Ethanol in the Finger Lakes?

Is it good for the environment? Is it good for the economy? Is it good for the residents of Seneca County? Give us an Environmental Impact Statement, and we'll give you our answer!!

Thursday, April 3, 2008

Our Letter to the Seneca County Board of Supervisors

March 25, 2008

To the Seneca County Board of Supervisors:

As you know, there has been a great deal of concern among residents of Seneca County and throughout the larger Finger Lakes area that the Seneca County IDA, in its role as “lead agency” for a proposed ethanol plant at the Seneca Army Depot, has allowed it to go forward without a full environmental review. One would have a hard time finding any expert on SEQR--- the State Environmental Quality Review law---who would defend their decision allowing the project to proceed without an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The only defenders of this “Negative Declaration” are the SCIDA themselves, their legal counsel, and individuals with a financial interest in Empire Green Biofuels.

Recently, a number of municipalities around the Finger Lakes have adopted or are considering resolutions requesting that the SCIDA rescind its Negative Declaration and instead produce an EIS, as they should have done from the start. The original environmental review was so incomplete and full of errors that now even the SCIDA barely tries to defend it. Instead, they are now claiming in public and in the press that it is too late for them to correct their errors, and that they can no longer legally rescind the Negative Declaration. This is simply not true, no matter how many times they repeat it.

New York’s SEQR law specifically states that under certain circumstances, a lead agency not only can, but must rescind a Negative Declaration, regardless of time elapsed. These include situations where changes are proposed for a project, new information is discovered, or changes in circumstances arise which were not previously considered. In fact, all of these conditions apply. The following are a few of the issues which have arisen since the Negative Declaration was issued on February 8, 2007, and which require that the SCIDA reconsider its decision:

1) The Department of Environmental Conservation has designated an additional 2100 acres of protected wetlands at the Depot site, which were not previously considered. This includes acreage on the plant site itself, and also a substantial proportion of the 4500 acres which the ethanol developers have indicated they need for biomass production.

2) A number of projects directly related to the ethanol plant, whose environmental impacts were not previously considered, were added to the scope of the project. These include major work to the railroad, and new uses of lands which are proposed to be shared with the ethanol facility. These cumulative impacts must be considered. In addition, the scope of a critical Wildlife Management Plan for the Depot was only determined after the issuance of the Negative Declaration. This fact alone should have triggered a rescission.

3) It has now become clear that there are major indirect impacts from the plant which should have been considered. The project developers have admitted in their public presentations (which took place after the issuance of the Negative Declaration) that there will be increased local corn production as a result of the plant, and that large amounts of “distiller’s grains” created as a by-product will almost certainly result in new animal feedlots or “CAFOs”. This will have major environmental impacts to the area, both in terms of water contamination and quality of life (see attached information). None of this was considered during the SCIDA’s environmental review.

4) On February 12, 2008, the Authority Budget Office, which monitors IDAs around New York State, issued a report of its investigation of the SCIDA. They found shocking irregularities in the SCIDA’s procedures, including numerous conflicts of interest, and failures to make required disclosures of their internal financial dealings. It is no secret that there are personal connections between members of the SCIDA and Empire Green Biofuels which should have been disclosed, but were not. The response of the SCIDA has simply been that they are free to ignore state ethics laws, which their counsel refers to as mere “aspirational goals”. This position is not shared by state officials, who continue to be concerned by the conduct of the SCIDA. (The full report is available at this link.)

Seneca County has received a great deal of negative publicity in the region as a result of scandals in the Sheriff’s Department and elsewhere. Does the county really wish to invite more negative attention by continuing to support a process which was clearly flawed, and which has been tainted by questions of ethics and conflicts of interest? The actions of the SCIDA are a reflection on Board of Supervisors. It is for you to decide whether you stand for the interests of the public as a whole, or just those of a few well-connected individuals. We ask the Board to request that the SCIDA rescind its negative declaration as required by law, and require an Environmental Impact Statement so that the true impacts of this project can finally be assessed.

Sincerely,

Members, Finger Lakes Future Alliance

Posted by Finger Lakes Future Alliance

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Sign our Petition for an EIS

October 22, 2007

Our position from the beginning has been that the ethanol plant project in Seneca County needs an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The more we learn about this project, the more we realize just how essential this is.

The Seneca County Industrial Development Agency (SCIDA) sees its main role as promoting industrial development---especially industrial development that benefits members of the SCIDA themselves, their family members, and their friends and business associates. However, when the SCIDA saw to it they they were named "lead agency" under SEQRA, New York's environmental review law, they took on a legal obligation to defend the public by making sure any negative environmental impacts were identified and studied.

They have shown little interest in doing that. Despite overwhelming evidence that there would be huge environmental impacts, they issued a "negative declaration", and refused to require an EIS. In effect, they gave a free pass to a huge project with enormous giveaways of public lands and taxpayer funds. It would destroy a sensitive ecosystem and degrade air and water quality. There is little evidence that this project would benefit the public in any way. But there is overwhelming evidence that there would be serious negative consequences to the public.

But it's not too late.

Under the SEQRA law, the lead agency is not just permitted, but OBLIGATED, to rescind a negative declaration when it becomes clear that the scope of the project has changed, or new information has come to light. Both of those conditions clearly apply. The project as it is now discussed is different in many respects from the preliminary documents presented by the developers, which were used as a basis for the negative declaration. These documents were full of omissions and misrepresentations.

Will the IDA do its duty and rescind the negative declaration, and now require an EIS?

Maybe---but only if we hold their feet to the fire, and hold our public officials accountable.

That's where the petitions come in. Let it be known that we demand that the IDA do its duty and RESCIND THE NEGDEC!! We need an EIS for this project!

SIGN OUR PETITION:

There are two ways to express your support for Finger Lakes Future, and demand that the IDA do the right thing and REQUIRE AN EIS :

1) Click here to sign our petition on the Care2 website.

or

2) Email us at fingerlakesfuture@gmail.com and we'll add your name to our petition. Or, if you prefer, we'll send you a pdf of our petition, suitable for gathering written signatures.