I further clarify the role of the 2010 study and the 2014 update as supporting the <br />2 decision. <br />3 We consider the decision and its supporting documentation adequate for <br />4 review. It is not unusual for decision makers to be presented documents that <br />5 present a range of possible options. Here the number of acres identified as <br />6 needed varies, because those documents were prepared at different times and <br />7 are based on different data and different assumptions. The fact that the 2014 <br />8 update modifies the 2010 analysis and results in new projected figures does not <br />9 make those documents "internally inconsistent." <br />10 Nonetheless, petitioners also argue that "it is not possible to tell which <br />11 jobs forecasts and land needs were ultimately selected to form the basis of the <br />12 decision and why." Petition for Review 41. Respondents have not identified <br />13 any part of the challenged decision that clearly and expressly selects between <br />14 the different employment projections presented by the 2010 Study, REA and <br />15 2014 Update or the different estimates of the number of acres required to meet <br />16 projected employment needs. However, intervenor submitted a letter to the <br />17 board of commissioners, which it adopted as findings. A portion of that letter <br />18 is set out below: <br />Page 54 <br />