completely overlooked uniquely starting in gun firing away as on this tranquil environment how it impacted the psych psychological state of residence in the social fabric of the community in terms of the recreation potential and the chunky gal trail as well as the property values of the to squitti valley but if you would for a moment i'd like to ask you to imagine that you're hosting a family reunion in the southern appalachians and you'd like to show  be very pleased with the selection you've made of destination as you ride up the mountainside and warning sunlight listening to the birds singing overhead when suddenly a lounge burst of gunfire erupts from off to your left without from near the counts by members of the public who submitted comments during this period of time pointing out the significance of the chunky gal trail itself that is so significant as  that's for sale people are paying money for work or service but significant resources and using not so we don't believe that it's at issue in this case whether or not the chunky gal significant it goes through the forest service again itself all the unique back is really a stone who's actually disabled it's around a motorized wheelchair but she can ride on horseback and her favorite place to ride where she always goes every time is the chuckie trip she actually lives in another county where she drives in from adjacent cherokee county to horses it's dangerous i mean horses are big you know strong and they can easily things can easily get out of hand if they get startle and overcome to ask you their handler where she's got her husband to sort of assist but there's there's just two  and that is the predominant safety concern here in terms of gunfire and noise impacts and that's exactly why we're so concerned the forest service never examined those impacts which were repeatedly and voluminously pointed out to them by many different comments over the course of these many rounds of the analysis that have been performed over these past sixty plus years now if you well took them about eleven years from start to forest service actually listed the help of these acquisitions these experts to model the noise and they said yes there will be clearly noticeable clearly noticeable possibly bothersome noise impacts the chunky trail users that it it's about i think it's a thousand feet above it and i believe it is about a mile off as the crow flies but please allow me to get you a specific site rip responded re sit there was also the shomer model used decibels describing the noise level near the trail is clearly noticeable possibly bothersome was there any further explanation about that they so there was a model that was provided it gave decibels projections about the noise that would reach both the trail as well as the residences in the area and the it turned out to be an under predictive model because the actual sound as the production found greater impacts to both the trail and to residences in the area however they did say that the alternative being modified alternative b which is the preferred alternative chosen by the forest service are the appropriate measurement for gunfire noise impacts and even the forest service itself in minutes that the their measurements don't capture the qualities of gunfire the uniquely project and instead of digging in and saying ok it looks like you have some significant impacts year regarding north potentially significant impacts here and of course that's all that's required for any i asked to be prepared as as the sea or versus peterson  who was concerned about forest park writing a simple statement like that in the record but then when they then obligated to go out on some ermine's of our course would react to this particular level of noise i appreciate your question thank you for fo that's been added to that to those public comments of concern by people who are personally affected by this bolsters the argument that there were potentially significant impacts that ought to been examined period and ought to have been  hundred two which found highly controversial impacts in other words significant impacts ironing the publication of an environmental impact statement in projects where there were purely nonscientific static and recreational concern court found those rose to the level of significance requiring intruder ng mandatory preparation of an environmental impact statement which is what we did not see here the hallmarks of our look as this court has  articulated in audubon society versus the department of the navy are a couple of things you have to take a thorough examination of the impacts and you have to give forthright acknowledgment of the harms that you found in that analysis and to put it in plain terms you've got to look before you leap and you've got to be honest with the public and with yourself about what it is that are that are the potential impacts and problems of the action that you're contemplating t and the forest service fell down at both stages of thorough investigation to not look at a variety of views there are no examinations of dr times the entire rationale for the project is that we're trying to put a population the shooting range closer to the population centers with a county well we're service never measure how long it takes to drive to the closest gun range today that's the new action baseline that's  required and they never measured how long it takes to drive to propose actual it's remove it back yes exactly your honor there was that is one of the key problems in this case and the agency dodge analysis on property value impacts in the face of a record that had literally every source of information in the ministry of record in this case indicates significant property value x to the entire to splitting  on the weekends when people are home and being impacted by that thirdly there was a scholarly review article from hamline law review journal cornell's common a j four twenty at j two fifty four in two fifty the kind of deliberative and public decision making process that needs a requires the standard of review here is broadly discretional discretionary in other words are deferential be as long as the forest service made a rational decision based on information that responded to based on data that it was able to collect with respect to the environmental effects long as the decision was rational its decision should be a far and in this case its decision was rational the forest service examined conducted three sound studies first of all i note that this was an eleven year process they considered five different sites we had agencies from the sheriff to the county commissioners to the school board school superintendent north carolina wildlife federation united states fish and wildlife service all of those were in suits or of a shooting range in quite clay county a public range to diminish the danger posed by residents who were increasing in numbers in terms of concealed carry using weapons firing weapons in places that were not  permits the county commissioners talked about the need for safe place to shoot a number many of the comments in the plaintiff's talk about the number of comments that talk about how concerned certain residents are with the impact of this there were at least an equal number service for not for example conducting a study on the distance or at least not mentioning the distance between israel and the nearest public's shooting range which was in georgia the bashing ranges director said we don't want any more play candy people were looking only excepting from residents in the two county area in georgia that was closest to the range so it was reasonable and that's all neither requires is a reasonable decision making process it was reasonable for the forest service examined the nearest public shooting ranges are how far it was from hayesville to the proposed sites and not to a place that is not actually accessible at least the gun range in that case we don't we're positive that's in the national forest but the ranger stall in her decision notes that the forest service is well aware of the impact of shooting ranges and particularly noise and because it is calm and it is very consistent with the uses so you accommodate those who need a safe place to shoot with those who want to ride on horseback but in this case the agency conducted three different sounds one of which was decibels specific and very scientific and the residences single residence heard gunfire which was simulated to be sure narrowly heavy use for pistols and for rifles firing at same time they don't really think that's ever going to happen but that was the simulation for these sound studies and the most of they said it was at that one house it was about conversational level of so it's difficult for me to say on the trail it was more significant but that trail the sound study was that is you in one particular place it was as loud as shouting perhaps it was a point seven miles and it's it's two thousand feet higher it's not to join  the right absolutely and so i'm not suggesting that the forest service should not under any circumstances or would not appropriately consider the economic impact what i would say about it in this case is how can you have an economic impact when nobody environmental effects if it's related to the environmental impact not just the existence of a property killer project but in this case we have property values if the argument is that there's evidence in the record there's not there's a single realtor who says a motor speedway i would have to tell the tension buyers about this gun range because i have other buyers near motor speedway that their property values went down that speculation even the law review article that cites is simply speculative it says it could be and in fact well there has to be an impact based on how close the residents are and whether the property owners are actually going to be impacted by the agency's action and in this case the nearest property owner was a mile and a half away the nearest downrange property owner was four miles away and they didn't find in their sound stud appreciable impact that what i would suggest would affect property values more importantly it doesn't really matter what i think what matters is that the agency had the authority to look at it and say you know we don't see any evidence or scientific basis to support property value in fact in this case and therefore we don't see that as a key issue and that's the decision the agency made was that it wasn't a key issue under the factors and this was the agency required to consider the impact of a substantial use of the crew of those who were struck right in the shoes certainly and they did and now in terms of the horseback issue i don't think that the agency was required to read one comment and decide oh we better put a horse back up on chunky cow trail and see how the horseback react how the horse reacts i don't think that i think that what is required in the agency is what it did which is to assess what's the impact going to be on those who use the chunky trail records were that that was actually you know squirrel that the forest service needed to suggested support service needs to actually assess this particular concern but the only evidence in the record was anecdotal which as the point of suggests can be enough but there's not enough in this case to say ok we need to put horses up on that trail and examine it we're talking about  and for a very brief period of time you know the interesting thing i mean i as i reviewed this record i was actually really impressed that the forest service identified five different sites they found a site that has a natural back they're down there in a little hole where if there's a good place for a shooting range it would seem to be this one and this was the site that everyone who looked at it all of it if you're federal and state local agencies this site makes sense now up to the forest service to decide that the to accommodate a safety concern in clay county and in remote areas north carolina find a safe place folks to be able to train the some of the law enforcement so we need  train our officers this with this is what we need and they have the discretion to determine that that need exist and that they can adequately meet that need and balance it against the environmental effects in this court has been quite clear that agencies decision making and deciding to engage in an action to take action that has some negative impacts is perfectly fine that it should be affirmed as long as the agency considered th it please the court i would like to follow up on one thing we never finished discussing on direct which is this issue of the dry times because the forest service rationale for the project was we want to get a shooting range closer to the population centers lake county it's notable that they never measured the dry times under current circumstances in other words the new action alternative now says and they never compare that nor measured dry times to the without ever looking at the whole rationale for the project and whether or not this project would satisfy that rush now john mcginnis and when a clamp it independently measured the drive times from the intersection of sixty four and sixty nine which is recognized as the center of a school which is recognize that articulation center play county to all of these different countries and here's exactly what they found john mcginnis in linux land goods measurements lined up they both said they started from the same spot and they used the established driving speeds posted speed limits rather i should say and they found that there was a twenty five minute have to i'm sorry here we go there was a thirty nine minute drive to bury the proposed alternative there was a thirty five minute drive to the panther top gun range which was actually built after this project was clay county and this was not a reasonable basis for the agency not considering that at all yes your honor in my opinion the government mis characterizes the position of the choose gun club with regards to clay county residents it is so they rely on is twenty ten letter from the president i believe his name is steve jones of the gun range who said that in two thousand and ten we are not seeking members from play county well this is the exact same scenario this is nothing changed between two thousand and five when he wrote his first permanent letter about this project in two thousand and ten they were never seeking members but as of two thousand and five he said they had over thirty members from clay county and he listed and then by tw know he said well kept growing and what he said specifically was well be nice to have another option around to take some of the pressure off of it you think that's what he said he said it would be nice and he said they were not seeking members which they never were but they have man and he listed a long list of accommodations that are eligible to clay county residents to come it's easy to join if you want to be an actual full fledged member it's sixty dollars the first year and thirty five dollars a year for as we we see a very open door policy at the cheers gun range which is a show of come as you are find somebody to shoot with and you can ship free don't even need to be a member ords come down with a member and shoot them all you want as long as you're with somebody who's a member of that or just joined and become a member in there literally there are no barriers to anyone from lake county and what we see is this is the closest