A pre-planning approach to speed the NEPA process for mining projects

When starting new mining projects or expanding existing ones, companies often need to prepare Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The time it has taken in the past to complete an EIS has varied from 18 months to over 7 years. A structured pre-planning approach can help avoid schedule delays that can lead to increased project costs and negative public perception.

A more structured NEPA pre-planning approach can benefit both mining companies and federal agencies. This also supports meeting accelerated NEPA timelines for preparing an EIS, including those projects occurring under the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023. Our approach incorporates pre-planning steps that have been used by several federal agencies to accelerate NEPA as well as new steps to guide companies through the NEPA pre-planning process in a proactive way.

This NEPA pre-planning approach would provide significant and tangible time- and cost-saving benefits both to the mining companies and the lead federal agencies. The benefits of this approach include:

• Providing a better understanding of specific data needs and common data gaps early in the planning process, thereby reducing the possibility of unexpected delays.
• Proactively addressing potential public concerns that could otherwise result in project delays.
• Prepare and submit a more complete Plan of Operations, technical reports, and other associated documents that provide necessary information for NEPA document preparation.
• Reducing project surprises, inefficiencies, and increased costs by minimizing delays during the NEPA process.
• Substantially reducing the EIS schedule to a more predictable timeframe.

The table below presents the framework for a modified pre-planning approach that incorporates current (as of February 2025) Bureau of Land Management pre-planning guidance. The table includes pre-filing steps used by other federal agencies and steps to facilitate the pre-planning and NEPA process. While we expect NEPA guidelines to undergo further changes in the Trump administration, efficiency throughout NEPA pre-planning will continue to play a critical role as the need to accelerate projects and to meet mandated NEPA schedules is likely to remain.

Tips for successful pre-planning implementation

For the modified pre-planning approach to be effective, the federal lead agency must be willing to undertake the following steps:

• Enter a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (i.e., cost recovery) with the company early in the pre-planning process.
• Work with the company to develop a list of Supplemental Authorities and resources to be analyzed and identify applicable analysis study area early in the pre-planning process.
• Work with the company to develop past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions early in the pre-planning process.
• Work with the company to develop the parameters of the applicant-prepared environmental review.
• Accept the environmental report as a deliverable for the project.

In addition, mining companies will be expected to:

• Enter an MOU for cost recovery with the federal lead agency early in the pre-planning process.
• Cover initial costs for pre-planning and development of an applicant-prepared environmental review for the project (though the time and money saved later in the process generally offsets these costs).
• Produce a complete and unbiased environmental review for submittal to the federal lead agency.
• Work with a NEPA expert that understands mining and is well-versed in NEPA document preparation.

By adopting this structured pre-planning approach, mining companies and federal agencies can significantly reduce the time and cost associated with the NEPA process. Mining companies can make significant progress in preparation for NEPA review and analysis by doing the following:

• Working closely with the lead federal agency.
• Development of critical information for the NEPA process (e.g., identification of resources and supplemental authorities).
• Early identification of public concerns.
• Early identification of resource study areas.
• Early identification of cumulative effects study areas.
• Early identification of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions.
• Preparation of critical reports (alternative-screening report and applicant-prepared environmental review).

This proactive strategy ensures that all necessary data is collected, public concerns are addressed early, and the project proceeds smoothly—benefiting both the environment and the community.