What did the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County case require from federal agencies regarding NEPA review?

The Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County case focused on the necessity for federal agencies to appropriately define the scope of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The court emphasized that the agencies must take into account the extent of the proposed project, its potential environmental impacts, and the reasonable alternatives to the project when determining the scope of their NEPA reviews.

Defining the scope is crucial because it establishes the parameters within which the federal agency must operate and assess environmental impacts. A narrowly defined scope could lead to overlooking significant environmental concerns, while an overly broad scope might complicate the review process and could potentially overwhelm the analysis with irrelevant factors.

Addressing the scope also sets the groundwork for the specific environmental issues that must be investigated, guiding the entire NEPA review process. This requirement ensures that all relevant data and perspectives are considered, promoting informed decision-making and fostering public involvement in the environmental review process.