News : Fort briefs city on biological opinion : Sierra Vista, AZ

Today's Weather


Click for Sierra Vista, Arizona Forecast


Fort briefs city on biological opinion

By Gentry Braswell
Herald/Review
Published/Last Modified on Tuesday, Jul 31, 2007 - 05:13:26 am MST

SIERRA VISTA — Fort Huachuca Garrison Commander Col. Melissa Sturgeon briefed the City Council and staff Monday, regarding the fort’s interpretation of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s biological opinion released last month.

This new biological opinion, compared to the last one published in 2002 or the ones prior, better accounts for the post-9/11 military landscape and the ongoing war in Iraq, with regard to the fort’s mission in terms of personnel flux, Sturgeon said. Therefore, it can more accurately estimate and predict the fort’s water use, Sturgeon said.

The new opinion consists of studies conducted by the U.S. Army and scientists, and reviewed by the Fish and Wildlife Service.

In its methodology, it applied a Congressional guideline adhered to by the Upper San Pedro Partnership, in the Partnership’s annual “321 reports.”



Through these reports, the partnership communicates to Congress its accomplishments and proof that local aquifer sustainability remains a goal throughout the Sierra Vista Subwatershed.

That congressional mandate for the Partnership defines the fort as responsible for the water used by the fort and its induced populations on the surrounding areas.

But, the statute that validates the partnership does not hold the fort responsible for the “cumulative, nonfederal water usage” in the Sierra Vista Subwatershed, Sturgeon said.

This “cumulative, nonfederal water usage,” rather, by the defining statute, is considered to be the responsibility of the partnership.

The partnership consists of 21 local, regional and national agencies, groups, governments and organizations, both public and private, that collaborate to study the Sierra Vista Subwatershed aquifer and the Upper San Pedro River. The Partnership is charged with mitigating the current groundwater pumping-to-aquifer recharge deficit in the Sierra Vista Subwatershed by 2011.

The results of the biological opinion are positive, in that they provide a significant amount of latitude for personnel flux on the fort, Sturgeon said.

This positive determination might reduce the odds that the Tucson-based Center for Biological Diversity will litigate against the fort, Sturgeon said. In fact, the Center for Biological Diversity’s threat of such a lawsuit was part of what inspired the most recent biological opinion study.

“But it doesn’t reduce their ability to go after 321,” Sturgeon said.

Mayor Bob Strain finished her thought: “Which they haven’t done yet.”

Strain serves as the vice chairman and chairman, respectively, of the partnership’s executive and advisory committees.

The relatively sunny findings of the new biological opinion, with respect to the ongoing mission of the fort might inspire the historically litigious Center for Biological Diversity to sue, perhaps seeking to show fault in the policy and data stemming from the Partnership’s annual 321 reports to Congress, Sturgeon said.

“We think that (the new biological opinion) does give us a little bit of reprieve. But we still think there is some risk for litigation,” she said. “321 really leans on the Upper San Pedro Partnership to address the impact of what the fort’s responsible for.”

The new biological opinion said the fort’s water use isn’t endangering critical habitats in the area, nor the long-term survival of local endangered species. It attributes the fort’s efforts at mitigating water use, such as installation of artificial turf on playing fields, change to low-flow toilets and waterless urinals, construction of new, more efficient homes, and getting rid of older leakier facilities.

The result is a measured reduction in fort water use by half since 1993, according to the fort and Fish and Wildlife data. The commander said efforts will continue to mitigate water use on the fort and collaborate with the Partnership.

“I want everybody here to understand, we’re going to continue protecting our resources as best as we can,” Sturgeon said. “Because if we don’t, there are serious ramifications for us, and we take that very seriously.”

Herald/Review reporter Gentry Braswell can be reached at 515-4680 or by e-mail at gentry.braswell@svherald.com.



Use the form below to post a brief comment to this story, or respond to other readers. Please use the word count tool to assist you in keeping your remarks to 100 words or fewer.

Comments appear once they are approved. Your thoughtful contribution to the online discussion is appreciated.

(optional)
Current Word Count:
   





    Dan wrote on Aug 1, 2007 11:59 PM:

    " Skeptic, your scare tactics stating "the Fort will die" is totally ridiculous. WE JUST WENT THROUGH SEVERAL YEARS OF DROUGHT. CYCLICAL PERIODS OF DROUGHT ARE NORMAL. We have a 2000+ year water supply in this massive aquifer. Factoid: THIS AREA WILL CONTINUE TO GROW, and if we don't plan for growth the river will dry up no matter how hard it rains. Instead of wasting your time talking about "attrition of growth" why don't you call the city and county and ask why we haven't created giant water retention basins to recharge the aquifer with this storm runoff? "

    Dan wrote on Aug 1, 2007 11:40 PM:

    " Simply Incredible, is simply off. We (P&Z and city engineers) have been running off developers for decades. The County is primarily zoned RU4. 1 residence per 4 acres. A wildcat developer/investor does not have to submit a public report on parcel splits up to five parcels. No basic infrastructure, watershed, water feasibility or basic environmental impact studies required. Hence, buy 20 acres, split into 4 acre parcels, and off you go with tons of private wells (causing cones of depressions), septic tanks, unsafe roads, flooding etc.. Look at Hereford! Sensible growth (developers) is the only way to save this situation. "

    Simply Incredible wrote on Aug 1, 2007 9:19 AM:

    " Over the past several years, I've noticed that the fine Center of Biological Diversity has done their very best to shut down our Fort. If anyone who has any questions about the increased water usage in and around Sierra Vista, just take a drive down Buffalo Soldier trail and around to the eastern side of town and look at all the new housing developments that have been built within the past few years. That's the reason why the water is drying up. I agree with sceptic - start restricting developers now. "

    sceptic wrote on Jul 31, 2007 8:29 AM:

    " Whenever the fort cuts water usage, the developers use the difference; and the San Pedro continues to dry up. Cutting the fort's mission would also reduce the demand for continued growth. The fort conserves water, and the developers appreciate using these gains for a net loss for the San Pedro. Restrict developers and conserve water through attrition of growth. Or the fort will die. "

Community Videos



Additional recent videos can be viewed here


Use the arrows on each side of the player to for the next/previous video

Lastest U.S. Videos


In Tomorrow's Herald


Sierra Vista City Council has a work session on the biological opinion that affects Fort Huachuca.

Subscribe Today!

Photo Galleries

Contact Us


Staff Directory

Advertisement




Reader Poll



Calendar

Upcoming Events:

Faith and Spirituality