can talk about the players you could talk about the bias from the country you can talk about you know we will it's like we can swim around in this that forever they were it was sent back to the forest service to do supplemental analysis so that it comes up to the court once and we had agency action and there were a lot of things that seem to me that if we stick to what they came back with we can analyze that and do it under the normal criteria but it just seems to me can have a second chance at what should happen in the first action as well i mean i'm missing something and even if elaborate as to why all your claims somehow you know have a new life i think just having some trouble with that i guess it's fundamentally or is it a brand new issue it's  properly account for the goal of recovering the species and since the recovery zones are redundant with critical habitat i'm asking this court to find that habitat modification management situation one habit if if if we don't have and let's just say it's slightly different but what's the evidence that that difference as a material effect or somehow changes the  first the range of alternatives i think is flawed because they're in there no action alternative they did not include the consideration of the term in the contract now that the forest service says fortress should have considered the consequences of total abandonment of the project in other words the regulations profile provides for the methodology for determining the cost of when you when you breach of contract but for service didn't look through those functions and because they didn't make a that the terminations that in i don't think that they had informed a meaningful consideration under those cases of what the actual terms of actually compassed the services to make sure that every single timber sale benefits the grizzly bear or improves their habitat that issue also could have been raised back in one nine hundred ninety nine it was made the same argument based on the plan language likewise there endangered species act argument of that neighboring allotment and they did that so certainly mr battle would be free to bring any claims based on that new analysis that was done but if you want to make the argument that the forest plan itself required each individual timber we do for which this case was sent back that particular decision can be a challenge it can be challenged but it was not challenged again that's my question is what i know the cumulative impact with  you agree that that's part of the challenge that can be determined by the court certainly the bear creek had argued that when you include that additional area that under that analysis the new area and then they didn't but they didn't and i'd like to talk just a little bit more specifically about the need to challenge the contract it indicated that it was not a bound by the terms of the contract itself but it could cancel the contract and it also decided that there was no need to analyze it would be helpful to analyze any of the the whole analysis to change the series of things all through the project and you're asking me what you know what did they change what did they change was that i know the change a lot of things but there's some things they didn't change for example that the