A close reading of the documents behind Black Cherry Wind. Our commentary is critical; our factual claims should always be checkable.
INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY WATCH · RECORD REVIEW: OCTOBER 30, 2026
A record review, not a current-status certification.
These community-hosted copies of apparent original documents were reviewed on October 30, 2026. They have not been independently certified by the government custodian. Later amendments or decisions may exist. A source’s statement is attributed to its author; publishing it here does not make it a legal finding.
6 findings
RECORD / 01APPLICATIONS
A withdrawn application. A location still to explain.
Swift Current’s September 5 letter withdraws the MET A township application so the proposed location can be changed. That is a documented change in the developer’s own correspondence.
WHAT THE RECORD SAYS
The developer reports that the nearby well operator confirmed the well was operational. The letter describes a field inspection that found no material safety concerns and says a revised MET A submission is contemplated.
WHAT IT DOES NOT ESTABLISH
Withdrawal of this application does not establish cancellation of Black Cherry Wind, termination of every land agreement, or whether a later application was filed. A current replacement filing is needed to establish today’s location.
Question for public review: Where is the revised MET A application, and what location and engineering does it propose?
The well descriptions deserve a careful comparison.
The July MET A application’s wetland narrative describes nearby well and pump equipment as abandoned. In August, the developer identifies an active well roughly 178 feet from the proposed MET A site.
WHAT THE RECORD SAYS
The August response identifies well 083-53597 and discusses its permit and reported production. The September letter acknowledges an operating well nearby and states that the field inspection found no material safety concerns.
WHAT IT DOES NOT ESTABLISH
These descriptions have not been conclusively survey-matched here to the same physical feature. The records do not establish intentional deception, a regulatory violation, or a finding that the proposed tower was unsafe.
Question for public review: Will the developer provide a survey reconciliation of the well, equipment, proposed tower, and any revised location?
An easement released. A narrower fact than cancellation.
The McKean County recording cover identifies a release recorded July 24, 2026: instrument 202602331, Book 1115, page 193. The release concerns a specific 2024 MET easement.
WHAT THE RECORD SAYS
The document identifies Land Management Systems and Black Cherry Wind Power, LLC, and terminates the particular July 25, 2024 agreement. Its property materials identify Liberty Township and parcel 26-009-113.
WHAT IT DOES NOT ESTABLISH
The release does not establish that a tower was demolished, that every project lease ended, or that the entire wind proposal was canceled. It supplies no exact tower coordinates for our map.
Question for public review: What does this release change about the current development footprint and data-collection plan?
An FAA determination is specific to what was reviewed.
The September packet includes an FAA Determination of No Hazard for the specified MET B proposal: 197 feet above ground, ASN 2025-WTE-6831-OE.
WHAT THE RECORD SAYS
The attachment gives a favorable aviation determination with conditions and reports that military review identified no national-security risk for that proposal. The coordinates and height identify the proposal reviewed.
WHAT IT DOES NOT ESTABLISH
This finding is not a blanket approval for future wind turbines at other locations or heights. It also does not establish tower construction, a current township permit, or the outcome of any later proceeding.
Question for public review: What additional FAA and military-review records apply to the actual turbine design now proposed?
An email included in the August developer response says DEP does not regulate the distance of a new meteorological tower from an existing well.
WHAT THE RECORD SAYS
The email recommends safety practices, compliance with local requirements, and coordination with the well operator. The full correspondence gives the context for the agency’s response.
WHAT IT DOES NOT ESTABLISH
The email is not a site-specific engineering safety certification. Its description of DEP’s role does not remove requirements imposed by other authorities, and this site makes no finding that a requirement was violated.
Question for public review: Which site-specific engineering and operator-coordination records support the revised proposal?
A technical report should be clear about its own identity.
The THG packet displays project number 380-12350 in its executive summary and 1541-12350 in the letter and figures. A clarification would make the record easier to follow.
WHAT THE RECORD SAYS
The report describes a shallow abandoned-pipe interpretation and no evidence of vertical casings or other subsurface infrastructure within its stated survey buffer. It also explains the limitations of geophysical interpretation.
WHAT IT DOES NOT ESTABLISH
A numbering difference is not evidence of falsification. Favorable survey findings must be read alongside the report’s scope and limitations. The MET B survey does not resolve every issue at the separate MET A location.
Question for public review: Will the report author reconcile the project numbers and confirm which site and final revision the packet covers?
The developer discusses an active gas well near MET A. An attached DEP email explains the agency’s role and recommends safety practices and operator coordination.
The developer withdraws the MET A township application to change its location. The packet also includes the September 2 FAA determination for the specified MET B proposal.
The survey findings, interpretation limits, and differing project numbers in the report packet. The report’s scope should be read with its conclusions.