decision is on a bunch of different legal issues but i think really we're here to talk about one issue and that's the discretionary function exception under the federal tort claims act and did the district court reported for so a couple things your honor first the national forest service and the coconino county sheriff's department were both parties to a to an agreement where  gave a sworn testimony he backed off but we could have sworn testimony by sudden service that he did this that that was that was the protocol and it it really just with what was required under this agreement between the and one of the things i did cite was that the government had a mandatory requirement that in any high tax area a study had to be done and if it was a trauma was a high action there or something had to be done about the government's own expert witness man by the name of richard creed who had been with the national forest service as an engineer wrote engineer for forty years something like that he testified that yes this was something that they had to do this was something that they indeed had to comply with and indeed they did have notice of these wrecks then they should have done if they didn't good they weren't complying with specific regulations and that brings us back to the question of fact you're honest but what i want because there are so many of these regulations and satisfactory and in this case the facts are very very similar to those where the court has held look this does not implicate the kind of reasons the broad policy reasons that we think warrant the referred those cases where we believe the signing decisions in national park and national forest areas involve policy decisions and are protected by the discretionary function exception unless the governor has undertaken a mandatory duty to find a particular location and that is what's missing in this case the plaintiffs have in your judgment by your lights would not matter how many but i have to say you know maybe there's a carry on if you have like the one of the world's worst case which you've both just stated i where you find that there really isn't even that's involved maybe you could say that but i wouldn't i wouldn't consider i wouldn't concede that because no court has ever to consider environmental and resource protection requirements visual quality objective not paved in a remote area and i think in that kind of a context you can just presume that and everybody knows what going on this is that this is the place where people go to get away from it all so to speak and that's right and this decision to make sure that people are safe on this road invited to a mandatory do the first thing that we have done is put up a speed so people can know how fast they're supposed to drive but they didn't and the reason is again we're in a remote area where people go the government looked at that particular location and said well the fact that we need to put some sort of sign there and what happened was they negligently did it or they failed to do it and that is you can see it's a specific act of negligence statement sort of segments off this area where we're talking about signing decisions in the national parks they are they involve policy decisions the court is held because of the balance things that are there so you see unless the government undertakes the mandatory duty of position that word government would charge government like totally involved safety considerations under an established policy well in the balancing of competing policy considerations the rationale for the discretionary function exception spars away and the