Demystifying FAST-41: Increasing Speed and Schedule Certainty in Critical Minerals Mines

Part of the 2015 Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act), the FAST-41 process seeks to improve speed, predictability, and transparency in the federal environmental review and land-use permitting process for large infrastructure projects. Initially developed for transportation infrastructure, FAST-41 was expanded by a March 2025 executive order to cover critical minerals, like lithium, uranium, copper, potash, gold and other elements needed for renewable energy, defense and artificial intelligence technologies.

Increasingly viewed as a matter of economic and national security, the effort to bring permitting reform to critical mineral operations aims to grow the domestic supply chain.

This is good news for mining firms, but will this reform really increase projects’ speed-to-market?

We turned to SWCA Environmental Consultants’ Mining Director, Andrew Harley, and Planning Director, Donna Morey, for answers.

Q: Tell us about FAST-41. What does it do?

A: The FAST-41 process was only recently extended to mining, but it has been around for a decade, so we have a lot of experience with it. It’s a formal process for coordinating federal environmental reviews and land use permitting.

The federal review process—especially for mines—can be cumbersome. It involves a morass of permits from half a dozen different agencies (or more), and each has their own processes and timelines. FAST-41 works to get them all on the same page:

• It sets a shared calendar of reviews and standardizes consultation and coordination practices.
• It increases transparency by placing all FAST-41 projects on a public dashboard, where anyone can track their progress.
• It proactively resolves problems and conflicts that arise in the permitting process by facilitating better communication between agencies, project developers, and their teams.

There are two FAST-41 pathways: covered projects or transparency projects. Covered projects have some added bonuses. They have a project coordinator assigned to them on the agency side, who can help shepherd them through the process. They also have regular, all-agency check-ins to help them stay on track, and if an agency fails to meet a posted completion date, they’re reported to Congress as being in “nonconformance.” This helps to motivate everyone involved in the process to keep it on track. Transparency projects are publicly tracked on the FAST-41 dashboard and benefit from being in the program, but do not receive the same level of coordination.

Q: How extensive is SWCA’s experience with FAST-41?

A: SWCA has supported multiple FAST-41 projects across both transparency and covered categories, including several mining projects. While the program only recently expanded to cover critical minerals projects, we just completed the environmental review for the Silver Peak Mine.

In many cases, SWCA has supported both first-party work and third-party NEPA roles, effectively serving as additional staff and expertise for both clients and agencies.

The sky reflects off a lithium evaporation pond at Silver Peak Mine. A salt storage pile is visible in the background.

Q: So, what are the major advantages that mining companies see in the FAST-41 process?

A: Speed, protection from legal liability and, above all, schedule certainty.

• Speed. The point of the program is to improve the “timeliness” of the review process. Although this is not specific to mining, there is some initial data from the program’s early years to suggest that the process is working. Jamie Pluene and Edward Bolig note that the average time for a FAST-41 project to complete its Environmental Impact Statement was 2.5 years (vs. the 4.5-year average across all agencies from 2010-2018). “On average,” they report, “voluntary FAST-41 projects were completed within one month of the original schedule (developed under the program).” This isn’t too surprising, since better coordination between agencies can reduce the number of times a project developer has to wait on a review.
• Schedule Certainty. In any case, this program is providing more certainty about the project schedule, which is not only good in itself, but can help to reduce investors’ sense of risk – and, hence, the cost of capital.
• Legal Liability. FAST-41 does not change a project’s statutory obligations or reduce its legal liability. However, the transparency steps that it puts in place (especially, its dashboard) create a strong, administrative record which can help determine liability issues.

Q: What questions do mining clients typically bring to you about FAST-41?

A: Clients usually want to know whether the FAST-41 process will help their project, whether their project is large enough to qualify, and whether entering the process could create tension with their existing lead agency. Cost is another common concern, along with timing—specifically, whether their project is at the right stage to pursue FAST-41.

Most mining projects are large enough to qualify, but very early-stage exploration projects generally are not.

Q: Is there a risk that participating in FAST-41 could upset the lead permitting agency?

A: That concern does come up, because FAST-41 introduces additional oversight. However, when managed correctly, it typically does not create conflict. The key is understanding when and how to engage with the program, so it complements rather than complicates existing agency relationships.

Q: How important is timing when deciding to pursue FAST-41?

A: Timing is critical. FAST-41 is often described as a one-year permitting timeline, but that only works if the project is ready. If a client enters the process without having key information prepared, that year can become extremely stressful and counterproductive.

Projects need to reach a certain level of maturity before FAST-41 makes sense. While it’s possible to apply early and formally enter later, clients still need a clear understanding of when they will be ready to meet FAST-41 expectations.

View from on top of a salt storage pile overlooks evaporation ponds and processing facilities.

Q: What does a project need to have in place before entering FAST-41?

• Mine Concept. At a minimum, a project should have a reasonably developed mine concept—generally at least at the Preliminary Economic Analysis (PEA) level. That allows agencies to understand capital investment, ore viability, project scale, and whether operations will happen at the surface or underground.
• Alternative Designs. They also should have given adequate consideration to alternative design, siting, access, and other considerations to allow the Draft Environmental Impacts Statement to proceed. Projects also must consider major components such as tailings and heap leach facilities, with an emphasis on water sourcing, utilities, and access planning.
• Baseline Environmental Data. In addition, projects often need multiple years of baseline environmental data, depending on location and species presence. This is particularly important for Endangered Species Act considerations.

Q: What are some of the primary challenges clients face in the FAST-41 process?

A: One of the biggest challenges is verifying that baseline reports and technical studies are actually complete and meet agency expectations.

Some consultants submit reports that technically exist but do not contain the level of detail agencies require, which causes delays.

Another challenge is internal capacity. Some clients simply don’t have enough in-house permitting staff to manage the complexity and coordination required.

Q: Can you describe SWCA’s FAST-41 experience with the Silver Peak Mine?

A: Silver Peak participated as a FAST-41 transparency project rather than a covered project. It’s a lithium mine that was ready to permit and it was politically visible, so it was a good candidate for transparency listing. While it did not have a dedicated FAST 41 coordinator, the transparency status still provided leverage. When approvals stalled in Washington, D.C., referencing FAST-41 timelines helped push the authorization through very quickly.

Q: Where was the Silver Peak project in terms of the permitting process when it entered FAST-41?

A: It was pretty far along… We had a well-developed mine plan with analysis of alternatives and good baseline environmental data. The EIS was relatively straightforward, because the project involved limited physical changes at an already disturbed mine site. Much of our work involved reconciling legacy issues from previous ownership and bringing documentation up to date.

But the project illustrates how FAST-41 can be especially effective when a project is already well prepared. In fact, it took exactly one year to move from the Notice of Intent to receiving our Record of Decision approving the Silver Peak expansion.

View shows an evaporation pond at the Silver Peak Mine in Tonopah, Nevada.

Q: What advice would you give to mining companies considering FAST-41?

• Timing. First, understand the right timing. Entering FAST-41 before a project is ready can create unnecessary pressure.
• Status. Second, understand the difference between transparency and covered status. Covered status is harder to secure but offers the advantage of a dedicated FAST-41 coordinator and structured, recurring interagency meetings. Agencies that fail to participate appropriately can be removed from the process. Transparency is easier to obtain, but it still provides visibility and accountability. We definitely found that it helped motivate reviewers to hit important milestones.
• Baseline Environmental Data. Third, confirm that baseline data and alternatives analysis are sufficiently developed. FAST-41 timelines leave little room to collect new data, especially if new alternatives or issues are introduced during public review.

Q: How does FAST-41 affect project costs?

A: FAST-41 itself doesn’t necessarily increase costs, but being adequately prepared to meet FAST-41 timelines can. Developing baseline data, alternatives analysis, and project design earlier may require higher upfront investment, but it reduces the risk of delays and surprises later.

Of course, we don’t have to tell anyone in the mining business the value of schedule certainty.

Q: How does SWCA help clients overcome FAST-41 review and permitting challenges?

A: SWCA understands what agencies expect, so we help confirm that baseline reports are complete and defensible when submitted. We also provide strategic guidance on the permitting pathway, including which surveys are needed and when.

In many cases, SWCA effectively functions as an extension of the client’s permitting team, providing first-party support where internal resources are limited.

SWCA Can Help.

If you have any questions about FAST-41 or how to effectively implement your project, please contact one of our experts.