I had a quick (1 hour :) ) look through the document. 

Nothing too concerning in my opinion, most of the potential threats to threatended speacies and cultural/historical habitats can be mitigated through various actions outlined in the document. Because of the process of mining a portion of the land and then backfilling (restoring) it back, this will undoubtidly affect local wildlife species, some that can adapt by moving as areas are disturbed and restored, but other species may not be able to make these moves. It is noted that there may/most likely will be affects to air quality and water quality in the area due to mine related activities, and transportation to and from the facility.

I find it very interesting the references to the battery production facility:

We see the following:

"The proposed battery production facility analyzed in the Draft EIS has been removed from the proposed Mine Plan of Operations by the applicant."

Followed by: 

"Lithium sulfide for use in solid state batteries would be produced in a three-step process with a pressurized reactor in an aqueous solution or in a non-aqueous high temperature reactor operating between 900- and 1,400-degrees Fahrenheit (°F). Lithium sulfide would be packaged in 55-gallon Thacker Pass Lithium Mine Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-8 Chapter 2 Alternatives drums and sold to the market. Approximately 3,300 tons of annual lithium sulfide production would be produced for internal consumption at the battery production complex. "

And then this:

"The battery manufacturing process and battery plant has been removed from the proposed Mine Plan of Operations."

I'm assuming "battery product facility" "Battery plant" and "Battery production complex" are the same things? Interesting that they are noted differently, and also that it seems contradictory to say that it is being removed in one area of the document, and then refer to it in another area. 

If the proposed battery production componend of the project has been removed by the applicant it leads me to believe it was for one or 2 reasons:

1) This somehow would cause an adverse environmental impact that could threaten the approval of the project

2) The potential TP partner does not require or has specifically asked LAC not take part in this peice of the process.

I'll have to have another read through it later this week as there is a ton to go through.