What Did The Tonto National Forest Do With The Money?

Roosevelt Lake, Arizona
Roosevelt Lake, Arizona (Jeff Burgess)

In 1996 the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) completed a $430 million construction project to increase the height of Theodore Roosevelt Dam  by 77 feet to increase water storage in Theodore Roosevelt Lake and decrease the danger of catastrophic downstream flooding in the Phoenix metro area. The modifications to the dam, which is operated by the Salt River Project (SRP), were part of the larger Plan 6 alternative for the Regulatory Storage Division of the Central Arizona Project (CAP).

The approval of Plan 6 required the inclusion of a variety of environmental mitigation measures, including compensation for about 460 acres of Sonoran Desert riparian habitat and about 8,290 acres of upland desert habitat that would be flooded by the higher water levels at Roosevelt Lake.

The BOR’s 1990 Theodore Roosevelt Dam Modifications Environmental Assessment described how the BOR gave the Tonto National Forest, which manages most of the land surrounding Roosevelt Lake, money to create the Tonto Creek Riparian Unit. The Tonto used it to fence cattle out of lower Tonto Creek in the Tonto Basin, thereby resulting in a dramatic improvement in the condition of the stream’s desert riparian habitat.

The BOR also made about $650,000 available to the Tonto to accelerate the implementation of improved livestock grazing allotment management plans on 11 allotments around Roosevelt Lake. The stated purpose of the money was to “control access to the lake by livestock and reduce impacts to native vegetation associated with uncontrolled grazing.” The environmental impact statement (EIS) for the 1985 Tonto National Forest Plan had listed the condition of the Roosevelt Lake watershed as “unsatisfactory”. This was defined as “the vegetation protecting the soil surface has been removed to the point that accelerated erosion is occurring.” The grazing allotments identified as needing new management plans were the the 7/K, Roosevelt, Schoolhouse, Bar V Bar, Poison Springs, Sierra Ancha, A-Cross, Armer Mountain, Dutchwoman, Tonto Basin, and Del Shay allotments.

The Tonto began working on new management plans for these allotments in 1991. The plans, however, had skewed objectives. The 1992 environmental assessment (EA) of a new plan for the Roosevelt allotment, for example, failed to mention that its primary purpose was supposed to be mitigation for the loss of wildlife habitat. Instead, it said that “range improvements need to be relocated and the grazing system needs to be adjusted to offset the land lost to the higher lake level.”

In the spring of 1996 the forest’s Tonto Basin Ranger District initiated the Eastern Roosevelt Lake Watershed Analysis Area project. They prepared a draft EIS to analyze livestock management alternatives for five grazing allotments, including the Armer Mountain, A Cross, Dagger, Poison Springs and Sierra Ancha allotments. All of them, except the Dagger allotment, were among the 11 allotments for which the forest had received money from the BOR in order to implement new management plans.

But when the district ranger announced the final version of the project’s EIS in August of 1997, it was accompanied by decision notices for just three of the five allotments. Decisions for the Poison Springs and Sierra Ancha allotments were deferred. (The Poison Springs and Sierra Ancha allotments had the same grazing permittee and were managed together.)  The district ranger explained in her decision notice that a new management alternative had been identified for these two allotments, so the public would be given more time to submit further comments. Subsequently, in the spring of 1998 she issued a decision memo for the Poison Springs allotment. The memo called for rebuilding 1.5 miles of existing fence and and constructing 1.5 miles of new fence to prevent cattle from accessing the Salt River. This was a good thing, but that much fence work couldn’t have cost more than a few thousand dollars, and it fell far short of implementing a new allotment management plan. In fact, her memo explained that the decision notice for the implementation of a management plan for the Poison Springs/Sierra Ancha allotments was expected later that year. But it never happened.

The Tonto National Forest proposed new livestock management plans for the Poison Springs and Sierra Ancha allotments again in the summer of 2011 when it announced the initiation of the Salt River Allotments Vegetative Management project. Despite its name, this project was a grazing authorization project. Livestock grazing in all of the Tonto’s pastures along the Salt River in the Salt River Canyon Wilderness above Roosevelt Lake had been suspended several years earlier as part of a legal settlement to protect desert riparian habitat used by endangered species. The affected grazing permittees had been pressuring the forest to conduct NEPA analyses on their grazing allotments in order to get authorization to resume grazing along the river. In addition to the Poison Springs and Sierra Ancha allotments, the project included the Chrysotile, Haystack Butte, Dagger, Sedow, and Hicks-Pikes Peak allotments.

The Tonto released the project’s draft EIS in early 2013 and the preferred alternative proposed to allow livestock grazing to resume in the river pastures during the cool season, from November 15th to February 15th. This important change was presented in the draft EIS in a deceptive manner. The existing prohibition of grazing along the river described in the “current management” alternative was simply deleted from their preferred alternative, with no mention of its removal. There was just a short reference to an Appendix C added to the end of draft EIS wherein the details of this important difference were spelled out.

The draft EIS also explained that the Sierra Ancha allotment had been divided in 2009 between the adjacent Poison Springs and Dagger allotments. Its lower elevation pastures were incorporated into the Poison Springs allotment, and the upper pastures into the Dagger allotment. This meant the Dagger allotment had replaced the Sierra Ancha allotment on the list of 11 allotments for which the Tonto had received money from the BOR.

The descriptions in the draft EIS of the existing management situations on these allotments revealed that 5 of the Dagger allotment’s 11 pastures weren’t being grazed because they lacked water or had unprotected riparian areas. And 7 out of 17 pastures on the Poison Springs allotment, including its Klondike pasture, weren’t being grazed because they were in poor shape. The Tonto had ordered the removal of cattle from both of these allotments in 2000 due to a severe drought, and large portions of both allotments are Sonoran Desert, inherently unsuited for grazing.

The Tonto never issued a final EIS or any associated decision notices for the Salt River Allotments Vegetative Management project because in February of 2015 they announced they were abandoning it. Their retraction explained, “through discussions with term-grazing permittees, it was determined that if livestock were allowed to graze along river that neither Forest Service nor term-grazing permittees had time or money to conduct monitoring necessary to determine appropriateness of this proposed action along river corridor.”

The forest also said in their announcement that they would continue the implementation of new livestock management plans on these allotments, and comply with NEPA requirements by issuing individual  environmental assessments for each allotment, instead of using the more complicated EIS process for all of them.

The Tonto broke this promise in the spring of 2016, however, by implementing new “trial” management plans for the Sedow and Haystack Butte allotments without issuing public notices. The authorization letters increased permitted cattle numbers on the Sedow allotment by about 37% and on the Haystack Butte by about 49%. The trial periods were also arbitrarily extended beyond the normal 1 or 2 years to 5 years because of “varied southwest climatic conditions.” This was done during an ongoing long-term drought.

They broke their promise again in August of 2017 when the forest’s Tonto Basin Ranger District sent out a letter announcing their Klondike Water System Project for the Poison Springs allotment. It explained that they were going to install a water pump on a well located on an adjacent allotment that would send water through a new pipeline to a new 10,000 gallon storage tank on the Poison Springs allotment, where it would feed three new watering troughs, including two in the Klondike pasture. The total length of the water pipelines necessary to complete the project would exceed 3 miles.

The Tonto’s letter also explained that they were not going to complete an EA for this project. Instead, they were going to use a NEPA categorical exclusion to get the new livestock waters approved. The Forest Service’s categorical exclusion rules in the Forest Service Handbook, FSH 1909.15,32.2(9), state that categorical exclusions can be used for:

Implementation or modification of minor management practices to improve allotment condition or animal distribution when an allotment management plan is not yet in place.  Examples include but are not limited to:

(i) Rebuilding a fence to improve animal distribution;

(ii) Adding a stock watering facility to an existing water line; and

(iii) Spot seeding native species of grass or applying lime to maintain forage condition.

Obviously, the construction of a large new storage tank, miles of new water pipeline, and three new watering troughs doesn’t comply with the spirit of these rules. But a big difference between a decision resulting from an EIS or an EA, and one from a NEPA categorical exclusion, is that decisions resulting from categorical exclusions cannot be appealed by the public. Another difference is that the description of the agency’s proposal doesn’t have to include as much information. For this project, that meant the public had no idea who was going to pay the several hundred thousand dollars needed to finance it. According to the range analysis that was completed for the 2013 draft EIS, the Poison Springs allotment is only permitted for 102 head of cattle yearlong. If the cost of the new livestock watering system is $200,000, and that’s a conservative estimate, it works out to an investment of almost $2,000 a head. It’s a good bet that the U.S. taxpayers are picking up the tab in the form of an Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) grant.

The Tonto Basin District Ranger justified the construction of this expensive new livestock watering system by explaining that they had permitted grazing to resume on the allotment, and there weren’t any reliable watering sites in the Klondike pasture, so new ones were needed, “to deter livestock from concentrating at a few water sources.” But this pasture is comprised of Sonoran Desert and has a history of poor resource conditions due to overgrazing. An easy argument could be made that livestock shouldn’t have been allowed to resume grazing it in the first place. Furthermore, recent research published in Rangelands, a periodical of the Society for Range Management (SRM), titled Upland Water and Deferred Rotation Effects on Cattle Use in Riparian and Upland Areas  found that building upland livestock watering sites doesn’t improve natural resource conditions, it just facilitates more grazing on the uplands. In other words, the only thing this new livestock watering system will likely accomplish is to allow more cattle to graze on the Poison Springs allotment.

These livestock management issues could have been publicly analyzed if an EA had been completed for the Poison Springs allotment. According to the 2013 range analysis, the Tonto drafted a livestock management plan for the allotment in 1987 in response to chronically poor range conditions. But it wasn’t successfully implemented due to permittee noncompliance, and then the cattle were removed in 2000 due to the drought. As far as I know, a comprehensive NEPA process resulting in the successful implementation of an adequate livestock management plan has never been completed for this allotment. In other words, the Tonto used a NEPA categorical exclusion to implement a controversial decision on an allotment that’s never had a real management plan.

The 2013 range analysis also revealed that no NEPA analysis of any sort has ever been completed for the Dagger allotment. It explains that the allotment’s grazing permit was revoked for permittee noncompliance in the 1990s, and the allotment wasn’t grazed from 2000 until 2009. Then in 2009 grazing was resumed by a new permittee. But instead of finally conducting a NEPA analysis, the Tonto has relied on monitoring by the Reading the Range program of the University of Arizona’s Cooperative Extension Service. This program has certainly helped to improve range conditions on the Tonto, but it’s reports aren’t subject to public review unless they are  included in NEPA analyses. Furthermore, it focuses on monitoring the condition of livestock forage on the uplands, and not the more important issue of protecting desert riparian areas from cattle, as shown by its inability to provide the monitoring needed to permit grazing to resume along the Salt River.

The bottom line is that new allotment management plans with the primary objective of improving wildlife habitat weren’t implemented on all of the 11 allotments for which the Tonto National Forest received the money from the BOR.  In 2001 I was concerned about the Tonto’s lack of progress and sent a letter to the Phoenix office of the BOR asking them for a report on the results of the $650,000 they’d given the forest. But I never received any information, despite the fact that their Plan 6 promised that, “Reclamation will monitor the effects of the project and the success of all the mitigation efforts.”

The Story of Arizona’s Jefferson Davis Monument

arizona confederate flagMany people have stumbled upon the Jefferson Davis monument sitting in the public right of way along U.S. 60 east of Apache Junction and wondered why it was there. While it’s true that the Confederacy claimed southern Arizona as a Confederate Territory in the early part of the Civil War, Union forces from California drove all Confederate troops out of the state in early 1862.

The words carved into the stone marker are:

JEFFERSON DAVIS
HIGHWAY No. 70
ERECTED 1943 BY
UNITED
DAUGHTERS OF THE CONFEDERACY
ARIZONA

This inscription implies that this stretch of highway was dedicated as a Jefferson Davis memorial highway. Working from that assumption, several Arizona residents recently petitioned the Arizona State Board on Geographic and Historic Names (ASBGHN) to remove this designation because they thought it was inappropriate, as Jefferson Davis was the President of the Confederacy, and an unrepentant white supremacist.

The ASBGHN met publicly on September 25, 2017, to consider these proposals, which including one to rename it the Rose Mofford Memorial Highway. During the board’s meeting, however, their staff person made a presentation which showed the situation was much more complicated.

Their research found that the monument was originally dedicated in 1943 along a highway at the Arizona-New Mexico state line near Duncan, Arizona. It was part of a longstanding project by the neo-Confederate group United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) to get a cross-country highway dedicated to Jefferson Davis, as a response to the dedication of the Lincoln Highway in 1913. The national president of the UDC attended the ceremony, and the Duncan High School band, accompanied by its majorettes, led the procession. The crowd sang the official Jefferson Davis highway song, and local Mormon church leader J. Vernon McGrath gave the invocation, followed by an address from Arizona Governor Sidney Osborn read by the secretary of state. The UDC’s president then presented the monument to the state. The Arizona Highways Department, the predecessor to today’s Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), built the foundation for the monument and placed the stone marker on it. (This was before the success of the African-American Civil Rights Movement.)

Then in 1961, as part of their participation in Arizona’s Civil War centennial celebrations, the UDC got approval from the Arizona Highways Commission, the predecessor to today’s Arizona State Transportation Board, to have  Arizona’s stretch of U.S. 80 designated as the Jefferson Davis Memorial Highway. The Jefferson Davis monument’s original location wasn’t along U.S. 80, so the UDC got it moved it to its present location along U.S. 60, which was part of U.S. 80 back then. The official name of the spot where it sits, however, is the Superstition Mountain Monument, because this is the name that ADOT entered into the official U.S. Board on Geographic Names database in 1984. (There apparently was some reluctance among state officials to officially record a public monument dedicated to Jefferson Davis.)

Subsequently, in 1989 U.S. 80 was decommissioned. The portion of old U.S. 80 from Benson through Douglas and then on to the state’s border with New Mexico was renamed State Route 80. The name Jefferson Davis Memorial Highway, however, still appears on some maps for the stretch of S.R. 80 between Benson and Tombstone, although it appears that its official designation as the Jefferson Davis highway died when U.S. 80 became defunct.

But even though there may no longer be a Jefferson Davis Memorial Highway in Arizona, the monument remains along U.S. 60 across from the Peralta Road turnoff. The ownership of the monument isn’t clear. It was donated to the state during its 1943 dedication, but ADOT is reluctant to acknowledge state ownership. The Arizona Division of the UDC was disbanded about 2002, but a local organization called the Dixie Chapter of the UDC exists, although it appears to be solely dedicated to placing wreath on veterans’ graves on Memorial Day, and it’s unclear if it’s affiliated with the national UDC. A 1998 encroachment permit issued by ADOT to the neo-Confederate group Sons of Confederate Veterans, Colonel Sherod Hunter Camp 1525, indicates that they are the monument’s owners.

The ownership of the monument, however, isn’t as important as the public’s opportunity to request that it be relocated to a museum or private property. ADOT’s encroachment permit regulations (A.A.C. R17-3-502) include a list of the things that qualify for a permit. The list includes, “For such uses as the Director specifies.” In other words, anything that ADOT is willing to approve. There are no provisions in ADOT’s regulations, unfortunately, to allow the public to protest the approval of an encroachment permit, or to petition for the removal of an existing monument.

The Arizona State Transportation Board, however, has jurisdiction over all issues related to Arizona’s highways, as per state law in A.R.S. § 28-304.B.3. So it appears that the only way the Jefferson Davis monument can be removed from the public property along U.S 60 is for state residents to persuade the board that it shouldn’t be there, or convince the legislature to pass a bill to have it removed.

Updates

On October 13, 2017, the Arizona Department of Transportation issued a letter wherein they stated that their official position is that a Jefferson Davis Highway no longer existed anywhere in Arizona, and that the Jefferson Davis monument along U.S. 60 is privately owned. The letter failed to identify the monument’s owner.

On October 20, 2017, the Arizona State Transportation Board met and ignored requests from the public that they order the Jefferson Davis monument to be removed from the U.S. 60 right-of-way.

On October 23, 2017, and again on November 6, ADOT’s Executive Officer Floyd Roehrich, Jr. responded to inquiries from the public by explaining that the ASTB would not become involved in this issue, and that the responsibility for the monument lies solely with ADOT’s Director John Halikowski. He added that ADOT believes the monument should be relocated to private property because it keeps getting vandalized, and neo-Confederate groups conduct ceremonies there which could create problems because it’s in the highway’s right-of-way. They are trying to identify which local group owns the monument. After the owners are identified, they will initially ask them to move it themselves.  But if they don’t have the money for that, then ADOT will move it.  They hope to have a decision and take action on it by the end of the year.

Arizona's Jefferson Davis monument in the public right-of-way
Arizona’s Jefferson Davis monument in the public right-of-way on U.S. 60. (Jeff Burgess)

Sometime during the weekend of November 18/19, 2017, the monument was vandalized again. This time somebody permanently damaged it by shooting at it. The local police are investigating the crime.

Arizona's Jefferson Davis monument damaged by gunfire.
Arizona’s Jefferson Davis monument damaged by gunfire. (Jeff Burgess)

On June 4, 2018, the Southern Poverty Law Center released a report showing that more than 1,700 monuments, place names and other symbols honoring the Confederacy remain in public spaces.

As of October 28, 2018, the Jefferson Davis Highway Monument was still in place along U.S. 60, and the Arizona Department of Transportation was not responding to requests for information about its status. The monument appeared to have sustained additional damage.

Arizona's Jefferson Davis Highway Monument, 10/28/18
Arizona’s Jefferson Davis monument 10/28/18 with new damage. (Jeff Burgess)

On January 22, 2019, the Arizona State Board on Geographic and Historic Names designated the stretch of U.S. 60 between Apache Junction and Globe to be the Governor Rose Mofford Memorial Highway.

On February 22, 2019, the city of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, removed its Jefferson Davis Highway monument from the side of a downtown road because it was “an ongoing threat to public safety.”

Donald Trump’s 2017 Phoenix Rally

dumb trump
(Jeff Burgess)

The biggest difference between President Donald Trump’s August 22 rally at the Phoenix Convention Center and the campaign rally he held there in the summer of 2015 was the number of anti-Trump protestors outside of the building.

I am proud to say that I participated in both protests, but was disappointed by the small size of the one at Trump’s 2015 rally. Looking back, I attribute it to a mistaken presumption that Trump had no realistic chance to win the 2016 presidential election. Also, the outdoor temperature that day was 106°F. The outdoor temperature at the recent rally was the same, but this time it didn’t stop thousands of people from showing up to voice their displeasure.

But even though we were there to protest, our overall spirit was joyful because of the camaraderie we felt from being with so many other Americans who also believed that Donald Trump’s presidency has been an unprecedented disaster for our country. There was almost a fun, carnival atmosphere, with lots of clever signs, inspiring music, and potent chants, like “Walk of Shame” directed at the people filing into the convention center to hear Trump speak. I especially enjoyed the guy who wandered through the crowd with a small amplifier slung over his shoulder broadcasting a recording of Trump saying, “Grab them by the pussy,” in an infinite loop. The giant inflatable figures of Trump and Joe Arpaio, wearing a KKK outfit and prison garb respectively, were pretty good too – and had obviously taken a lot of work to make.

trump phoenix protest 2017
Trump protest signs, Phoenix Convention Center, August 22, 2017 (Jeff Burgess)

The diversity among the anti-Trump protestors was a stark contrast to his supporters on the other side of the police line across the street. They were almost entirely white people – more than 99%. But the Trump protestors seemed to encompass almost every demographic in the U.S. The were, of course, many Latinos because of Trump’s support for Arpaio. I found the Native American protestors especially effective because they reminded everyone they have been subjected to oppression longer than any other group in America.

The news media made a lot out of the fact that a handful of troublemakers provoked the Phoenix police into unleashing tear gas and flash bang grenades on all of the remaining protestors near the end of the event. Phoenix Police Chief Jeri Williams defended her officers actions, but many of the people who were still protesting peacefully said the police overreacted and gave them no warnings.

I didn’t see what happened. I was in a nearby restaurant having an ice-cold beer by then because I couldn’t take the heat any longer – having been outside for more than an hour and a half. (It is difficult to describe how quickly the Sonoran Desert’s summer heat can debilitate you.) But I can say that 100% of the protestors I encountered were peaceful, and that’s the most important thing to remember about the protest.

Among the tiny minority in the crowd that weren’t joyful were four young white people, one with a very long hillbilly beard, that trailed each other through the crowd dressed in faux combat clothes, wearing armored vests and carrying AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifles across their chests. I wondered why they were carrying what I presumed to be loaded weapons, and I overheard other people wondering the same thing. The four of them had completely neutral expressions on their faces and didn’t look directly at anybody as they passed through. Who did they think they might have to shoot?

There was also a very small group of people dressed from head to foot in black, wearing helmets, dark sunglasses, and bandanas to hide their faces. They were standing still, at attention, in an ominously tight formation, and the rest of us looked upon them with suspicion and gave them space. I presumed they were an Antifa group. But if they were, I think it was odd that their black and red flag looked like the flag used by Ukrainian fascists.

Almost all of the Trump supporters across the street were in a line to enter the convention center. Some of them yelled back at us and gave us the finger as they slowly passed by on their way into the building, but most of them just watched us, seemingly surprised at the size and enthusiasm of our protest.

donald trump supporters
Trump supporters, Phoenix Convention Center, August 22, 2017 (Jeff Burgess)

But there was also a very small group of pro-Trump demonstrators gathered on the corner. They had some hateful signs and one fellow had a very loud electrically amplified megaphone. He used it to almost unceasingly shout insults at anti-Trump protestors. Some of the things he said were so awfully racist that people, including myself, gasped and asked the person next to them if he’d really just said what it sounded like he’d said. I noticed that one of the black policemen keeping the different protestors separated dropped his head and shook it in response to one of the guy’s most racist rants. I wondered what, exactly, that policeman was thinking.

I think that the police behaved well and performed their duties objectively – at least during the time I was at the protest. I had several polite and friendly discussions with officers on the edges of the crowd, where they seemed to like to stay. I’m sure, however, that there will be some investigations into their conduct at the end of the event. I hope there will be an independent one that answers all of the questions about what happened.

In the meantime, my only criticism of the police is that I think they should have tried to do more than simply keep the two sides apart. I know they had a difficult job, but why, for example, did they seem to be ignoring the people dressed like wannabe militia walking through the crowd with AR-15s? Why didn’t they seem concerned about the Antifa squad that appeared poised for mayhem? And why didn’t one of them go over and talk to the guy who was literally trying to incite a race riot by screaming horrible things through his megaphone?

I realize there were First Amendment and Second Amendment issues involved, but I can’t help but wonder if the protest would have stayed peaceful if the police had been a bit more proactive. I’m not saying they should have made any preemptive arrests or told anybody to shut up. But it seems to me they could have at least tried to initiate some communication with all of the protestors to try and reduce the tension.

Updates

In November 2017 the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Arizona sued the Phoenix Police Department in order to collect public records regarding its use of force on protesters during President Trump’s August rally.

On November 30, 2017, the Phoenix police released several videos of the police taking action against protestors at the end of rally.

On January 29, 2018, the Phoenix Police Department released a report wherein they admitted they failed to provide adequate warning to peaceful protesters before they abruptly released “pepper balls,” which released a gaseous irritant, deployed pepper spray, tear gas, and fired foam batons into the crowd.

Page 2 of 17
1 2 3 4 17