guarding the tennessee creek project area and second of the importance of the different habitat types for canada links and or distribution on the landscape but before i jump in i'd like to emphasize one thing in this case not about opposition to logging generally this case is not intended to place roadblocks and for service implementation of needed projects and indeed wilder thirteen's was clear throughout the administrative process here that it supported many aspects of the tennessee creek project but the forest service can't ignore the law and it must meet as the supreme court calls nicklas twin objectives one informs decision making into public participation and that's lacking here this court's decision in new mexico ex road richardson where we get to the law i'd like to get the facts straight what's going on here of course so there are two denning habitat or just infers that from the type of trees growing there in the ages of the trees my understanding is that it doesn't roll down to that level of specificity but it's generally looking at if there are large enough habitat watch year to support a female lynx and the the type of vegetation growing in that area would support the different parts of the wings lifecycle which would include doesn't have attach but it doesn't require the force of a scope and mapped this giant block of habitat and say hour you too but generally that's fairly also is looking across the entire southern rockies and you know how much habitat could the canada links afford to lose across the entire southern rockies and how it does that is through the way you analysis and ok you can walk up to fifteen percent of an l a you in these circumstances only one percent in the circumstance there's an exception for action etc and that amendment was the product of an environmental impact statement and notice in common is that correct it was a decade ago ok so as i understand what the forest service explanation of what happened here is they have these early use they followed the s r l way and say and they've complied with that one reasonable about that approach i should add one thing they look at their project and they assumed the maximum impact on the l a news they said that's unlikely very unlikely to happen but they assume the was what's the problem sure so you know i think the really key point here is the s r o imposes one set of restrictions and standards and then the national environmental policy act requires different things and saying is that we don't think you can actually know without knowing what the landscape looks like here in the forest service admitted that they will be looking at the landscape as they implement determining where the high quality links habitat exist  the forest service commits to disclosing that to the public theoretically is that to the cape may well there's nothing thing that they will not disclose that but nothing requires them to directly my client to fire file a freedom of information request every month implements and i think that the new mexico actual richardson decision although it's an oil and gas to be seen case i think that the background of that case highlights what that issue here where there they had a broader  that gets flexibility due to changing conditions on the landscape for a very long project matter and it's important in my client while their guardians completely agrees with that that flexibility is important but in that you know roosevelt case the agency committed conducting those future environmental assessment those future even analyses which would allow the public to comment which would require that disclosure of information of the sites that the impacts will be felt over ten years and in ten years is a very long period  what is different here is that the forest service looked at the project and said let's assume the maximum from the answer or as our l a says you shouldn't do more than you should incur cut more than one percent of the acreage and something like that or not talking about the principle here rather than getting the exact factory and the project and the fire services look at this project and if everything if we do the maximum damage it will be less than one percent clear cutting in the l a u that's within the  guy so what is wrong with doing that why do they have to go look at specific areas which they can't predict because this is going to be and on infestations  things like that so they can't predict for sure where they're going to go what's wrong with saying if we do the maximum it's within the s r l a guidelines for management us what's wrong with that i think what i'd say is a point i made earlier and that that might comply with the southern rocky links amendment but because we don't have that site specific and baseline information we can't really kno you're not going to get it they don't know to say that you're not trying to stop this you think this is fine protest them to do something that they can't possibly do sounds like you just don't want anything done that's what it sounds like but tell me what's wrong you say they need side specific why do they need site specific when one they can't the site specific  even if you were side specific total damage would be less than what the as l r c a says is tolerable in some cases even assessment they pre identified certain units so they know we're on the landscape they intend to do it maybe it doesn't happen for years but they know now where they intend to do those operations so site specific analysis could happen since they know where that would happen and i think also importantly is this baseline information in the richardson case but the baseline information referred to me as that is to make sure they're not cheating the e a is to say if we do what we say we're going to do what's the damage it's not to say if we lied to everybody and don't do that what's the damage i don't know any you haven't given any authority for saying you have to produce baseline information so way so we can see if you're telling the truth well i think of any authority for that i think the richardson case says that in that in the in the section talking about impacts to wildlife habitat in that case this court explicitly said that where you're going to implement on the landscape is vitally important for wildlife because there's a huge difference between going around the outside of habitat versus right down the middle and that case you know talks about how you can assess the effect without that fundamental information one of the landscape looks like now that's a fundamental concept a need but that you have to gather this baseline evidence because you can't ascertain the effect without knowing what the landscape looks like now and so that for the forest service they yes we're going to comply with the  that's not just the gross acreage but the distribution for damming habitat to be functional it has to be in your foraging habitat so if you don't know the relationship between the two and where they are on the landscape you can actually see that the denning habitat  like what happened in the oil and gas context and what happened in the theater roosevelt case from the d c circuit where they provide they prepare the broader analysis about the general facts and then as they implement over a ten or fifteen year period they prepare the smaller analyses and say ok we're to log in this piece of land here's what the habitat is going to look like when we're done there's not going to be adverse effects to links and with the court's permission i'd like to say my last thirty seconds we're going to give you  had identified were on the landscape tending habitat was where the foraging habitat was the gulf quantified it not only in the project area but in the big describe it the landscape area of the region and the eastern portion of that national forest so this is possible to do and there's no reason sure why the forest service could not have done that at least for that baseline information let's see what does the landscape look like now so that when we go out and do the logging will know exactly what the effects are going to for the united states forest service and we asked this court to affirm at its core the tennessee creek project is designed to both to preserve and to protect links habitat from the variety of problems currently facing  prescriptions occur in the forest in a way that will both preserve and protect links habitat as you go all over this and a fifteen year period in small doses is the information going to the public as to what you find i don't know at this time whether the forest service has a particular plan to disclose that information but there's nothing in the records indicate that the forest service will not disclose it if requested out of the do that i think it's reasonable to assume that given what the foreign service has already included the public and invited the public to participate in implementation of the project that it's not trying or harm or doesn't plan to prevent the public from being aware to be but the reason i thought that you decided in cia was sufficient is because you look at the worst possible scenario and looking at wors case scenario and applying yes or l a it's not going to be a significant impact negative impact on the links if you didn't have that you didn't they're cutting or whatever activities given the information the forest service already knows about this particular area the types of trees in that the types of stands in the area the e cringe the fact that it's already analyzing great detail service to decide that it's time it had sufficient information to evaluate the impacts and decide that they would not be significant certainly if the situation changes if conditions in the project area develop in a way that  statement for that document and given that in our analyze links habitat material and great detail it was reasonable for the forest service to determine that because the treatments complied with all of the parameters and guidelines set forth in that change over time in the forest service of determined that the best treatments will require a quick response and haven't identified the areas that need treatment or that were it plans to choose to treat areas and percent of the links habitat within each  to look at areas that are close to areas that might also provide food for the links so it's considered this distribution and will ensure that the project is implemented with that distribution in mind that goes back to my question is that the information  won't make it public perhaps it's also useful to underscore here that because the forest service prepared an e m i asked for e a and not any i asked it's duty to provide information to the public listen not as high as i might have been at a prepared and but doesn't that bolster their argument that they didn't know what's happening is things go i think it would to the extent that they are concerned about the level of disclosure it would be a challenge to the fact that referred to and others remain i think the head of the forest service at large determined as i've explained that the information available to it didn't warrant preparing the i asked to the extent that there was some disagreement within the forest service that indicates that the service concerned variety of viewpoints and it doesn't reflect that its ultimate decision was arbitrary and capricious if i could touch briefly on denning habitat the forest service one of them at the project in a way that preserves the stunning habitat or high quality habitat that's habitat with greater than thirty five percent denser a little cover but when he analyzed the region and the links habitat in this region it determined the denning habitat would not be to forty percent thinning habitat the project as i've also explained is divine to protect that habitat and ensure that it will not be clear cut so that was a reasonable determination at this time i'm not sure if it will be reported officially more broadly but i think the forest service would be happy to provide for those reasons we asked of the court a firm thank you very much thank you your honor so the few quick points in response to go back to just the very recent conversation about denting habitat and whether or not it's a limiting factor yet the record says an area unless it has it and so even though it might not be limited in it's a vitally important and key aspect of that habitat and importantly the forest service predict that if it does impact that then habitat those impacts will remain for one hundred  guidelines that ignores the fact that we still don't know where exactly that will take place and there the forest service admits they know where it will be and so why can't that be disclosed to the public so we can talk about that especially because that three commercial tenant is subject that that lesser considering the characteristics of links habitat they are should be disclosed in these environmental analyses and so the are not you are claiming that they violated as a lottery we don't have any claims in this case that they violated far away we only have claims under the national environmental policy act that they did not disclose their analyzed and disclosed these sites pacific in baseline information specific to those two types of habitats and habitat and links winter habitat that you what did you just say about the supplemental in the supplemental appendix typically says that analyses about logging and wings habitat requires a site that site specific conditions considering the characteristics of