of the ever made available in many years for summer and i'm just a man and if i can interrupt we're familiar with the record pretty much with everything the recited accurately it seems to me that the core of the case is whether or not the forest service properly figured out at least as best it could what the use level was in one thousand nine hundred and seventy seven and relied on the analysis of mr stockman to determine that and your objection is that really is insufficient to tell us what that was and you help me to tell me why it was better evidence or that was improper evidence as your o this matter back to the agency so that the agency could conduct the public comment period on the bicycle restriction used in the wilderness study area remained orders are really not considered to be  a question about that issue and i may be wrong about this but it's my understanding that if there is a teeny tiny revamp let's say ninety nine percent is decided on one percent just be arbitrary as is remanded for a small thing that that we would have jurisdiction in that circumstance and i watched it was so for the rest of my question that that is correct and you can argue with that later but if that is correct and we have jurisdiction over the order that's ninety nine percent down and one percent  have jurisdiction over that one percent issue as well which is where opposing counsel was just arguing about or would that be something that further action by the agency and that the facts that you are presenting are very similar to the zero forrest legacy versus sherman case that the plaintiffs rely on in their brief let me explain why this case is much different than sh of that the man so the riemann had concluded by the time it came to my circuit which played i think a large role in the outcome of the sherman case but of course this case is much different because the issues on appeal are directly at issue in believe man or they are intertwined with that issue for instance the plaintiffs claim that a supplemental draft yes it's to be prepared in order to give the public an opportunity to doesn't really have much to do with me call or email so that was the source of my question as to whether that piece of it can appropriately to decide whether to keep the existing rod in place or to modify or so it is you decide to modify the rod it could do so want to weigh that cures the political interference concerns i guess it could also make if and when the agency makes a new decision there will be final agency action and with the plaintiffs if they're still harmed by the decision can i win your lawsuit and if they don't get the relief they seek from the district court than they can well the whole case would be on the level but if the agency let's say makes a new decision there will be a new decision or this court review which you know there might not be these sort of well i know but let's just assume that they take their hard work and decision to prohibit motor vehicles in the wilderness study areas in the recommended wilderness areas which i will call the potential wilderness areas together was reasonable and it's supported by the administrative record the agency had two independent rationales for prohibiting motor vehicles in the areas the st was to preserve their wilderness character and potential to be included in the wilderness system as required by the wilderness study acting and the ask the restrictions were imposed in order to promote a ditch opportunities for primitive recreation and let me start here by saying there's nothing there's no provision of law whatsoever that requires the forest service civil uses including fish and wildlife wilderness timber production grazing and outdoor recreation and of course these uses compete with each other for a limited forest resources what's good for vis my is probably not really good work on nation and even within the category of outdoor recreation different types of recreation compete with each other which is going for motor vehicle recreation is probably not good for here given that there are already over two thousand miles of birds available to motorized vehicles and the fact that they were decreasing opportunities were seeking solitude in the area because of  the increased use as well as the fact that due to modern technology these machines are able to penetrate deeper and deeper into the forests where they were simply not able to go decades ago so when the forest service decided to do here was readjust the balance in its discretion to provide more opportunities for those people who want to seek solitude and or asked and it did so in areas that were most appropriate for doing so at the potential wilderness area and this was a reasonable statement that supported by the record it alone provides a basis for for holding the agency decision now the agency had another reason for restricting order vehicles as well and  wilderness value of these areas and the forest service can also proactively manage these areas to prevent any physical damage or hurt the other reason why a lack of physical damage is a relevant increases and use that have occurred since rankings and he said it was reasonable for the forest service to our mind that they were diminished it was a diminished wilderness character in these areas even if there wasn't any physical scars  sort of another misstatement of law that the plaintiffs arguments are going to base their arguments is this notion of preferred proportionality that any sort of decrease in access must be proportional to any increas are raising before this court is really sort of a policy disagreement or services decision to prohibit border vehicle use but that policy decisions should be raised to agency or should be raised to congress comments about the stockman who work because i think there is a sort of a misunderstanding in the appellants arguments about how the forest service used that or the forest service confronted incomplete information to be sure what it tried to do in that situation was to fill the gap in the best way that it could and that was to extrapolate from user participation data and user data to develop an estimate of likely increased use over time in the retina the recommended  affords a nine fold increase in use and much of the breeding that's not her by the appellants is calculated to essentially test this versions on those inclusions i point out over the course of the forest service did not rely on those specific conclusion see the trends we understand there's been an increase in population in the bitterroot area at the same time there's been an increase of participation in these not wilderness activities and we'll conservatively say there is an increase and it's it's maybe not forty nine dollars but it's at least double as to what was happening in one thousand and seventy seven dollars now in making that kind of determination the forest service was doing exactly what this court instructed to do in these kinds of situations and in montana wilderness study act in the macalister case where the court routes for bicycle access as a foundation for their supplemental guy claim which is incorrect for reasons i'll come to the moment but in any event they can't have it both ways saying these trailers are so important a mountain bikers today that they needed a supplemental e i a s but there's no well there were no physical scars this is about social engineering that again i ignore as the lessons of this course mcalister case where the court said it's not all about physical aspects of the landscape in terms of maintaining wilderness character it is also about opportunities for solitude which is about increased volume of not wanting to uses and as the course said to be obvious and potentially significant impacts that that increase volume of use ha recommended wilderness prescriptions for this travel magic of land and it's been a theory in search of an analytical framework under the law because in the district court it was offered as a neither pre determination claim here before this court with the benefit of the supreme court criticised is this forward looking analysis that looks at the question of not allowing the extent that they did increase the force or as could see coming to change dramatically the status quo that had already changed authorize using pretty trails that have already occurred and then it looks at a study showing that the bitterroot national forest is faces the highest threat in the nation of impacts from private land development outside