revolves around the combination of power success on the merits and the possibility of your terrible injury or that the serious questions are raised in the balance of hardships sharply in the favor of running in just right now if you look at the landscape arguing in this case is that the district court did not correctly apply the law at issue and so i think that it's incumbent upon this courts to look at course the facts of this particular case and the law that is an issue as well as the fact so serious that in effect we could get a decision that would control our case stress all these other cases of you've been stayed or denied and know no logging is going on logging is going on right now as i understand it in your case  a large standing trees and in this case i don't think that there's any question that that is the objective at issue is developing this this particular feature on the landscape the second determination of the forest service must make is whether or not the project replanting and therefore allegedly growing more old growth sooner than no action is that the forest service has indicated throughout the record that it can't actually fund this type of activity that it's going to cost at least  three million dollars and that the poor service doesn't have this money and is unlikely to get it in the future so but even if the course of that money the record also indicates that reforestation will not grow large  think there are several factors predominantly being the fact that the forest service declared in the emergency situation and determination in this particular case and based on the economic loss to the government if implementation the project was delayed so based on economic concerns that the implementation of the actually the ongoing now is focusing on large diameter economically valuable trees other areas of the project that were originally part of the sale that were then dropped or because they were not economically session conditions have developed in the sand is again producing large snags so the standard focuses on management and management what happens inside the log areas that's where the management that we're talking that's blogging and so management the logging mu focus on retaining the large snags so we're talking about what goes on inside those log areas not areas outside of the of the actual harvest areas where there there may in fact well be habitat out in those areas but the northwest fourth plant isn't focused on how far along you know how far along the logging is day you know that's probably a better question for the government my understanding is in the summer that much of the logging was complete however i would argue that this case certainly not moot even if  did you didn't i'm sorry yes i mean you did or you did not we did not file for it's your own the reason for that was that we are attempting to work out a schedule with the government and the interveners regarding the locking we are hoping to work out everything scheduled that yes we did not say i believe it's something like seventy seven percent complete and the sale is eighty five percent as of a couple of days ago so it gives you about eighty three percent completion rate for the project but when i say completion i mean in terms of the timber being har success on one of the issues one of the issues being raised yes or no but if let's assume they go right down the line you are you going to say that you still are and let's assume that we don't have to consider that as to whether or not the preliminary injunction again about the broncos wrong case would go to the underlying issue relative to the substance of these standards and guidelines and moves back so your theory about whether you remove them or  fettered out when you get the mare correct and that may or may not if you get there and that may or may not be decided in bra i'm looking at the district court opinion roughly three pages there is no analysis whatsoever of the underlying issue with the judge did he ended up talking about the economic issue of the killing and dying trees and so on never did he ever address you know underlying issues that have been very wrong with the underlying issues about the chance we don't have anything from the judge that tells us about the chances of success so we've got to look outside that's why we look the brown what was like that was my only recourse what else can i do the judge didn't do it what the judge said your was we have economic loss and that trumps completed except for perhaps a little bit of cleanup the intro for pacific is the purchaser of the booth and huge sales viewed it's almost done about two days worth of work cleaning employer is not completely done not to enjoin this project but there were that the district court found that there was no evidence of a rightful harm i would certainly be happy to talk about harms but this court appears to want to go more towards the merits and whether or not the district court however i would urge you to to look at the at the record look at the transcript and realize that there was a full day hearing in which the district court heard testimony from witnesses from all of the parties and at the end of that long day the district court said that you had found no evidence of irreparable harm irreparable harm is unnecessary showing there was no irreparable harm and the that we have discussed that thoroughly in our briefs and rather than going back over that but i'd like to do  a very big difference but assuming that you want to go just to the law i would first of all ask you to look at the ecology center versus austin decision in which there were a number of  thinning the removal of live trees on the national forest management act viability diversity requirement that's not what has been argued in this case that urge you to look at louds belief the only claim that is being made under the national forest management act is that somehow it is improper to remove any snags from lasix national reserves they do not even want to hear about the ecology center guess was that the court in the opinion are going to be generating new snags the requirements under the national forest management as using under the northwest forest plan is to retain the sufficient number of snags that are likely to persist until the stand is again producing its own flags which is about eighty years record in this case demonstrated that that was not going to be happening all the snags were going to be going to be gone this is another reason i want to quickly jump to braun as to why the wrong would not be determinative regardless of what the court decides in even in the face of a violation of an environmental law we do not believe that wrong ecologies in our native ecosystem's require a particular outcome in this case in this preliminary injunction appeal that even if you do feel that way and wrong were to be decided decades indicated that it is not for use and post fire environments in addition to many other flaws with this particular model it simply doesn't apply in these types of environments the fact that the forest service utilized it is that indicative of a flawed project itself regarding the ecology center case again what that case was talking about was again that averaging idea whether or not it was ok to go outside the fire area determine whether or not habitat was adequate and this court rightly decided that that's not ok you have to actually look at the activity here is determine whether or not there's enough habitat and legal or stiffeners believes that that was the right decision and does bear directly on this present case  exceptional reserves that have been affected by wildfire so what we're looking at is whether or not human activity increases or increase the rate of fall or removal of snags through logging or whether or not these trees are of all of their own accord by and was designed with the idea that these trees will fall down over time and that's ok but what the logging does is actually expedite that process and then focuses on whether or not there's enough habitat left in the project area and what we have pointed out in our is that there will not be enough habitat and that runs afoul of the northwest course and requirements of this court also you asking good questions about balancing the equities and what happens if the court in wrong upholds that decision and what i would argue is harm is necessarily manifest in evidence when these areas are law that harm is irreparable so we believe that judge jones incorrectly found that there was no irreparable harm and also i'd also like to point out that what in terms of