that the assumption of administrative responsibility at the monument was an opportunity to increase much needed district staffing, an increase that would "benefit the complete rangerment of the Wilderness District, especially as it relates to Wilderness recreation and range resources." [77]

Ultimately, a new cooperative agreement was drawn up between the Forest Service and the Park Service, and Rumberg's signature on April 14, 1975, consummated the transfer of administrative responsibility for Gila Cliff Dwellings National Monument. [78] The new agreement terminated the 1964 document, although it called for the Forest Service to operate the monument according to Park Service standards, a responsibility that entailed providing all staff, enforcing appropriate laws and regulations, and preparing regular reports. In turn, the Park Service agreed to make available all property that it carried on the monument's books, to provide technical assistance for interpretive displays and archeological stabilizations, to train personnel, and to reimburse the Forest Service for all costs that it incurred under the cooperative agreement. Furthermore, the Park Service was to perform all archeological salvage and to maintain a schedule for development projects, as well, which would be funded through its own normal budgeting processes. In other words, the Forest Service was to be responsible for the daily operation of the monument, and the Park Service would provide money, expertise, and strategic planning services.