February 25, 2003
"Go to any bar in Niagara Falls and ask what happened to the Blue Pike": the Niagara Power Project alternative licensing process (part II)
by Mark Boyer
(Part I of this series was "Power and explicit money-grubbing: the Niagara Power Project alternative licensing process," Buffalo Report, 1 February 2003)
by Mark Boyer
The Niagara Power Project alternative licensing process currently taking place in Niagara Falls, presents an opportunity for local towns and Native Americans to be compensated by the New York Power Authority (NYPA) for damages caused by the power project in Niagara Falls. Last week, many of the stakeholders met with NYPA consultants to discuss what will take place in the coming months. There could be a lot of money changing hands as a result of this process. They spoke about the environmental impacts the project has had on the community, and things are starting to get interesting.
The Niagara Power Project meeting on February 13th covered the environmental impacts of the NYPA on the Niagara River and surrounding lands. They are still in the initial scoping segment of the Alternative Licensing Process and the consultants for the NYPA are giving participants a thorough "sneak preview" of what is to come.
The meeting took place at a Quality Inn ballroom in an abominable Niagara Falls strip mall. The room was packed with about one hundred refined, well-dressed people who were interested in two things: money and the environment. They were serviced by three power point projectors and screens and two seven-foot-tall speaker systems. The same presentation could have been given in a classroom with nothing more than a chalkboard.
I stayed for two presentations to get the gist of what was taking place. While I was there, Habitat Analysis and Sediments were covered, the fieldwork for which had cost NYPA $100,000 and $75,000 respectively.
The NYPA consultant team covered their bases and left little for the environmentalists to gripe about. Basically, NYPA employed a team of scientists to study the impacts that the Niagara Falls Power Project has had on the neighboring habitats and sediments. The research that was presented is still preliminary, but they gave such a thorough report that, at times, it felt as if it were the official, final presentation.
I was impressed, and I'm sure that many of the environmentalists were too, but were too afraid to show it. Many requests, demands, and complaints were made by the participants over the course of the morning, but most in attendance managed to keep a composed, civil tone and accepted what the consultants were presenting.
The Habitat Analysis presentation was made by a NYPA consultant named Ed Alkiewicz. After several precise questions about the data he was presenting, he made it clear that the data was preliminary, and that more research is yet to be done. This study has and will identify habitat and fluctuations, show what changes have occurred, and identify the impacts that NYPA has made. The fieldwork was done last summer by expert field biologists, but a distinction is yet to be made between the cumulative impact of industry and residential areas and NYPA's impact on the surrounding habitat.
The NYPA consultants are presenting all of this information in a somewhat unorthodox manner to prove to the environmentalists that it is not NYPA's intent to do the "bare minimum." The consultants didn't even seem to know what the actual focus of the study was. According to consultant Tom Sullivan, "This is not the presentation of the study. This is just some information that we happen to have." When I heard this, I almost stood up and walked out, thinking, "THEN WHAT THE HELL ARE WE HERE FOR?" But long lists of rare and endangered species projected on flashy power point screens soon made it apparent to me that NYPA is trying to impress and gain the trust of the stakeholders by doing more than is required of them in these preliminary hearings.
At times, the stakeholders did not seem satisfied. Valery Nolan, a consultant for the city of Buffalo, requested that the area being studied be expanded because impacts of the power project have reached further than the boundaries that have already been drawn. Paul Dyster, a Niagara Falls elected official, complained about omitted species on the lists of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species of plants and animals and expressed discontent over miscategorization of certain species, including old growth trees.
"WHY THE BLOODY HELL NOT?" was Valery Nolan's demand when NYPA consultant, Ed Alkiewicz explained that ancient cedars along the banks of the Niagara River are not identified as a "special community." Blue Pike were somehow omitted from NYPA's list of extinct species. "Go to any bar in Niagara Falls and ask what happened to the Blue Pike," Paul Dyster said to the NYPA consultant team.
Stakeholders don't seem to be looking for answers yet, but rather making sure that NYPA is proficiently keeping their end of the deal. It is NYPA's duty to evaluate the environmental impacts made by the power project to the best of their ability? The environmentalists are acting as environmental watchdogs in the process, and they have keen eyes.
The consultants were also unable to give stakeholders raw data that has not been officially verified. Someone declared, "Not having this information available will impair our ability to judge your work." Valery Nolan added, "While you're lovely people, and we trust you...we don't trust you that much!" Ms. Nolan would like to see the DEC and other credible groups contribute to the studies.
They then took a brief intermission during which the environmentalists and some other local interest groups gathered for a private caucus in the next room. I don't know what took place in there but I noticed no discernable difference in the environmentalists' approach to the meeting after the intermission. The caucus indicated that the local stakeholders are joining forces in an attempt to gain as much as possible from the Power Authority in this process.
Although the NYPA presentations, for the most part, included most of the necessary data and were not questioned by those in attendance, at times they lacked vital information. The next presentation was a complete waste of time; I couldn't make heads or tails of it, and evidently I was not alone. Throughout the presentation, people stood up and expressed their confusion and dissatisfaction with the report. At times, nearly half the people in attendance were requesting a microphone. The presentation was given by a man named, Jeff Gerlach, and by the looks of things, he knew little more about the information he was presenting than I did. He started talking about sedimentation in the Lewiston Reservoir, but couldn't properly explain what the study proved. Unfortunately, there were no fluvial geomorphologists present to step in and offer some clarity.At one point, someone in the back grabbed a microphone and exclaimed, "Your methodology for this study is...no methodology!" This thing was actually starting to get entertaining. Then Tom Sullivan pleaded, "can you hold off on some of your questions so that Jeff can show you the rest of the slides?" He was met with a bold chorus of "No"s. After about a half hour of questions he couldn't answer, Gerlach resorted to begging: "can I move on....please?"
NYPA is still gathering data from areas surrounding the power project, and they seem willing to take advice and criticism from stakeholders. If this were not such an extensive alternative process, stakeholders would not be getting all this information. Stakeholders should not be looking for answers yet, since the issues haven't even been officially presented. This is a mammoth process. According to Tom Sullivan, "We're on about step 2 of 10 or 11 or 12 steps."Copyright 2003 by Buffalo Report, Inc.