providing warnings about dangerous conditions (e.g., weather, construction areas) that may cause risk to visitors.” Director’s Order # 50C specifies that superintendents should exercise that discretion in light of “NPS policies relating to public safety, health, and the environment.” Against the backdrop of those and other related agency policies, our cases have identified important distinctions between protected and unprotected agency actions. The NPS’s decisions with respect to the design and construction of roadways and trails, for example, are discretionary decisions that are “clearfiy] link[ed]” to social and political policies relating to access and resource preservation. ARA Leisure Servs. v. United States, 831 F.2d 193, 195 (9th Cir.1987); see also Terbush, 516 F.3d at 1137 (<HOLDING>); Childers, 40 F.3d at 975 (concluding that the
recognizing that a court must balance the policy in favor of hearing a litigants claims on the merits with the policy in favor of finality recognizing the hazards of ex parte communication with a deliberating jury holding that denial of access to carbon paper and reproduction equipment and denial of facetoface access to other inmates did not deprive an inmate of his right of access to the courts holding that the npss decision not to warn of a rockfall hazard involved a process of identifying and responding to hazards in the wild and implicated the npss broader policy mandates to balance access with conservation and safety holding that an owners policy must comply with the statutory mandates in  3031902