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

Heading: The August 1995 Action Plan

Text: 39 Finally, Plaintiffs argue that the Zion safety committee's August 1995 action plan prescribed a specific, non-discretionary course of action for Zion employees to follow with respect to the algae hazard at the Middle Emerald Pools. We disagree. 40 What the Plaintiffs term an action plan is a provision of an August 2, 1995, safety committee memorandum. That provision reads: 41 Several members of the Safety Committee have hiked to the Emerald Pools area since the last meeting to determine if additional accident prevention work is needed. This was not in response to any pending accidents, but only to review this area of the park. 42 The following action items were identified: 43 &#x2022; Reposition a few of the signs to more visible areas. 44 &#x2022; Consider natural barriers in some areas. 45 App. 00162. 46 After listing the suggested action items, the memorandum continues: Drawings or pictures will be developed showing these recommendations.  Id. (emphasis added). On its face, then, this document contains recommendations, not compulsory directives. Recommendations of Zion's safety committee are not mandatory; rather, the committee suggests a course of action to Zion's superintendent, who then decides whether to implement those recommendations. The recommendations did not deprive Zion management of discretion. 47 In sum, the guidelines and action plan relied on by Plaintiffs delegate extensive discretion to Zion managers. The managers must determine whether a hazard exists, the severity of the hazard, and whether physical barriers or signs are appropriate safety measures. When considering safety measures, they must assess such factors as whether the measures may actually encourage dangerous conduct by visitors (the existence of a barrier may cause visitors to underestimate the residual danger, and a sign warning of an extreme danger may cause visitors to minimize the peril identified by other signs); the size, placement, and content of signs; whether excessive signage may numb visitors; and whether signs or barriers are likely to withstand the elements (such as a flash flood). In addition, as discussed more fully below, the park managers must weigh any safety measure against its impact on the purposes of a national park. 48 Because no statute, regulation, or policy specifically prescribed a course of action for Zion employees to follow, the challenged conduct was discretionary under the first prong of the Berkovitz test.