The Benton MacKaye National Scenic Trail Feasibility Study Act of 2025 amends the National Trails System Act to require the Secretary of Agriculture to complete and transmit a feasibility study on designating the Benton MacKaye Trail as a national scenic trail. The bill adds the trail to the statutory list of corridors to be studied and sets a one-year deadline for the Secretary, in consultation with interested organizations including the Benton MacKaye Trail Association, to finish the study.
This matters for federal land managers, conservation groups, and communities along the trail: a feasibility study is the formal step that precedes congressional consideration of national scenic trail designation, which can change management priorities, open new funding streams, and affect local land-use and recreation economies. The bill contains findings claiming most of the trail is on federal land and has been maintained by volunteers, but it does not authorize funds for the study or for any subsequent designation or management changes.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends 16 U.S.C. 1244(c) by adding the Benton MacKaye Trail to the list of trails for which the Secretary of Agriculture must complete a feasibility study. It requires the Secretary, within one year of enactment, to consult with interested organizations and submit the study to Congress.
Who It Affects
Primary actors affected include the U.S. Forest Service (within USDA), the Benton MacKaye Trail Association and other local or regional conservation groups, counties and towns along the corridor in Georgia, Tennessee, and North Carolina, and rural businesses dependent on trail tourism. The bill also implicates the National Park Service where the trail crosses Great Smoky Mountains National Park.
Why It Matters
Adding the trail to the statutory study list institutionalizes federal attention and creates a formal record for Congress to act on designation. Even without immediate designation or funding, the study will shape future management, eligibility for federal recreation funds, and stakeholder discussions about maintenance, access, and resource protection.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill is narrowly focused: it amends the National Trails System Act to insert the Benton MacKaye Trail into the catalog of routes that must be evaluated for national scenic trail status. The statutory insertion names the trail, summarizes its character as a scenic, nonmotorized route of roughly 287 miles through Georgia, Tennessee, and North Carolina, and pairs that description with a directive that the Secretary of Agriculture carry out a feasibility study.
Practically, the Secretary (acting through the Forest Service) must complete and transmit that study to Congress within one year of the law’s enactment. The study must be conducted in consultation with “interested organizations,” and the bill specifically lists the Benton MacKaye Trail Association as an example.
The text does not specify the study’s scope beyond being a feasibility study, nor does it lay out mandatory evaluation criteria, public notice procedures, or required content such as cost estimates or environmental review details.The bill’s findings offer a rationale for the study—describing the trail’s scenery, its passage through designated wilderness and national forests and parks, its economic role for rural communities, and the fact that an estimated 95 percent of the route is on federal land and has been managed by volunteers since 1980. Those findings frame why proponents argue federal study is low-cost and administrative rather than a major new land acquisition effort.
The statutory change is procedural: it creates the formal pathway for a study that could inform later congressional action to designate the corridor a national scenic trail, which would be a separate legislative or administrative step.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill inserts the Benton MacKaye Trail as item (50) in 16 U.S.C. 1244(c), the National Trails System Act list of corridors for study.
It mandates the Secretary of Agriculture to complete and submit a feasibility study to Congress no later than one year after enactment.
The Secretary must conduct the study in consultation with interested organizations and specifically with the Benton MacKaye Trail Association.
The bill’s findings state the trail traverses approximately 287 miles across Georgia, Tennessee, and North Carolina and passes through six designated Wilderness Areas, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, and multiple national forests.
Congressional findings claim roughly 95 percent of the trail lies on federal land and that the Benton MacKaye Trail Association has maintained the route since 1980, framing the study as administratively straightforward.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act’s short title: the 'Benton MacKaye National Scenic Trail Feasibility Study Act of 2025.' This is purely stylistic in statutory practice but signals the congressional intent to treat the measure as a discrete feasibility mandate rather than broader trail legislation.
Congressional findings about the trail
Lists facts and policy rationales Congress relies on to justify the study, including scenery, biodiversity, route length, connections to national forests and a national park, economic benefits to rural communities, and long-standing volunteer maintenance. Findings do not create legal rights but shape legislative record and may influence how the study is scoped and how agencies and courts interpret congressional expectations about costs and access.
Adds the Benton MacKaye Trail to the statutory study list and mandates the feasibility study
Directly amends Section 5(c) of the National Trails System Act by adding the trail with a two-part entry: (A) a short statutory description of the trail and (B) a study directive requiring the Secretary of Agriculture to complete and submit a feasibility study within one year, in consultation with interested organizations. Mechanically, the amendment triggers the Forest Service’s obligation to prepare a congressionally directed feasibility study but does not itself designate the trail or appropriate money for the study or subsequent management changes.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Benton MacKaye Trail Association — Gains formal recognition in federal law as a stakeholder for the study, which can increase leverage in shaping study scope and future management decisions.
- Rural communities and local businesses along the trail corridor — Stand to benefit from a federal study that can justify investment, marketing, or eligibility for recreation-related grant programs if designation or additional federal support follows.
- Conservation and outdoor recreation organizations — Receive a structured process to present ecological, access, and recreation arguments to the Forest Service; a favorable study enhances prospects for stronger protections or funding.
- Federal land managers (USFS and NPS) — Gain a congressionally mandated assessment that compiles data and recommendations that can inform long-term management planning and interagency coordination.
Who Bears the Cost
- U.S. Forest Service (USDA) — Must allocate staff time and technical resources to complete the study within a year; without an appropriation, the agency may need to reprogram funds or delay other work.
- State and local governments and planning bodies — May face additional obligations to participate in consultation, provide data, or respond to recommendations; future designation could impose land-use constraints that localities must accommodate.
- Private landowners adjacent to or crossing the corridor — If designation proceeds after the study, landowners may face new easement negotiations, access expectations, or administrative conditions, even though the bill itself only requires a study.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between codifying a rapid, low-cost path toward national scenic trail recognition to capture recreation and economic benefits for rural communities, and the reality that such recognition can impose federal management obligations, trigger new regulatory expectations, and require funding that the bill does not provide; the measure advances study without resolving who will pay for implementation or how local concerns will be reconciled.
The bill is procedural and narrowly drafted, but that creates several implementation questions. First, the one-year deadline is tight for a multi-jurisdictional corridor that crosses federal, state, and private lands and touches national park and wilderness units; completing a defensible feasibility study in that time will require clear scope, staffing, and likely cooperation agreements.
Second, the statute does not authorize funding for the study or for any actions that might follow; absent an appropriation, the Forest Service will need to absorb costs or seek interagency or partner support, which can limit the study’s depth.
The findings assert high federal land ownership and long-term volunteer maintenance to suggest a low-cost path to designation, but the bill does not require verification of these claims or address easements, access rights across private parcels, or regulatory consequences in wilderness areas. Because the text provides no required content for the feasibility study, stakeholders will press for a study that includes realistic cost estimates, management frameworks, public engagement processes, and ecological assessments — all of which influence whether eventual designation is practical and politically feasible.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.