| CURRENT WEATHER: Clear, 78° |
|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
July 18, 2003
By RICHARD STEPHENSToad issue has some in Beatty hopping madPVT This was the biggest unanswered question discussed during the Beatty Town Board hearing Tuesday on the Amargosa River Adaptive Management Plan (ARAMP). Board Vice Chairman Terry Kurfess stated his position on the whole Amargosa Toad issue in a letter, copies of which were available at the hearing. "This whole toad controversy started out as a well planned setup by an extremist environmental group (and) as time passed it turned into a giant conspiracy," Kurfess' letter began. He called for a "certified, licensed and bonded recount of all toads by an independent, unconnected, unbiased firm" and "a legal opinion from the Nye County District Attorney's Office regarding Beatty's liability in regards to money and loss of motorized trails we currently have use of." Among other things, Kurfess also expressed concerns that the town of Beatty could be held financially liable to repair damage from "Fire, Flash Flood, Hazardous Waste Spills, Nuke Waste Spills or any act of God." Board member Bert Bertram reminded everyone that the purpose of creating the local plan was "to remove it from federal hands and have local control." The impetus was the BLM's stated intention of creating an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) to protect the habitat of the toad and other sensitive species. County expert Dr. James Marble explained several features of the ARAMP. He said that the BLM had been very patient with locals and had "let us slide" for a year beyond the deadline by which the plan was to have been finalized. "We have to get off the dime, or we're going to have an ACEC after all," he stated. In response, Bertram said that we would not be pressured by BLM threats into acting before we are ready. There was no consensus on the board or in the audience on who should be in charge of the habitat project. Local resident Monty Seely was the most vocal in championing county control, with Eastley arguing in favor of local control with the county acting as a resource. A major concern of those favoring county control was possible economic liability that might fall on the small town with its limited resources. In response to the question of whether the plan could be simplified to merely protect toad habitat without its proposed trail system and other recreational features, Marble explained that these features were necessary to apply for a free recreational lease on the land. Other types of leases are not free. It was obvious that Marble upset and angered board members when he said that the amount of land to be included in the lease application was not certain. The board had already gone through a great deal of debate and wrangling for some time before approving what they had understood to be a final acreage figure and a map of the lease's boundaries. Board members were not ready to act on the plan without knowing who would be legally able to administer it and what the town's liabilities and responsibilities would be. They voted, instead, to ask the district attorney's office for an opinion on those questions. Board member LaRene Younghans had many more concerns, including the plan's impact on water rights of local land owners and the implications of the part of the plan that dealt with the danger of pollutants from spills on U. S. 95, which parallels an important portion of the affected area. She questioned whether the latter could result in the highway being moved, thus bypassing the town. Marble did not think this would be the case, but that some sort of barriers might need to be constructed in some places to contain possible spills. Addressing Younghans and Marble, Bertram moved to end the meeting, "so you two can talk." Younghans responded that that was "OK if no one else is interested," and the meeting adjourned. |
