	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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. EPA officials also told us that there is no  governmentwide mechanism to track the costs of completing EISs. However, DOE tracks limited cost data associated with NEPA analyses. 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   DOE’s median EIS contractor  low of $60,000 and a high of $85 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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.
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 generalizeable to agencies other than those selected.
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.

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.