Editorial: Recreational area needs a sound plan

Friday, Feb. 25, 2005 | 5:25 a.m.

WEEKEND EDITION

February 26 - 27, 2005

At 11,918 feet, Mount Charleston is Nevada's third-highest mountain and a primary destination year-round for those who enjoy outdoor activities. It is the most dominant feature in the 316,000-acre Spring Mountains National Recreation Area west and northwest of Las Vegas. As part of the 4-million-acre Toiyabe National Forest, the recreation area offers a diversity of wildlife, clean air and a scenic blend of trees including firs, aspens and ponderosa and ancient bristlecone pines. The area is a haven for sightseers, hikers, picnickers, campers, sportsmen, skiers, horseback riders and seasonal and year-round residents.

But too much of a good thing is spelling trouble. Decades ago the Las Vegas Valley's sparse population barely left a footprint in this paradise. Today, with the Las Vegas Valley home to about 1.5 million people, the vast numbers of visitors are leaving their mark in various negative ways -- overcrowded campgrounds, litter, air pollution from cars and trucks, fire hazards, demand for more facilities such as restrooms, stepped-up housing development and erosion on the trails. This is especially true of the Mount Charleston area, where there's a fine-dining hotel and an informal lodge, and the Lee Canyon area to the north, where a ski center is located.

The paradox here is that most everybody, including us, would agree that access to this jewel of a recreation area should be open and available to all. A stop alongside the open meadows leading to Lee Canyon should be an experience denied to none. But it's this very access that is leading to problems that, if not checked, will spoil the area for future generations. The solutions cannot come from one autocratic source, as the area is a blend of federal and private property that is of great interest to the state, local governments, tourists and residents of the Las Vegas Valley.

This is why a "summit meeting" was held at the Mount Charleston Hotel last week. It featured Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., and representatives of the U.S. Forest Service, state and local governments, the Las Vegas Paiutes, the preservationist group Outside Las Vegas Foundation and an audience that overflowed the hotel's conference room.

One consensus was that the Bush administration must not be allowed to follow through on its proposal to transfer money from the sale of federal lands in Nevada to the federal treasury. We agree with that consensus. By an act of Congress that money belongs to Nevada and it's from that source of money that a management plan could be devised and enforced to save Mount Charleston and the whole recreational area for the coming generations. A management plan for Mount Charleston is vital and we mustn't let Bush steal the money that would fund it.

And when a plan is drafted, we hope its central focus is preserving the natural state of the recreation area. It would be a mistake to believe that the answer to preserving the area is to spread out the human impacts by building wider roads, dozens more campgrounds, more hotels and approving other development. Some infrastructure improvements -- a larger visitor's center, for example, and perhaps another campground or two -- are needed. We would also like to see more law enforcement in the area. A small Metro Police substation and a few forest rangers are up against thousands of visitors, of whom there are many who do not understand or care about the fragility of forests. But any management plan should focus primarily on how to preserve the natural charm and beauty of the area, which is, after all, why people are attracted to visit, and should emphasize li mits on home building and other construction. Developments that are under way should be allowed, but new development should! be subject to restrictions.

Mount Charleston and the whole Spring Mountains Recreation Area are nature's gifts to Southern Nevada. In the interest of saving them, we should not endanger them by overdevelopment.