and that its scientists did, in fact, consider contrary opinions, including the Beschta report. It is not an adequate alternative, however, to merely include scientific information in the administrative record. NEPA requires that the EIS itself “make explicit reference ... to the scientific and other sources relied upon for conclusions in the statement.” See 40 C.F.R. § 1502.24; see also Grazing Fields Farm v. Goldschmidt, 626 F.2d 1068, 1072 (1st Cir.1980) (“We find no indication in [NEPA] that Congress contemplated that studies or memo-randa contained in the administrative record, but not incorporated in any way into an EIS, can bring into compliance with NEPA an EIS that by itself is inadequate”); Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Blackwood, 161 F.3d 1208, 1214 (9th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>) Nor does the fact that the Forest Service’s
holding that a courts role in reviewing an administrative agency decision is limited to determining if there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the agencys findings and conclusions and to determine if the administrative decision is premised upon an erroneous conclusion of law holding that a reviewing courts task is to determine whether there was substantial evidence before the administrative agency on the record as a whole to support the agencys conclusions holding environmental assessment ea inadequate where ea contained virtually no reference to any material in support of or in opposition to its conclusions deficiency not cured by support contained in administrative record holding that an ea prepared by an agency in that case was not the functional equivalent of an eis holding that usfs did not violate nepa by failing to include project in cumulative effects analysis when parameters of the   project were unknown at the time of the ea