By Rebecca Martin
Months have passed since the 20-day window to issue a Positive Declaration came and went, yet the Town of Ulster, acting as lead agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), has not made a formal determination on the Alcazar Battery Energy Storage Project (Terra-Gen). Instead of fulfilling its obligation to conduct a thorough and transparent review, the Town has continued to request additional studies from the developer, seemingly in an effort to justify a Negative Declaration. This approach undermines the purpose and spirit of SEQR, which is to ensure an impartial and comprehensive environmental review.
The SEQR review began prematurely, before the Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) was complete. Under SEQR, the lead agency is required to review the FEAF for completeness before circulating a Notice of Intent to act as lead agency. This includes identifying all involved agencies with discretionary decisions, such as permit approvals or PILOT agreements, to ensure they are properly included in a coordinated review. Failing to do so at the outset undermines the integrity of the entire process. The FEAF was ultimately resubmitted in June, following our May 28, 2025 blog post “From Fossil Fuel To Clean Energy: The Lithium-ion Battery Project in the Town of Ulster,” which exposed significant gaps and brought critical missing details to light.
Without a Positive Declaration, the current status of the Town of Ulster Town Board’s SEQR review remains unclear to the public. With each passing month, the Town has been working with the developer to obtain studies and information to address outstanding questions, however, much of this has occurred without public transparency or involvement.
As advocates, we can walk through the regulations to make the case for a Positive Declaration. We are returning to the resubmitted FEAF to identify at least one significant potential adverse environmental impact that should have triggered a Positive Declaration under SEQR and required a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) from the start. By reviewing the FEAF alongside SEQR regulations, we aim to show there is evidence to require a Positive Declaration and a full environmental review, despite the Town’s ongoing requests for additional studies and other efforts to move the project toward a Negative Declaration.
The significant potential impacts we have identified include, but are not limited to:
-
Potential conflicts with County plans to protect open space and farmland;
-
Potential impacts of emergency services relying solely on a volunteer fire department with limited capacity;
-
Residential housing located just 22 feet away, including vulnerable populations such as children, elders, and people with disabilities;
-
A NYSDEC-designated potential Environmental Justice area immediately adjacent to the project;
-
The need for a thorough analysis of alternatives to ensure the best environmental and operational outcomes (Alternative Site Analysis);
-
Potential impacts to wetlands, endangered species, impaired waterbodies like the Lower Esopus Creek, and historic resources.
To agencies responsible for permits or other discretionary decisions (such as deviated PILOT agreements), it is important that they have the opportunity to fully participate in the environmental review process, a right ensured by a Positive Declaration. Relying on a Negative Declaration issued by the Town may limit their ability to request additional studies or raise concerns later on without appearing to contradict the Town’s findings.
We urge the Town of Ulster to end decision-making behind closed doors and stop requesting studies without public input. The Town must comply with SEQRA by issuing a Positive Declaration and move forward with a full Environmental Impact Statement immediately.
###
Potential Significant Environmental Impacts vs. SEQRA Criteria and FEAF Page Reference
| Potential Impact | SEQRA Criteria (§617.7(c)) | FEAF Page |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Land use may conflict with Ulster County Open Space Plan and Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan | §617.7(c)(1)(iv)(viii) & (vi): Substantial change in land use including agricultural/open space and a major change in the use of either the quantity or type of energy | Page 2 |
| 2. Ulster County IDA and project (deviated) PILOT | PILOT agreements are included in the FEAF because they require approval from agencies like Industrial Development Agencies (IDAs), which have discretionary authority over the project. Since these financial incentives can influence whether a project proceeds, their approval is part of the environmental review to ensure all decisions affecting the project are fully considered under SEQR. | Page 2 |
| 3. Emergency services served by Spring Lake Volunteer Fire Department | §617.7(c)(1)(x): The creation of a material demand for other actions that would result in one of the above consequences (hazard to human health) | Page 3 |
| 4. Stormwater changes | §617.7(c)(1)(i): Increase in potential for erosion, flooding, or drainage issues | Page 5 |
| 5. Impacts to nearby waterbodies or wetlands | §617.7(c)(1)(i) and (iii): Impact on unique natural characteristics; wetlands | Page 5 |
| 6. New demands for water | §617.7(c)(1)(i): A substantial adverse change in ground or surface water quality | Page 5 |
| 7. Need for new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities | §617.7(c)(1)(i): Potential conflict with adopted infrastructure plans or unknown impacts | Page 6 |
| 8. New outdoor lighting and visual impacts | §617.7(c)(1)(ii): Impacts on a threatened or endangered species of animal or plant, or the habitat of such a species; or other significant adverse impacts to natural resources | Page 8 |
| 9. Proximity to housing (22 feet); vulnerable populations (children, elders, people with disabilities); | §617.7(c)(1)(vii): The creation of a hazard to human health | Page 10 |
| 10. Potential Environmental Justice areas within proximity of the project | Commissioner’s Policy 29 (CP-29) is a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) directive focused on Environmental Justice. It guides how the DEC incorporates Environmental Justice considerations into its decision-making and SEQRA reviews. CP-29 requires identifying if a project affects minority or low-income communities, assessing potential disproportionate environmental impacts, ensuring meaningful community involvement, and taking steps to avoid or mitigate those impacts. The policy promotes fair treatment and meaningful participation of all communities in environmental decisions. | Page 10 |
| 11. Impacts to Lower Esopus Creek, a state-designated impaired waterbody (not acknowledged in the application) | §617.7(c)(1)(i),(ii) & (iv): Impacts on significant water resources; drainage/water quality concerns | Page 11 |
| 12. Impacts to threatened or endangered species (Bald Eagles, Indiana Bat, Monarch Butterfly) | §617.7(c)(1)(ii): Impact on threatened or endangered species or habitat | Page 12 |
| 13. Impacts to a historic building or district | §617.7(c)(1)(v): Impact on historic or archaeological resources | Page 13 |
