The proponent responded to letters regarding the Draft EIS.
The proponent included public comments in their scoping analysis.
The proponent addressed a wide range of areas of concern, such as air resources, biological resources, and housing.
The document was well-organized and had a high degree of transparency (for instance, they mentioned which organization took samples, which is pertinent because it can indicate bias).
Several alternatives are provided and each has clear benefits.
The proponent failed to justify why Alternative 3 was not chosen, even though reviewers considered it the "environmentally superior alternative."
The proponent downplayed certain project effects, namely on air and water resources. They did not bother to adequately examine the groundwater effects, which later led to a legal battle against the Mammoth Community Water District (MCWD).
Though the proponent responded to the comment letters, their final EIS did not address all of the concerns in the letters.
Some important effects were disregarded, and mitigation measures were often not very detailed.
Cumulative impacts were insufficiently thought over and only concerned air resources.
The proponent underestimated the safety distance for noxious gas emissions. Consequently, their qualitative public health impact assessment is insufficient.
The mitigation measures focus on easy solutions and brush over more complicated issues.
The more complicated impacts are sometimes addressed through a Plan, but thorough details on the plans are not provided.
Impacts associated with the No Action Alternative are not provided, even though the expected drilling of exploratory wells in the Basalt Canyon will likely have environmental, social and/or cultural impacts.