On April 25, 2018, Arizona’s Republican Gov. Doug Ducey signed a bill passed by the state’s Republican controlled legislature to exempt coal purchases from the state sales tax. It would lower the price of coal produced at the state’s only active coal mine, Peabody Energy’s Kayenta Mine on Black Mesa. The objective of the bill is to help attract a buyer for the mine’s only customer, the coal-fired Navajo Generating Station power plant near Page. The bill was pushed by Peabody Energy’s lobbyist Tom Dorn.
All but one of the Navajo Generating Station’s owners have decided to shut it down in 2019 because they can buy cheaper and cleaner electricity on the open market. And its other owner, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, cannot afford to operate the plant by itself, so if it shuts down, so will the Peabody coal mine.
“This bill is essential to the economic success of the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe, and surrounding communities,” Ducey said when he signed it. The two tribes would, indeed, be severely impacted by a shutdown because the power plant and mine are located on their reservations. Both tribes hold leases for the mine, and the Navajos hold one for the power plant. If the plant and mine close, it’s estimated the annual revenue of the Navajo Nation’s government would shrink by about $40 million, or about 23%, while the smaller Hopi Tribe’s revenue could decline by about $12 million, or about 67%. In addition, the power plant and mine employee about 750 workers, nearly all of them Native Americans. (Some people would still be needed to maintain and dismantle the plant and mine if they were closed.)
Opponents of the removal of Confederate monuments like to ask where it will stop, and claim the removal of any Confederate monument from public property is a threat to all of America’s historical monuments. But there’s a significant difference between Confederate monuments and flags that are used to commemorate history and those used to honor the Confederate cause.
Arizona’s Jefferson Davis Highway Monument
The Jefferson Davis Memorial Highway is a good example of something that’s not a historical monument, but a political statement in support of the Confederacy. Jefferson Davis wasn’t a Confederate soldier, but the president of the Confederacy – the political leader of a violent rebellion. After the South lost the Civil War he didn’t give up and was a proponent of the myth of the Lost Cause, a continuing propaganda campaign that claims the old South had a superior culture and the Civil War wasn’t about slavery but about states’ rights. In other words, the causes for which the North and South fought were morally equivalent – the South just happened to have lost the war. Furthermore, Davis was an unrepentant white supremacist until he died in 1889.
The United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) began promoting the idea of a national Jefferson Davis Memorial Highway in 1913. They were organized in 1894 to ostensibly honor the memory of Confederate veterans, and have successfully promoted the Lost Cause and succeeded in erecting numerous Confederate monuments and memorials across the country. The Jefferson Davis Highway project was their response to the dedication of the Lincoln Highway, an attempt to suggest that Davis’ historical status should be similar to Lincoln’s.
The UDC succeeded in getting individual stretches of U.S. highway dedicated to Davis, and after the federal government began regulating the nation’s highways in 1926, the they asked that a single route be officially designated across the entire country. But their request was denied because highway officials found that their Jefferson Davis Highway was in reality just a “a collection of routes.” But the UDC didn’t give up and for many years continued to get various stretches of highway across the country dedicated to Davis on a piecemeal basis.
In 1943, for example, the UDC succeeded in getting a Jefferson Davis Highway monument erected along a highway near Duncan, Arizona, near the state line with New Mexico. Then in 1961, as part of their participation in Arizona’s Civil War Centennial commemoration, they succeeded in getting the state’s portion of U.S. 80 designated as the Jefferson Davis Memorial Highway. The monument, however, wasn’t located along U.S. 80, so the UDC got it moved it to its present location along U.S. 60 east of Apache Junction, which was part of U.S. 80 back then.
The Memorial to Arizona Confederate Troops
The Jefferson Davis Highway monument wasn’t the only Confederate monument the UDC erected in Arizona. On January 8, 1961, Arizona’s Governor Paul Fannin announced the official opening of the state’s Civil War Centennial commemoration, including a plan to erect a Civil War memorial at the state capital. Fannin was a conservative Republican and an ardent supporter of Arizona’s Senator Barry Goldwater, who opposed Federal enforcement of school desegregation in the South. During his 1960 election campaign Fannin called civil rights protest marches and sit-ins “un- American.” So it isn’t surprising that the UDC was able to hijack Arizona’s Civil War Centennial commemoration. In fact, they took advantage of the Civil War centennial to build several new memorials to the Confederacy across the nation.
On the same day that Gov. Fannin made his announcement, for example, the UDC succeeded in having the Confederate flag fly over the state capitol building. Later that year, as previously mentioned, the UDC got Arizona’s stretch of U.S. 80 designated as the Jefferson Davis Memorial Highway.
But their biggest achievement in Arizona was having the new Civil War monument at the state capital dedicated solely to Confederate troops. Its construction began in front of the State Senate building in 1961, but it wasn’t dedicated until February 14, 1962, as part of the state’s 50th birthday celebration. It wasn’t enough, however, for the UDC to dedicate a Confederate memorial on the anniversary of Arizona becoming a U.S. state. They also used the occasion to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Confederacy’s official declaration of the short-lived Confederate Territory of Arizona on the same day in 1862. Arizona’s Secretary of State Wesley Bolin spoke at the dedication ceremony. After Bolin died in 1978 the legislature created Wesley Bolin Memorial Plaza and most of the monuments at the capital, including the Confederate troop memorial, were relocated there.
The plaque fastened to the Confederate memorial reads:
ARIZONA CONFEDERATE TROOPS
This seems innocuous enough for it to be considered a historical monument, and not a political statement, as there were men from territorial Arizona that enlisted and fought in the Confederate army. But there’s also an inscription on the base in front of the memorial that reads, “A NATION THAT FORGETS ITS PAST HAS NO FUTURE.”
A speech given by Grace McLean Moses at the UDC’s 1962 national convention sheds some light on this phrase’s purpose and meaning. She described the Confederate soldier as being “touched by the divine hand of Providence” and “a knight in shining armor.” After the Civil War he “sought to pass on to future generations the ideals, manners and code of conduct for which the South has been justly renowned.” Then she warned that our nation stood at a crossroads of history and “we find America lacking in those qualities which made her great and without which she cannot hope to endure.”
Those qualities, she explained, were the ones that glorified the Confederate soldier: “Let us stand fast, in a world of change and unrest, for those high ideals for which they gave so much. Only then shall we truly honor them. It has been written that ‘a nation that forgets its past can have no future.’ It is our labor of love to make the memory of the Confederate soldier eternal.”
The speech was a thinly veiled criticism of the growing African-American civil rights movement and the Federal government’s enforcement of desegregation in the South. The fact that her speech included the same phrase that’s inscribed on the Arizona Confederate monument shows that it was part of a nationwide political strategy. The UDC, in fact, intentionally exploited the opposition to the civil rights movement in order to increase its membership during this time.
The UDC is not just a bunch of “nice old ladies.” Since their beginning, they have been a national political organization that has vigorously promoted the revisionist history of the Lost Cause in a myriad of ways. By 1914 they had nearly 100,000 members and on Jefferson Davis’s birthday they unveiled a controversial Confederate memorial at Arlington National Cemetery. In the 1920s the Grand Army of the Republic, the organization of Union veterans, complained that the UDC had succeeded in getting public school American history books altered to remove any suggestion the Union cause in the Civil War was morally superior. During the Great Depression the UDC succeeded in getting the Works Progress Administration (WPA) to use public money to construct numerous Confederate monuments throughout the South. They have also been accused of manipulating the narratives that were collected from elderly former slaves by the WPA’s Federal Writers’ Project.
Someone had to pick the cotton,
Someone had to pick the corn,
Someone had to slave and be able to sing,
That’s why darkies were born.
The UDC’s most visible achievement over the years has been to erect hundreds of Confederate monuments on public property. A 2016 survey by the Southern Poverty Law Center found there are 1,503 public Confederate memorials across the U.S., even after those on Civil War battlefields and in museums and cemeteries are excluded. Most of them were erected during the Jim Crow area, and more recently, in opposition to the African-American Civil Rights Movement.
The Efforts to Remove Arizona’s Confederate Monuments
“In light of everything that has happened…we can’t go through our daily lives honoring symbols of hate, symbols of separation and symbols of segregation right now,” said Bolding, surrounded by like-minded activists at the state capital in Phoenix.
Arizona’s Republican Governor Doug Ducey subsequently said that he would ask for a governmental review of the marker because he’d rather see the state’s highways named after Arizonans. But Phoenix’s Arizona Republic newspaper reported on May 28, 2017, that Gov. Ducey never asked the Arizona State Board on Geographic and Historic Names (ASBGHN) to consider removing the monument or renaming the highway.
In August of 2017 three proposals to remove the name Jefferson Davis Memorial Highway from the stretch of U.S. 60 east of Apache Junction were received from the public by the ASBGHN. The board held a public meeting to discuss these proposals on September 25, 2017. The board’s staff presented research which indicated there probably wasn’t a Jefferson Davis highway anywhere in Arizona anymore, and that the status of the Jefferson Davis monument on U.S. 60 is the responsibility of the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), as it’s located in the public right-of-way.
On October 4 the group Progress Now Arizona delivered petitions with more than 1,000 signatures to Gov. Ducey’s office demanding he advocate for the removal of Confederate monuments on state property and for the changing of the name of the Jefferson Davis Highway. They also delivered 100 letters of support from Arizona NAACP chapters, religious leaders, and multiple history and ethics professors from NAU, ASU and the U of A.
Then on October 13 the Arizona Department of Transportation issued a letter wherein they stated that their official position is that a Jefferson Davis Memorial Highway no longer existed anywhere in Arizona, and that, in their opinion, the Jefferson Davis monument along U.S. 60 is privately owned. Subsequently, on October 23 an ADOT spokesperson said that the agency’s director believes the monument should be relocated to private property because it keeps getting vandalized, and Confederate groups, like the Sons of Confederate Veterans, periodically gather around it to conduct ceremonies that could create safety problems because the monument’s in the public right-of-way. Nothing has happened since then, except that the monument was vandalized again in November.
As for the Confederate soldier memorial at the state capital, on June 5, 2017, several of Arizona’s black leaders called for the removal of all six of Arizona’s Confederate monuments, including the three located at veterans’ cemeteries. A spokesman for Gov. Ducey responded that their complaint about the Confederate soldier memorial on the Wesley Bolin plaza was misdirected at him because the Legislative Governmental Mall Commission is in charge of the plaza’s monuments, even though the governor appoints two of the commission’s members.
When Gov. Ducey was asked about the issue on August 14, 2017, he said, “We fought the Civil War and the United States won the Civil War. We freed the slaves and we followed up with civil rights after that.”
The Memorial to Arizona Confederate Troops was vandalized with paint on August 17. “I think it’s absolutely irresponsible and non-productive. It does absolutely nothing to promote the cause of removing symbols of hate in the state when individuals take matters into their hands and vandalize state property,” said Rep. Bolding in response to the vandalism.
The on August 19 Tucson’s Arizona Daily Star newspaper reported that Ducey claimed he has no legal role in deciding the future of the memorial. The Legislative Governmental Mall Commission’s chairman Kevin DeMenna explained that’s because the commission doesn’t have the legal authority to remove the monument from the plaza, so it would require the Republican-controlled legislature to pass a bill to authorize it. Arizona House Speaker J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, and Senate President Steve Yarbrough, R-Chandler, agreed. Rep. Mesnard added that it would be good to have a public conversation about each Confederate monument on state property when the legislature reconvened in January 2018, but it never happened.
At the February 14, 2018, meeting of the Legislative Governmental Mall Commission State Representative Lela Alston, D-Phoenix, a non-voting advisory member of the commission, asked chairman Kevin DeMenna, to consider putting a discussion about the mall’s Confederate soldier memorial on a future commission agenda. She explained that many Arizona voters had told her they don’t like the memorial because they believe it honors the Confederate cause, and that a public discussion about it could be useful. Chairman DeMenna was noncommittal and soon gaveled the meeting to an abrupt close. The topic was not included in the commission’s subsequent meeting agenda.
Which Confederate Monuments Should Be Removed?
The real problem with removing Confederate monuments from public property is deciding which ones should remain because they are truly historical, and which ones should be removed because they glorify the Confederate cause. A statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee in a public park, for example, might be a historical monument if it’s located on a battlefield where Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia fought, or in the former Confederate capital of Richmond, Virginia. But if it’s located elsewhere, it could be considered a political statement. The Memorial to Arizona’s Confederate Troops also falls into this gray zone. At first glance, it appears to be a simple monument to the Confederate troops from Arizona, but its history and the inscription in front of it indicate that it’s a political statement.
Americans have the right to make these sorts of decisions about the public monuments displayed in their communities. The complaint that removing a Confederate monument from public property amounts to erasing history is nonsense. In fact, when the monument glorifies the Confederacy, its removal actually serves to reinstate history by refuting the myth of the Lost Cause.
On April 5, 2018, Gov. Ducey signed Senate Bill 1179, which authorized a monument to Arizona’s black Buffalo Soldiers on the Wesley Bolin plaza. The bill was introduced by Democrats, but received unanimous support from the legislature’s Republicans, even though none of them were willing to support a simultaneous effort by the local chapter of the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War (SUVCW) to authorize a Union soldier monument on the plaza.
On May 3, 2018, Gov. Ducey signed Senate Bill 1524. One of its provisions abolished the Legislative Governmental Mall Commission and delegated its authority to the Arizona Department of Administration (ADOA). Instead of public hearings held by a diverse commission, the review of new monuments authorized by the legislature for Wesley Bolin plaza will now be handled by ADOA’s administrative personnel. This provision was opposed by Democrats in the legislature.
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.
On July 25, 2018, U.S. District Judge Robert G. James granted a request by Louisiana’s Caddo Parish to dismiss claims made by the local chapter of the United Daughters of the Confederacy that a Confederate monument they donated could not be relocated from public property.
On August 20, 2018, protestors at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill toppled the “Silent Same” confederate soldier statue that had been erected on campus in 1913. The crowd was jubilant when the statue fell. Republicans in the state’s legislature spent the following day condemning the protestors and demanding that the statue be restored.
On October 2, 2018, the Madison, Wisconsin, City Council voted to remove a Confederate memorial from a Confederate prisoner of war cemetery and relocate it to a museum because it was not a gravestone but a political statement.
On October 15, 2018, the Associated Press reported they had discovered that the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs was spending millions to guard Confederate cemeteries.
On January 11, 2019, Texas state officials voted to remove a plaque on the wall of the state capitol building that was placed there in 1957 by a group called the Children of the Confederacy that proclaimed slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War.
On January 10, 2019, the Southern Poverty Law Center announced it was launching a campaign to urge the state Legislature to give local governments the power to decide whether to keep or remove Confederate monuments in their public spaces.
On January 14, 2019, the Chancellor of the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Carol Folt, ordered the removal of a pedestal that once held a Confederate statue on the university’s campus. Protestors had toppled the “Silent Sam” Confederate soldier statue in August 2018, and it had not been reinstalled due to public safety concerns.
On January 14, 2019, a county judge in Alabama ruled that a state law enacted in 2017 that prohibited the removal of Confederate monuments from public spaces violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
On March 5, 2019, protestors draped a black curtain with the words, “Warning: Offensive Content” over the Confederate monument on Wesley Bolin Memorial Plaza at the Arizona state capitol.
On April 11, 2019, Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) signed a bill to remove the statues of two Confederate sympathizers from Arkansas that are in the National Statuary Hall Collection at the U.S. Capitol.
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.”