getting through here and going to take away your time two years ago or three years ago or five years that's good so if you prevail really what they have to do now is a new forest plan and a new e i a s right it's not really what you're asking us and they already have the continuing obligation from monitoring isn't really under the existing plan what value would it be to have this case go forward if they don't have a new clean was not published but that was undertaken but if they're going forward with the monitoring we just trying to find out as a practical matter what's going to happen well as a practical matter the force i was just as told this court from their from their standpoint they have at least as of two thousand and one i think that they have four years of consistent monitoring playing something that they'  propre time so let's just say for talking purposes that we couldn't consider he is that david and that from the record it's unclear whether they're applying the five percent  commercial or to everything or to some other definition we just don't know ok so we say ok you win on merit then they go back and they allowed to develop naturally and that there's enough old road habitat in there we believe already to satisfy the needs of the species we're only talking about that twenty percent of the forest where we intend to do commercial logging there we're going to asking what is the sign of supporting five percent as a minimum standard and supervisor said oh don't worry that's not the standard and we're not saying we're only going to make a five percent and this is how we're going to apply the standard so now all we're being told no ask about thirteen and what i was twenty now is that in a veteran education restoration project like you like this it's mostly prescribed burns and thinning there's very little of the type of timber harvesting that you're thinking about going on here and even less of that timber harvesting is going on in and your honor expressed some reservation about my timeline reservation because i can't get them from reading the administrative record while it is a technical explanation but if you look closely at mr whitford separation he relies entirely on administration but i think would be fundamentally unfair to the agency to allow the plaintiffs to rate their allegations during litigation and not allow the forest service for a spawn and i think it's also important here that you don't really have a question as to whether there two layers that the forest service was talking about there one is that there's the five percent growth standard and then the force of this was sent on top of that eighty percent of the forest isn't even going to be the areas that are designated for timber harvesting so there's two not really because of what is a commercial need but that's what i'm saying is that i think it's in the would be of bailable for the forest service to designate through the planning process but the forest service has said that through the planning process we're not going to doesn't it all that so it's not lobbying in the forest they haven't said this project affects those five hundred thousand acres that haven't said anything about this project with respect to this eighty twenty minutes i think that what they might just to be honest it's difficult to determine exactly what that you know they've they've sort of talked about everything but the actual definition of those terms to make their argument i just want to make one more point about i think the other sort of scientific disagreement that we have in the record is about in the area that they rotate from from year to year so it would be fully can sit down into the four services monitoring of the no territories has found roughly about thirty percent active terrorist force and those but i think red hand in hand what that the record of decision in this case because i think it shows two things that are rather important the first is that this project is really a vegetation restoration project it is not a chamber harvest project it is not accept a pretty trees project the second thing is that i think that impression but you're left with when you read the record of decision it's an important one it's that course of us has a rather thought full explanation for why it's a market on this project and it explains very early in the record decision how public input done well there isn't one so it's not to anything there's nowhere in the record where you will find a discussion of what these populations are supposed populations and productivity rates mean concerning the viability of the goshawk there's