• In Our Papers • About Us • Links • Advertising •
Google Custom Search  
       
 

Boundary plan criticized

by Joshua Maloni
Grand Island Dispatch, Lewiston Porter Sentinel, September 1-2, 2006

   
At left, Mark Mistretta presents a rough draft of the Niagara River Greenway boundary. (photo by Larry Austin)

At the end of Thursday’s Local Government Advisory Committee gathering, a conference designed to advise municipal leaders on the status of the Niagara River Greenway boundary proposal, chairman Ron Moline said, “The purpose of this meeting was not to agree on anything.”

His statement couldn’t have been more apt.

With so much debate, it was hard to tell if the meeting was productive or destructive. If the glass is half-full, then the LGAC will work to hammer out what the boundary should be and what projects will be included, and the plan will be approved by stakeholders. If the glass is half-empty, the Greenway will be rejected because the boundary presented to the LGAC is miles away from a proposal submitted by the seven members of the Niagara Power Coalition – a plan approved by even more Niagara County municipalities.

At the meeting, Mark Mistretta of Wendel Duchscherer Architects and Engineers presented a three-tiered Niagara River Greenway boundary proposal. The first, or “Primary,” layer is, essentially, those areas on the river. It connects the Greenway lake-to-lake from Old Fort Niagara (north) to the Buffalo city limit (south), and expands inland to include tributaries.

   
The seven members of the Niagara Power Coalition include the Niagara Falls City School District, the city of Niagara Falls, the Lewiston-Porter Central School District, the Town of Lewiston, the Niagara Wheatfield Central School District, the Town of Niagara and Niagara County. Also signing off on the NPC boundary proposal were the villages of Lewiston and Youngstown, the towns of Porter and Wheatfield, and the City of North Tonawanda.
The next, or “Secondary,” level consists of areas between 1/2 and 1/4 of a mile off of the river, connecting escarpments and creeks. The last, or “Contributing,” layer includes adjacent municipalities “broadening the environmental significance of the Niagara River Greenway toward becoming a regional system.” While projects found on the contributing level would be prioritized lower, they could still be approved if they met Greenway criteria.

Moreover, Mistretta explained that projects seeking Greenway funding should meet a nine-point criterion that includes economic feasibility, ability to be implemented and environmental soundness.

As Mistretta explained the proposal, Sam Ferraro, executive director of the Niagara County Industrial Development Agency, speaking up for Niagara County, and later Dave Schaubert, representing the Lewiston-Porter School District, questioned the logic of excluding the Niagara Power Coalition’s proposal, and some key language.

With much of the emphasis on connecting lakes, Ferraro said the Greenway definition should be amended to include wording to the effect that inland connections are made to trails and tributaries.

“That’s a specific item that’s in the (Greenway) legislation,” he said.

Mistretta responded by saying that concept wasn’t lost or forgotten.

“Connectiveness is one of the primary themes (of the proposal),” he said.

As to the Niagara Power Project’s boundary proposal, Schaubert said the Greenway plan has to be unanimously approved, and a plan sidestepping “The Seven’s” pitch is a plan that goes against the wishes of that many voters.

“This commission was presented with a plan for a boundary,” he said. “This plan (from Wendel Duchscherer) is completely inconsistent with that.

“If you want a Greenway, do you think you’ll get approval when you’re going against eight out of 11 (municipalities). You’re killing your own process.”

Ferraro indicated it’s the Niagara Power Coalition’s desire that the boundary include state-recognized seaway, wine and Erie Canal trails. Those areas extend inland beyond the reach of the three tiers Mistretta presented.

After the meeting, Grand Island Supervisor Peter McMahon engaged in a mildly heated discussion with Ferraro and Schaubert over Greenway funding, asking why the NPC, with so much money coming its way to begin with, doesn’t just abstain from the Greenway process. He also said he favors a narrow boundary.

Earlier, the issue of Power Coalition funding versus available Greenway money was broached. As part of NYPA’s relicensing application, the organization agreed to provide host communities with $5 million annually for the next 50 years. Niagara County stakeholders also stand to have access to an additional $3 million yearly from NYPA as part of the final Greenway proposal. The NPC has been tasked with coming up with a plan to use its relicensing money in a manner consistent with the final Greenway plan.

Greenway Commission Chairman Robert J. Kresse said the boundary proposal presented Thursday was just a concept, a means of spurring dialogue.

“Nothing has in any way been solidified in stone,” he said.

The Wendel Duchscherer proposal will be presented again on Wednesday, when the Citizen’s Advisory Committee meets at 7 p.m., in the Beaver Island clubhouse.