Rawlins VRM Review
These comments are submitted by the Continental Divide Trail Society in response to the invitation for comments on the Draft Visual Resource Management and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Amendment to the Resource Management Plan for the Rawlins Field Office and Associated Environmental Assessment, WY (78 Fed.Reg. 53777, Aug. 30, 2013).
We regard the Environmental Assessment to be incomplete and inadequate in light of its failure to properly implement the policies and procedures set out in BLM Manual 6280 (09/14/2012) – MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL SCENIC AND HISTORIC TRAILS AND TRAILS UNDER STUDY OR RECOMMENDED AS SUITABLE FOR CONGRESSIONAL DESIGNATION. Our comments are therefore directed toward actions that BLM should undertake in order to comply with that guidance.[1]
Guidance in BLM Manual 6280
As noted in the EA (3.13.3), Manual 6280 provides that BLM shall establish a National Trail Management Corridor (Corridor) through the land use planning process.[2] The Corridor for the trail is to include “a public land area of sufficient width within which to encompass National Trail resources, qualities, values, and associated settings and the primary use or uses that are present or to be restored.” 6280 p.4-5. The Corridor boundary “should be based on the associated natural or manmade physical landscape features in the following order of precedence: ridgelines, rivers, washes, and toe-of-the-slope (where well-defined as in desert environments); turning points, such as peaks, buttes, and geological features; roads, primitive roads or routes, and railroads; and lines of the Public Land Survey System. Measures, such as footage, mileage, and contour intervals, shall be discouraged.” 6280, p.4-7.
Within the Corridor allocation, the land use plan and associated NEPA analysis should consider:
· Designating visual resource management (VRM) classes based on the National Trail visual resource inventory and based on the desired future condition of National Trail resources, qualities, values, and associated settings and the primary use or uses of the areas through which such trails may pass. To retain or improve the integrity of the associated settings and scenic values for which the National Trail was designated, the BLM should consider establishing VRM classes at the most protective level practicable to meet National Trail scenery management objectives.
VRM Class I or II designation for National Scenic Trails, where not adversely impacted by existing cultural modifications…
· Whether the National Trail Management Corridor should be classified as VRM Class III or classes which are more visually protective, to retain or improve the existing visual setting of the areas along a National Trail where permanent cultural modifications currently exist. In assigning VRM classifications, describe how activities managed to this scenic level support the nature and purposes of the National Trail and how uses are managed to avoid visual conflict. This requirement also applies to areas where a visual proposed VRM Class III may extend beyond the boundary of the National Trail Management Corridor, so as not to diminish the National Trail visual setting.
For those areas along a National Trail that inventory at a VRI Class IV but are devoid of permanent cultural modifications, alternatives should consider classification as VRM Class III or classes which are more visually protective, to retain or improve the existing visual setting. VRM Class IV should not be considered for use within National Trail Management Corridor.
· The maintenance of naturally appearing landscapes that are associated with the National Scenic or Historic Trail, regardless of scenic quality rating, to provide premier recreation experience opportunities. (6280, pp. 4:7-9)
In general, and with respect to the assignment of VRM classifications in particular, “the influence that the visual setting has on the National Trail is not to be undervalued.” (emphasis added) (6280, p.4-8)
Application of BLM Manual 6280 to the Project Area
The Land Use Planning Process
BLM must address the CDNST through the land use planning process “as soon as practical after activation.” The Trail may be addressed through a land use plan amendment. Regardless of the type of land use planning process undertaken, the BLM shall establish a National Trail Management Corridor and identify management goals, objectives, and actions for the Trail. Further, the CDNST shall be clearly identified as a specific resource, in its own unique section – not contained within and across multiple disciplines. (6280, p.4-1).
The proposal under review is designed to support a visual resource amendment to the resource management plan for the Rawlins Field Office. Visual resource management is of fundamental importance to the use and enjoyment of the CDNST. Because the decisions being considered will have a direct and substantial impact upon the CDNST, the current review should be considered a land use planning process calling for establishment of a Corridor and identification of goals, objectives, and actions. As indicated in the statement of the nature and purposes of the CDNST (Comprehensive Plan, 2009), these goals and objectives should “provide for high-quality scenic, primitive hiking and horseback riding opportunities and to conserve natural, historic, and cultural resources along the CDNST corridor.”[3]
If for any reason BLM determines that it is not “practical” to meet these requirements at this time, any decisions must be made subject to a fresh and unrestricted planning process, to be carried out promptly and in accordance with Manual 6280. In our view, however, it would hardly be “practical” to make an interim decision that would be subject to essential revisions in the light of the current guidance. The time to implement Manual 6280 is now.[4]
Establishing the Corridor
The environmental assessment fails to apply the guidance of Manual 6280 to the establishment of the CDNST Corridor. Currently, within the Rawlins Field Office, the CDNST is managed as a SRMA. The 0.25-mile-wide corridor (centered on the trail) of the CDNST SRMA is managed as a recreational resource to maintain or enhance a diversity of recreational opportunities and benefits while providing trail users opportunities to view the diverse topographic, geographic, vegetative, wildlife, and scenic phenomena that characterize the CDNST. EA 3.13.3, p.3-20.
This current corridor delineation does not conform to the new NSHT guidance.
To begin with, the current de facto boundaries of the Corridor have been defined in terms of a specific mileage; that is a practice that, according to the guidance, “shall be discouraged.” Instead, the Corridor boundaries “should be based on the associated natural or manmade physical landscape features,” with ridgelines having the highest precedence. The crest of Bull Springs Rim might, for example, might be considered as one segment of the boundary. While we do not have access to the VRI studies that resulted (for Alternative 3) in a high sensitivity level rating for the area surrounding the CDNST, we surmise that it is essentially an area that would encompass “National Trail resources, qualities, values, and associated settings and the primary use or uses that are present or to be restored.” If this is determined to be the case after the performance of an inventory along the lines of Manual 6280, this area might be defined as the CDNST Corridor.
Management of the Corridor
Manual 6280 provides the guidance that BLM should consider establishing VRM classes at the most protective level practicable to meet National Trail scenery management objectives – further identified as VRM Class I or II designation, where not adversely impacted by existing cultural modifications (6280, p.4-8). We do not regard existing low-standard roads in the area under study to constitute an adverse impact resulting from cultural modifications so as to preclude Class II VRM designation. However, even if were so considered, the EA should include a description of how activities managed to a lower (i.e. VRM III) level might support the nature and purposes of the National Trail and how uses would be managed to avoid visual conflict.
Note, in addition, that this requirement also applies to areas where a visual proposed VRM Class III may extend beyond the boundary of the National Trail Management Corridor, so as not to diminish the National Trail visual setting (6280, p.4-8). And, as we have emphasized above, “the influence that the visual setting has on the National Trail is not to be undervalued.”
Within the Corridor, VRM Class IV should not be considered. And even beyond the Corridor, the Field Office should consider maintenance of naturally appearing landscapes that are associated with the National Scenic or Historic Trail, regardless of scenic quality rating, to provide premier recreation experience opportunities. (See, generally, EA 3.13.3, p . 3-20).
The EA should address, with respect to each alternative, whether and how this guidance is being observed.
Application of BLM Manual 6280 to EA Alternatives
For each of the alternatives discussed and illustrated in the EA, BLM should define a National Trail Management Corridor in accordance with the direction of BLM Manual 6280. Whether VRM Class I, Class II, or Class III, the EA should include a description of how activities within the Corridor will be managed to support the nature and purposes of the Trail and how uses are managed to avoid visual conflict. For EA Alternatives II, III, and IV (Figures 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5), certain areas within the viewshed of the Trail would be inventoried at a VRI Class IV: if devoid of permanent cultural modifications, these alternatives should consider classification as VRM Class III or classes which are more visually protective, to retain or improve the existing visual setting. In all cases, the CDNST should be clearly identified as a specific resource, considered in a unique section, and not contained within and across multiple disciplines. (Manual 6280, p. 4-1).
Alternative 1 (No Action). The EA does not define a Corridor. However, in the absence of any discussion of how uses would be managed to avoid visual conflict, VRM Class III “would not be consistent with the recommended guidance to retain or improve the integrity of the associated settings and scenic values for which the National Trail was designated.” (Table 2-5). Alternative 1 is not acceptable.
Alternative 2 (Development). The EA does not define a Corridor. However, in the absence of any discussion of how uses would be managed to avoid visual conflict, VRM Class III and IV “would not be consistent with the recommended guidance to retain or improve the integrity of the associated settings and scenic values for which the Trail was designated.” (Table 2-5). VRM Class IV should not be considered for the Corridor. And even beyond the Corridor, the Field Office should consider maintenance of naturally appearing landscapes that are associated with the National Scenic or Historic Trail, regardless of scenic quality rating, to provide premier recreation experience opportunities. Alternative 2 is not acceptable.
Alternative 3 (Protection). The EA does not define a Corridor. With appropriate analysis in accordance with Manual 6280, the area depicted as VRM Class II (on Figure 2-4) might conform to the Corridor definition. VRM Class II for such a Corridor “would be consistent with the recommended guidance to retain or improve the integrity of the associated settings and scenic values for which the Trail was designated.” (Table 2-5). However, where Class III VRM extends beyond the boundary of the Corridor, the EA should also include a description of how activities managed to this scenic level support the nature and purposes of the National Trail and how uses are managed to avoid visual conflict. Where portions of the viewshed (east of U.S. 287) are classified as VRM Class IV, the maintenance of naturally appearing landscapes should be considered to provide premier recreation experience opportunities. With greater analysis and detail, Alternative 3 may prove to be at least a good starting point for visual resource management as it relates to the CDNST.
Alternative 4 (Preferred). The EA does not define a Corridor. Even with appropriate analysis in accordance with Manual 6280, we judge that the area depicted as VRM Class II (on Figure 2-5) would not conform to the Corridor definition. VRM Class II for a more extensive Corridor north of the checkerboard might be consistent with the recommended guidance to retain or improve the integrity of the associated settings and scenic values for which the Trail was designated. (Table 2-5). However, where an area beyond the boundary of the Corridor is inventoried as VRM Class III owing to the presence of existing cultural modifications, the EA should also include a description of how activities managed to this scenic level would support the nature and purposes of the National Trail and how uses would be managed to avoid visual conflict.
VRM Class IV should not be considered in such close proximity to the Trail as it would be in the checkerboard according to Figure 2-5. And on public lands in the checkerboard, the Field Office should consider maintenance of naturally appearing landscapes that are associated with the National Scenic or Historic Trail, regardless of scenic quality rating, to provide premier recreation experience opportunities.
The EA states, with respect to Alternative 4, that “since few permanent cultural modifications exist north of the Town of Rawlins and I-80, VRM Class II along the CDNST would be consistent with the recommended guidance to retain or improve the integrity of the associate settings and scenic values for which the National Trail was designated where not adversely impacted by existing cultural modifications.” EA 4.2.12.4, pp. 4:18-19. The problem with this is that most of the country “along the CDNST” (encompassing its settings and scenic values) in the planning area would be assigned to VRM Class IV according to Figure 2-5. Alternative 4 is unacceptable.
Other Management Considerations
We understand that the subject EA is directed specifically to visual resource management decisions. However, as stated in the EA, “to the greatest extent possible, during the land use planning process, utility corridors, energy development zones, and exclusion areas for solar, wind, oil and gas, and similar types of uses should be considered simultaneously with the establishment of the National Trail Management Corridor to ensure National Trail protections and energy development objectives are compatible.” (3.13.3, p. 20).
We have definite views with respect to some of these matters as well as other topics such as limitations on road modifications that might result in adverse impacts upon the CDNST. We would welcome the opportunity to provide advice as BLM considers how it will manage activities within and beyond the Corridor to support the nature and purposes of the Trail and avoid visual conflict.
CONTINENTAL DIVIDE TRAIL SOCIETY
3704 North Charles St.
Suite 601
Baltimore, Maryland 21218
410/235-9610
mail@cdtsociety.org
James R. Wolf, Director
[1] The provisions set out in Manual 6280 are grounded in existing legislation. Even in the absence of this “guidance,” an application of the statutory framework should lead to the same substantive result.
[2] A national trail inventory is to be used to establish the Corridor. Manual 6280, 3.1.C., p. 3-1. The inventory is to include documentation and assessment of specified landscape elements prior to determining the extent of the associated settings. (The scenic settings are the geographic extent of the visual landscape elements that influence the trail experience and contribute to resource protection.) See Id, Chapter 3 generally, for viewshed analysis and other steps to be taken in the conduct of the inventory.
[3] The goals and objectives are to be identified based on several factors, including the enabling legislation, legislative history, Comprehensive Plan, and National Trail inventory. Manual 6280, p. 4-4. These goals and objectives will differ from one national scenic trail to another. Under the enabling legislation, various uses along the trail may be permitted if they do not “substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the trail.” 16 § 1246(c). For the CDNST, the nature and purposes are as stated in the text above.
[4] A commitment to complete surveys in the future does not substitute for a more intensive survey now. Cf. Montana Wilderness Ass’n v. Connell (9th Cir. 2013, No. 11-35818, slip opinion at 43).
These comments are submitted by the Continental Divide Trail Society in response to the invitation for comments on the Draft Visual Resource Management and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Amendment to the Resource Management Plan for the Rawlins Field Office and Associated Environmental Assessment, WY (78 Fed.Reg. 53777, Aug. 30, 2013).
We regard the Environmental Assessment to be incomplete and inadequate in light of its failure to properly implement the policies and procedures set out in BLM Manual 6280 (09/14/2012) – MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL SCENIC AND HISTORIC TRAILS AND TRAILS UNDER STUDY OR RECOMMENDED AS SUITABLE FOR CONGRESSIONAL DESIGNATION. Our comments are therefore directed toward actions that BLM should undertake in order to comply with that guidance.[1]
Guidance in BLM Manual 6280
As noted in the EA (3.13.3), Manual 6280 provides that BLM shall establish a National Trail Management Corridor (Corridor) through the land use planning process.[2] The Corridor for the trail is to include “a public land area of sufficient width within which to encompass National Trail resources, qualities, values, and associated settings and the primary use or uses that are present or to be restored.” 6280 p.4-5. The Corridor boundary “should be based on the associated natural or manmade physical landscape features in the following order of precedence: ridgelines, rivers, washes, and toe-of-the-slope (where well-defined as in desert environments); turning points, such as peaks, buttes, and geological features; roads, primitive roads or routes, and railroads; and lines of the Public Land Survey System. Measures, such as footage, mileage, and contour intervals, shall be discouraged.” 6280, p.4-7.
Within the Corridor allocation, the land use plan and associated NEPA analysis should consider:
· Designating visual resource management (VRM) classes based on the National Trail visual resource inventory and based on the desired future condition of National Trail resources, qualities, values, and associated settings and the primary use or uses of the areas through which such trails may pass. To retain or improve the integrity of the associated settings and scenic values for which the National Trail was designated, the BLM should consider establishing VRM classes at the most protective level practicable to meet National Trail scenery management objectives.
VRM Class I or II designation for National Scenic Trails, where not adversely impacted by existing cultural modifications…
· Whether the National Trail Management Corridor should be classified as VRM Class III or classes which are more visually protective, to retain or improve the existing visual setting of the areas along a National Trail where permanent cultural modifications currently exist. In assigning VRM classifications, describe how activities managed to this scenic level support the nature and purposes of the National Trail and how uses are managed to avoid visual conflict. This requirement also applies to areas where a visual proposed VRM Class III may extend beyond the boundary of the National Trail Management Corridor, so as not to diminish the National Trail visual setting.
For those areas along a National Trail that inventory at a VRI Class IV but are devoid of permanent cultural modifications, alternatives should consider classification as VRM Class III or classes which are more visually protective, to retain or improve the existing visual setting. VRM Class IV should not be considered for use within National Trail Management Corridor.
· The maintenance of naturally appearing landscapes that are associated with the National Scenic or Historic Trail, regardless of scenic quality rating, to provide premier recreation experience opportunities. (6280, pp. 4:7-9)
In general, and with respect to the assignment of VRM classifications in particular, “the influence that the visual setting has on the National Trail is not to be undervalued.” (emphasis added) (6280, p.4-8)
Application of BLM Manual 6280 to the Project Area
The Land Use Planning Process
BLM must address the CDNST through the land use planning process “as soon as practical after activation.” The Trail may be addressed through a land use plan amendment. Regardless of the type of land use planning process undertaken, the BLM shall establish a National Trail Management Corridor and identify management goals, objectives, and actions for the Trail. Further, the CDNST shall be clearly identified as a specific resource, in its own unique section – not contained within and across multiple disciplines. (6280, p.4-1).
The proposal under review is designed to support a visual resource amendment to the resource management plan for the Rawlins Field Office. Visual resource management is of fundamental importance to the use and enjoyment of the CDNST. Because the decisions being considered will have a direct and substantial impact upon the CDNST, the current review should be considered a land use planning process calling for establishment of a Corridor and identification of goals, objectives, and actions. As indicated in the statement of the nature and purposes of the CDNST (Comprehensive Plan, 2009), these goals and objectives should “provide for high-quality scenic, primitive hiking and horseback riding opportunities and to conserve natural, historic, and cultural resources along the CDNST corridor.”[3]
If for any reason BLM determines that it is not “practical” to meet these requirements at this time, any decisions must be made subject to a fresh and unrestricted planning process, to be carried out promptly and in accordance with Manual 6280. In our view, however, it would hardly be “practical” to make an interim decision that would be subject to essential revisions in the light of the current guidance. The time to implement Manual 6280 is now.[4]
Establishing the Corridor
The environmental assessment fails to apply the guidance of Manual 6280 to the establishment of the CDNST Corridor. Currently, within the Rawlins Field Office, the CDNST is managed as a SRMA. The 0.25-mile-wide corridor (centered on the trail) of the CDNST SRMA is managed as a recreational resource to maintain or enhance a diversity of recreational opportunities and benefits while providing trail users opportunities to view the diverse topographic, geographic, vegetative, wildlife, and scenic phenomena that characterize the CDNST. EA 3.13.3, p.3-20.
This current corridor delineation does not conform to the new NSHT guidance.
To begin with, the current de facto boundaries of the Corridor have been defined in terms of a specific mileage; that is a practice that, according to the guidance, “shall be discouraged.” Instead, the Corridor boundaries “should be based on the associated natural or manmade physical landscape features,” with ridgelines having the highest precedence. The crest of Bull Springs Rim might, for example, might be considered as one segment of the boundary. While we do not have access to the VRI studies that resulted (for Alternative 3) in a high sensitivity level rating for the area surrounding the CDNST, we surmise that it is essentially an area that would encompass “National Trail resources, qualities, values, and associated settings and the primary use or uses that are present or to be restored.” If this is determined to be the case after the performance of an inventory along the lines of Manual 6280, this area might be defined as the CDNST Corridor.
Management of the Corridor
Manual 6280 provides the guidance that BLM should consider establishing VRM classes at the most protective level practicable to meet National Trail scenery management objectives – further identified as VRM Class I or II designation, where not adversely impacted by existing cultural modifications (6280, p.4-8). We do not regard existing low-standard roads in the area under study to constitute an adverse impact resulting from cultural modifications so as to preclude Class II VRM designation. However, even if were so considered, the EA should include a description of how activities managed to a lower (i.e. VRM III) level might support the nature and purposes of the National Trail and how uses would be managed to avoid visual conflict.
Note, in addition, that this requirement also applies to areas where a visual proposed VRM Class III may extend beyond the boundary of the National Trail Management Corridor, so as not to diminish the National Trail visual setting (6280, p.4-8). And, as we have emphasized above, “the influence that the visual setting has on the National Trail is not to be undervalued.”
Within the Corridor, VRM Class IV should not be considered. And even beyond the Corridor, the Field Office should consider maintenance of naturally appearing landscapes that are associated with the National Scenic or Historic Trail, regardless of scenic quality rating, to provide premier recreation experience opportunities. (See, generally, EA 3.13.3, p . 3-20).
The EA should address, with respect to each alternative, whether and how this guidance is being observed.
Application of BLM Manual 6280 to EA Alternatives
For each of the alternatives discussed and illustrated in the EA, BLM should define a National Trail Management Corridor in accordance with the direction of BLM Manual 6280. Whether VRM Class I, Class II, or Class III, the EA should include a description of how activities within the Corridor will be managed to support the nature and purposes of the Trail and how uses are managed to avoid visual conflict. For EA Alternatives II, III, and IV (Figures 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5), certain areas within the viewshed of the Trail would be inventoried at a VRI Class IV: if devoid of permanent cultural modifications, these alternatives should consider classification as VRM Class III or classes which are more visually protective, to retain or improve the existing visual setting. In all cases, the CDNST should be clearly identified as a specific resource, considered in a unique section, and not contained within and across multiple disciplines. (Manual 6280, p. 4-1).
Alternative 1 (No Action). The EA does not define a Corridor. However, in the absence of any discussion of how uses would be managed to avoid visual conflict, VRM Class III “would not be consistent with the recommended guidance to retain or improve the integrity of the associated settings and scenic values for which the National Trail was designated.” (Table 2-5). Alternative 1 is not acceptable.
Alternative 2 (Development). The EA does not define a Corridor. However, in the absence of any discussion of how uses would be managed to avoid visual conflict, VRM Class III and IV “would not be consistent with the recommended guidance to retain or improve the integrity of the associated settings and scenic values for which the Trail was designated.” (Table 2-5). VRM Class IV should not be considered for the Corridor. And even beyond the Corridor, the Field Office should consider maintenance of naturally appearing landscapes that are associated with the National Scenic or Historic Trail, regardless of scenic quality rating, to provide premier recreation experience opportunities. Alternative 2 is not acceptable.
Alternative 3 (Protection). The EA does not define a Corridor. With appropriate analysis in accordance with Manual 6280, the area depicted as VRM Class II (on Figure 2-4) might conform to the Corridor definition. VRM Class II for such a Corridor “would be consistent with the recommended guidance to retain or improve the integrity of the associated settings and scenic values for which the Trail was designated.” (Table 2-5). However, where Class III VRM extends beyond the boundary of the Corridor, the EA should also include a description of how activities managed to this scenic level support the nature and purposes of the National Trail and how uses are managed to avoid visual conflict. Where portions of the viewshed (east of U.S. 287) are classified as VRM Class IV, the maintenance of naturally appearing landscapes should be considered to provide premier recreation experience opportunities. With greater analysis and detail, Alternative 3 may prove to be at least a good starting point for visual resource management as it relates to the CDNST.
Alternative 4 (Preferred). The EA does not define a Corridor. Even with appropriate analysis in accordance with Manual 6280, we judge that the area depicted as VRM Class II (on Figure 2-5) would not conform to the Corridor definition. VRM Class II for a more extensive Corridor north of the checkerboard might be consistent with the recommended guidance to retain or improve the integrity of the associated settings and scenic values for which the Trail was designated. (Table 2-5). However, where an area beyond the boundary of the Corridor is inventoried as VRM Class III owing to the presence of existing cultural modifications, the EA should also include a description of how activities managed to this scenic level would support the nature and purposes of the National Trail and how uses would be managed to avoid visual conflict.
VRM Class IV should not be considered in such close proximity to the Trail as it would be in the checkerboard according to Figure 2-5. And on public lands in the checkerboard, the Field Office should consider maintenance of naturally appearing landscapes that are associated with the National Scenic or Historic Trail, regardless of scenic quality rating, to provide premier recreation experience opportunities.
The EA states, with respect to Alternative 4, that “since few permanent cultural modifications exist north of the Town of Rawlins and I-80, VRM Class II along the CDNST would be consistent with the recommended guidance to retain or improve the integrity of the associate settings and scenic values for which the National Trail was designated where not adversely impacted by existing cultural modifications.” EA 4.2.12.4, pp. 4:18-19. The problem with this is that most of the country “along the CDNST” (encompassing its settings and scenic values) in the planning area would be assigned to VRM Class IV according to Figure 2-5. Alternative 4 is unacceptable.
Other Management Considerations
We understand that the subject EA is directed specifically to visual resource management decisions. However, as stated in the EA, “to the greatest extent possible, during the land use planning process, utility corridors, energy development zones, and exclusion areas for solar, wind, oil and gas, and similar types of uses should be considered simultaneously with the establishment of the National Trail Management Corridor to ensure National Trail protections and energy development objectives are compatible.” (3.13.3, p. 20).
We have definite views with respect to some of these matters as well as other topics such as limitations on road modifications that might result in adverse impacts upon the CDNST. We would welcome the opportunity to provide advice as BLM considers how it will manage activities within and beyond the Corridor to support the nature and purposes of the Trail and avoid visual conflict.
CONTINENTAL DIVIDE TRAIL SOCIETY
3704 North Charles St.
Suite 601
Baltimore, Maryland 21218
410/235-9610
mail@cdtsociety.org
James R. Wolf, Director
[1] The provisions set out in Manual 6280 are grounded in existing legislation. Even in the absence of this “guidance,” an application of the statutory framework should lead to the same substantive result.
[2] A national trail inventory is to be used to establish the Corridor. Manual 6280, 3.1.C., p. 3-1. The inventory is to include documentation and assessment of specified landscape elements prior to determining the extent of the associated settings. (The scenic settings are the geographic extent of the visual landscape elements that influence the trail experience and contribute to resource protection.) See Id, Chapter 3 generally, for viewshed analysis and other steps to be taken in the conduct of the inventory.
[3] The goals and objectives are to be identified based on several factors, including the enabling legislation, legislative history, Comprehensive Plan, and National Trail inventory. Manual 6280, p. 4-4. These goals and objectives will differ from one national scenic trail to another. Under the enabling legislation, various uses along the trail may be permitted if they do not “substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the trail.” 16 § 1246(c). For the CDNST, the nature and purposes are as stated in the text above.
[4] A commitment to complete surveys in the future does not substitute for a more intensive survey now. Cf. Montana Wilderness Ass’n v. Connell (9th Cir. 2013, No. 11-35818, slip opinion at 43).