of today the government's new less ration plan calls for the digging of channels here on the east side of the property where all these trees are in addition mr apples required to plant hundreds of trees sutton was that the camel chemical ecological functions of the areas to rounding a river are important and that the clean water act should require protection areas that funneled water into a river nothing mark you go out there and look at what flooded flows have left behind and you could find scour mark on a rock two hundred feet away from the river itself because that's what happens it's a sheet flow that occurs during  from nations which are of even under a particularly heightened deference second issue is that the district court reasonably credited the government's evidence over mr apple's evidence in a thorough sixty three page decision and finally the government did not use flood waters to determine the ordinary high watermark in this case and so the issue of whether floodwaters can be used to determine an ordinary high watermark is simply not presented and not in dispute here as to the standard of review this appeal involves finding that the fact that were this court gives great deference to the district court's credibility and determination and findings of fact and here mr apple is actually just really arguing the same arguments that he made in front of a district court his interpretation of the evidence as opposed to identifying any clearer error of judgment on the part of the district court not to look at the merits of the district court's decision but if the court was presented with a choice between the government's method of determining ordinary high watermark and mr apples nothing got the district properly credited the government's method which exam to mr apple property through historical aerial photographs and field investigation and what the government was looking for were physical characteristics associated with prolonged and frequent inundation and i can't emphasize that detail to explain here the flood here is a rare flood here is a an ordinary high water flow they are different they leave behind different signs and my field investigation can differentiate between them and the district court found that explanation credible areas of the riverbed that were subject to prolonged infrequent inundation and the district or properly rejected apples method which used a simple arithmetic model for three different reasons first does nothing out of the model is simplistic and did not reflect real world conditions and mr good can walk through his analysis and said if you are going to do a proper mathematical model here are some of the factors that you have to take into account and here is how mr hauck did not do that the district court reviewed that in time that credible in addition he made an error in applying his method his method used an average flow rate rather than ordinary high flow rate he used a model that was designed to analyze constructed blood control channels rather than a natural riverbed and there was a number of mistakes that he made the district court those were pointed out by the government's rebuttal experts and credited by the district court and then finally mr hucks method predicted that there would not be water in areas where aerial photographs prove that there were water even dur waters to determine an ordinary high water mark so as a fad that issue is simply not presented here and if you look at the district court's opinion on page eleven ninety two ninety three of the excerpts of record the district court specifically made the distinction between ordinary high flows used should not be used to make an ordinary high watermark determination that mr apple has at some times in his briefing tried to conflate the term flows with floodwaters but if you look at page four hundred seventy eight of the record there mr haas concedes that peak flows are not the same as floodwaters and that peak flows could sometimes be used as integrated into an ordinary how watermark determination whereas flood water should not finally as i mentioned before the government's determination or new high water mark used field observations that look to physical characteristics associated with prolonged and regular inundation that idea of a prolonged and regular inundation is antithetical to the idea of rare flood waters and so the idea that the government has to just briefly addressed they say that the government ignored water flows in its determination that's not true the government did not look at water flow data but it's field observation was a method of getting at flows it just wasn't