response to seri ous and considered comments by experts, that agency renders the procedural requirement meaningless and the EIS an exercise in “form over substance.” See Metcalf, 214 F.3d at 1142. Here, the BLM gave short shrift to a deluge of concerns from its own experts, FWS, the EPA, and state agencies; the BLM neither responded to their considered comments “objectively and in good faith” nor made responsive changes to the proposed regulations. Id. “[P]ublic scrutiny [is] essential to implementing NEPA,” 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(b), and the BLM was required to “assess and consider ... both individually and collectively” the public comments received during the NEPA process and to respond to such in its Final EIS. Id. § 1503.4(a); see Center for Biological Diversity, 349 F.3d at 1167 (<HOLDING>). We therefore conclude that the BLM violated
holding that nsf must comply with procedural requirements of nepa when considering incineration of food waste in antarctica because 1 the presumption against extraterritoriality does not apply because nepa is designed to regulate conduct occurring within the territory of the united states 2 the united states exercises legislative control over antarctica 3 any concerns about nepa interference with foreign policy were overstated because when foreign policy interests outweighed benefits of nepa compliance nepas requirements must yield and 4 broad language of the statute supports broad application of nepa requirements holding an agency decision is not final during the time the agency considers a petition for review holding that the agency in that case violated nepa when it failed to disclose and discuss responsible opposing scientific viewpoints in the final statement holding that plaintiffs bear the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that defendants have failed to adhere to the requirements of nepa holding that an agency may only tier to documents subject to nepa review and citing cases