Lincoln Park Grid Support Center

READ: Town of Ulster’s Press Release “GlidePath to Submit Battery-Only Proposal for Lincoln Park Grid Support Storage Center in Ulster.”

READ: GlidePath’s Letter to the Town of Ulster with their new plans.

A controversial proposed power plant in the Town of Ulster will be re-sited and re-born as a renewable energy project, thanks to a partnership among many community groups and local governments.  Led by KingstonCitizens.org they include TownOfUlsterCitizens.org, Scenic Hudson, Citizens For Local Power, CAPP-NY, Catskill Mountainkeeper, Food and Water Watch, Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Kingston Land Trust, Riverkeeper, Sierra Club of the Mid-Hudson Valley, Sustainable Hudson Valley and the Woodstock Land Conservancy.  The coalition helped to guide the public through each step of the State Environmental Review Process (SEQR) throughout Glidepath’s Lincoln Park gas-fired power plant proposed in the Town of Ulster. Today, the partners respond to and celebrate the good news announced by the Town of Ulster: 

 

“I couldn’t be more grateful to our group of dedicated coalition partners for their collaborative efforts to transform a fossil fuel project into a renewable one. They worked tirelessly to provide support to not only the public but also our elected and appointed officials for the past 16 months. The innovative and forward thinking approach advocated by our elected officials – and especially our County Executive Mike Hein – will benefit the Town of Ulster and County for years to come and, more broadly, communities across New York State who can implement similar localized collaborative efforts.”

Rebecca Martin
Director and Lead Organizer
KingstonCitizens.org

 

“The announcement by GlidePath to withdraw its original plan and replace it with a battery storage facility is welcome news to our town’s citizens, this fracked-gas and diesel power plant would have doubled the Town of Ulster’s carbon footprint if the plant became operational, but their new proposal for a storage-only facility is a way to keep our local environment clean and preserve generated power which would otherwise be lost to the grid. GlidePath has considerable experience with battery-storage plants, but they had no experience with burning gas and diesel for electricity.  This project is more in line with the values of Ulster County’s commitment to renewable initiatives. TownOfUlsterCitizens.org participated in the SEQR process for over a year and suggested a battery-storage facility in another part of town as a viable alternative to the fossil-fuel plant. Understanding all the details of this battery storage facility, we fully support GlidePath’s revised project proposal.”

Laura Hartmann and Regis Obijiski
Co-Founders
TownOfUlsterCitizens.org

 

“Today’s announcement that Glidepath will be withdrawing its plans for a gas-fired power plant and instead focusing on clean, renewable power generation is great news for Ulster and the entire Hudson Valley. Moving away from polluting fossil fuel plants that contribute to climate change and investing in renewable energy is a win-win proposition. This victory is a testament to the power of citizen engagement–informed and determined community members led the charge in fighting this project, and won. We look forward to reviewing the details of GlidePath’s new proposal.”

Hayley Carlock
Director of Environmental Advocacy
Scenic Hudson

 

“We welcome GlidePath’s decision to withdraw its proposal for a gas-and diesel-fired ‘grid support system’ in the town of Ulster and to propose, in its place, an all-renewables project. The move is in keeping with GlidePath’s history, since in the past the company has built only projects that combine battery storage with renewables – a potentially game-changing development that makes it possible to use the stored electricity to even out the variation in renewable electricity generation and to decrease the need for expensive build-outs of the electrical grid. The decision is a good one for the Mid-Hudson Valley, thanks to the vigilance and vision of local citizen groups, environmentalists, and elected officials, and to the wisdom of the company in withdrawing a bad proposal and returning to its roots.”

Susan H. Gillespie
President of the Board
Citizens for Local Power

 

“This new proposal shows the power of engaged citizens to change the shape of a conversation, an environmental review, a proposed project, and indeed, our future. Every community should be seeking desirable projects from companies capable of providing renewable energy generation and storage, and every community should mount opposition to fossil fuel projects that pose unacceptable risks to our air and water. We look forward to reviewing this new proposal from GlidePath, which starts out on a much better foot and offers potential benefits to our local towns and region, while potentially strengthening our entire energy system.”

Dr. Kathleen Nolan
Senior Research Director
Catskill Mountainkeeper

 

“CAPPNY sees this as a great day for people who are committed to moving away from dependence on fossil fuel.  The change in GlidePath’s plans shows the power of ordinary people and what can be accomplished by the determination and collective action of  people standing up and working for a safe and just community. This is an important step toward complete reliance on renewable energy.”

Sue Rosenberg and William Barr
Organizers
CAPPNY

 

 

“Thanks to the work of dedicated community members, community groups, and environmental organizations GlidePath understands that Ulster County, and New York State need a renewable energy future now. Riverkeeper is encouraged that Glide Path is withdrawing its fossil fuel project, in favor of a renewable energy and battery storage proposal. We look forward to seeing the details and ensuring that any new project does not exacerbate climate change, or threaten public health or the Hudson River.”

Jessica Roff
Director, Advocacy and Engagement
Riverkeeper

 

“Democracy works, and technology is changing so fast that it makes sense for all parties to be taking a fresh look at the kind of project that is cost-effective today.  We applaud the progress, and the validation that renewable power is a cost-effective investment today.”

Melissa Everett, Ph.D.
Executive Director
Sustainable Hudson Valley

 

“Members of impacted communities came out to participate in deciding the future of our energy infrastructure, and GlidePath listened. Clearwater is grateful to GlidePath for rethinking their project and shifting away from our long-standing dependence on fossil fuel to using renewable energy with storage and efficiency.  Given the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report calling for ‘rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society’ to avoid disastrous levels of global warming — we must achieve 100% renewable energy generation by 2030.’ This is a huge step in the right direction.”

Greg Williams
Executive Director
Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.

 

“The Kingston Land Trust, as one of the coalition partners, has been a proponent of a more environmentally responsible operation as well as more conscientious sitting. We are so pleased to see this project moving in that direction, thanks to the work of dedicated citizens as well as a responsive company. We believe in the power of civic engagement to protect land and communities and we will continue to be active in this process as long as there is a need.”

Julia Farr
Executive Director
The Kingston Land Trust

 

“The Woodstock Land Conservancy commends GlidePath for listening to community concerns and stating their intention to withdraw their “Lincoln Park Grid Support Facility” application, in favor of a first in NYS-facility providing direct battery back-up, storage and grid support. We hope that the new proposal is a demonstration of Ulster County and New York State’s environmental and renewable energy and climate change leadership.  We owe great thanks to our coalition partners for their committed advocacy, and to County Executive Mike Hein for pursuing a thorough examination of the impacts of GlidePath’s initial proposal and pushing for a non-fossil fuel based alternative that does not contribute more greenhouse gas emissions, nor negatively impact the neighborhoods which surround it. And we additionally express our gratitude for the responsiveness of Supervisor Quigley and the Town of Ulster, for their work in facilitating this.”

Maxanne Resnick
Executive Director
Woodstock Land Conservancy

 

“The community has struck a blow against climate change by blocking GlidePath’s proposed fracked gas power plant.  New York needs to move off fossil fuels and rapidly shift to 100 percent renewable energy, and the company’s decision points us in the right direction. Governor Cuomo should take heed of this smart move and use his own authority to stop all new fossil fuel projects.”

Eric Weltman
Senior Organizer
Food & Water Watch

 

By Rebecca Martin

The Town of Lloyd Town Board (in Ulster County and “G” Zone) has scheduled a public hearing (Wednesday at 7pm) on a moratorium “on approvals for the construction, installation or use of, Fossil Fuel Power Plants within the Town.”

Here is the proposed local law enacting the moratorium VIEW

The moratorium in the Town of Lloyd, if adopted, would be the first community in the ‘G’ Zone to take such an action – and is a direct result of our webinar and hard efforts and teamwork of our wonderful coalition of partners. Thank you Town of Lloyd!  Let their example provide a model for all other potentially impacted communities to follow suit.

VIEW
The proposed Lincoln Park Grid Support Center Project Fact Sheet

WATCH
Our recent Webinar “Living in the “G” Zone: Peak Energy Plants and Zoning”

LEARN
How to update your zoning language to prepare for a possible fossil fuel power plant proposal in your community.

Today, over 25 residents gathered at a press conference organized by TownOfUlsterCitizens.org and Pat Strong, candidate for District 46 State Senate. The group met on Riesely Street in the Town of Ulster, a densely populated residential neighborhood and ‘ground zero’ for the proposed Lincoln Park Grid Support Center, a gas-fired fossil power plant project by GlidePath.

“Glidepath, a company from Illinois, who has never built a fossil fuel project, wants to come into our town, and build something we don’t want, we don’t need, and that gives us no benefits whatsoever.” said Laura Hartmann, one of the founding members of TownOfUlsterCitizens.org. “They come because they can get their emissions permits easier because of our clean air.  They come because of the financial incentive from NYS of $1.4 million before they even flip the on switch.”

Read more…

Last evening, the Town of Ulster Town Board met for their regular monthly meeting. Although Town of Ulster residents and coalition partners/professionals requested that a “…temporary moratorium be placed on power plants to allow time to review zoning” be added to the agenda prior to the Monday deadline at 4:00 pm of this week, the Town Board rejected their request.

Because the item was not placed on the agenda, the public – who filled the room – were made to wait until the end of the meeting to address the Town Board. Items on the agenda can be addressed by the public prior to the start of the meeting. Items not on the agenda can be addressed by the public at the end of regular business.

During the meeting (where the Town Board approved one negative declaration in SEQR after another on new build projects in the town), when inquiring citizens asked questions about projects that were being discussed, they were met with eye rolls and sneers by some of the developers, town board members and even the Supervisor himself, “…so you’re asking the town board to stop development…no I’m serious. What are you asking of the town board?”  (31:55 -34:14)

Incomplete segments of the public comment period were reported in today’s local paper, having left out important points that were made. Fortunately, you can review the audio from last evening as well as to tune into some of the key moments identified below.

 

 

40:51 -43:26
Laura Hartmann
Town of Ulster resident
TownOfUlsterCitizens.org

Submits 177 signatures from a letter submitted by residents of the Town of Ulster requesting that the Town Supervisor and Town Board publically state whether they consider the “GlidePath project a “Utility Company Structure” permitted as-of-right in the OM zone as GlidePath have been claiming and; That a growing number of ToU residents ask for a temporary moratorium on construction of power plants while it considers zoning that specifically regulates power plants.” When asked when/if the Town Board would comment or make a decision on these requests, Supervisor Quigley responded, “You’re making your comments to the town board, we acknowledge hearing you. Thank you.”

Read more…

Out ahead of this evening’s Public Forum (8/10/18) “Living In the “G” Zone: Glidepath, Peak Power and Ulster County“, coalition partners, who have been working together since November of 2017 to encourage a fully transparent, public process as it pertains to the proposed Lincoln Park Grid Support Center (a gas-fired power plant in the Town of Ulster, NY), have requested a temporary moratorium on the proposal for the Town of Ulster Town Board to give “…clarity on whether the Town of Ulster Zoning Code (the “Zoning Code”) currently regulates gas-fired power plants, and specifically request a statement as to how the Town is treating the proposed Lincoln Park Grid Support Center (the “Project”) under the Zoning Code.”

“In 2017, the Town proposed a temporary moratorium on the installation of freestanding or ground-mounted solar energy systems. The Town’s stated rationale for doing so was that solar energy facilities are “not currently regulated in the Town of Ulster Zoning Code.” Therefore, a solar power generation facility does not, in the Town’s view, constitute a “utility company structure”. As both solar facilities and gas-fired power plants generate electricity, and a solar facility would very likely have fewer negative impacts than a gas-fired power plant, it makes no sense that a gas-fired power plant would be considered a “utility company structure” while a commercial solar facility would not. Therefore, we request that the Town clarify that the proposed Project is not an as-of-right permitted use within the OM District in the Town.”

TownOfUlsterCitizens.org will deliver a copy of the letter with signatures from residents at the Town of Ulster’s next Town Board meeting on August 16th.

An action for communities who are vulnerable in the “G” Zone (living in an attainment area that includes upper Orange, Ulster, Dutchess and Greene counties) will be led through steps to encourage their municipalities to shore up their zoning for peak energy plants that are 25mw’s or less at tonight’s public forum.  All materials, including video from today’s event, will be provided as a tool kit to be shared.

Read more…

In April, we learned that in during the Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC) SEQR Scoping comments regarding the Lincoln Park Grid Support Center (a gas-fired peak energy power plant in the Town of Ulster), state officials wrote that “If the air data indicates that the project’s potential impact area includes the Potential Environment Justice Area (in the City of Kingston’s Rondout) the applicant will be required to incorporate environmental justice into the permitting process and prepare a public participation plan as described in the attached environmental justice fact sheet.”

In the DEC’s Commissioner Policy #29 Environmental Justice and Permitting, the “policy amends the DEC environmental permit process by identifying potential environmental justice areas; providing information on environmental justice to applicants with proposed projects in those communities; enhancing public participation requirements for proposed projects in those communities; establishing requirements for projects in potential environmental justice areas with the potential for at least one significant adverse environmental impact; and providing alternative dispute resolution opportunities to allow communities and project sponsors to resolve issues of concern to the community.”

In the the City of Kingston, there are two “Potential Environmental Justice Areas“. One in Uptown and in the Rondout, downwind of potential emissions produced by the gas-fired power plant that is being proposed.

It was reported that the other comments about the environmental review of the project from the state include:

1. Finding that the project is located within an area of potential historical or archeological significance and may have visual impacts on the Hudson River National Landmark Historic District.
2. Requesting an evaluation of whether the project is consistent with the state energy plan and suggested the developer consult with the state Department of Public Service.
3. Noting that the project site has the potential for a “high abundance and diversity of amphibians and other vernal pool associated wildlife.” State officials added that there are also potential impacts on habitat for the Northern Long-eared and Indiana bats due to planned tree removal.
4. A reminder that some of the property appears on federal wetlands maps and that the developer will need to conduct surveys to establish precise boundaries.

Since then, the City of Kingston has not heard another word on how the project sponsor intends to respond to the DEC’s request.  On Tuesday of this week, Mayor Steve Noble sent a letter to the DEC’s Region 3 Regional Director Kelly Turturro to follow-up.

” … I ask that the DEC send a written notice to the applicant requesting that it immediately commence compliance with the requirements of the Department’s Environmental Justice Policy, as specific in the Department’s March 20, 2018 Comments on the Draft Scope. The City of Kingston, in which the PEJA area is located, specifically requests that the Department direct the Applicant to prepare and submit an enhanced participation plan for review and approval, so that it can be implemented before the public comment on the DEIS is opened. In this way, the intent of the Commissioner’s Policy is honored, and Kingston’s identified environmental justice community will be provided with sufficient time, tools and the opportunity to clearly voice, and have their comments be considered, on the proposed Lincoln Park Grid Support Center. “

For today, you can reach out to our Mayor and thank him for taking a proactive approach on this. Without having done so, it isn’t clear whether or not the applicant would have complied.  This will most certainly help.

Send your thanks to:  mayor@kingston-ny.gov

We’ll follow-up as we learn more.

By Rebecca Martin

At last week’s Town of Ulster Workshop meeting, we learned that the Town of Ulster Town Board as Lead Agency did not submit the Final Scope to Glidepath (the applicant) to make the April 2nd deadline.  What happened?

DEC Requests Additional Air Quality Review and Comments.

In the DEC’s Commissioner Policy #29 Environmental Justice and Permitting, the “policy amends the DEC environmental permit process by identifying potential environmental justice areas; providing information on environmental justice to applicants with proposed projects in those communities; enhancing public participation requirements for proposed projects in those communities; establishing requirements for projects in potential environmental justice areas with the potential for at least one significant adverse environmental impact; and providing alternative dispute resolution opportunities to allow communities and project sponsors to resolve issues of concern to the community.”

City of Kingston’s Got Skin in the Game.

In the the City of Kingston, there are two “Potential Environmental Justice Areas“. One in Uptown and in the Rondout, downwind of potential emissions produced by the gas-fired power plant that is being proposed.

“If the air data indicates that the project’s potential impact area includes the Potential Environment Justice Area the applicant will be required to incorporate environmental justice into the permitting process and prepare a public participation plan as described in the attached environmental justice fact sheet.” state officials wrote.

In the Daily Freeman, it was reported that the other comments about the environmental review of the project from the state include:

1. Finding that the project is located within an area of potential historical or archeological significance and may have visual impacts on the Hudson River National Landmark Historic District.
2. Requesting an evaluation of whether the project is consistent with the state energy plan and suggested the developer consult with the state Department of Public Service.
3. Noting that the project site has the potential for a “high abundance and diversity of amphibians and other vernal pool associated wildlife.” State officials added that there are also potential impacts on habitat for the Northern Long-eared and Indiana bats due to planned tree removal.
4. A reminder that some of the property appears on federal wetlands maps and that the developer will need to conduct surveys to establish precise boundaries.

DAILY FREEMAN  “Town of Ulster gets Two additional weeks to frame review of proposed electric generator”

 

Rescheduled Balloon Tests Monday, April 9th at 8:00am.

“Town of Ulster Supervisor James Quigley noted “that developers have agreed to find a way to conduct balloon tests that will accurately reflect the proposed height of emission stacks for the project. Tests attempted on Thursday were aborted early because balloons were popping when blown into trees, with the balloons that were seen above the tree line actually flown at 128 feet instead of the anticipated 100-foot height of planned stacks.”  (Daily Freeman)

In a letter submitted to the Town of Ulster alerting the town of rescheduled Balloon Tests:

The Project sponsors plan to fly a five (5) foot diameter weather balloon at a height of 80 feet to simulate the height of the exhaust stack of the proposed Lincoln Park Grid Support Center. The balloon flight is tentatively scheduled for Monday April 9^th at 8AM and is weather dependent.   If winds or weather conditions are not favorable, this work will be rescheduled.  It is anticipated that a red balloon will be flown at 80 feet and a yellow spotter balloon at 100 or 120 feet- all subject to field conditions.

This work will aid the Town in evaluating the potential visual impacts of the proposed facility located on property located between Frank Sottile Boulevard and Miron Lane.  The site is identified on Town of Ulster Tax Map as Section 48.12 Block 1 Lot 20, Section 48.16 Block 1 Lot 1, and Section 48.16 Block 1 Lot 2.210. 

Once the balloon is up, it will remain aloft for approximately two hours (again subject to weather conditions) to allow project representatives to photograph the balloon from sites within a five (5) mile radius of the site.

Receptors for visual analysis include the following locations based on the draft scope and a public document. One of our coalition partners, Scenic Hudson, suggests that members of the public near the following locations at the time of the balloon tests to please take and submit photos and impressions to rebecca@kingstoncitizens.org

• View from Hudson Valley Mall on Frank Sottile Boulevard;
  • Not sure where the best place would be.
• View from westbound lane of the Kingston Rhinecliff Bridge;
  • Cannot stop on the bridge. Maybe the consultants have obtained permission.
• View from Tivoli Bay State Unique Area;
  • Suggested Poet’s Walk Park instead.
• View from Dutchess County Route 103 in vicinity of Ryan Road;
  • Not sure if Ryan Road is the best spot. May be too far south.
• View from Lucas Avenue near Town-City boundary;
  • This is too far. Only the plume would be an issue.
• View from NYS Route 209 in the vicinity of NYS Route 28;
  • Possibly relevant. Plume would certainly be an issueÂ
• View from eastern shore of Hudson River looking toward project site;
  • Rhinecliff waterfront park is the most likely location. Unless they drive north along the RR. Scenic Hudson will cover this
• View from Van Kleeck Lane (Between Quail Dr. and Ledge Road)
  • Important location. Residents should be aware. Scenic Hudson will also check.
• Other critical receptors identified during balloon test;
  • We should all be looking for the balloons from important places in the community
• Other locations of significance;
  • Poet’s Walk Park
    • Scenic Hudson will be there
  • Ferncliff Fire Tower
    • Scenic Hudson will be there

By Rebecca Martin

Today, the Final Scope is due to be delivered to the applicant (GlidePath) by the Lead Agency (Town of Ulster Town Board) in the proposed Lincoln Park Grid Support Center, a gas-fired power plant in the Town of Ulster.  Hundreds of comments were submitted over the course of 50 days, and we anticipate a copy of the Final Scope to review and to share to our readers when we do.

In the meantime, here is a 30,000-foot view of the next steps in the SEQR process to help citizens to plan.  We, of course, will continue to break each step down to the best of our ability as they occur.

 

NEXT STEPS IN SEQR
The proposed Lincoln Park Grid Support Center, a gas-fired power plant in the Town of Ulster

REVIEW: Follow along and learn more detail by reading “The SEQR Handbook”

 

1. FINAL SCOPE.  The Final Scope is created by the Lead Agency to be delivered to the applicant, Involved Agencies and the public on Monday, April 2nd, 2018.

At the Lead Agency’s discretion, comments that were submitted during the Draft Scope public comment period (February 1 – March 22) may be found in the Final Scope.

What if my comments are not represented in the Final Scope?

Commenters can submit a written statement of anything missing from the Final Scope to the Lead Agency. At the applicant’s discretion, they may be included in the DEIS.

 

2. DEIS (Draft Environmental Impact Statement) is released.  The DEIS is the “primary source of environmental information to help involved agencies consider environmental concerns in making decisions about a proposed action. The draft also provides a basis for public review of, and comment on, an action’s potential environmental effects. The DEIS accomplishes those goals by examining the nature and extent of identified potential environmental impacts of an action, as well as steps that could be taken to avoid or minimize adverse impacts.”

• The DEIS is based on the Final Scope and prepared by the applicant.
• There is no set time-frame for when the DEIS is delivered to the Lead Agency.
• Once the DEIS is released to the Lead Agency, they will have forty-five (45) days to determine its adequacy before either releasing it to the public or returning it to the applicant for further review.

If the Lead Agency Deems the DEIS as INADEQUATE: 

If the Lead Agency determines any part of the DEIS as inadequate, it is sent back to the applicant, “…specifying the reasons for its unacceptability.”

• There is no time-frame for when it is to be further revised and returned to the Lead Agency.
• Upon its return, the Lead Agency has thirty (30) days to review the resubmitted DEIS to again determine whether or not it is adequate. There is no maximum time, however, for public comment and Lead Agency consideration of the DEIS.
• “The SEQR regulations place no limit on rejections of a submitted draft EIS, other than requiring that the lead agency must identify the deficiencies in writing to the project sponsor” 

If the Lead Agency Deems the DEIS as ADEQUATE:

The Lead Agency must prepare and file a “Notice of Completion” to announce that it has accepted the DEIS and open the public review and comment period. A copy of the DEIS, must be filed with the appropriate DEC regional office, and with the involved agencies.

• The minimum public review period is thirty (30) days calculated from the filing date of the “Notice of Completion”.

What can the public request once the DEIS is released?   

“The public may request a longer public comment period at this time as well as a public hearing, although public hearings are optional under SEQR.  Lead Agency determines public hearings according to SEQR in the following ways.

• The degree of interest in the action shown by the public or involved agencies;
• Whether substantive or significant environmental issues have been raised;
• The adequacy of the mitigation measures proposed;
• The extent of alternatives considered; and
• The degree to which a public hearing can aid the agency decision-making process by providing an efficient mechanism for the collection of public comments.

In addition, in determining whether to hold a SEQR hearing, the lead agency should consider if there is a need for:

• An opportunity for broader public disclosure;
• Solicitation of important and informative comment by certain interest groups, technical specialists, or community representatives; or
• An opportunity for a project sponsor to briefly discuss the project and DEIS.”

3. FEIS (Final Environmental Impact Statement).  “The Lead Agency is responsible for the adequacy and accuracy of the FEIS.  The applicant may be requested to prepare draft responses to some or all of the substantive comments received on a DEIS. However, Lead Agency must still review any responses prepared by the applicant to ensure that the analyses and conclusions accurately represent the lead agency’s assessment. The Lead Agency may need to edit a sponsor’s draft responses. The Lead Agency may also consult with other involved agencies, or with outside consultants, but this in no way reduces the responsibility of the Lead Agency for the final product.”

SEQR does not require a public hearing or comment period on the FEIS.  “Interested parties or agencies may choose to submit comments on a final EIS to clarify points made earlier, or to identify comments that have not been satisfactorily responded to in the final EIS. These comments could influence the lead agency, or other involved agencies, in making findings and taking final actions.”

There is such a thing as a “supplemental EIS” that “provides an analysis of one or more significant adverse environment impacts which were not addressed, or inadequately addressed, in a draft or final EIS. A supplemental EIS may also be required to analyze the site-specific effects of an action previously discussed in a generic EIS.”  This is nothing to pay mind to now, but if necessary, it is a tool for further study.

4.  FINDINGS.   The preparation of written SEQR findings is required by the SEQR regulations for any action that has been the subject of a FEIS and are made by ALL Involved Agencies.

“A findings statement is a written document, prepared following acceptance of a FEIS, which declares that all SEQR requirements for making decisions on an action have been met. The findings statement identifies the social and economic, as well as environmental, considerations that have been weighed in making a decision to approve or disapprove an action.”

When the action is not approved.

If the action cannot be approved based on analyses in the FEIS, a negative findings statement must be prepared, documenting the reasons for the denial.

When the action is approved. 

“A positive findings statement means that, after consideration of the FEIS, the project or action can be approved, and the action chosen is the one that minimizes or avoids environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable. For an action which can be approved, an agency’s findings statement must articulate that agency’s balancing of adverse environmental impacts against the needs for and benefits of the action.

Each involved agency, not only the lead agency, must prepare its own SEQR findings following acceptance of a FEIS. Findings provide “the teeth” in the SEQR process because they articulate the basis for substantive aspects of each agency’s decision, including supporting any conditions to be imposed by the agency. Whether findings support approval or denial of an action, the agency’s reasoning must be stated in the form of facts and conclusions that are derived from the FEIS.”

When findings differ between Involved Agencies.

“Agencies involved in the same action may have entirely different findings. This can result from agencies’ differing balancing of environmental with social and economic factors, as well as from fundamental differences among agencies’ underlying jurisdictions. An involved agency is not obligated to make the same findings as the lead agency or any other involved agency. However, findings must be based on, and related to, information in the EIS record. If one agency prepares positive findings, and another prepares negative findings, the action cannot go forward unless the conflict is resolved.”