Opinion ID: 166922
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Predetermined result

Text: 25 The plaintiffs argue that the agencies violated NEPA in issuing the Decision because they structured the analysis and framed the issues to ensure that additional restrictions on the use of snowmobiles in the area would be an inevitable result of the analysis. Appellants' Opening Br. at 14. We disagree. 26 The agencies articulated the goal for their review of winter use in the Molas Pass area as being [t]o provide visitors with an opportunity for a quality motorized and nonmotorized winter recreational experience, where both user groups have safe highway access to their sport of choice.  Decision at 2, AR at 988 (emphasis added). Nonmotorized users defined a quality experience for them to be the ability to recreate safely in an area free of noise, fumes, and intrusion of motorized vehicles. Id. Motorized users indicated they did not want to lose any areas currently designated as motorized, and also they would like additional terrain in the Silverton area. Id. The Decision explained the difficulty in accommodating the desires of both groups: 27 We would rather have had people work together to solve their joint social issues, while being sensitive to each other's needs. Both motorized and nonmotorized recreationists should strive to show more tolerance for one another and more inclination to work in a spirit of cooperation. 28 .... 29 When user groups do not want to give up what they feel is theirs, and become polarized, the fairest solution becomes compromise (and all users inevitably give up something). Given the diversity of public opinions regarding winter recreation at Molas Pass, the selected alternative became the compromise alternative. 30 Decision at 11, id. at 997. Far from ignoring motorized users' wishes, one of the Project Guidelines stated that the project would address the need for additional suitable terrain for motorized recreation. EA at 7, id. at 854. 31 In the end, the alternative selected took away 200 acres from motorized recreationists — approximately 3% of the total available for motorized use — but opened up additional terrain for motorized use by allowing such use off-trail in the BLM's Silverton Special Recreation Management Area. The agencies rejected alternatives which would have resulted in greater reductions in the acreage available to motorized users. In short, the agencies were faced with the difficult task of trying to accommodate different groups of users who were reluctant to give up what they had become accustomed to using. After hearing input from the public and considering a number of alternatives, the agencies reached a compromise solution, not one that was predetermined by their method of analysis. 2