Again the relevance of this requirement for agency NEPA procedures is primarily a matter of ensuring that opposing views are fairly treated and discussed in the process of preparing draft and final statements. Recommendation #3: Agencies should make an effort to discover and discuss all major, points of view in the draft statement itself. Where opposing professional views and responsible opinions have been overlooked in the draft statement and are brought to the agency's ee. attention through the commenting process, the agency should review the positive and negative environmental effects of the action r="; . in Tight.of, “those -vViews—and should make Qo 0 tee ae meaning ful=éferente.in the final.Statement =: i= “—=-" to the exisienz® of. any_responsible “Opposing? 2 view not adequately discussed in the draft statement with respect to adverse environ- - me mental effects, indicating the agency's response to the issues raised. All substantive comments received on the draft should be attached to the final statement, whether or not each=Sucn comment is thoucht to merit individual discussion by the acency in the text of the statement. At the same time that copies are sent to the Council, copies of final statements, with comments attached, should also be sent to all entities -- Federal, State and local agencies, private organizations and individuals -- that made substantive comments on the draft statement, thus informing such entities of the agency" s disposition of their arguments.