Opinion ID: 2799825
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Corps’ Actions Were Discretionary

Text: Becker testified two regulations in chapter 3 of the Corps’ Engineering Manual 1110-2-410 (Manual) were “relevant to the siting of parking areas . . . and the necessity of guardrails or other railings at or near parking areas.” The first provision, paragraph 3-3(a)(1), provides, in relevant part: Overlooks and their support facilities should be sited on gently sloping terrain. The area where the entrance, exit and parking facilities will be located should not exceed 7 percent grades and the section of roadway passing the potential site should not exceed 5 percent grade. The second provision, paragraph 3-3(a)(2), provides, in relevant part: -5- Precipitous drop offs should be made safe by the provision of appropriate railing. We agree with the district court that nothing in the Manual prescribes “a specific, mandatory duty upon the Corps to install or maintain (or to not remove) guardrails, to provide warnings, or to restrict parking” applicable to Training Dike Road. We also agree that “[t]he use of permissive language, rather than mandatory terms, such as ‘must’ or ‘shall,’ shows that these [Manual] provisions are merely guidelines.” Becker described the slope of the embankment from the road to the river as “not precipitous” at the site of the accident. The decision to replace the guardrails was made in the context of the operation of a much larger project—the Corps’ duty to maintain the associated recreation areas and facilities—and the Corps had authority to decide how to best effectuate those duties.