activities until the state of montana establishes total total maximum daily load figures under the clean water act the court cared for three for at least three different reasons first the clean water act doesn't require service look at existing conditions conditions absent any action in connection with the flows from fire and three end and looked at in detail three alternatives showed what the difference  impact fish habitat so i think that's the answer is that the forest service gave a hard look at this issue and the requires only that if you have comparative analysis keep a couple minutes for about even had to do that number to what they did is they show or the harvest units that were going to occur were created relative to the on road areas and the inventory growth of series and there's roadless areas by putting roads to bed and closing roads permanently so that these areas now are considered robust are eligible for wilderness in the pen or in the future  and what we have here is an irony where we're we're closing roads what was normally in the past maybe ten years ago considered an irreversible year retrievable committing resources and now they have the planning regulations state of forest service needs to identify these areas tell the people that they're there disclose what the effect is going to be and the effect on some of these areas just going to be to cut trees although in our supplemental we have here is the forest service in a situation where they realize that there are settlement problems from the fire and they disclose that leader not believe mineral county is concerned because all the sediment comes down to where the county residents live in the bottom and they want something done about that they can't do it they don't own the land they can't do it they don't prepare the t m b else but i think that it's in some ways a red herring on this absolute implement practices to reduce settlements not operate on steve so if there's a larger list of things there and if you run by those and compare those to what the forest service did in yes they can adequately address issue without needing to know the specific absolute value they look at the relative value two ways one the percentage of of natural and also the relative differences between the alternatives and we believe that static with and i'd like to save  and that case the fore service was found not to have taken a hard look underneath because they did not know the impacts of the settlement on the water and in fact in that case the forest service  now they did do this water color program called lolo's which tells them that if they cut on a certain slope of certain acres this kind of thing we can expect so much sentiment to run off into the water after we do that and that's why in this this court went on to hold in blue mountains that we have borne the general statements about possible effects of some risk do not constitute a hear lung and that's what happened here areas some analysis of wilderness characteristics was made for that at the time of the forest fire and these one wrote it in areas where it even identified and again that record is not here in the record we have of they refer to a regulation that says this is an ok approach but they just have to consider this once in the planning and then never again and again that is exactly what smith held was wrong  there either and it makes sense if you think about it because things can change over time had they gone through for the on road in areas had the planning level set to go off the wilderness