benefited from public input and have always been you at all from the courts and with this decision b l m proposes to leave new those decisions from the public make them behind closed doors and then traditionally view for the next ten years be resolved by further study once b l m you can see that this can be resolved by further study and the th circuit mandates preparation of environmental impact morrow over as was touched on a little bit  and these are substantial questions that go to the heart of this action and that mandate preparation and environmental impact along those lines power would also like to talk about how to find i and that that's a not an argument i don't believe that either party has raised in the briefing room is that your understanding as well  i would next like to get to how this actually is a significant departure of the agency's asked policy and that it must be satisfied because we did not explain her provide good reasons for that departure notably campaigns and it is effectively that any uncertainty requires any i asked and that is quite simply not the law if it national parks feel bad it does not support that proposition that is the case they rely traffic that might result from the construction of an extension to an oil refinery dock in which it sound was found to be largely unknown and again this case does not present a possible severe increase in pollution that and there is not a comparable level of uncertainty and respectfully your honour's weren't the case that any uncertainty about any effects regardless of the effects significance required and yes then any i a s would always be required they have taken a statement from national parks out of context and it's not not an accurate representation of the case or the law in the circuit and i also like to go back if i could to the record you know national parks again there were studies in the record that contradicted the agencies including ends and that is not the case here you know and also it's an important principle of environmental law that an agency is required to consider factors and you know underneath agency is required to consider a fax if there is no it is an agency is not required to cite particular p that identified only possible effects of the vaccine and ultimately reach no conclusion as to its effects demonstrated the existence of uni or unknown risks and the court should do the same here the mere mere statements in the record something is possible have never been held and a decision of which we are aware and plaintiff's have nots have cited none to be sufficient to demonstrate the requisite high uncertainty and so there is n a s reports recommendations in the report recommendations of other agencies to incorporate fertility controls into its management and the point of that your honor is to ultimately reduce the number of horses requiring the point of fertility control your honor is that they take time to work and so actually i'm you know we've explained in our brief even footnote one on page one of friends opening brief they cite numerous limited its own discretion has itself prevented itself from utilizing multiple roundups and we've explained quite clearly in the land use plans in the handbook that the l m has not done that  committed to doing these but for all gather decisions and for all round ups and this gather plan they had it's also important on this point i think they haven't explained what they aren't able to say logical reason why it would have and so it's both factually wrong and it's also legally wrong you know they they say that a heightened explanation is i mean you know one there is no change there's no change in so but also when you look at you know fox and cases of flying and they address substantive changes and of fishbowl agency policies but by contrast this court has held that it does not hopefully to reduce to remove fewer animals and would otherwise be necessary feel when did it all at one time so be allowed you know has has and again friends of animals doesn't contest the rationality of that study on its own initiative in order to improve its management of wild horses does not demonstrate that that is an effect that must be analyzed underneath and an environmental impact statement there  completely separate issues you know it's an it's a it's b l m should not be faulted for undertaking the palmer study you know it's working to improve its management adaptive management is something that doesn't because highly uncertain you know you know what b l m miss trying to determine is whether this may be ineffective management tool to slow population growth when used in combination with other measures right so here a management decision rather than try to bring the population down to the low appropriate management level range of eight hundred and ninety nine dollars this provision authorizes the management level to go up to the mid range which is  some and some geldings to be released so b l m is receding quite cautiously and responsibly by studying this method and whether it might be an effective tool but here only  changed but those that sort of the range of what is unknown is quite well defined and quite clear and it's not again when you look at the cases when you look at ocean advocates and national parks and bark this none of these cases you know have the facts anything like this and again we've asked the court to look at in defense of animals because that things like this one involved a large scale gather plan and they're like here the overall the effects of the plan the goal of the plan is to restore the striving natural ecological balance to the range and so like you know this this plan to have utilized sex ratio just missed it utilize fertility control it was a large scale gather and here the effects are really the same and b l m again has extensively you and i think that case is why you know and it also looked directly at this issue of uncertainty highly uncertain and rejected the argument and for a very analogous reason so in that case there were the plaintiffs argue th of information on how on how horses behave and and again it's quite a common sense proposition and it's explained that you know it's social appreciate helpful arguments from both counsel