procedural posture in the procedural posture of this case is very important to the court's resolution of the appeal when we were before the trial court in order to make out our prima fashion case what we did was we argue that the economic analysis that was prepared at the timber self level or at the site specific level was in adequate to comply with the provisions of the national forest management act the forest service took the nineteen apply at the site specific level or does it only apply at the forest fire level and the case that we have here before the court the forest plans were developed a decade or more  me but if i understood it right underneath the farmer service does not have to assign a money value to the recreational use of sedition under the foreign management act the forest service does have to assign a money value where reasonable but quite qualitative criteria can be used when monetary values cannot be reasonably assigned and  the forest service does not have to use a monetary value in the project specific plans as opposed to the overall plan so it's like they just that's what they did your expert witnesses think that's not reasonable they should used the monetary value their expert witnesses think it's really not reasonable to use a monetary value for non monetary things and a qualitative is good enough and all you can do that's that's really supportable what am i missing there your honor respectfully what you're missing is the fact that two nineteen point twelve which is the regulation that opposes an affirmative obligation on the forest we go with you that far it still has that qualification when a monetary value can reasonably be signed right then and you have to be experts in disagreement about whether a monetary value can really be assigned again your honor that's not correct again and it's and i'm glad that we're on this because the issue of deference is obviously a critical importance here if this were a case where there was a disagreement about a technical or a scientific or a complex matter exalt the feeling that you get from sea kayaking in the inside passage within view of the town gas is something that's priceless literally it does not have a price there is no monetary value that can reasonably be  what basis could we say that it's an abuse of discretion to go with the second view rather than the first i am not here arguing that you should and actually to be perfectly frank i would be an uphill battle for me to make such an argument but that's not the case that's before the court today the case before the court in the case before the court the forest service big knowledge just that they could have assigned a monetary value to people when i've been one of them getting in to see kayaks around these and we all went back and told our friends how wonderful it is how can these two what it's worth to any of us the there are various methodology is your honor that the forest service uses and in fact the forest service is one of the leading research shops for the determination of non market value of the forest service has made a routine business of assigning market values to non market resources the development of a forest plan but to the maintenance then the revision of the forests plan they also have said at two nineteen point three that the regulations that are incorporated into part to nineteen apply recreation and economic value you would come up with an amount and it would be and it would be a hundred and ten billion dollars at least that's the amount that you the record what i will get what i will get is an economic value is how much people can make by selling rasping trips have renting steve kayaks in those locations where that's available now there are many exalted aesthetic experiences where they can't and that is only  highway you will have numerous exalted if that experiences but there's nobody to pay a fee to so it won't be in any of the humiliations of they go on the price of recreation yard it's interesting but monetary value of that particular resource but that is how the forest service economic economists do that too and you're talking there about how much money people marketing the recreational use is make like all the hotels around the contingent valuation methodology method which takes into account a consumer surplus which tends to be higher than the travel cost method but again i think it meant that that really regulations broad guidelines to be followed in preparing regional and site specific that's three forty one the third at nine sixty five exit the regulation  there on the regulation issue was to nineteen point nineteen which dealt with the analysis requirements for biodiversity on a national forest the forest service just like it does in this case argued in inland empire forest service this position in that case that took part to nine thousand regulations only apply at the landscape level and not at the site specific level and this court determined no the regulations apply to the site specific level as well as to the that i kind of have an unfair advantage in knowing what we were arguing and we were focusing on the part two nineteen nineteen regulations and our position at that time regulation can be a project area i think that it's it would be a jump to apply that reasoning to tonight scene twelve which is yeah the forest service does its planning and sue levels creates a forest plan it has to consider its regulations in doing so and at the project levels the project has to be consistent with that plan and that's how you get at are you being consistent with the certainly do governed to nineteen twelve which is preparing for its plans that said i'd like to take a step back because we are talking a lot about monetizing and whether man and under the implementing regulations that it sets forth exactly how it should do that in every place you find a reference to public benefits maximising those benefits it's within the regulations describing preparing your forest plan under the law there's no plain language in the statute or in the regulations that require this to be done at the project level in the forest service interpretation that it should do this economic balance thing of all resources how best to provide for multiple  which itself means over a long period of time is to do so at the plant level and it did so here it's very misleading to suggest that the forest service didn't do any of this the forest service did it and of course the forest service retains the discretion depending on the forest depending on the information it had available and on the reliability of that information depending upon other subjective means and there are the four services says it's not that algae based on the resources that it's looking and it's kind of for these alternatives and how we decided we can best weed arm up meet our objectives in managing this forest we're going to step aside these areas for no harvest these areas for a limited harvest these areas for a legal matter regardless of whether you have a brand new forest plan or an old forest plan you've got to do it again you have to go to redo your analysis that's what they want they want to done again you can't just rely on your forest plan which but you got to do it again in your project level analysis they could say hey we don't think that you balance things correctly at your forest plan level because this project is that where you want to what you're calling me tricks which is the area we're typically timber activities occur we think that's better as a cross country winter cross country ski area and for these recreational reasons or other aesthetic reasons you did it wrong they didn't do that they presented you with a purely legal question they don't say something else should have happened they don't challenge the assumptions they don't challenge the prescriptions they don't challenge the allocations they want this court to ignore what happened at the forced plan level and just hold something that next month doesn't require inconsistent because that's the only question they didn't say hey for the johnson project we gave you we submitted to you forest service evidence that you did it wrong you blew it there's new data they didn't do any of that this record shows that the project analyses that stand unless they should have done redone the economic analyses and the force plan analyses stand and it's our position that the forest service has a reasonable interpretation of the national forest management act and a permissible interpretation of its own regulations and those interpretations are entitled to substantial deference and its choice of methodology it is a choice of methodology do we do this at the project level where we might only believe that the thrust and language of the sack should and the regulations would require council as you know i have some problem with the methodology of putting values on noneconomic good understand exactly how you put a number on the ladder but if i understand what you're saying the farmer service doesn't fact put a number on will provide or it just does it at the at the are economic means to try to evaluate what a person might pay per day the common high end and then they look at things like recreational fishing keeping and you know streams clean enough that they're stock that fishermen would pay to come they do different things i think that and one of the forest plans to try let's say you can do it as opposed to just valuing what the recreation industry can get out of the forests that you can value recreation i am suggesting there's a distinction between valuing the recreation and value and what the recreational industry can collect let's say you can do both and they do both not do it at the state specific level i'm not saying they asked to but if they can do it at the project level what's a barrier to doing it at the state specific level of what is a matter i think of well what the what they're directed to do under the answer a legal question if you understand what is your practical matter they're talking about what and what doesn't and so far i don't fully understand what you're talking about i mean why not do it if you can do it if it's cheap and you can do it i don't know that it's cheap i don't know that an opportunity for the forest service to use this model to put in how ok let's maximize non market issues let's naps in mice timber let's do our next sure and let's analyze these alternatives and see which one we think best meets the needs for the forests and then they allocate the land that weighs to the when you have a project your project is taking those things into account because it's only going to be cutting where it's been allocated to do that it's going to be protective where the forest lands telling it to be protected but if something new came up and there was you know a group that came in and said wait a minute we want offer of vehicles in this area we don't want you to cut down the trees or we think this is a bird sanctuary and made myself clear important for the courts realize that a forest plan does not make any resource commitments at all it doesn't schedule any chamber sales what the forest plan is a zoning ordinance here is what the forest service in the brief to the supreme court  the ohio forestry association case if it's one sentence even were a particular tract is designated as suited for timber production but the forest service and the prospective purchasers will consider a variety of site specific environmental and economic factors but the for any temper harvesting activities will actually occur economic values shift and change over time that is why the forest service has been