Nevada’s federal legislation balances military training needs with conservation
Federal lawmakers from Nevada are pushing for a proposal that would place ultramodern training systems at Nellis Air Force Base, as well as bolster protections for vast swaths of surrounding land, to be included in the national defense spending bill.
The legislation — introduced late last month by Nevada U.S. Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto and Jacky Rosen, both Democrats — would allow the U.S. Air Force to place 15 devices known as threat emitters at the Nevada Test and Training Range within small tracts of the Desert National Wildlife Refuge.
The bill, however, would also permanently designate approximately 736,000 acres of the refuge as a wilderness area, which would ensure the land remains accessible for recreation and wildlife management, according to Cortez Masto’s office.
“We want to support talent and our national security, but we also have folks living in and around the area,” Cortez Masto told the Sun in a phone interview. “We want to continue to make sure we’re supporting our national security, but there’s a balance. We can also do that while protecting vital habitat and preserving Nevada’s outdoor recreation opportunities at the same time.”
Threat emitters use electronic signals to simulate surface-to-air artillery and anti-aircraft radar systems, which can be used to help pilots identify hostile enemy targets, according to defense manufacturer Northrop Grumman. Such devices are already being utilized at U.S. military installations around the globe. Media reports also have documented use of threat emitters in Ukraine to confuse Russian pilots.
“The emitters simulate the enhanced capabilities of our adversaries and allow pilots to practice their tactics, techniques and procedures on how to respond to those threats, such as by altering their flight path to avoid the area near an emitter,” a Nellis spokesperson told the Sun in a statement Friday.
The precise locations of where the threat emitters would go if the proposal is approved haven’t been determined, Cortez Masto said, adding they would be placed on Air Force-managed land
and certain areas of the Desert National Wildlife Refuge.
But, as drafted, the proposal would also protect the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s access to land managed jointly with the Air Force to ensure wildlife managers can continue recreation, annual bighorn sheep hunts, conservation and other wildlife-management activities.
Identical legislation was introduced in the U.S. House by Rep. Steven Horsford, and was co-sponsored by Reps. Susie Lee and Dina Titus — all of whom are Nevada Democrats.
“Nevada provides a crucial training ground to prepare our Air Force for the future,” Horsford said in a statement. “As we update the Nevada Test and Training Range to prepare our service members for challenges they may face in combat, we are also working to preserve the pristine wilderness that many Nevadans enjoy today.”
The legislation also expands provisions of the Clark County Lands Bill that would allow industrial businesses to expand in North Las Vegas, and allocate funds to build a new water pipeline for the region.
It’s also earned the backing of at least one large environmental group with a presence in Nevada. Horsford’s statement quoted Friends of Nevada Wilderness executive director Shaaron Netherton as calling the proposal a “win-win.”
“Friends of Nevada Wilderness is thankful for Congressman Horsford’s years of fighting to protect the Desert National Wildlife Refuge to help keep this amazing area open to the public and its habitat intact for our state animal, the bighorn sheep,” Netherton is quoted in the statement.
Other groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity, say the move is long overdue.
“The proposal to designate over 700,000 acres of wilderness in the Desert National Wildlife Refuge will provide much-needed permanent protection for native wildlife, migratory birds, Indigenous sacred sites and recreational opportunities,” Scott Lake, an attorney for the center, said via email. “The designation of these lands as wilderness was first recommended in 1971 and is long overdue. While we can’t agree that such protection must come at the cost of other protected lands or for the expansion of military operations, the proposed wilderness designation would be a significant gain for wildlife and the public.”