Wind Project DEIS Misleading, Incomplete

Otsego 2000 is opposed to the New Leaf Energy Stark Wind Project as it is currently proposed in northern Otsego County and southern Herkimer County. The stated goals of the project—to provide renewable energy to the people in the region at a reasonable cost and to help advance New York State’s goal to reduce and eventually eliminate the state’s reliance on fossil fuel—are admirable. There is, however, little evidence to support that the project will meet those goals and the developer has made serious omissions in the process of bringing this project forward. Most notably, the people whose lives and homes will be most affected by the project were, in the main, left out of the process.

New Leaf Energy, a developer based in Massachusetts, proposes to build two large wind turbines (each approximately 650 feet high and producing a total of approximately 10 Megawatts (MW) of energy when maximally productive—in New York state, this translates to 2-3 MW on average). The parcels of land that would host these turbines and provide access and transmission infrastructure are in the Towns of Stark (Herkimer County), Warren (Herkimer County), and Springfield (Otsego County).

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted to the State of New York is misleading and incomplete. Although more than half of the land involved in the project is in the Town of Springfield, there is no mention of the impact on that land. This is in spite of the fact that the foundational support for one of the turbines will sit on the border of the two towns—the blades of that turbine will turn well into the Town of Springfield. The ordinances of the Town of Springfield preclude structures of that magnitude. The land parcel in the Town of Springfield is also proposed to support access roads that will carry huge trucks in the building of the project and a so-called “pole-farm” which will be for the purpose of supporting the electrical transmission infrastructure to connect the energy from the turbines to the power grid. The impact on the Town of Springfield is not mentioned in the DEIS and the community was left out of the conversation, if indeed there was a conversation at all. In fact, it does not appear that the Towns of Stark and Warren are welcoming this project with open arms, either. A petition to stop the project has been signed by more than 200 citizens.

These actions suggest that New Leaf Energy and the supporters of the project locally planned to move the project along without significant community input. In our opinion, that is the wrong way to proceed. It is unethical, it is likely illegal (in the case of Springfield), and it decreases the likelihood of a successful project. We have always been proponents of Home Rule—which should not mean that local municipalities can control every aspect of development, but rather that those municipalities should be able to set guidelines for development that are reasonable, that are commensurate with the character of their communities, and that the communities be involved in decision-making about development. We urge New Leaf Energy to step back, engage with the communities and multiple towns involved, do more and better homework, and reconsider the plan.

In addition to their exclusion of important community stakeholders, there are other flaws in the New Leaf DEIS in the areas of wildlife, water management, human impact and historic preservation.

With regard to wildlife impact, the statement admits a likely impact on the northern harrier but does not propose a well-developed mitigation strategy. The data it provides for bald eagle mortality is based on national data and the local observational data seems inadequate.

The DEIS suggests that there could be an effect on the local water table when the supporting foundations and pads are installed—what are the plans for addressing this when it happens? The local agriculture and downstream waterways may be affected—both critical to the economy of the region.
The health and well-being of people in the surrounding areas may be impacted. Surely offering window curtains for the purpose of decreasing “flicker” effects on health and quality of life is inadequate. If such a project were to go forward, those people potentially affected should be involved in deciding mitigation strategies and appropriate compensation.

And finally, there is the question of the impact of this project on the historic nature of the region. While we recognize the urgency of reducing the consumption of fossil fuel and the potential benefit of renewable energy projects, how will these projects affect the historical significance of the area. The eastern viewshed (and its religious significance) from the Holy Trinity Russian Orthodox Monastery in Jordanville will be altered. The viewshed from Otsego Lake and the Glimmerglass National Register Historic District will be affected. We don’t know how that will change the desirability of any of this property or how it will affect the region’s economy. But once again, the people who live in the region and depend on that economy should have a voice. And if the project should proceed, the communities should be compensated. New Leaf Energy says that the residents of Stark will be able to purchase energy from them. That seems backwards to us—New Leaf Energy should be compensating those residents for the privilege of using the land.

Our world is facing an existential crisis related to climate change. Our region must contribute to the solution. Renewable energy projects will play a role in the solution (though they alone will not likely accomplish the goal of elimination of fossil fuel dependence). Preservation of forested areas for carbon sequestration will also play a crucial role. We welcome meaningful co-design and collaboration by governmental and industry leaders with our local communities to determine optimum development of renewable energy projects. There are costs associated with solutions to our climate crisis. Climate justice—environmental justice—demands that that cost be borne proportionately by all of us who have contributed to the crisis. Expecting rural communities to bear a heavier burden without representation in the decision-making is wrong.

James Dalton is president of the Otsego 2000 Board of Directors.