This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-14-370 
entitled 'National Environmental Policy Act: Little Information Exists 
on NEPA Analyses' which was released on April 15, 2014. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

April 2014: 

National Environmental Policy Act: 

Little Information Exists on NEPA Analyses: 

GAO-14-370: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-14-370, a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

NEPA requires all federal agencies to evaluate the potential 
environmental effects of proposed projects—-such as roads or bridges—-
on the human environment. Agencies prepare an EIS when a project will 
have a potentially significant impact on the environment. They may 
prepare an EA to determine whether a project will have a significant 
potential impact. If a project fits within a category of activities 
determined to have no significant impact—-a CE—-then an EA or an EIS 
is generally not necessary. The adequacy of these analyses has been a 
focus of litigation. 

GAO was asked to review various issues associated with completing NEPA 
analyses. This report describes information on the (1) number and type 
of NEPA analyses, (2) costs and benefits of completing those analyses, 
and (3) frequency and outcomes of related litigation. GAO included 
available information on both costs and benefits to be consistent with 
standard economic principles for evaluating federal programs, and 
selected the Departments of Defense, Energy, the Interior, and 
Transportation, and the USDA Forest Service for analysis because they 
generally complete the most NEPA analyses. GAO reviewed documents and 
interviewed individuals from federal agencies, academia, and 
professional groups with expertise in NEPA analyses and litigation. 
GAO's findings are not generalizable to agencies other than those 
selected. 

What GAO Found: 

Governmentwide data on the number and type of most National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses are not readily available, as 
data collection efforts vary by agency. NEPA generally requires 
federal agencies to evaluate the potential environmental effects of 
actions they propose to carry out, fund, or approve (e.g., by permit) 
by preparing analyses of different comprehensiveness depending on the 
significance of a proposed project's effects on the environment—from 
the most detailed Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) to the less 
comprehensive Environmental Assessments (EA) and Categorical 
Exclusions (CE). Agencies do not routinely track the number of EAs or 
CEs, but the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)-—the entity within 
the Executive Office of the President that oversees NEPA 
implementation-—estimates that about 95 percent of NEPA analyses are 
CEs, less than 5 percent are EAs, and less than 1 percent are EISs. 
Projects requiring an EIS are a small portion of all projects but are 
likely to be high-profile, complex, and expensive. The Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) maintains governmentwide information on EISs. 

A 2011 Congressional Research Service report noted that determining 
the total number of federal actions subject to NEPA is difficult, 
since most agencies track only the number of actions requiring an EIS.
Little information exists on the costs and benefits of completing NEPA 
analyses. Agencies do not routinely track the cost of completing NEPA 
analyses, and there is no governmentwide mechanism to do so, according 
to officials from CEQ, EPA, and other agencies GAO reviewed. However, 
the Department of Energy (DOE) tracks limited cost data associated 
with NEPA analyses. DOE officials told GAO that they track the money 
the agency pays to contractors to conduct NEPA analyses. According to 
DOE data, its median EIS contractor cost for calendar years 2003 
through 2012 was $1.4 million. For context, a 2003 task force report 
to CEQ—the only available source of governmentwide cost estimates—
estimated that a typical EIS cost from $250,000 to $2 million. EAs and 
CEs generally cost less than EISs, according to CEQ and federal 
agencies. Information on the benefits of completing NEPA analyses is 
largely qualitative. According to studies and agency officials, some 
of the qualitative benefits of NEPA include its role in encouraging 
public participation and in discovering and addressing project design 
problems that could be more costly in the long run. Complicating the 
determination of costs and benefits, agency activities under NEPA are 
hard to separate from other required environmental analyses under 
federal laws such as the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water 
Act; executive orders; agency guidance; and state and local laws. 

Some information is available on the frequency and outcome of NEPA 
litigation. Agency data, interviews with agency officials, and 
available studies show that most NEPA analyses do not result in 
litigation, although the impact of litigation could be substantial if 
a single lawsuit affects numerous federal decisions or actions in 
several states. In 2011, the most recent data available, CEQ reported 
94 NEPA cases filed, down from the average of 129 cases filed per year 
from calendar year 2001 through calendar year 2008. The federal 
government prevails in most NEPA litigation, according to CEQ and 
legal studies. 

What GAO Recommends: 

This report has no recommendations. GAO provided a draft to CEQ and 
agency officials for review and comment, and they generally agreed 
with GAO's findings. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-370]. For more 
information, contact Anne-Marie Fennell at (202) 512-3841 or 
fennella@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Data on the Number and Type of Most NEPA Analyses Are Not Readily 
Available: 

Little Information Exists on the Costs and Benefits of Completing NEPA 
Analyses: 

Some Information Is Available on the Frequency and Outcome of NEPA 
Litigation: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Summary of Federal NEPA Data Collection Efforts: 

Appendix III: CEQ NEPA Time Frame Guidelines: 

Appendix IV: Sources of NEPA Litigation Data: 

Appendix V: Comments from the Council on Environmental Quality: 

Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Number of Environmental Impact Statements from EPA, CEQ, and 
NAEP, 2008 through 2012: 

Table 2: Number of Environmental Impact Statements by Agency as 
Reported by National Association of Environmental Professionals 
(NAEP), 2008 through 2012: 

Figure: 

Figure 1: Process for Implementing National Environmental Policy Act 
Requirements: 

Abbreviations: 

BLM: Bureau of Land Management: 

CE: Categorical Exclusion: 

CEQ: Council on Environmental Quality: 

CRS: Congressional Research Service: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

DOE: Department of Energy: 

DOT: Department of Transportation: 

eMNEPA: electronic Management of NEPA: 

EA: Environmental Assessment: 

EIS: Environmental Impact Statement: 

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency: 

FHWA: Federal Highway Administration: 

NAEP: National Association of Environmental Professionals: 

NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act: 

PAPAI: Project and Program Action Information: 

PEPC: Planning, Environment, and Public Comment: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO:
441 G St. N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

April 15, 2014: 

The Honorable Peter DeFazio: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Natural Resources: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Edward Markey: 
United States Senate: 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)--the statute requiring 
federal agencies to evaluate the potential environmental effects of 
proposed projects on the human environment--has been identified by 
critics as a cause of delay for projects because of time-consuming 
requirements and praised by proponents for, among other things, 
bringing public participation into government decision making. 
[Footnote 1] Under NEPA, all federal agencies generally are to 
evaluate the potential environmental effects of actions they propose 
to carry out, fund, or approve (e.g., by permit)--including the 
development of infrastructure projects, such as roads and bridges. 
Enacted in 1970, NEPA, and the subsequent Council on Environmental 
Quality Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA, 
set out an environmental review process that has two principal 
purposes: (1) to ensure that an agency carefully considers information 
concerning the potential environmental effects of proposed development 
projects and (2) to ensure that this information is made available to 
the public.[Footnote 2] NEPA requires federal agencies to analyze the 
nature and extent of a project's potential environmental effects and, 
in many cases, document these analyses.[Footnote 3] The documentation 
and comprehensiveness of these analyses depends on the significance of 
a project's potential effects on the environment. The adequacy of NEPA 
analyses has been a focus of litigation. You asked us to review 
various issues associated with completing NEPA analyses. This report 
describes information on the (1) number and type of NEPA analyses, (2) 
costs and benefits of completing those analyses, and (3) frequency and 
outcomes of related litigation. We included available information on 
both costs and benefits to be consistent with standard economic 
principles for evaluating federal programs and generally accepted 
government auditing standards. 

To respond to these objectives, we reviewed relevant publications, 
obtained documents and analyses from federal agencies, and interviewed 
federal officials and individuals from academia and professional 
associations with expertise in conducting NEPA analyses. Specifically, 
to describe the number and type of NEPA analyses from calendar year 
2008 through calendar year 2012 and what is known about the costs and 
benefits of NEPA analyses, we reported information identified through 
the literature review, interviews, and other sources. We selected the 
Departments of Defense, Energy, the Interior, and Transportation; and 
the Forest Service within the U.S. Department of Agriculture for 
analysis because they generally complete the most NEPA analyses. Our 
findings for these agencies are not generalizable to other federal 
agencies but provide examples of NEPA implementation. To describe the 
frequency and outcome of NEPA litigation, we reviewed (1) laws, 
regulations, and agency guidance; (2) NEPA litigation data collected 
from federal entities and the National Association of Environmental 
Professionals (NAEP), the professional association for NEPA 
practitioners within and outside the federal government; and (3) 
relevant studies. To assess the reliability of data collected from the 
selected agencies, we reviewed existing documentation when available 
and interviewed officials, including those from the U.S. Department of 
Justice, knowledgeable about the data. We found all data to be 
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. See appendix I 
for additional details on our objectives, scope, and methodology. 

We conducted this performance audit from June 2013 to April 2014 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Background: 

Under NEPA, federal agencies generally are to evaluate the likely 
environmental effects of projects they are proposing by preparing 
either an Environmental Assessment (EA) or a more detailed 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), assuming no Categorical 
Exclusion (CE) applies. Agencies may prepare an EA to determine 
whether a proposed project is expected to have a potentially 
significant impact on the human environment.[Footnote 4] If prior to 
or during the development of an EA, the agency determines that the 
project may cause significant environmental impacts, an EIS should be 
prepared. However, if the agency, in its EA, determines there are no 
significant impacts from the proposed project or action, then it is to 
prepare a document--a Finding of No Significant Impact--that presents 
the reasons why the agency has concluded that no significant 
environmental impacts will occur if the project is implemented. An EIS 
is a more detailed statement than an EA, and NEPA implementing 
regulations specify requirements and procedures--such as providing the 
public with an opportunity to comment on the draft document--
applicable to the EIS process that are not mandated for EAs.[Footnote 
5] 

If a proposed project fits within a category of activities that an 
agency has already determined normally does not have the potential for 
significant environmental impacts--a CE--and the agency has 
established that category of activities in its NEPA implementing 
procedures, then it generally need not prepare an EA or EIS.[Footnote 
6] The agency may instead approve projects that fit within the 
relevant category by using one of its established CEs. For example, 
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) within the Department of the 
Interior (Interior) has CEs in place for numerous types of activities, 
such as constructing nesting platforms for wild birds and constructing 
snow fences for safety. For a project to be approved using a CE, the 
agency must determine whether any extraordinary circumstances exist in 
which a normally excluded action may have a significant effect. Figure 
1 illustrates the general process for implementing NEPA requirements. 

Figure 1: Process for Implementing National Environmental Policy Act 
Requirements: 

[Refer to PDF for image: process map] 

Proposed action (e.g., road maintenance): 

1. Does a categorical exclusion exist for the proposed action? 
If yes, go to #2; 
If no, go to #3. 

2. Are there extraordinary circumstances? 
If no: Categorical Exclusion; 
If yes: go to #4. 

3. Are environmental effects significant? 
If unknown, go to #4; 
If yes: Environmental Impact Statement, 

4. Environmental Assessment. 

5. Are environmental effects significant? 
If no: Finding of no significant impact; 
If yes or maybe: Environmental Impact Statement. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Private individuals or companies may become involved in the NEPA 
process when a project they are developing needs a permit or other 
authorization from a federal agency to proceed, such as when the 
project involves federal land. For example, a company may apply for 
such a permit in constructing a pipeline crossing federal lands; in 
that case, the agency that is being asked to issue the permit must 
evaluate the potential environmental effects of constructing the 
pipeline under NEPA. The private company or developer may in some 
cases provide environmental analyses and documentation or enter into 
an agreement with an agency to pay a contractor for the preparation of 
environmental analyses and documents, but the agency remains 
ultimately responsible for the scope and content of the analyses under 
NEPA.[Footnote 7] 

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) within the Executive Office 
of the President oversees the implementation of NEPA, reviews and 
approves federal agency NEPA procedures, and issues regulations and 
guidance documents that govern and guide federal agencies' 
interpretation and implementation of NEPA.[Footnote 8] The 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also plays two key roles in 
other agencies' NEPA processes. First, EPA reviews and publicly 
comments on the adequacy of each draft EIS and the environmental 
impacts of the proposed actions reviewed in the EIS. If EPA determines 
that the action is environmentally unsatisfactory, it is required by 
law to refer the matter to CEQ. Second, EPA maintains a national EIS 
filing system. Federal entities must publish in the Federal Register a 
Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS and file their draft and final EISs 
with EPA, which publishes weekly notices in the Federal Register 
listing EISs available for public review and comment.[Footnote 9] 

CEQ's regulations implementing NEPA require federal agencies to 
solicit public comment on draft EISs.[Footnote 10] When the public 
comment period is finished, the agency proposing to carry out or 
permitting a project is to analyze comments, conduct further analysis 
as necessary, and prepare the final EIS. In the final EIS, the agency 
is to respond to the substantive comments received from other 
government agencies and the public. Sometimes a federal agency must 
prepare a supplemental analysis to either a draft or final EIS if it 
makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to 
environmental concerns, or if there are significant new circumstances 
or information relevant to environmental concerns.[Footnote 11] 
Further, in certain circumstances, agencies may--through 
"incorporation by reference," "adoption," or "tiering"--use another 
analysis to meet some or, in the case of adoption, all of the 
environmental review requirements of NEPA.[Footnote 12] 

Unlike other environmental statutes, such as the Clean Water Act or 
the Clean Air Act, no individual agency has enforcement authority with 
regard to NEPA's implementation.[Footnote 13] This absence of 
enforcement authority is sometimes cited as the reason that litigation 
has been chosen as an avenue by individuals and groups that disagree 
with how an agency meets NEPA requirements for a given 
project.[Footnote 14] For example, a group may allege that an EIS is 
inadequate, or that the environmental impacts of an action will in 
fact be significant when an agency has determined they are not. 
Critics of NEPA have stated that those who disapprove of a federal 
project will use NEPA as the basis for litigation to delay or halt 
that project. Others argue that litigation only results when agencies 
do not comply with NEPA's procedural requirements. 

Data on the Number and Type of Most NEPA Analyses Are Not Readily 
Available: 

Governmentwide data on the number and type of most NEPA analyses are 
not readily available, as data collection efforts vary by agency (see 
app. II for a summary of federal NEPA data collection efforts). 
Agencies do not routinely track the number of EAs or CEs, but CEQ 
estimates that EAs and CEs comprise most NEPA analyses. EPA publishes 
and maintains governmentwide information on EISs. 

Many Agencies Do Not Routinely Track the Number of EAs or CEs, but CEQ 
Estimates That EAs and CEs Comprise Most NEPA Analyses: 

Many agencies do not routinely track the number of EAs or CEs. 
However, based on information provided to CEQ by federal agencies, CEQ 
estimates that about 95 percent of NEPA analyses are CEs, less than 5 
percent are EAs, and less than 1 percent are EISs. These estimates 
were consistent with the information collected on projects funded by 
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). 
[Footnote 15] Projects requiring an EIS are a small portion of all 
projects but are likely to be high-profile, complex, and expensive. As 
the Congressional Research Service (CRS) noted in its 2011 report on 
NEPA, determining the total number of federal actions subject to NEPA 
is difficult, since most agencies track only the number of actions 
requiring an EIS.[Footnote 16] 

The percentages of EISs, EAs, and CEs vary by agency because of 
differences in project type and agency mission. For example, the 
Department of Energy (DOE) reported that 95 percent of its 9,060 NEPA 
analyses from fiscal year 2008 to fiscal year 2012 were CEs, 2.6 
percent were EAs, and 2.4 percent were EISs or supplement analyses. 
Further, in June 2012, we reported that the vast majority of highway 
projects are processed as CEs, noting that the Federal Highway 
Administration (FHWA) within the Department of Transportation (DOT) 
estimated that approximately 96 percent of highway projects were 
processed as CEs, based on data collected in 2009.[Footnote 17] 
Representing the lowest proportion of CEs in the data available to us, 
the Forest Service reported that 78 percent of its 14,574 NEPA 
analyses from fiscal year 2008 to fiscal year 2012 were CEs, 20 
percent were EAs, and 2 percent were EISs. 

Of the agencies we reviewed, DOE and the Forest Service officials told 
us that CEs are likely underrepresented in their totals because agency 
systems do not track certain categories of CEs considered "routine" 
activities, such as emergency preparedness planning. For example, DOE 
officials stated that the department has two types of CEs, those that 
(1) are routine (e.g., administrative, financial, and personnel 
actions; information gathering, analysis, and dissemination) and are 
not tracked and (2) are documented as required by DOE regulations. 

Governmentwide Data Are Available on EISs: 

EPA publishes and maintains governmentwide information on EISs, 
updated when Notices of Availability for draft and final EISs are 
published in the Federal Register. CEQ and NAEP publish publicly 
available reports on EISs using EPA data.[Footnote 18] As shown in 
table 1, the three compilations of EIS data produce different totals. 

Table 1: Number of Environmental Impact Statements from EPA, CEQ, and 
NAEP, 2008 through 2012: 

Calendar year: 2008; 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): 
Draft: 270; 
Final: 277; 
Total: 547; 
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ): 
Draft: 270; 
Final: 277; 
Total: 547[A]; 
National Association of Environmental Professionals (NAEP): 
Draft: 272; 
Final: 276; 
Total: 548[B]. 

Calendar year: 2009; 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): 
Draft: 252; 
Final: 203; 
Total: 455; 
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ): 
Draft: 252; 
Final: 203; 
Total: 455[C]; 
National Association of Environmental Professionals (NAEP): 
Draft: 277; 
Final: 222; 
Total: 499. 

Calendar year: 2010; 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): 
Draft: 242; 
Final: 240; 
Total: 482; 
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ): 
Draft: 241; 
Final: 246; 
Total: 487; 
National Association of Environmental Professionals (NAEP): 
Draft: 243; 
Final: 231; 
Total: 474. 

Calendar year: 2011; 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): 
Draft: 235; 
Final: 201; 
Total: 436; 
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ): 
Draft: 234; 
Final: 201; 
Total: 435; 
National Association of Environmental Professionals (NAEP): 
Draft: 234; 
Final: 204; 
Total: 438. 

Calendar year: 2012; 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): 
Draft: 200; 
Final: 197; 
Total: 397; 
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ): 
Draft: 199; 
Final: 198; 
Total: 397; 
National Association of Environmental Professionals (NAEP): 
Draft: 194; 
Final: 210; 
Total: 404. 

Calendar year: Total; 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): 
Draft: 1,199; 
Final: 1,118; 
Total: 2,317; 
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ): 
Draft: 1,196; 
Final: 1,125; 
Total: 2,321; 
National Association of Environmental Professionals (NAEP): 
Draft: 1,220; 
Final: 1,143; 
Total: 2,363. 

Sources: GAO analysis of EPA data, and CEQ and NAEP reports. 

Notes: 

NEPA calls for federal agencies to circulate a draft Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS) for public review and comment. When the public 
comment period is finished, the agency analyzes comments, conducts 
further analysis as necessary, and prepares the final EIS. The final 
EIS is circulated for review and may be made available for public 
review and comment. 

The differences in EIS numbers are likely due to different assumptions 
used to count the number of EISs and minor inconsistencies in the EPA 
data compiled for the CEQ and NAEP reports and GAO's analysis of EPA's 
database. EPA officials told us that the data it provides to others 
may differ because EPA periodically corrects the manually entered data 
in their EIS database. 

[A] In 2008, two different CEQ documents listed 543 and 547 total 
EISs, respectively. We used the 547 value in this table because it 
matched the sum of the draft and final EIS reported by CEQ in 2008 and 
also because it matched the total number we derived from the 
information supplied by EPA. 

[B] One section of NAEP's Annual NEPA Report 2008 identified a total 
of 548 EISs for 2008, while another section of the report identified a 
total of 547. We use 548 for this table to remain consistent with 
NAEP's summary of EIS data for 2008. 

[C] For 2009, the CEQ source document shows 450 for the total number 
of EISs, but this is a computation error because the total from adding 
the "draft" and "final" entries is 455. 

[End of table] 

According to CEQ and EPA officials, the differences in EIS numbers 
shown in table 1 are likely due to different assumptions used to count 
the number of EISs and minor inconsistencies in the EPA data compiled 
for the CEQ and NAEP reports and for our analysis of EPA's data. CEQ 
obtains the EIS data it reports based on summary totals provided by 
EPA. Occasionally, CEQ also gathers some CE, EA, and EIS data through 
its "data call" process, by which it aggregates information submitted 
by agencies that use different data collection mechanisms of varying 
quality. According to a January 2011 CRS report on NEPA, agencies 
track the total draft, final, and supplemental EISs filed, not the 
total number of individual federal actions requiring an EIS.[Footnote 
19] In other words, agency data generally reflect the number of EIS 
documents associated with a project, not the number of projects. 

Four agencies--the Forest Service, BLM, FHWA, and the U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers within the Department of Defense (DOD)--are generally the 
most frequent producers of EISs, accounting for 60 percent of the EISs 
in 2012, according to data in NAEP's April 2013 report.[Footnote 20] 
As shown in table 2, these agencies account for over half of total 
draft and final EISs from 2008 through 2012, according to NAEP data. 

Table 2: Number of Environmental Impact Statements by Agency as 
Reported by National Association of Environmental Professionals 
(NAEP), 2008 through 2012: 

Calendar year: 2008; 
Forest Service: 
Number: 123; 
Percentage of total: 22%; 
Bureau of Land Management[A]: 
Number: 49; 
Percentage of total: 9%; 
Federal Highway Administration: 
Number: 65; 
Percentage of total: 12%; 
Army Corps of Engineers: 
Number: 43; 
Percentage of total: 8%; 
All other agencies[B]: 
Number: 268; 
Percentage of total: 49%; 
Total: 548[C]. 

Calendar year: 2009; 
Forest Service: 
Number: 134; 
Percentage of total: 27%; 
Bureau of Land Management[A]: 
Number: 28; 
Percentage of total: 6%; 
Federal Highway Administration: 
Number: 58; 
Percentage of total: 12%; 
Army Corps of Engineers: 
Number: 41; 
Percentage of total: 8%; 
All other agencies[B]: 
Number: 238; 
Percentage of total: 48%; 
Total: 499. 

Calendar year: 2010; 
Forest Service: 
Number: 104; 
Percentage of total: 22%; 
Bureau of Land Management[A]: 
Number: 55; 
Percentage of total: 12%; 
Federal Highway Administration: 
Number: 56; 
Percentage of total: 12%; 
Army Corps of Engineers: 
Number: 39; 
Percentage of total: 8%; 
All other agencies[B]: 
Number: 220; 
Percentage of total: 46%; 
Total: 474. 

Calendar year: 2011; 
Forest Service: 
Number: 109; 
Percentage of total: 25%; 
Bureau of Land Management[A]: 
Number: 42; 
Percentage of total: 10%; 
Federal Highway Administration: 
Number: 49; 
Percentage of total: 11%; 
Army Corps of Engineers: 
Number: 33; 
Percentage of total: 8%; 
All other agencies[B]: 
Number: 205; 
Percentage of total: 47%; 
Total: 438. 

Calendar year: 2012; 
Forest Service: 
Number: 102; 
Percentage of total: 25%; 
Bureau of Land Management[A]: 
Number: 56; 
Percentage of total: 14%; 
Federal Highway Administration: 
Number: 44; 
Percentage of total: 11%; 
Army Corps of Engineers: 
Number: 41; 
Percentage of total: 10%; 
All other agencies[B]: 
Number: 161; 
Percentage of total: 40%; 
Total: 404. 

Calendar year: Total; 
Forest Service: 
Number: 572; 
Percentage of total: 24%; 
Bureau of Land Management[A]: 
Number: 230; 
Percentage of total: 10%; 
Federal Highway Administration: 
Number: 272; 
Percentage of total: 12%; 
Army Corps of Engineers: 
Number: 197; 
Percentage of total: 8%; 
All other agencies[B]: 
Number: 1,092; 
Percentage of total: 46%; 
Total: 2,363. 

Source: GAO analysis of NAEP data. 

Note: The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) calls for federal 
agencies to solicit input by submitting a draft Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS) for public comment. When the public comment period is 
finished, the agency analyzes comments, conducts further analysis as 
necessary, and prepares the final EIS. 

[A] According to BLM officials, BLM completed 53 NEPA analyses in 
2010, 44 in 2011, and 20 in 2012. We present NAEP's analysis of EPA 
data in this table. 

[B] In 2012, 31 other agencies completed at least 1 draft or final 
EIS. Five of them prepared 10 or more, including the National Park 
Service (21 draft and final EISs) and the Fish and Wildlife Service 
(19), both within the Department of the Interior; the National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce (17); 
the Navy within the Department of Defense (14); and the Federal 
Transit Administration within the Department of Transportation (10). 
The list of agencies varied somewhat for each of the other fiscal 
years presented (2008 through 2011). 

[C] One section of NAEP's Annual NEPA Report 2008 identified a total 
of 548 EISs for 2008, while another section of the report identified a 
total of 547. We use 548 for this table to remain consistent with 
NAEP's summary of EIS data for 2008. 

[End of table] 

Little Information Exists on the Costs and Benefits of Completing NEPA 
Analyses: 

Little information exists at the agencies we reviewed on the costs and 
benefits of completing NEPA analyses. We found that, with few 
exceptions, the agencies did not routinely track data on the cost of 
completing NEPA analyses, and that the cost associated with conducting 
an EIS or EA can vary considerably, depending on the complexity and 
scope of the project. Information on the benefits of completing NEPA 
analyses is largely qualitative. Complicating matters, agency 
activities under NEPA are hard to separate from other environmental 
review tasks under federal laws, such as the Clean Water Act and the 
Endangered Species Act; executive orders; agency guidance; and state 
and local laws. 

Little Information Exists on the Cost of Completing NEPA Analyses: 

Little information exists on the cost of completing NEPA analyses. 
With few exceptions, the agencies we reviewed do not track the cost of 
completing NEPA analyses, although some of the agencies tracked 
information on NEPA time frames, which can be an element of project 
cost. 

Most Agencies We Reviewed Do Not Track the Cost of Completing NEPA 
Analyses: 

In general, we found that the agencies we reviewed do not routinely 
track data on the cost of completing NEPA analyses. According to CEQ 
officials, CEQ rarely collects data on projected or estimated costs 
related to complying with NEPA. EPA officials also told us that there 
is no governmentwide mechanism to track the costs of completing EISs. 
Similarly, most of the agencies we reviewed do not track NEPA cost 
data. For example, Forest Service officials said that tracking the 
cost of completing NEPA analyses is not currently a feature of their 
NEPA data collection system. Complicating efforts to record costs, 
applicants may, in some cases, provide environmental analyses and 
documentation or enter into an agreement with the agency to pay for 
the preparation of NEPA analyses and documentation needed for permits 
issued by federal agencies.[Footnote 21] Agencies generally do not 
report costs that are "paid by the applicant" because these costs 
reflect business transactions between applicants and their contractors 
and are not available to agency officials. 

Two NEPA-related studies completed by federal agencies illustrate how 
it is difficult to extract NEPA cost data from agency accounting 
systems. An August 2007 Forest Service report on competitive sourcing 
for NEPA compliance stated that it is "very difficult to track the 
actual cost of performing NEPA. Positions that perform NEPA-related 
activities are currently located within nearly every staff group, and 
are funded by a large number of budget line items. There is no single 
budget line item or budget object code to follow in attempting to 
calculate the costs of doing NEPA."[Footnote 22] Similarly, a 2003 
study funded by FHWA evaluating the performance of environmental 
"streamlining" noted that NEPA cost data would be difficult to 
segregate for analysis.[Footnote 23] 

However, DOE tracks limited cost data associated with NEPA analyses. 
DOE officials told us that they track the funds the agency pays to 
contractors to prepare NEPA analyses and does not track other costs, 
such as the time spent by DOE employees. According to DOE data, the 
average payment to a contractor to prepare an EIS from calendar year 
2003 through calendar year 2012 was $6.6 million, with the range being 
a low of $60,000 and a high of $85 million.[Footnote 24] DOE's median 
EIS contractor cost was $1.4 million over that time period. More 
recently, DOE's March 2014 NEPA quarterly report stated that for the 
12 months that ended December 31, 2013, the median cost for the 
preparation of four EISs for which cost data were available was $1.7 
million, and the average cost was $2.9 million. For context, a 2003 
task force report to CEQ--the only available source of governmentwide 
cost estimates--estimated that an EIS typically cost from $250,000 to 
$2 million.[Footnote 25] 

In comparison, DOE's payments to contractors to produce an EA ranged 
from $3,000 to $1.2 million with a median cost of $65,000 from 
calendar year 2003 through calendar year 2012, according to DOE data. 
In its March 2014 NEPA quarterly report, DOE stated that, for the 12 
months that ended December 31, 2013, the median cost for the 
preparation of 8 EAs was $73,000, and the average cost was $301,000. 
For governmentwide context, the 2003 task force report to CEQ 
estimated that an EA typically costs from $5,000 to $200,000.[Footnote 
26] Agencies provided no cost data on CEs but stated that the cost of 
a CE--which, in many cases, is for a "routine" activity, such as 
repainting a building--was generally much lower than the cost of an EA. 

Some Information Is Available on NEPA Time Frames: 

Some governmentwide information is available on time frames for 
completing EISs--which can be one element of project cost--but few 
estimates exist for EAs and CEs because most agencies do not collect 
information on the number and type of NEPA analyses, and few 
guidelines exist on time frames for completing environmental analyses 
(see appendix III for information on CEQ NEPA time frame guidelines). 
NAEP annually reports information on EIS time frames by analyzing 
information published by agencies in the Federal Register, with the 
Notice of Intent to complete an EIS as the "start" date, and the 
Notice of Availability for the final EIS as the "end" date.[Footnote 
27] Our review did not identify other governmentwide sources of these 
data. Based on the information published in the Federal Register, NAEP 
reported in April 2013 that the 197 final EISs in 2012 had an average 
preparation time of 1,675 days, or 4.6 years--the highest average EIS 
preparation time the organization had recorded since 1997.[Footnote 
28] From 2000 through 2012, according to NAEP, the total annual 
average governmentwide EIS preparation time increased at an average 
rate of 34.2 days per year.[Footnote 29] 

In addition, some agency officials told us that time frame measures 
for EISs may not account for up-front work that occurs before the 
Notice of Intent to produce an EIS--the "start" date typically used in 
EIS time frame calculations. DOT officials told us that the "start" 
date is unclear in some cases because of the large volume of project 
development and planning work that occurs before a Notice of Intent is 
issued. DOE officials made a similar point, noting that time frames 
are difficult to determine for many NEPA analyses because there is a 
large volume of up-front work that is not captured by standard time 
frame measures. According to technical comments from CEQ and federal 
agencies, to ensure consistency in its NEPA metrics, DOE measures EIS 
completion time from the date of publication of the Notice of Intent 
to the date of publication of the notice of availability of the final 
EIS. Further, according to a 2007 CRS report, a project may stop and 
restart for any number of reasons that are unrelated to NEPA or any 
other environmental requirement.[Footnote 30] For example, a 10-year 
time frame to complete a project may have been associated with funding 
issues, engineering requirements, changes in agency priorities, delays 
in obtaining nonfederal approvals, or community opposition to the 
project, to name a few. 

Less governmentwide information is available on the completion time 
for EAs and CEs. According to DOE's June 2013 quarterly NEPA report, 
for the 12 months that ended March 31, 2013, the average completion 
time for 16 EAs was 13 months (with a median of 11 months). For the 
past 10 calendar years (i.e., 2003 through 2012), DOE's average EA 
completion time was 13 months (with a median of 9 months). Interior's 
Office of Surface Mining estimated that its EAs take approximately 4 
months on average to complete, and the Forest Service reported that 
its 501 EAs in fiscal year 2012 took an average of about 18 months to 
complete. Further, officials from Bureau of Indian Affairs within 
Interior told us that their EAs are generally completed in about 1 
month but that they may take up to 6 months depending on their 
complexity. In addition, DOT officials said that determining the start 
time of EAs and CEs is even more difficult than for EISs. The time for 
completing these can depend in large part on how much of the up-front 
work was done already as part of the preliminary engineering process 
and how many other environmental processes are involved (e.g., 
consultations under the Endangered Species Act). 

The little governmentwide information that is available on CEs shows 
that they generally take less time to complete than EAs. DOE does not 
track completion times for CEs, but agency officials stated that they 
usually take 1 or 2 days. Similarly, officials at Interior's Office of 
Surface Mining reported that CEs take approximately 2 days to 
complete. In contrast, Forest Service took an average of 177 days to 
complete CEs in fiscal year 2012, shorter than its average of 565 days 
for EAs, according to agency documents. The Forest Service documents 
its CEs with Decision Memos, which are completed after all necessary 
consultations, reviews, and other determinations associated with a 
decision to implement a particular proposed project are completed. 

Information on the Benefits of Completing NEPA Analyses Is Largely 
Qualitative: 

According to agency officials, information on the benefits of 
completing NEPA analyses is largely qualitative. We have previously 
reported that assessing the benefits of federal environmental 
requirements, including those associated with NEPA, is difficult 
because the monetization of environmental benefits often requires 
making subjective decisions on key assumptions.[Footnote 31] According 
to studies and agency officials, some of the qualitative benefits of 
NEPA include its role as a tool for encouraging transparency and 
public participation and in discovering and addressing the potential 
effects of a proposal in the early design stages to avoid problems 
that could end up taking more time and being more costly in the long 
run. 

Encouraging public participation. NEPA is intended to help government 
make informed decisions, encourage the public to participate in those 
decisions, and make the government accountable for its decisions. 
Public participation is a central part of the NEPA process, allowing 
agencies to obtain input directly from those individuals who may be 
affected by a federal action. DOE officials referred to this public 
comment component of NEPA as a piece of "good government 
architecture," and DOD officials similarly described NEPA as a forum 
for resolving organizational differences by promoting interaction 
between interested parties inside and outside the government. 
Likewise, the National Park Service within Interior uses its Planning, 
Environment, and Public Comment (PEPC) system as a comprehensive 
information and public comment site for National Park Service 
projects, including those requiring NEPA analyses.[Footnote 32] 

Discovering and addressing design problems. One benefit of the 
environmental review process, according to a 2012 CRS report, is that 
it ultimately saves time and reduces overall project costs by 
identifying and avoiding problems that may occur in later stages of 
project development.[Footnote 33] Projects that make it through the 
NEPA process are financially and environmentally improved, according 
to a senior NAEP official, because the process helps planners avoid 
the multiyear cost of mitigating a project's potential adverse effects 
up front by identifying and evaluating alternatives that would not 
otherwise have been identified. Moreover, agency officials who oversee 
federal NEPA programs told us that one of the benefits of NEPA 
analyses is that they lead to improved projects. For example, DOT 
officials stated that the NEPA process allows project decision makers 
to discover and solve design problems that could end up being more 
costly in the long run. Similarly, Forest Service officials said that 
NEPA leads to better decisions on projects because of the 
environmental information considered in the process. Providing 
examples to illustrate these points, CEQ published a document 
describing time savings and improved outcomes on projects funded by 
the Recovery Act. Similarly, NEPA Success Stories: Celebrating Forty 
Years of Transparency and Open Government--published in August 2010 as 
a joint effort by the Environmental Law Institute, the Grand Canyon 
Trust, and the Partnership Project--described and highlighted improved 
environmental outcomes brought about through the NEPA process. 
[Footnote 34] DOE has also published a document showing its NEPA 
"success stories."[Footnote 35] In one example from this document, DOE 
cited the November 28, 2008, Final Programmatic EIS for the 
Designation of Energy Corridors on Federal Lands in 11 Western States 
(DOE/EIS-0386), that it had developed in cooperation with BLM. In this 
case, public comments resulted in the consideration of alternative 
routes and operating procedures for energy transmission corridors to 
avoid sensitive environmental resources. 

Activities under NEPA Are Hard to Separate from Other Required 
Environmental Analyses, Complicating the Determination of Costs and 
Benefits: 

Agency activities under NEPA are hard to separate from other required 
environmental analyses, further complicating the determination of 
costs and benefits. CEQ's NEPA regulations specify that, to the 
fullest extent possible, agencies must prepare NEPA analyses 
concurrently with other environmental requirements. CEQ's March 6, 
2012, memorandum on Improving the Process for Preparing Efficient and 
Timely Environmental Reviews under the National Environmental Policy 
Act states that agencies "must integrate, to the fullest extent 
possible, their draft EIS with environmental impact analyses and 
related surveys and studies required by other statutes or executive 
orders, amplifying the requirement in the CEQ regulations.[Footnote 
36] The goal should be to conduct concurrent rather than sequential 
processes whenever appropriate." Different types of environmental 
analyses may also be conducted in response to other requirements under 
federal laws such as the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species 
Act; executive orders; agency guidance; and state and local laws. As 
reported in 2011 by CRS, NEPA functions as an "umbrella" statute; any 
study, review, or consultation required by any other law that is 
related to the environment should be conducted within the framework of 
the NEPA process.[Footnote 37] 

As a result, the biggest challenge in determining the costs and 
benefits of NEPA is separating activities under NEPA from activities 
under other environmental laws. According to DOT officials, the dollar 
costs for developing a NEPA analysis reported by agencies also 
includes costs for developing analyses required by a number of other 
federal laws, executive orders, and state and local laws, which 
potentially could be a significant part of the cost estimate. 
Similarly, DOD officials stated that NEPA is one piece of the larger 
environmental review process involving many environmental requirements 
associated with a project. As noted by officials from the Bureau of 
Reclamation within Interior, the NEPA process by design incorporates a 
multitude of other compliance issues and provides a framework and 
orderly process--akin to an assembly line--which can help reduce 
delays. In some instances, a delay in NEPA is the result of a delay in 
an ancillary effort to comply with another law, according to these 
officials and a wide range of other sources. 

Some Information Is Available on the Frequency and Outcome of NEPA 
Litigation: 

Some information is available on the frequency and outcome of NEPA 
litigation. Agency data, interviews with agency officials, and 
available studies indicate that most NEPA analyses do not result in 
litigation, although the impact of litigation could be substantial if 
a lawsuit affects numerous federal decisions or actions in several 
states. The federal government prevails in most NEPA litigation, 
according to CEQ and NAEP data, and legal studies. 

Available Data Show That Most NEPA Analyses Do Not Result in 
Litigation, but Individual Cases Can Have Substantial Impacts: 

Agency data, interviews with agency officials, and available studies 
indicate that most NEPA analyses do not result in litigation. While no 
governmentwide system exists to track NEPA litigation or its 
associated costs, NEPA litigation data are available from CEQ, the 
Department of Justice, and NAEP. Appendix IV describes how these 
sources gather information in different ways for different purposes. 

The number of lawsuits filed under NEPA has generally remained stable 
following a decline after the early years of implementation, according 
to CEQ and other sources. NEPA litigation began to decline in the mid-
1970s and has remained relatively constant since the late 1980s, as 
reported by CRS in 2007.[Footnote 38] More specifically, 189 cases 
were filed in 1974, according to the twenty-fifth anniversary report 
of CEQ. In 1994, 106 NEPA lawsuits were filed. Since that time, 
according to CEQ data, the number of NEPA lawsuits filed annually has 
consistently been just above or below 100, with the exception of a 
period in the early-and mid-2000s.[Footnote 39] In 2011, the most 
recent data available, CEQ reported 94 NEPA cases, down from the 
average of 129 cases filed per year from 2001 through 2008.[Footnote 
40] In 2012, U.S. Courts of Appeals issued 28 decisions involving 
implementation of NEPA by federal agencies, according to NAEP data. 

Although the number of NEPA lawsuits is relatively small when compared 
with the total number of NEPA analyses, one lawsuit can affect 
numerous federal decisions or actions in several states, having a far-
reaching impact. In addition to CEQ regulations and an agency's own 
regulations, according to a 2011 CRS report, preparers of NEPA 
analyses and documentation may be mindful of previous judicial 
interpretation in an attempt to prepare a "litigation-proof" EIS. 
[Footnote 41] CEQ has observed that such an effort may lead to an 
increase in the cost and time needed to complete NEPA analyses but not 
necessarily to an improvement in the quality of the documents 
ultimately produced. 

The Federal Government Prevails in Most NEPA Litigation: 

The federal government prevails in most NEPA litigation, according to 
CEQ and NAEP data and other legal studies. CEQ annually publishes 
survey results on NEPA litigation that identify the number of cases 
involving a NEPA-based cause of action; federal agencies that were 
identified as a lead defendant; and general information on plaintiffs 
(i.e., grouped into categories, such as "public interest groups" and 
"business groups"); reasons for litigation; and outcomes of the cases 
decided during the year.[Footnote 42] In general, according to CEQ 
data, NEPA case outcomes are about evenly split between those 
involving challenges to EISs and those involving other challenges to 
the adequacy of NEPA analyses (e.g., EAs and CEs). The federal 
government successfully defended its decisions in more than 50 percent 
of the cases from 2008 through 2011. For example, in 2011, 99 of the 
146 total NEPA case dispositions--68 percent--reported by CEQ resulted 
in a judgment favorable to the federal agency being sued or a 
dismissal of the case without settlement.[Footnote 43] In 2011, that 
rate increased to 80 percent if the 18 settlements reported by CEQ 
were considered successes.[Footnote 44] However, the CEQ data do not 
present enough case-specific details to determine whether the 
settlements should be considered as favorable dispositions. The 
plaintiffs, in most cases, were public interest groups. 

Reporting litigation outcome data similar to CEQ's, a January 2014 
article on Forest Service land management litigation found that the 
Forest Service won nearly 54 percent of its cases and lost about 23 
percent.[Footnote 45] About 23 percent of the cases were settled, 
which the study found to be an important dispute resolution tool. 
Litigants generally challenged logging projects, most frequently under 
the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Forest 
Management Act. The article found that the Forest Service had a lower 
success rate in cases where plaintiffs advocated for less resource use 
(generally initiated by environmental groups) compared to cases where 
greater resource use was advocated. The report noted that 
environmental groups suing the Forest Service for less resource use 
not only have more potential statutory bases for legal challenges 
available to them than groups seeking more use of national forest 
resources, but there are also more statutes that relate directly to 
enhancing public participation and protecting natural resources. 

Other sources of information also show that the federal government 
prevails in most NEPA litigation. For example, NAEP's 2012 annual NEPA 
report stated that the government prevailed in 24 of the 28 cases (86 
percent) decided by U.S. Courts of Appeals. A NEPA legal treatise 
similarly reports that "government agencies almost always win their 
case when the adequacy of an EIS is challenged, if the environmental 
analysis is reasonably complete. Adequacy cases raise primarily 
factual issues on which the courts normally defer to the agency. The 
success record in litigation is more evenly divided when a NEPA case 
raises threshold questions that determine whether the agency has 
complied with the statute. An example is a challenge to an agency 
decision that an EIS was not required. Some lower federal courts are 
especially sensitive to agency attempts to avoid their NEPA 
responsibilities."[Footnote 46] NAEP also provides detailed 
descriptions of cases decided by U.S. Courts of Appeals in its annual 
reports.[Footnote 47] 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this product to the Council on Environmental 
Quality (CEQ) for governmentwide comments in coordination with the 
Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior, Justice, and 
Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In 
written comments, reproduced in appendix V, CEQ generally agreed with 
our findings. CEQ and federal agencies also provided technical 
comments that we incorporated, as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 
committees; Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality; Secretaries 
of Defense, Energy, the Interior, and Transportation; Attorney 
General; Chief of the Forest Service within the Department of 
Agriculture; Administrator of EPA; and other interested parties. In 
addition, this report is available at no charge on the GAO website at 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, 
please contact us at (202) 512-3841 or fennella@gao.gov; or 
gomezj@gao.gov; and (202) 512-4523 or leporeb@gao.gov. Contact points 
for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be 
found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key 
contributions to this report are listed in appendix VI. 

Signed by: 

Anne-Marie Fennell: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 

Signed by: 

Alfredo Gomez: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 

Signed by: 

Brian Lepore: 
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

This appendix provides information on the scope of work and the 
methodology used to collect information on how we described the (1) 
number and type of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses, 
(2) costs and benefits of completing those analyses, and (3) frequency 
and outcomes of related litigation. We included available information 
on both costs and benefits to be consistent with standard economic 
principles for evaluating federal programs and generally accepted 
government auditing standards. 

To respond to these objectives, we reviewed relevant publications, 
obtained documents and analyses from federal agencies, and interviewed 
federal officials and individuals from academia and a professional 
association with expertise in conducting NEPA analyses. Specifically, 
to describe the number and type of NEPA analyses and what is known 
about the costs and benefits of NEPA analyses, we reported information 
identified through the literature review, interviews, and other 
sources. We selected the Departments of Defense, Energy, the Interior, 
and Transportation and the Forest Service within the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture for analysis because they generally complete the most 
NEPA analyses. Our findings for these agencies are not generalizable 
to other federal agencies. 

To assess the availability of information to respond to these 
objectives, we (1) conducted a literature search and review with the 
assistance of a technical librarian; (2) reviewed our past work on 
NEPA and studies from the Congressional Research Service; (3) obtained 
documents and analyses from federal agencies; and (4) interviewed 
officials who oversee federal NEPA programs from the Departments of 
Defense, Energy, the Interior, Justice, and Transportation; the Forest 
Service within the Department of Agriculture; the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA); the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 
within the Executive Office of the President; and individuals with 
expertise from academia and the National Association of Environmental 
Professionals (NAEP)--a professional association representing private 
and government NEPA practitioners. 

Specifically, to describe the number and type of NEPA analyses from 
calendar year 2008 through calendar year 2012, we analyzed data 
identified through the literature review and interviews. We focused on 
data and documents maintained by CEQ, EPA, and NAEP. CEQ and NAEP 
periodically report data on the number of certain types of NEPA 
analyses, and EPA maintains a database of Environmental Impact 
Statements, one of its roles in implementing NEPA. To generate 
information on the number of Environmental Impact Statements from 
EPA's database, we sorted the data by calendar year and counted the 
number of analyses for each year. We did not conduct an extensive 
evaluation of this database, although a high-level analysis discovered 
potential inconsistencies. For example, EPA's database contained 
entries with the same unique identifier, making it difficult to 
identify the exact number of NEPA analyses. We discussed these 
inconsistencies with EPA officials, who told us that they were aware 
of certain errors due to manual data entry and the use of different 
analysis methods. These officials said that EPA EIS data provided to 
others may differ because EPA periodically corrects the manually 
entered data. We did not count duplicate records in our analysis of 
EPA's data. We believe these data are sufficiently reliable for the 
purposes of this report. 

To describe what is known about the costs and benefits of NEPA 
analysis, we reported the available information on the subject 
identified through the literature review and interviews. To describe 
the frequency and outcome of NEPA litigation we (1) reviewed laws, 
regulations, and agency guidance; (2) reviewed NEPA litigation data 
generated by CEQ and NAEP; (3) interviewed Department of Justice 
officials; and (4) reviewed relevant legal studies. 

Information from these sources is cited in footnotes throughout this 
report. To answer the various objectives, we relied on data from 
several sources. To assess the reliability of data collected by 
agencies and NAEP, we reviewed existing documentation, when available, 
and interviewed officials knowledgeable about the data. We found all 
data sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. 

We conducted this performance audit from June 2013 to April 2014 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Summary of Federal NEPA Data Collection Efforts: 

Federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) data collection 
efforts vary by agency. The Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) 
NEPA implementing regulations set forth requirements that federal 
agencies must adhere to, and require federal agencies to adopt their 
own procedures, as necessary, that conform with NEPA and CEQ's 
regulations.[Footnote 48] Federal agencies decide how to apply CEQ 
regulations in the NEPA process. According to a 2007 Congressional 
Research Service (CRS) report, the CEQ regulations were meant to be 
generic in nature, with individual agencies formulating procedures 
applicable to their own projects.[Footnote 49] The report states that 
this approach was taken because of the diverse nature of projects and 
environmental impacts managed by federal agencies with unique mandates 
and missions. Consequently, NEPA procedures vary to some extent from 
agency to agency, and comprehensive governmentwide data on NEPA 
analyses are generally not centrally collected. 

As stated by a CEQ official, "there is no master NEPA spreadsheet, and 
there are many gaps in NEPA-related data collected across the federal 
government." To obtain information on agency NEPA activities, the 
official said that CEQ works closely with its federal agency NEPA 
contact group, composed of key officials responsible for implementing 
NEPA in each agency. CEQ meets regularly with these officials and uses 
this network to collect NEPA-related information through requests for 
information, whereby CEQ distributes a list of questions to relevant 
agencies and then collects and reports the answers. According to CEQ 
officials, NEPA data reported by CEQ are generated through these 
requests, which have quality assurance limitations because related 
activities at federal departments are themselves diffused throughout 
various offices. 

Of the agencies we reviewed, the Departments of Defense, the Interior, 
and Transportation do not centrally collect information on NEPA 
analyses, allowing component agencies to collect the information, 
whereas the Department of Energy and the Forest Service within the 
Department of Agriculture aggregate certain data. 

Department of Defense (DOD). Each of the military services and defense 
agencies collects data on NEPA analyses, but DOD does not aggregate 
information that is collected on the number and type of NEPA analyses 
at the departmentwide level. Data collection within the military 
services and agencies is decentralized, according to DOD officials. 
For example, the Army collects Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 
data at the Armywide level, and responsibility for Environmental 
Assessments (EA) and Categorical Exclusions (CE) are delegated to the 
lowest possible command level. DOD officials said that each of the 
services and defense agencies works to maintain a balance between the 
work that needs to be completed and the management effort needed to 
accomplish that work. While the level of information collected may 
vary by service or defense agency, each collects the information that 
it has determined necessary to manage its NEPA workload. According to 
these officials, every new information system and data call must 
generally come from existing funding, taking resources from other 
tasks. 

Department of the Interior (Interior). Data are not collected at the 
department level, according to Interior officials, and Interior 
conducts its own departmentwide data calls to component bureaus and 
entities whenever CEQ asks for NEPA-related information. The data 
collection efforts of its individual bureaus vary considerably. For 
example, the National Park Service uses its Planning, Environment, and 
Public Comment (PEPC) system as a comprehensive information and public 
comment site for National Park Service projects. Other Interior 
bureaus are beginning to track information or rely on less formal 
systems and not formalized databases. For example, the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs uses its internal NEPA Tracker system--started in 
September 2012--which the bureau states is to collect information on 
NEPA analyses to create a better administrative record to potentially 
identify new categories of CEs for future development and use. Prior 
to the NEPA Tracker system, the Bureau of Indian Affairs tracked NEPA 
analyses less formally, with varying information quality across the 
bureau's different entities, according to agency officials. According 
to Bureau of Land Management officials, the bureau has developed and 
is currently implementing its ePlanning system, a comprehensive, 
bureau-wide, Internet-based tool for writing, reviewing, publishing, 
and receiving public commentary on land use plans and NEPA documents. 
The tool is fully operational, and the bureau expects to complete 
implementation in 2015. At the Bureau of Reclamation, NEPA activities 
are cataloged and tracked by each region or area office according to 
local procedures, and the information on the number and type of NEPA 
analyses resides with these offices. NEPA information at the Fish and 
Wildlife Service, according to agency officials, is collected at the 
refuge level. 

Department of Transportation (DOT). According to agency officials, 
each DOT administration--such as the Federal Highway Administration 
(FHWA), which funds highway projects; the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration, which develops commercial motor vehicle and driver 
regulations; and the Federal Aviation Administration, which is 
responsible for, among other things, the nation's air traffic control 
system--has its own NEPA operating and data collection procedures that 
track NEPA-related information to varying degrees because each mode of 
transportation has different characteristics and needs.[Footnote 50] 
Environmental reviews for highway projects funded by FHWA have long 
been of interest to Congress and federal, state, and local 
stakeholders.[Footnote 51] FHWA and its 52 division offices have 
traditionally used an internal data system to track EIS documents. 
FHWA officials told us that they are in the process of replacing the 
agency's legacy system with the new Project and Program Action 
Information (PAPAI) system, which went online in March 2013. PAPAI is 
capable of tracking information on EISs, EAs, and CEs, including 
project completion time frames, but its use is not mandatory, 
according to DOT officials. 

Department of Energy (DOE). The Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance 
within DOE maintains a website where it posts extensive agencywide 
NEPA documentation, including information on the number and type of 
NEPA analyses completed since the mid-1990s and a series of quarterly 
lessons learned reports documenting certain NEPA performance metrics, 
including information on time and cost.[Footnote 52] DOE's September 
2013 quarterly report documents available information on its NEPA 
analysis workload, completion times, and costs from 2003 through 2012. 
[Footnote 53] DOE began tracking cost and completion time metrics in 
the mid-1990s because it was concerned about the timeliness and cost 
of NEPA reviews.[Footnote 54] DOE officials told us they collect these 
data because, in their view, "what gets measured gets done." Making 
DOE NEPA analyses easily available allows others to apply the best 
practices and potentially avoid costly litigation, according to DOE 
officials. 

Department of Agriculture's Forest Service. The Forest Service's 
computer system, known as the Planning, Appeals, and Litigation 
System, provides information for responding to congressional requests 
for NEPA data, to support preparation for responding to lawsuits, and 
about overall project objectives and design. As stated by agency 
officials, data from the system can be used to identify trends in the 
preparation of NEPA analyses over time. This information can be 
valuable to managers in managing overall NEPA compliance and can 
identify innovative ways to deal with recurring environmental issues 
that affect projects, according to Forest Service officials. The 
system also provides tools to help the agency meet NEPA requirements, 
including automatic distribution of the schedule of proposed NEPA 
actions, a searchable database of draft EISs, and electronic filing of 
draft and final EISs to EPA. 

CEQ also identified as a best practice the service's electronic 
Management of NEPA (eMNEPA) pilot--a suite of web-based tools and 
databases to improve the efficiency of environmental reviews by 
enabling online submission and processing of public comments, among 
other things.[Footnote 55] On March 17, 2011, CEQ invited members of 
the public and federal agencies to nominate projects employing 
innovative approaches to complete environmental reviews more 
efficiently and effectively. On August 31, 2011, CEQ announced that 
eMNEPA was selected as part of the first NEPA pilot project. CEQ 
officials told us that they would prioritize the use of CEQ oversight 
resources to focus on identifying, disseminating, and encouraging 
agencies to use their additional resources in improving operational 
efficiency through tools like eMNEPA rather than focusing on improved 
data collection and reporting. Specifically, CEQ officials said that 
information technology tools that enable easy access to relevant 
technical information across the federal government are also of value 
in enhancing the ability of agencies to conduct efficient and timely 
NEPA environmental reviews. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: CEQ NEPA Time Frame Guidelines: 

The Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) March 1981 guidance 
document published in the Federal Register titled Forty Most Asked 
Questions Concerning CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act 
Regulations advises that: 

"... even large complex energy projects would require only about 12 
months for the completion of the entire EIS process. For most major 
actions, this period is well within the planning time that is needed 
in any event, apart from NEPA. The time required for the preparation 
of program EISs may be greater. The Council also recognizes that some 
projects will entail difficult long-term planning and/or the 
acquisition of certain data which of necessity will require more time 
for the preparation of the EIS. Indeed, some proposals should be given 
more time for the thoughtful preparation of an EIS and development of 
a decision which fulfills NEPA's substantive goals. For cases in which 
only an environmental assessment will be prepared, the NEPA process 
should take no more than 3 months, and in many cases substantially 
less, as part of the normal analysis and approval process for the 
action."[Footnote 56] 

CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations do not 
specify a required time frame for completing NEPA analyses. The 
regulations state that CEQ has decided that prescribed universal time 
limits for the entire NEPA process are too inflexible. The regulations 
also state that federal agencies are encouraged to set time limits 
appropriate to individual actions and should take into consideration 
factors such as the potential for environmental harm, size of the 
proposed action, and degree of public need for the proposed action, 
including the consequences of delay. CEQ's March 6, 2012, memorandum 
on Improving the Process for Preparing Efficient and Timely 
Environmental Reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act 
encourages agencies to develop meaningful and expeditious timelines 
for environmental reviews, and it amplifies the factors an agency 
should take into account when setting time limits, noting that 
establishing appropriate and predictable time limits promotes the 
efficiency of the NEPA process. The CEQ regulations also require 
agencies to reduce delay by, among other things, integrating the NEPA 
process into early project planning, emphasizing interagency 
cooperation, integrating NEPA requirements with other environmental 
review requirements, and adopting environmental documents prepared by 
other federal agencies. 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Sources of NEPA Litigation Data: 

In general, there is no governmentwide system to track National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) litigation and its associated costs. 
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), the Department of Justice, 
and the National Association of Environmental Professionals (NAEP) 
gather NEPA litigation information in different ways for different 
purposes. 

CEQ collects NEPA litigation data through periodic requests for 
information, whereby it distributes a list of questions to the general 
counsel offices of relevant agencies and then collects and reports the 
information on its website.[Footnote 57] CEQ's NEPA litigation survey 
presents information on NEPA-based claims brought against agencies in 
court, including aggregated information on types of lawsuits and who 
brought the suits. The survey results do not present information on 
the cost of NEPA litigation because, according to officials from 
several of the agencies we reviewed, agencies do not track this 
information. For example, Forest Service officials told us that they 
do not centrally track the cost or time associated with the 
preparation for litigation. As another example, the Department of 
Energy's litigation data do not include the cost of litigation or the 
time spent on litigation-related tasks, although it includes the 
number of NEPA-related cases over time. 

The Department of Justice defends nearly all federal agencies when 
they face NEPA litigation.[Footnote 58] These officials told us that 
the department's Case Management System database tracks limited 
information on NEPA cases handled by the Environment and Natural 
Resources Division, and the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys case 
management system, called the Legal Information Office Network System, 
tracks NEPA cases at individual U.S. Attorneys' Offices to some 
extent. However, Department of Justice officials told us that these 
systems do not interface with each other, so it would be impossible to 
gather comprehensive information on NEPA litigation from the 
Department of Justice. 

Further, Department of Justice officials told us that the department 
is not able to comprehensively identify all NEPA litigation because a 
single case could have numerous other environmental claims in addition 
to a single NEPA claim. In such instances, the Environment and Natural 
Resources Division's Case Management System may not capture every 
claim raised in the case.[Footnote 59] As a result, the Department of 
Justice does not track trends in NEPA litigation or staff hours spent 
on NEPA cases. The cost of collecting the information would outweigh 
the management benefits of doing so, according to these officials. 

The Department of Justice's NEPA litigation data are not comparable to 
CEQ's because the department's system is designed to track cases, 
while CEQ provides information on NEPA events--such as the number of 
cases filed, number of injunctions or remands, and other decisions. 
There could be multiple NEPA events or decisions related to a single 
case. Department of Justice officials stated that they would not be 
able to reconcile CEQ's information with information in Department of 
Justice systems. 

NEPA litigation data collected by the third source--NAEP--differ from 
those collected by CEQ or the Department of Justice. NAEP collects 
information on NEPA cases decided by U.S. Courts of Appeals because 
these cases are generally the most significant to the NEPA 
practitioners that are NAEP's members, according to NAEP officials. 
The NAEP report contains case study summaries of the latest 
developments in NEPA litigation to help NEPA practitioners understand 
how to account for new court-mandated requirements in NEPA analyses 
and does not attempt to track all NEPA litigation across the 
government. 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Comments from the Council on Environmental Quality: 

Executive Office of The President: 
Council on Environmental Quality: 
Washington, D.C. 20503: 

April 9, 2014: 

Anne-Marie Fennell: 
Director: 
Natural Resources and Environment: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Alfredo Gomez: 
Director: 
Natural Resources and Environment: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Brian Lepore: 
Director: 
Defense Capabilities and Management: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Directors Fennell, Gomez, and Lepore: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Government 
Accountability Office's (GAO) proposed report, "National Environmental 
Policy Act: Information on the Costs and Benefits of Completing
Analyses" ("Proposed Report," report numbers GAO-14-369 and GAO-14-
370). This letter conveys the combined comments from the Departments 
of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior, Justice, and Transportation 
and the Environmental Protection Agency. 

The Proposed Report collects and presents a considerable amount of 
data from these Federal agencies and departments, each of whom 
independently implements the requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) and the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) 
NEPA Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) pursuant to its own NEPA 
implementing regulations and procedures. We appreciate the obvious
efforts of your staff in preparing this generally well-written 
proposed report. The following comments are offered to increase the 
accuracy and improve the clarity of GAO's proposed report. 

We are pleased to see that GAO has observed that agency reviews 
pursuant to NEPA are "hard to separate from other environmental 
review[s)" conducted under other federal, state, and local law; 
executive orders; and guidance (Proposed Report at Highlights, p. 10 
and p. 16). GAO's finding underscores the requirements of NEPA and 
CEQ's NEPA Regulations, which call for an interdisciplinary approach 
to reduce duplication and paperwork. 42 U.S.c. § 4332(2)(A); 40 CFR §§ 
1502.6 and 1506.4. By integrating, to the fullest extent possible, the 
NEPA process with other planning and environmental review procedures 
required by law or conducted pursuant to agency practice, agencies 
identify issues early, reduce redundancy, promote efficiency and 
expedite overall environmental review. We welcome the opportunity to 
work with GAO to more fully describe these qualitative benefits of 
NEPA reviews in the Proposed Report. 

We also note that throughout the document, GAO refers to "NEPA 
analyses." We suggest using the phrase "NEPA reviews" to better 
reflect NEPA's procedural requirements. Similarly, throughout the 
report, GAO uses the phrase "likely environmental effects" when 
describing the applicability of NEPA. We note that neither the statute 
nor CEQ's regulations limit NEPA reviews to "likely" environmental 
effects and recommend using the word "potential" when describing the 
environmental effects considered under NEPA reviews. 

We would also like to bring to GAO's attention the most recent 
"Lessons Learned Quarterly Report" issued by the Department of Energy 
(DOE) and a recent article published in the Journal of Forestry 
regarding the Forest Service and land management litigation. These 
documents provide data which GAO may find informative as it finalizes 
the Proposed Report. DOE's most recent quarterly report can be 
accessed at the following URL: [hyperlink, 
http://www.energy.gov/node/810944] and should be used to provide more 
current data regarding DOE's statistics in Proposed Report. 

In the Proposed Report, GAO references and discusses a 2006 article in 
the Journal of Forestry on land management litigation (page 19). We 
recommend GAO consider the findings in a more recent article published 
in the January 2014 issue of the Journal of Forestry titled, "Twenty 
Years of Forest Service Land Management Litigation." GAO may find the 
updated data in this article helpful. For example, based on litigation 
cases filed from 1989 to 2008, the Forest Service prevailed in 53.8% 
of these cases, lost 23.3%, and settled 22.9%. 

Finally, to increase the overall accuracy and clarity of the report, 
we intend to share some additional technical and editorial comments 
with your staff. We look forward to continuing to work with GAO on
completing this report. Should you have any questions or require 
further clarification of these comments, please contact Manisha Patel 
at mpatel@ceq.eop.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Michael J. Boots: 
Acting Chair: 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contacts: 

Anne-Marie Fennell, (202) 512-3841 or fennella@gao.gov: 

Alfredo Gomez, (202) 512-3841 or gomezj@gao.gov: 

Brian Lepore, (202) 512-4523 or leporeb@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individuals named above, Anne Johnson and Harold 
Reich (Assistant Directors); Ronnie Bergman; Cindy Gilbert; Richard P. 
Johnson; Terence Lam; Alison O'Neill; Pepe Thompson; and John Wren 
made key contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] NEPA applies to federal agency policies, programs, plans, and 
projects (40 C.F.R. § 1508.18(b)). The focus of this report is on 
development projects. 

[2] Pub. L. No. 91-190 (1970), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 4321-4347. 
NEPA's congressional declaration of purpose states that the purposes 
of the act are "to declare a national policy which will encourage 
productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to 
promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the 
environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; 
to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural 
resources important to the Nation; and to establish a Council on 
Environmental Quality." 42 U.S.C. § 4321. 

[3] The CEQ "Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of 
the National Environmental Policy Act" (CEQ regulations), 40 C.F.R. 
Parts 1500-1508, set out the levels of analysis and documentation for 
complying with NEPA. The level of analysis and documentation can take 
the form of a Categorical Exclusion (CE), Environmental Assessment 
(EA), or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Not all CEs are 
documented at the time the CE is used for a specific proposed project. 

[4] The human environment is interpreted comprehensively to include 
the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people to 
that environment (40 C.F.R. § 1508.14). The effects analyzed under 
NEPA include ecological, aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, 
social, or health (40 C.F.R. § 1508.8). 

[5] An EIS must, among other things, (1) describe the environment that 
will be affected, (2) identify alternatives to the proposed action and 
identify the agency's preferred alternative, (3) present the 
environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives, and (4) 
identify any adverse environmental impacts that cannot be avoided 
should the proposed action be implemented. 

[6] Some categorical exclusions are established by statute and 
therefore generally do not require an agency determination that such 
actions do not have a significant environmental impact. 

[7] 40 C.F.R. § 1506.5. 

[8] 40 C.F.R. Parts 1500-1508. 

[9] The EIS process begins with publication of a Notice of Intent 
stating an agency intends to prepare an EIS for a proposed project. 
EPA publishes Notices of Availability in the Federal Register 
notifying the public when a draft EIS is available for comment and 
when a final EIS is has been issued. 

[10] While there is no corresponding requirement for an EA public 
comment period, agencies may provide one. See, e.g., 40 C.F.R. § 
1506.6 (Agencies shall make "diligent efforts to involve the public in 
preparing and implementing their NEPA procedures.") 

[11] 40 CFR § 1502.9(c)(1). 

[12] See 40 C.F.R. §§ 1500.4, 1500.5, and regulations cited therein. 

[13] Also, unlike these other laws, while NEPA imposes procedural 
requirements, it does not establish substantive standards. 

[14] CRS, The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Background and 
Implementation, RL33152 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 10, 2011). NEPA does 
not contain civil or criminal enforcement provisions; litigation 
challenging an agency's compliance is brought under the Administrative 
Procedure Act. 

[15] The Recovery Act required the President to report to the Senate 
Environment and Public Works Committee and the House Natural Resources 
Committee every 90 days until September 30, 2011 on the status and 
progress of projects and activities funded by this Act with respect to 
compliance with National Environmental Policy Act requirements and 
documentation. Pub. L. No. 111-5, § 1609(c), 123 Stat. 304 (2009). 
Recovery Act projects may not be representative of ratios for all NEPA 
analyses. CEQ reports to Congress on the status and progress of NEPA 
reviews under the Recovery Act can be accessed here. 

[16] CRS, The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Background and 
Implementation, RL33152 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 10, 2011). 

[17] GAO, Highway Projects: Some Federal and State Practices to 
Expedite Completion Show Progress, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-593] (Washington, D.C.: June 6, 
2012). 

[18] NAEP's annual NEPA reports generally include two sets of EIS 
data. The first set, presented in tables 1 and 2, reflects NAEP's 
analysis of the number of draft and final EIS announcements published 
in the Federal Register. The second set of EIS data are used by NAEP 
to analyze the time frames associated with completing EISs. The two 
sets of EIS data within NAEP reports generally do not match, in part 
because the sample of EISs used to evaluate time frames excludes 
certain projects, such as "adoptions" or EISs that were subsequently 
supplemented. 

[19] CRS, The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Background and 
Implementation, RL33152 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 10, 2011). 

[20] NAEP, Annual NEPA Report 2012 of the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA) Practice (April 2013). 

[21] The agency remains responsible for the scope and content of the 
analyses under NEPA and the NEPA documentation. 40 C.F.R. § 1506.5. 

[22] U.S. Forest Service, Competitive Sourcing Program Office, 
Feasibility Study of Activities Related to National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 10, 2007). 

[23] U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway 
Administration, Evaluating the Performance of Environmental 
Streamlining: Phase II (Washington, D.C.: 2003). We have ongoing work 
reviewing what is known about any duplication resulting from state and 
federal environmental impact review requirements for federal highway 
projects, as required by Section 1322 of the Moving Ahead for Progress 
in the 21st Century Act, Pub. L. No. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 553 
(2012). We expect to issue a final report by the end of October 2014. 

[24] According to DOE, the cost for the $85 million Hanford Tank 
Closure and Waste Management EIS includes the costs for three major 
EISs--waste management, high-level waste tank closure, and disposition 
of a nuclear reactor--that were started separately and ultimately 
integrated into one document. 

[25] The NEPA Task Force Report to The Council on Environmental 
Quality, Modernizing NEPA Implementation. (September 2003). 

[26] The NEPA Task Force Report to The Council on Environmental 
Quality, Modernizing NEPA Implementation. (September 2003). This 
report estimated that a "small" EA typically costs from $5,000 to 
$20,000 and a "large" EA costs from $50,000 to $200,000, but the 
report did not define "small" and "large." 

[27] According to CEQ officials, time frame data do not reflect 
certain nuances in the NEPA process. There could be a number of "non-
NEPA" reasons for the "start," "pause," and "stop" of a project, such 
as waiting for funding or a non-federal permit, authorization, or 
other determination. 

[28] NAEP, Annual NEPA Report 2012 of the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA) Practice (April 2013). NAEP's estimates are subject 
to sampling error and highlight the considerable variability in the 
time frames associated with EISs across the federal government. NAEP 
presented its time frame data along with margins of error at one 
standard deviation. NAEP's NEPA average preparation time of 1,675 days 
had a one standard deviation confidence interval of plus or minus 
1,247 days (plus or minus 3.4 years). Also, the number of final EISs 
included in this sample--197--does not match the number of final EISs--
210--presented for 2012 in table 1. NAEP's annual reports use two 
different sources of information on NEPA analyses, one for its count 
of NEPA analysis, and another for analyzing time frames. 

[29] For more information on EIS time frames, see Piet deWitt and 
Carole A. deWitt, "How Long Does It Take to Prepare an Environmental 
Impact Statement?" Environmental Practice 10, no. 4 (December 2008) 
and Piet deWitt and Carole A. deWitt, "Preparation Times for Final 
Environmental Impact Statements Made Available from 2007 through 
2010," Environmental Practice 15, no. 2 (June 2013). 

[30] CRS, The National Environmental Policy Act: Streamlining NEPA, 
RL33267 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 6, 2007). 

[31] GAO, Federal-Aid Highways: Federal Requirements for Highways May 
Influence Funding Decisions and Create Challenges, but Benefits and 
Costs Are Not Tracked, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-36] (Washington, D.C.: December 12, 
2008). 

[32] Click here for more information on PEPC. 

[33] CRS, The Role of the Environmental Review Process in Federally 
Funded Highway Projects: Background and Issues for Congress, R42479, 
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 11, 2012). 

[34] Click here to see "NEPA Success Stories and Benefits." As of 
February 26, 2014, CEQ's NEPA.gov website was down due to security 
issues. 

[35] DOE's NEPA success stories can be found here. 

[36] 40 C.F.R. Parts 1500-1508, at § 1502.25. 

[37] CRS, The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Background and 
Implementation, RL33152 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 10, 2011). According 
to technical comments from CEQ and federal agencies, this statement is 
overbroad. Studies, reviews, or consultations required by law and 
related to the environment may occur outside the NEPA process when 
necessary, and in fact this routinely occurs in real practice. Thus, 
according to the technical comments, it would be more accurate to 
track the language in the relevant CEQ regulation, 40 CFR 1500.2(c). 

[38] CRS, The National Environmental Policy Act: Streamlining NEPA, 
RL33267 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 6, 2007). 

[39] As summarized by CEQ on its website, since 2001, fewer than 175 
NEPA cases were filed each year, with fewer than 100 filed each year 
in 2007, 2009, 2010, and 2011. A 2004 report by the Environmental Law 
Institute cited an increase in the number of NEPA cases filed in 2001 
and 2002. See Jay E. Austin, et al. Judging NEPA: A "Hard Look" at 
Judicial Decision Making Under the National Environmental Policy Act 
(Washington, D.C.: Environmental Law Institute, 2004). 

[40] Steven K. Imig, NEPA Case Law Update, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law 
Foundation Special Institute on the National Environmental Policy Act, 
October 28-29, 2010, Paper 12. 

[41] CRS, The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Background and 
Implementation, RL33152 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 10, 2011). 

[42] CEQ did not define the terms "public interest group" or "business 
group" in its published survey results. According to CEQ officials, 
CEQ used the terms "public interest group" to include citizen groups 
and environmental nongovernmental organizations and the term "business 
group" to include business, industry, and development focused groups 
and organizations. 

[43] The total number of dispositions does not relate directly to the 
94 cases filed in 2011 because litigation may take multiple years to 
resolve and there may be more than one disposition per case. 

[44] The CEQ surveys identify three types of nonadverse dispositions: 
(1) judgment for the defendant; (2) dismissal without settlement; and 
(3) settlement. 

[45] Amanda M.A. Miner, Robert W. Mamsheimer, and Denise M. Keele, 
"Twenty Years of Forest Service Land Management Litigation," Journal 
of Forestry 112, no. 1 (January 2014). 

[46] Daniel R. Mandelker, with the assistance of Robert L. Glicksman, 
Arianne Michalek Aughey, JD, and Donald McGillivray, NEPA Law and 
Litigation, 2ND ed. (Thomson Reuters/West, Rel. 10, 2012). 

[47] NAEP, Annual NEPA Report 2012 of the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA) Practice (April 2013). 

[48] 40 C.F.R. § 1507.3. 

[49] CRS, The National Environmental Policy Act: Streamlining NEPA, 
RL33267 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 6, 2007). 

[50] According to technical comments from CEQ and federal agencies, 
several DOT administrations, including Federal Aviation 
Administration, are tracking the status of NEPA analyses, or NEPA 
status is reported as part of a larger financial tracking database. 

[51] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-593]. 

[52] Click here to see the information on DOE's website. 

[53] DOE's September 2013 quarterly report can be found here. These 
data are discussed in more detail elsewhere in this report. 

[54] DOE, Secretarial Policy Statement on the National Environmental 
Policy Act, (Washington, D.C.: June 13, 1994). The secretarial policy 
statement is available here. 

[55] More information on Forest Service's eMNEPA is available here. 

[56] CEQ, Memorandum to Agencies: Forty Most Asked Questions 
Concerning CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act Regulations. 46 
Fed. Reg. 18026 (Mar. 23, 1981) as amended. 

[57] CEQ used to report on NEPA litigation in required annual reports, 
but the annual reporting requirement was eliminated by Congress, and 
the last annual report was issued in 1997. CEQ's more recent NEPA 
litigation survey results are provided here. 

[58] Such litigation is handled both by the Department of Justice's 
Environment and Natural Resources Division and by individual U.S. 
Attorneys' Offices depending upon the agency, the type of case, and 
the expertise of the department's personnel. Agency personnel provide 
the Department of Justice with the administrative record that forms 
the basis of judicial review and provide assistance throughout the 
litigation process, as needed. 

[59] According to Department of Justice officials, the Environment and 
Natural Resources Division uses a customized Case Management System 
for internal purposes. This Case Management System includes case 
information such as the caption, lead statute, court district, case 
hours, and general outcomes. The Environment and Natural Resources 
Division generally uses the Case Management System information to 
measure performance, assess resource needs and expenditures, and track 
the hours of certain employees to individual cases. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the 
performance and accountability of the federal government for the 
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates 
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, 
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, 
and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is 
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 
reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
"E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO's actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO's 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

[End of document]