Courts have applied Seven County to limit the scope of judicial review and give more deference to the government in NEPA cases.
By Devin O’Connor, Janice Schneider, Stacey VanBelleghem, and Lia Barrett
On May 29, 2025, the US Supreme Court decided Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County1 (see this Latham blog post) which narrowed the scope of environmental review required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Now, a year later, we have seen
The reform mainly focuses on streamlining and narrowing the scope of environmental review at the federal level.
By Janice Schneider, Nikki Buffa, Devin O’Connor, and Kevin Homrighausen
On June 3, 2023, President Biden signed legislation implementing the bipartisan debt ceiling and budget agreement as the “Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023.” As part of this legislation, Congress agreed to several federal permitting reform measures, focused largely on amendments to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
NEPA requires federal agencies to consider the potential environmental impacts of discretionary major federal actions (e.g., including issuing permits and granting federal funding) before they are taken. As part of this analysis, agencies must evaluate alternatives to the proposed action and consider mitigation measures, and must provide an opportunity for public input. The scope and detail of NEPA review can affect the contours, timing, and ultimate outcome of federal decision-making and is frequently litigated by project opponents. The new amendments to NEPA in the Fiscal Responsibility Act draw substantially from other proposed legislation and regulatory amendments in recent years. These new provisions are designed to narrow the scope of federal actions that are subject to NEPA, consolidate NEPA review under a single “lead” agency, and impose time and page limits for environmental documents under NEPA, among other changes described below.
By Sara Orr, Daniel Brunton, Marc Campopiano and Andrea Hogan
On April 15, 2016, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) issued its Draft Midwest Wind Energy Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (Plan) and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) proposing a regional approach to Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance process in response to the growth of Midwestern wind energy development. The Plan is intended to streamline the incidental take permitting process for certain bird and bat species. Comments on the draft Plan and draft EIS are due on July 14, 2016.
Background
With its abundant wind resources, the American Midwest is an attractive region for renewable energy development. In addition to state and local permitting requirements, Midwestern wind energy facilities must also comply with federal natural resource laws, including ESA and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act). Under Section 10 of the ESA, the FWS may issue permits to authorize the “incidental take” of federally listed fish and wildlife, including bird and bat species potentially affected by wind energy development. “Incidental take” is defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. Likewise, under the Eagle Act, the FWS may issue a permit to authorize take of individual eagles and their nests.
By Paul Singarella, Claudia O’Brien, Marc Campopiano Daniel Brunton, Joshua Bledsoe, Lucas Quass, John Heintz, Joshua Marnitz and John Morris
On July 27, 2015, the US Department of the Interior, through its Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), proposed to revise regulations adopted under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) that govern surface coal mining and reclamation operations near surface streams (the Proposed Rule). According to the OSMRE, “[t]he primary purpose of this proposed rule is to reinforce the need to minimize the adverse impacts of surface coal mining operations on surface water, groundwater, fish, wildlife, and related environmental values, with particular emphasis on protecting or restoring streams and aquatic ecosystems.” OSMRE asserts widespread impacts including loss of headwater streams, long-term degradation of surface water quality downstream from mines, displacement of native species, compaction of postmining soils and watershed hydrology impacts. SMCRA requires OSMRE regulations to respect coal’s important place in the country’s energy portfolio. Whether this draft rule strikes a reasonable balance under SMCRA will be the subject of intense debate as this rulemaking proceeds.
The Proposed Rule would significantly alter OSMRE’s decades-old “Stream Buffer Zone” regulations, which nominally require a 100-foot buffer for mining operations along streams,[1] and would expand regulatory oversight in the coal industry. Along with the Proposed Rule, OSMRE has published a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA).
By Christopher Garrett & Daniel Brunton
On May 27, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the US Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) grant of a right-of-way over federal land for a road (the Road Project) for a wind energy project developed by North Sky River Energy, LLC (North Sky) on private land (the Wind Project).[1] On the facts before it, the court held that the Wind Project was neither a federal action nor