Opinion ID: 162773
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Zion Management Plan

Text: 33 Plaintiffs next contend that the Zion Management Plan imposed non-discretionary duties upon Zion employees to correct immediately the hazard at the Middle Emerald Pools. The Zion Management Plan contains guidelines intended to complement the NPS-50 in establishing specific direction for safety at Zion; it also sets forth procedures for investigating and reporting hazards. Under the Plan, when a hazard is identified as being an imminent danger — defined as an immediately life threatening condition — persons must be removed from the scene and the danger must be correct[ed] immediately. App. 00092, 00097. When a hazard is determined to be a serious danger — one which may result in serious injury or illness persons must be removed from the scene and the danger must be correct[ed] within 30 days. App. 00092, 00097. Non-serious hazards must be correct[ed] within 45 days, and technical hazards must be correct[ed] within 60 days. App. 00092. 34 One might read the above language to mandate that Zion employees promptly eliminate any life-threatening condition in the park, thereby divesting those employees of discretion. But we do not think that these provisions of the Zion Management Plan can be construed so broadly. Rather, the commands appear to be addressing only man-made hazards, or perhaps temporary hazards caused by natural forces (such as a rock slide). The timing requirements (such as correct [the hazard] immediately) would make no sense if intended to require elimination of the numerous permanent, natural dangers which visitors may encounter at a national park. Is a precipice an immediately life threatening condition? How could the danger be eliminated immediately, or even within 30 days? Surely, the Plan does not require an unbreachable fence around the rim of every precipice. Cf. Valdez v. United States, 837 F.Supp. 1065, 1069 (E.D.Cal.1993) (rejecting interpretation of NPS-50 as an absolute directive because such an interpretation would require a fence or sign at every attraction that is conceivably hazardous), aff'd 56 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir.1995). 35 Other provisions of the Plan indicate that it does not apply to permanent, natural hazards. For instance, the Plan's introduction states that it is the policy of the NPS to furnish employees, concessioners and contractors with places and conditions of employment that are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm. App. 00081 (emphasis added). But a national park like Zion can never be free from permanent, natural hazards. In addition, the Safety Inspection Checklist, appended to the Management Plan, lists examples of the types of potential hazards that Zion employees must inspect and classify as imminent, serious, non-serious, or technical dangers. App. 00102. The examples include such matters as Electrical, Explosion Hazards, Flammable, Unsafe Practices or Procedures, and Roads and Trails. None of the examples are permanent, natural hazards. 36 Perhaps, despite the above indications to the contrary, the Plan's mandates to correct various dangerous conditions could be interpreted to encompass permanent, natural hazards. But such an interpretation is plausible only if correcting a danger means something short of eliminating the danger. For example, although it may be impossible to eliminate the danger posed by a precipice, one could say that barriers or signs can correct the problem. If the term correct is so interpreted, however, then the Plan does not remove discretion from Zion employees. They still must determine what, if anything, needs to be done to correct the hazard. The Plan fails to provide precise direction as to what suffices for a correction. See Blackburn, 100 F.3d at 1431. 37 We conclude that the Zion Management Plan does not exclude the conduct in this case from the discretionary function exception. 38