in a condemnation action and it was based on one justification only one justification in the record for that injunction that was to avoid irreparable harm the gas company had to clear all of the trees on the property by march fourteenth the testimony was that they needed to access the property by march first and then needed to complete cutting all of the trees march fourteenth this was for a hearing on february twenty and twenty seven so it was a request on monday and tuesday that access be granted by thursday to begin cutting trees and all of the asserted harm came from the tree flue flowed from missing the tree cutting devil now here on appeal a c p agrees that that deadline did not apply to the wilderness that they cannot cut the trees today and that they could not cut the trees that we are in on february twenty six tomorrow or tree cutting starting today and then i share the letter of the march eighth letter that this court has admitted that says that fur is still looking at how to reduce the number of trees cut and then you mean the  latter yes or the first letter information requests information quest yes your honor that and that letter says it actually repeats a lot of what we were saying at the district court here that the decisions have not been made about which trees to cut for has not authorized the cutting the location has not been authorized the width of the right of way has not been decided upon so they do not know which trees to cut as a matter of the fur certificate not as a matter of and something ancillary to the natural gas that as a matter of their own certificate they do not know which trees to cut and that information quest the information request was march eighth i believe it was march eighth that the calls came saying we are you know we're going to enter the property and we're going to cut there is all and the district court opinion allows them to cut one hundred twenty five feet foot wide that's the ri it's both the permanent and the temporary right of way that they plan to cut you know it's one is once walk one hundred twenty feet five feet wide and roughly two miles long on the wilderness t of both permanent and temporary so you're looking at fifty permanent and seventy five for temporary add them together you get the one twenty or so but missing that tree clearing deadline was the foundation it is clearly the foundation of this district court's opinion the district court when it gets to the injunction section says the reason for this is the march fourteenth deadline and when it gets to the irreparable harm analysis it mentions the march fourteenth deadline and when it i would you know i might be able to show them the briefing in this case just to should tell the sheriff or the sheriff's deputy that the can't cut it can't happen but they would have the district court's order saying that it depicts that hundred twenty five fits what it depicts it and sa five he says evaluate this is what the pipeline got me i guess both do evaluate how atlantic could reduce the with the construction and they do not have first permission to do so and this all ties back to the paragraph in the first certificate well why do you want to ask why do we do it that well yeah well i think what the course choice here is is either to modify this  injunction i think that's really what a c p is asking for they're saying that yeah we can't get on the trees but we can get on to do other things and our and our coin is we have not there's no evidence about this new motion that they're making they're on their brief they say well we could do other things we could do the archaeological survey and we could do things but the record is it was one justification it was treated the only evidence the court heard the district court was that all this harm was going to happen if that deadline came when our clients didn't didn't make the deadline come and go they never have for permission even that week to cut a single tree as the march eighth letter illustrates and it all ties back to the certificate so that is the order of four and it paragraph two sixty seven it states that the process is not over it talks about ongoing activities to protect the historic resource so that was that b but the certificate that so it's on the national register of historic places the wilbur's it's on the state register of historic places so there's obligations legal obligations under section one of those farm the whole properties a thousand deerfield valley is a little village called deerfield virginia and this is but the creek that goes through the the wilderness is actually called mill creek but i think i think the course correct about that about the watershed yes or in any event the  the protection flows from the certificate itself from the national historic preservation act and says a c p you are not done with this process it says ongoing activities must be completed before construction must be completed before but then why are they saying that they can't kill clear truth there's only one reason so that march eighth letter makes clear they're still deciding which trees to cut and where but the program matic agreement which is an agreement with between in the historic mitigation so they all came together on the stock and what is that document say one of the things says on page four is that construction includes the clearing of trees in vegetation now that is completely and believe that they are bound by what they saw and as to with the agency it's not just some other document the defiance construction that's the document that governs the management of this exact property and now it and that is an important point because what the state historical department decided was that the whole property is a story not i mean there's a beautiful home there and it's you know the heart of the property but what the state historical department decided was this entire thousand atlantic coast pipeline i want to thank the court for x expeditious consideration of this matter as a court knows this arises to the court because atlantic is instructing the atlantic coast pipeline a very significant interstate natural gas pipeline stretching from west virginia to north carolina now there is also eminent domain proceedings that are instituted in ongoing in the states that are affected by the pipeline where agreements could not be reached out with respect to these ones and so those proceedings are ongoing and of course those proceedings will take some time as just compensation is determined but what has not taken time is as this it and let me get to the wilderness but just to add a broader level your honor as i get to that the district court was very clear in handling these matters and the injunction in the access century order he entered is very clear it goes there are conditions that atlanta is in the process of satisfied but there is a route and there are easements on that route and that those are entered in evidence at the hearing and that was the subject of the partial summary judgment order that is not subject to appeal our position your honor is we're going to do the things that has asked in this letter and give them the information that they have asked for and we would like to do that as soon as we can get the access order back so you represent that this court that you are going to do those can't say what for alternately already that you know they may say ok we've looked at all this now you can cut trees they may say ok you did these things you can cut trees now come back later so i want to be clear we're not going to cut trees until first says pull one no your honor it would not and miss trial argued cases about that in the virginia supreme court and i don't believe that statute is a vehicle for the activity that we want to accomplish on the property and the reason is that if you give me that e g yes your honor the reason is that that statute allows surveys and examinations for an interstate ash gas pipeline like ours but it's restricted it doesn't for example allow the introduction of mechanize question what we would do tomorrow if we could get our access order back we get right to work on this and i don't know if the court at this briefing came in quickly but i wanted to make sure to highlight to the port we have also petitioned to for for an extension of that of my fellow council that there was certainly that mine impending was a media need for access to the various properties that were the subject of the hearing below but that wasn't the only need to access to go back to the answer to chief judge gregory question we need access for all the various but but you got the junction of based on the assertion that that was what you needed and that's what the judge relied on and that's what first came up here on the state bar and now you've testified actually on cost from wellness council that we want this order to go do all the things that first allows us to do and the things that for doesn't allow us to do if it hasn't there's conditions related but that just gives you the ability to go onto the property to do the things that has allowed you to do and at the time of the hearing judge king all first said and to you had asked about the site for paragraph two sixty seven which was in the the certificate had was it said you need to consider mitigation plans prior to construction and as we lay out in our grief our interpretation is that tree falling and this wasn't really the focus of the hearing but tree felling versus tree clearing is not construction activity and so on the face of the first certificate said you know come up with mitigation plan prior to construction and so our position was not inconsistent with that subsequently we have this letter of the  ongoing proceedings but i want to make sure i get back to what judge traxler asked me at the outset and of course there there's the record lows that about eighty percent of the needed easements have been secured through agreement among the parties outside of court so obviously there's an overarching interest and not burdening the courts and seeking private agreement and in this case you know that the route has to be the route that covers their land and certainly there's additional information that for needs but if the difference between the parties is a little thing or if it's a change in the route that can make it difficult to reach agreement and so here this is a this so that we don't know right now we don't know that your id trying to give you a cent you know certainly we want to work it out but we need there are deadlines there is a schedule we need to keep to i would say that's the primary thing there's use that are archaeological studies related to the rolls late at the operation the farm and there was a there's a prehistoric archaeological site on the wil expeditiously conducting archaeological studies gathering the data for gas for submitting the data defer for its consideration meanwhile we've asked for an extension of that tree falling deadline and so of course we know it's al district courts this court's had a couple of decisions but not on this issue but that the injunctions allow access because that's what flows from establishing the legal right to the easement which we have established that was the partial summary judgment think i would argue against trying to blue pencil the injunction and let me try to respond to that question first of all if you look at the injunction that the district court injunction entered the way this was based on the proposition you limb let me address that we have that line looming we needed to file trees and we had an order that said consider mitigation plan prior to construction and so we're trying to expeditiously move take the tree away later in the pipeline but that injunction which is in the particular part i direct the court to is that for sixty one of our appendix and that injunction to whether it needs to be modified or not it doesn't say go on and do tree clearing by the fourteenth it doesn't say you know do this or do that it says you have the right to access and then it's also clear it's a right to access consistent with what  courses the regulator here controls this whole project and so what land it is going to be responsive to for this injunction grants that the ability to access the land to do what for authorizes it to do and all i would say has happened since the hearing below is that for his make clear through this latter which the court accepted that it expects certain specific bangs and in light of that latter we plan to do those things and we're not going to do tree felling or treat clearing whatever you know we don't need to debate it the trees are going to be cut down and self or whatever it needs whatever it decides has the side of that you can do the tree falling  about well we can do this we can't do that and you know from your experience working with his court it's awfully hard for us to micromanage details like this just so you can leave that is would be easier if we had a lot of the about is that here here we identified four bases for a wrapper of a harm in the motion and memorandum that we brought and treat cutting was the third of those four and so it was the immediate interest in it but there were four bases for a rubber ball arm and the district court found that we were successful and i think it's very telling that in his decision he says he said in this is that for twenty seven or twenty eight and addressing landowner arguments that well you can just wait until after not till november when the tree felling deadline you know comes back open again you can wait till then and do your project and he had this discussion at four twenty seven four twenty eight where he said you know even if that's true and even of the project would still be constructed on time now is the appropriate time for the entry order because we don't know all the things that could come up to your point that tracks are we you know whether first will take this and say ok i want to know one more thing before you can go on whether this will be enough that's first process it's iterative it's response of landowners address for and so we don't know what's going to come up so we have to keep going back to the district court and saying ok we harm and that's why i say this injunction is still properly predicated it wasn't clearly erroneous the district court's factual findings after extensive hearings and it was an abuse of discretion to issue the injunction and w continue dealing with her and the landowner will have a voice there and will do it for tells us to do under the terms of this untrue but the other three reasons was a the deadline turns are not cutting trees as all of the other three are clearly right there in our hands to do the things for example that are in this latter run then of course it will go over to first to consider and you know so it's not entirely in our hands but the things that are in this letter if we can get access are in our hands to do and will collect that information and it will go before and furcal make whatever decision it makes me pool this is the motion to modify these are things that were not before judge moon this argument that other things justify entry it's argument that we need to get on to do the archaeological surveys yes of course mr harris can point to remember the cross examination where the witness said that they could do other things you know pursuant to the to that to the entry however that was not offered as the justification for irreparable harm i think what we have here is they've offered a justification there's we have the winter for you have to it's a very high bar this is an injunction in joining our clients they have to prove likely imminent irreparable harm they offered into evidence one justification for the tree clearing by march fifteenth that is the thread that runs through out the district court opinion now they say it would be useful to go on the property to do other things and just as an aside the archaeological surveys are not an issue our clients want those to happen and i provided to my colleague mr hall time or dates and today is one of them tomorrow is one friday is another and all of next week so you can't i don't see why you need an injunction to do what my clients have allowed to occur they very much want an archaeological survey to happen they want to understand what is split on the other side why do you need one an injunction really what do you process to comply with for as this is a simple question yes and my simple answer is yes sir we want and that's why we've given permission for it that's why we provided dates including today tomorrow you know i think to get permission you know other word is that image domain is one of those places where you know the government has kept the imperial monarchy you know ruminants in our constitution and for work allows in this definitive way we have something to say about it because normally a condemnation has to occur with just compensation paid but in the middle we have this of course function in terms of whether or not you have a media access they have summary judgment already yes so there's no question about  like no question national is unlikely has already been done so it has for it's not a subject i mean i got it so what's left is whether or not they need to do these things before they cut trees and i'm saying at this point now wh e if they agree you know assuming now you may have doubts about it so we don't have an announcer if they're going to be a company in lawyers of their word why don't you want to start that now well and do that court's decision as to whether the winter factors have been satisfied and we are not being obstinate in insisting on an injunction for an archaeology survey we want the surveys to happen we have what we're after they do those surveys  deciding should we reroute should we narrow the right of way and what other historical artifacts are still in the ground undiscovered and the chainsaws are that they're pulling the strings in the chainsaw over on one side and over in d be very happy to try to hold ask and court to do anything by entering an agreed order and everything is changed since the hearing i mean you know when you when you show up to litigate they have a burden to carry and they admitted today that they didn't carry that burd now if i need to work with mr hatch mr holt's homer to work out something that keeps the district court out of that kind of micromanagement i want to do and my clients want the historical surveys to happen soon and they want to know what is the historic resource and how would it be affected by this so if we can help the district court to not micromanage that i will do everything i can to make that happen that is not our request here today but i don't think that they can offer one