|
|
Wilderness Watch Lawsuit Challenges Helicopter Training in Wildernesses in Nevada: 2/09 Share
Wilderness Watch has filed a lawsuit against the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for its decision to authorize the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) to conduct motorized search and rescue training operations in the La Madre Mountain Wilderness and Rainbow Mountain Wilderness in southern Nevada.
BLM’s decision authorizes helicopter landings at 33 sites within the Wildernesses. Up to 60 landings per training session could occur, resulting in more than 400 landings per year, in perpetuity. The decision represents the single largest motorized intrusion—by a factor of several-fold—ever authorized in a unit of the National Wilderness Preservation System. LVMPD chose the sites based on their proximity to Las Vegas and ease of access for rescue team members.
BLM prepared an environmental assessment and “minimum requirements decision guide” in response to LVMPD’s request to conduct training in the Wildernesses. BLM’s studies found that training can be achieved on cliffs and canyons outside the Wilderness. BLM also concluded that the noise from the helicopters would dominate the area, that opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be lost entirely, and that most visitors would be driven from the area where helicopters would operate. The agency acknowledged there would be “significant” impacts from the training.
A review of BLM’s files shows that BLM staff recommended against approving LVMPD’s request, and felt the proposal would violate the law. In June of 2007, a local BLM official wrote, “The [LVMPD] proposal is not consistent with the Wilderness Act…Our position is not to approve any training in the Wilderness Areas that involves landing and unloading of personnel or material.”
So, why did BLM decision-makers decide against the agency’s own findings and the recommendations of its professional staff in approving the project? Enter Senator Harry Reid’s office. Buried in BLM’s files is an email from Lt. Ojeda of the LVMPD to Juan Palma, BLM area manager, documenting an August 14, 2007 “telephonic three way conversation” between BLM, LVMPD and Senator Reid’s office. According to the memo, it was agreed at the meeting that BLM would complete an environmental assessment “stating and allowing the [LVMPD]…the exemption and ability to train with aircraft, personnel and related equipment in the Rainbow Mountain and La Madre Mountain Wilderness areas.” Not only had BLM reversed its position on the proposal, but also it had agreed to the outcome of the EA before it even conducted the analysis.
Our complaint argues that BLM’s decision is unlawful for several reasons:
1. The motorized use will degrade the areas’ wilderness character including the values of solitude, primitive and unconfined recreation, and the absence of motor vehicles.
2. The training will violate the Wilderness Act’s prohibition on the use of motor vehicles and motor equipment unless such use is the minimum required to protect the Wilderness.
3. The decision violated the National Environmental Policy Act because: a) BLM failed to prepare an environmental impact statement despite the agency’s own findings that the project would have a significant impact on the Wilderness; and b) the agency did not adequately consider impacts to wildlife in the area.
4. The decision violates the Endangered Species Act because BLM failed to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that the threatened desert tortoise would not be harmed by the action.
Collette Adkins Giese and Jon Dettmann (Faegre & Benson), Peter Frost (Western Environmental Law Center), and John Marshall, a Reno, NV-based attorney, are representing Wilderness Watch.
• Read BLM's Environmental Assessment (1.8 MB)
• Read Wilderness Watch's Appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals of BLM's Decision
• Read the Interior Board of Land Appeals Opinion
|
