Four Nondisclosure Requests. Eleven Redacted Filings. When Do Residents Get to See the Full Picture?
Azalea Wind's state docket now lists four nondisclosure requests and eleven documents labeled redacted. Some redactions may protect sensitive wildlife locations, but residents can still reasonably ask what is being withheld, why study areas changed, and whether meaningful public context can be provided without disclosing sensitive coordinates.
Source note: based on the 25 public filings listed in the NYS DPS docket for Matter 26-00025 as reviewed on July 19, 2026. The count of eleven redacted filings refers to public docket filenames or titles containing the word "Redacted." The July 16 nondisclosure form identifies trade secret as the selected basis; its accompanying records-access letter also states that certain information is confidential because it is either a trade secret or may indicate the location of threatened and endangered species.
On July 16, Azalea Wind filed revised wildlife study areas for its proposed 100 MW wind project in Hector and Catharine. The public version is labeled "REDACTED."
Azalea Wind also submitted another formal Request for Nondisclosure. The July 16 request form selects trade secret as the basis for confidentiality. An accompanying letter to the state Records Access Officer says certain information in the revised Wildlife Site Characterization Memorandum is confidential because it is either a trade secret or may provide the potential location of threatened and endangered species.
Protecting sensitive wildlife locations can be legitimate. Nobody is asking the state to publish information that could put protected species at risk. But trade secret is a broader claim, and this is not the first time Azalea Wind has asked to keep project information from the public.
This is now a pattern. The official state docket currently contains four separate nondisclosure requests filed by Azalea Wind: January 6, March 12, June 4, and July 16.
The docket also contains eleven documents with filenames or titles identifying them as redacted. Those filings cover wildlife site characterization, breeding bird and marsh bird study materials, listed-species records, bald eagles, aquatic and terrestrial features, recommended survey points, and revised wildlife study areas.
Some redactions may be necessary. That does not answer the larger question: Why are residents being shown so little about a project that could affect so much?
The proposed project could affect roads, land, wildlife, views, noise, construction traffic, and communities across Hector and Catharine. Yet residents are repeatedly being given documents with information removed while the applicant asks the state to keep complete versions confidential.
Residents do not need sensitive wildlife coordinates. They do need enough information to understand what is being studied, what has changed, and how this project could affect their towns.
A more transparent public record could distinguish between information withheld to protect wildlife and information withheld as a trade secret. It could also explain changes to study areas and provide meaningful non-sensitive summaries while omitting precise locations that should remain protected.
Questions residents can reasonably ask
- What information is being withheld as a trade secret?
- What information is being withheld specifically to protect wildlife locations?
- Why did the wildlife study areas change?
- Could sensitive coordinates be removed while still giving residents a meaningful understanding of the project?
- Has the state independently reviewed each confidentiality claim?