Renew 81 for All v. New York State Department of Transportation

A lawsuit filed in a New York trial court sought to annul approvals for the Interstate 81 Viaduct Project in Syracuse, New York. The project would demolish the existing viaduct running through the center of the city, de-designate a portion of I-81 as an interstate highway, and route freeway traffic through ground-level intersections. The petitioners charged that the respondents failed to properly evaluate or minimize additional greenhouse gas emissions that would be generated by traffic-related impacts in violation of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, the Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act, and the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA). The petition also alleged that consideration of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project’s construction and operation was inadequate and that the New York State Department of Transportation had failed to issue regulations to contribute to the CLCPA’s statewide greenhouse gas emissions emission limits. In addition, the petitioners alleged a violation of the New York Constitution’s Green Amendment based on the alleged failure to properly analyze the environmental impact of the project and the selection of an alternative with unmitigated adverse impacts.

The New York Appellate Division reversed a judgment requiring the New York State Department of Transportation to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) for the proposed reconfiguration of the viaduct portion of Interstate 81 in Syracuse. As an initial matter, the Fourth Department agreed with the petitioners’ position in their cross-appeal that the Supreme Court, Onondaga County erred by directing the respondents to prepare an SEIS instead of annulling the challenged approvals. On the merits, however, the appellate court agreed with the respondents that they had complied with their substantive obligations under SEQRA by taking a hard look at relevant environmental factors, including air quality and stormwater management, and making a reasoned elaboration for their determination. The Fourth Department said the degree of detail in which each factor was discussed was commensurate with the circumstances and nature of the project. The Fourth Department also found that the petitioners failed to establish a clear legal right to compel preparation of a SEIS to address anticipated development of a semiconductor manufacturing campus north of the project area, which was announced after the final environmental impact statement was completed. The Fourth Department said a lead agency’s determination of whether to prepare an SEIS was discretionary and found that to the extent DOT’s failure to respond to the request for an SEIS constituted a constructive denial, the denial was not arbitrary or capricious “in light of the absence of evidence in the record that sufficient concrete information on the anticipated semiconductor manufacturing campus project existed to permit effective review at that time.”