March 25, 2013
Cyndi Souza
Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Services Specialist
610 Spring Meadows Road
Amargosa Valley, Nevada 89020
Attn: Records Officer
Subject:
EA 84550-13-01 — Public Comment on Environmental Assessment for Upper
Carson Slough Restoration and Trail System at Ash Meadows National Wildlife
Refuge.
Dear Sir or Madam,
My name is Victor Fuentes and I am submitting this comment on behalf of Ministerio Roca
Solida Church of which I am both President and Pastor. This Comment focuses on a number of
serious concerns with the subject United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s (“USF&W”) January
2013 Environmental Assessment (“EA”).
The EA: (1) is factually and historically inaccurate; (2) advocates actions contrary to national
environmental policy as put forth in the National Environmental Policy Act (hereinafter
“NEPA”) directly harming private landowners within the refuge; (3) attempts to “tier to” (EA
p.1) a four-year-old Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) despite recommended actions
(“removal of a dam”) within this 2013 EA being completely outside the scope of the 2009 EIS;
and (4) advocates further actions that have in recently destroyed the very species USF&W claims
to protect.
First, the proposed “alignments for the restored Rogers Spring and Longstreet Spring outflow
channels were, according to the EA, selected based on historical (1948) imagery.” While using
“1948 imagery” may be useful to advance the USF&W’s attempt here to eradicate private
landowners from the confines of the wildlife refuge, using 1948 imagery is both historically and
factually incorrect.
For true “‘historical’ restoration” (the alleged justification for USF&W’s proposed actions), any
“re-alignments” must be based on water flow as depicted on available maps dating back to 1881.
According to U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s own 1990 “Recovery Plan . . . for Ash Meadows,” a
biological inventory was conducted in 1891 and, even at that time, “[s]ettlers occupied the area
to utilize its water for growing crops” and “[m]uch of the area immediately adjacent to spring
sources and along spring outflow channels was granted to private owners when Nevada was
granted statehood in 1864.” 1990 Recovery Plan p. 5. My church has provided to USF&W an
1881 map demonstrating historical water flow, yet, USF&W purposefully dispenses with the
map’s significance in this EA, likely because it does not serve their illegitimate ends.
1
A review of USF&W’s prior publications reinforces this fact. According to the EA at page 15,
there is no documented evidence of a historical wetland in the site of present-day Peterson
Reservoir and no wetlands were reported at this site during the 1881 township surveys.
Contrarily, the EA at page 29 states that “the project area was historically the largest wetland in
southern Nevada. The true historical map of 1881 and Fish and Wildlife’s own 1990 Recovery
Plan, however, indicates otherwise. And again, according to the USF&W’s own Recovery Plan
of 1990, “[m]uch of the area immediately adjacent to spring sources and along spring outflow
channels was granted to private owners when Nevada was granted statehood in 1864” and those
“[s]ettlers occupied the area to utilize its waters for growing crops.” Recovery Plan p. 5. There
is no indication of either rice or cranberries (or other crops compatible with wetlands) being
grown indicating crops that were grown (e.g. alfalfa) were used to support the area’s presence of
livestock of which there is ample historical evidence in the Nye County tax records and property
records dating back to the late 1800s.
Second, NEPA made it national policy to “encourage productive and enjoyable harmony
between man and his environment.” 42 U.S.C. §4321. However, this EA, the 2009 EIS, and
recent actions by USF&W employees fail to take into account or even acknowledge the private
landowners within the refuge. In fact, nowhere in the entire 48 page EA is the fact that private
landowners exist within the boundaries of the Ash Meadows NWR, even though proposed
actions will result in additional and ongoing harm to said landowners.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s recent actions within the Ash Meadows NWR have resulted in serious
damage to private property owners’ interest demonstrating a callous disregard both for the
national policy instituted by NEPA and to the civil and constitutional rights of those owning
property within the refuge. In addition to actions taken prior to proper notice and permitting
which resulted in flooding and serious damage to my church’s property, actions taken by
USF&W in the Ash Meadows NWR have resulted in flooding and/or property damage to the
property of former landowner Mary Hale, landowner Kay Corbett, and the ongoing flooding of
Spring Meadows Road near St. Cloud Mine — all of which were generally ignored in the 2009
EIS.
As far as balancing the interests of wildlife and humans, it should be noted that nowhere in this
forty-eight page EA is it acknowledged that our forty-acre private land exists or that the actions
proposed (to include the Mud Dam removal) will result in regular and possibly permanent
flooding of our church camp, private land located within the boundaries of Ash Meadows NWR.
USF&W’s apparent policy regarding the NEPA mandate of “enjoyable harmony between man
and his environment” can be better summed up by refuge manager Sharon McKelvey’s words
that, “the only problem within the refuge is ‘people living where they shouldn’t be living.’”
This callous fervor with respect to protecting fish and plants to the total disregard of
constitutional rights of humans and the commensurate actions taken by USF&W’s Sharon
McKelvey and others have resulted in significant damages directly to our private property. At
least two federal lawsuits seeking declaratory and injunctive relief along with damages under the
Federal Torts Claim Act are now pending against the United States and its agencies/employees
as a result of USF&W’s failure to follow NEPA’s policy goals, the U.S. Constitution, Nevada
2
State Law, and numerous federal procedural requirements (e.g. U.S. Corps of Army Engineers
(see below).
The removal of Mud Dam, as proposed in this EA and, as mentioned above, is outside the scope
of the 2009 EIS, would inevitably result in a permanent or regular flooding of our private
property resulting in a permanent “taking.” Such removal action by USF&W would necessitate
yet another suit for injunctive relief against USF&W to require, at a minimum, a new EIS.
Third, USF&W attempts to “tier to” (EA p.1) and invoke a four-year-old Environmental Impact
Statement (“EIS”) despite significant portions of recommended actions within this 2013 EA
being outside the scope of the now-outdated 2009 EIS. Because of the significant impact of the
proposed actions within the EA (some of which have already been errantly and catastrophically
taken prior to this public comment period even being opened), a full Economic Impact Statement
should be prepared with respect to these “proposed” actions.
The damage to the property of our church camp and the flooding of the Hale and the Corbett
properties denoted above alone justify the preparation of a new EIS with respect to these
government actions. Yet in the EA, there is no mention of the damaging impacts of the proposed
actions or their impacts on private property owners. And, “[w]hen an environmental impact
statement is prepared and economic or social and natural or physical environmental effects are
interrelated, then the environmental impact statement will discuss all of these effects on the
human environment.” 40 C.F.R. 1508.14 (Human environment).
Moreover, despite including actions within this EA never contemplated or discussed in the fouryear-old, 2009 EIS, the USF&W herein attempts to evade the congressionally mandated EIS
process. One very good example is that of “removal or partial-removal of Mud Dam.” EA p. 3,
8. The EA suggests that removal of the dam would “improve public safety,” however, removal
of the dam would not only flood regularly (or permanently) our private forty-acre parcel, but
such removal actions were neither discussed nor impacts considered in the 2009 EIS. In fact,
nowhere in the 2009 EIS is the term “Mud Dam” even to be found, much less analyzed or
discussed.
Additionally, it should be noted that the Army Corps of Engineers permitting processes was not
adhered to and documents submitted to Nevada Water engineers were incomplete and deceptive
with respect this EA’s “proposed” actions some which have already been taken resulting in
nearly ninety-thousand dollars of flood damage to our private property. This EA at page 29
concedes that such activities as “proposed” under this EA are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers and that the proposed project would likely require a permit, yet no such permit was
secured prior to the action for which “approval” is now being sought under the EA.
Lastly, as for preservation of the Speckled Dace fish, the re-routing of the streams to which our
church has vested rights (already executed but now proposed in this EA) resulted in the
destruction of a significant population of Speckled Dace. Where there were many within the
now-diverted waterway; now there are none. This is clearly outside the purpose for which Ash
Meadows claims to have been created (“to conserve . . . endangered, proposed endangered, and
candidate plant and animal species found in the area.”) EA p. 1. That the Refuge was able to
3
“reintroduce the Ash Meadows speckled dace” (EA p.3) for the first time in more than 50 years
is disingenuous as it was the very rerouting of the streams in 2010 that destroyed significant
numbers of those fish which formerly thrived in the waterway running through my church’s
property.
For the reasons denoted above, actions proposed in this EA should not be taken. Instead,
considerable oversight should be exercised over this agency run amok and, at a minimum, a new
EIS taking into account the constitutional rights of and environmental effects upon private
landowners within the refuge should be executed. Hopefully, this corrective action will alleviate
the necessity of additional lawsuits being filed against the United States, its agencies, and its
agencies’ employees as well as allow harmonious co-existence between the private landowners
and the species found within the confines of Ash Meadows NWR, as per the policy articulated in
NEPA.
Sincerely,
/s/ Victor Fuentes
Victor Fuentes, Pastor and President
Ministerio Roca Solida
Iglesia Christiana
P.O. Box 42507
Las Vegas, Nevada 89116
cc:
U.S. Senator Dean Heller
U.S. Senator Harry Reid
U.S. Congressman Steven A. Horsford
4