final environmental impact statement for this project did not give a hard look at effects of project as the project and soils in the analysis area or the activity units there also  contained within the project at the time the decision is made to have of the project which would have been in two thousand and three the forest service chose this five hundred thousand acre timber has to be on a unit by unit area this is important especially for this case because we're talking again about five hundred thousand acres the largest terrorist cell in the history of the forest service and it's in an area where even the forest service admit unit surveys be done when you combine that with the requirements within the forest plan and also combine that with the language within cattle range we believe that the only way that the forest service can surveys that were done by the forest service were done for the purposes of evaluating the burned they were aerial photographs taken from the sky or they were photographs looking for burn canopy and burns trees the table of study that is done for actual spoil productivity is much much more encompassing they have to measure dust which is the stuff on top of the ground they  with regard to miss my more substantive challenge we believe that there is nothing in the record they can in fact prove there it they will not harm more than fifteen percent of the soil that the information that they have provided is not reliable in order to establish that they are doing what they need to do and the forest service has actually conceded just like in lands council that it  three and a couple other things it's basically the same exact fast year they has an aerial photography they had done some pictures they had a couple masks and again i had done some study based on the using fire but they admitted that they had not even laid out the actual units within these terrorist cells until after the e a s came out so they hadn't even decided where in fact they were going to live until after the decision maker had made their decision and we wonder how the forest service could so that they have complied with need for and when that vital part of information that hasn't hasn't been done toils because when you're talking about long term productivities whether trees will be able to grow there again whether the rosen is going to be an extreme factor etc etc at first rails are much more fragile than even normal thing and how they're actually going to study it in this case there's no dispute that they didn't actually do any of this level of study or if they did do any it was incomplete increase three and it was done after the fact months and months after the decision was made so there are a lot of regulations that go into has little scientists come up with their decision making and i think we stated in the record that their own still scientists and their lead projects designer were lamenting the fact that they had no time to complete these so this was a known situation that they were up against a clock they were rushing to try to get something done enough to put activities would not take place period except in few years of the nice usually dry weather which is not an issue in this case we weren't having unseasonably dry weather all winter long in southern oregon the intervene right we had one month it was unusually dry i think the forest service claimed that it was the fifth best drought you've had in in a while or something like that but we showed a bunch of weather records and there really was no dispute over the fact that it's still rains and it's still snowing especially up it's fiddler mounds in which is where this logging was taking place so we're not talking unseasonably dry weather because if we mitigation measures such as washing are actually necessary in addition to this wet season moratorium and there is no distinction between hauling in cutting and all of these other issues that were brought up by the defendants the port made october first to me thirty first that is the wet season where this prohibitions takes place in addition to that that waits to use in march or am also applies to any time of year where wet weather occur road construction all of these other things there's no dispute that those were going on for some reason judge hogan said that hauling which means actually putting them on the trucks and dragging them down the roads did not occur t mentioned before you can yes and they were going on i mean there were multiple units being lodged at the same time so well trees are being cut in one area which requires loggers you know driving up and down the road well some units were being kirk other units were being hauled and so i think that that statement is really irrelevant to the issue that we're fighting over which is if they were not going to follow this out rate than they needed to disclose it the impact of it it kills the senior permanently and the cedar composed almost fifty percent of most of the right area in areas now these rivers are extremely pristine we've got threatened coho salmon and it's one of the best an constraint the fiddler area is that there was a park it or there is a pocket of infected people see on the way to where it's longing was taking place so you have a large chance of being able to spread it and once it gets into for injunction in an environmental theist obviously is fairly deferential if we can meet our threshold requirement the rule of law is to do and preserve the status quo and that is what we're asking for in this case to preserve the status chance from the department of justice and with the a counsel table is truly wise counsel for the interview as american sports counsel at our i will be using twelve minutes of our time and i will watch the clock and try area that burned has actually never been logged before so issues of things like oil displacement and compaction were just not at issue because you didn't have the kind of intensive logging that you saw on lands council there had been wildlife because the fire itself left so much standing dead wood and also downed wood and as we pointed out ninety six percent of the biscuit project area will be left untouched the salvage operations will only about what actually happened as far as analyzing soils post fire and what the record shows there are some great disagreement between the plaintiffs and the forest service here we can see that there was an initial screen done that included aerial included aerial photography and included some satellite and thread there and there was extensive mapping done of the soil types and the impacts on the ground and then there was  project and that model looks at erosion like i said already because seventy three percent of the area doesn't have displacement or compaction which is not caused by fire which is caused by prior activities and also by activities using tractor verification within the project area and instead they had looked just in the forest generally and use that general information in a model and that's just not the case here the there was soil testing during the initial compaction the areas of past management that overlap with any salvage and a watershed might watershed encourage a federal lands with past management activities those are tables three thirty eight three additionally in order to run the wet model you have to input data which includes the type of soil disturbance and we were taken to task in the reply brief for allegedly not using experience from the business of the silver fire which burned in just about the same area in one thousand nine hundred seven so the forest service is really in the best position to know exactly how to manage in the supposed fire environment and that's news really none ecologically unlike a green sail that letting some salvaged occur and you don't have to cut any green trees and then another aspect of the project and the purpose of the project was to protect the surrounding communities times perhaps most recently about a week ago in the columbia river dance case and the court said nec case of holding the issuance of a poor women or injunction that review of the merits would be very deferential limited only to whether or not the district court use discretion and also relevant in that case the underlying facts the science were hotly disputed that's similar to this case and the court said that it would be very deferential against the factual findings and that only if after reviewing the entire record it was not plausible to me for the court to have reached certain factual findings that the opinion would be of held and that is the posture we find ourselves in here and that you actually have to look at the interests that are being alleged in that case in amoco the court noted on one hand that the intervenor oil companies were opposed to they were going to lose millions of dollars that had been invested millions of dollars of timber on the ground dead trees on the ground that we decay did they were losing value this was a resource it's not just in terms of money or honors this is a resource that will never be able to be recovered  many people out there working in the forests we have jobs it is you we had a new mill that was coming online and providing jobs in an area of high unemployment and if you're honest review the transcript particularly the testimony  model for determining the status of the soil in this case the record it is there are so many citations to where the four service actually went out of what was the soil if you were a few from coun