Opinion ID: 570498
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Need for a New EIS.

Text: 36 Plaintiffs-appellants' first contention, that a new EIS is required, does not present an independent basis for relief. The interchange and the overall project are connected for EIS purposes. Pertinent federal regulations define as connected, actions that [a]re interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(a)(1)(iii) (1990); see Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. v. Department of the Navy, 836 F.2d 760, 763 (2d Cir.1988). The Interchange project would not be undertaken but for the overall I-287 Project. Connected actions are properly the subject of a single EIS. See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(a)(1) (1990). Accordingly, there is no basis for an independent EIS for the Interchange. Rather, the post-1982 developments regarding the Interchange should be considered in terms of the need for an SEIS. We note in this regard that although the complaint in this case sought that either an EIS or SEIS be required, plaintiffs-appellants' briefs on appeal seek only that an SEIS be compelled. 37