This bill amends Section 5(c) of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1244(c)) to add the Bonneville Shoreline Trail to the list of corridors the Secretary of the Interior must study for possible designation. The inserted language describes the corridor as a system of trails and potential trails of roughly 280 miles from the Idaho–Utah border to Nephi, Utah, following the historic Lake Bonneville bench.
Why it matters: adding a corridor to the statutory study list triggers the Department of the Interior’s existing feasibility processes and puts the Bonneville bench on a path that could culminate in federal designation. That process brings federal planning resources and potential funding but also raises land‑use negotiations, cross‑jurisdictional coordination, and political and property concerns for communities along the route.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts a new entry into 16 U.S.C. 1244(c) identifying the Bonneville Shoreline Trail corridor for a statutory feasibility study under the National Trails System Act. The insertion names the corridor, gives an approximate length (about 280 miles), and describes its endpoints and alignment along the Bonneville bench.
Who It Affects
The primary actors affected are the Department of the Interior (which conducts the study), state and local governments in Utah and adjacent Idaho, local trail organizations and outdoor‑recreation businesses, and private landowners whose property lies along the bench. Federal land managers and planning partners will also be drawn into interagency and public planning processes.
Why It Matters
A formal federal feasibility study is the required precursor to any National Trails System designation; study inclusion therefore opens the possibility of federal designation, federal funding eligibility, and a new layer of planning and land‑use negotiation in a rapidly growing region with fragmented ownership and active recreation demand.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill does one concrete thing: it adds the Bonneville Shoreline Trail to the statutory list of corridors the Secretary of the Interior must evaluate under the National Trails System Act. The statutory text labels the corridor a ‘‘system of trails and potential trails’’ extending roughly 280 miles from the Idaho–Utah border to Nephi, Utah, and locates it on the bench left by ancient Lake Bonneville.
In practice, putting a corridor on that list triggers the Department’s feasibility analysis that typically examines route continuity, land ownership patterns, public support, environmental impacts, and estimated costs for acquisition, construction, and long‑term management. The bill itself does not define a study schedule, set aside funding, or prescribe the study’s methodological details; it simply brings the Bonneville corridor into the set of corridors the Department is statutorily authorized to study.If the study finds the corridor feasible, the usual next steps under the National Trails System framework include a formal recommendation, potential designation as a unit of the System, development of management responsibilities, and opportunities to seek federal grants or land easements.
Those outcomes would touch many local players: counties and cities that host segments of the trail, private landowners where the bench is discontinuous, non‑profit trail groups, and state transportation and parks agencies.The corridor description in the bill—‘‘trails and potential trails’’—signals that the route is partly informal and partly planned. That matters because the study will need to reconcile mapped ambitions with on‑the‑ground ownership boundaries, easement opportunities, and existing municipal trail projects.
The bill begins a federal conversation; it does not complete any of the legal or funding choices that would follow a favorable study.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends 16 U.S.C. 1244(c) by adding a new entry (listed as item 50) naming the Bonneville Shoreline Trail for a statutory feasibility study.
The corridor is described as approximately 280 miles long, running from the Idaho–Utah border to Nephi, Utah, and following the Bonneville bench formed by ancient Lake Bonneville.
The language explicitly covers a ‘‘system of trails and potential trails,’’ which recognizes both existing trail segments and proposed or conceptual connections along the bench.
The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to study feasibility but contains no appropriation, no deadline for completing the study, and no automatic designation—any designation would follow separate statutory steps.
Adding the corridor to 16 U.S.C. 1244(c) makes it eligible for the Department’s existing study and recommendation process under the National Trails System Act, which can lead to federal designation, planning assistance, and potential funding streams if the study supports it.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Statutory insertion directing a feasibility study
This section is the entire operative change: it amends Section 5(c) of the National Trails System Act by appending a new numbered entry for the Bonneville Shoreline Trail. That technical insertion imports the corridor into the statutory mechanism that triggers Department of the Interior feasibility reviews for potential National Trails System additions. Practically, the Secretary will treat the corridor the way other named corridors in 16 U.S.C. 1244(c) have been treated—subject to the Act’s study framework and any implementing guidance from Interior.
Corridor description and scope
The inserted clause describes the feature as ‘‘a system of trails and potential trails’’ about 280 miles long, from the Idaho–Utah border to Nephi, Utah, along the Bonneville bench. That phrasing matters: by recognizing both built and potential segments, the statute signals the study must address continuity, existing municipal and county trail projects, and gaps where new construction or easements would be required. The approximate mileage and endpoints give the study a defined planning perimeter rather than leaving corridor boundaries open‑ended.
Triggers Department study without funding or deadlines
While the bill creates a statutory obligation for Interior to study the corridor, it does not attach an appropriation, assign lead agency staff, or set a timeline. The actual scope, schedule, and budget will therefore be determined through Interior’s normal planning processes and internal priorities or by subsequent appropriations. That means stakeholders will need to press for resources and procedural transparency to ensure the study moves forward on a useful timetable.
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
- Regional outdoor‑recreation businesses and tourism operators in Utah and adjacent Idaho gain a clearer pathway to federal recognition and potential infrastructure funding, which can increase visitation and revenue if designation leads to coordinated promotion and grant eligibility.
- Local trail organizations and conservancies receive federal planning attention and technical resources: a feasibility study typically provides inventories, maps, and cost estimates that advocacy groups can use to secure matching funds and partnerships.
- State and local governments benefit from federal technical assistance for corridor planning and from potential access to federal grant programs to support construction, easements, and long‑term stewardship.
- Recreational users (hikers, mountain bikers, equestrians) stand to gain from the prospect of a more coherent, officially planned, and potentially better‑maintained regional trail network that connects existing segments across jurisdictions.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of the Interior (and the National Park Service, if assigned the task) must allocate staff time and budget to perform the feasibility study; without specific appropriations, that shifts the timing to Interior’s internal priorities.
- Local governments and counties will incur planning and coordination costs—meeting time, mapping, easement negotiations, and possible match funding—during the study and any subsequent corridor implementation.
- Private landowners along the bench face the prospect of easement negotiations, potential restrictions on development, and transaction costs if federal designation or corridor protection requires land acquisition or conservation easements.
- State transportation, parks, and land‑management agencies may need to adjust capital plans and maintenance budgets if the corridor’s study leads to federal designation and higher visitor use or new management responsibilities.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward: federal study and possible designation can unlock coordinated planning, funding, and protection for a regionally important recreation corridor—but they also bring federal involvement that can complicate private‑landowner rights, local land‑use flexibility, and budgeting for maintenance and enforcement. The bill resolves neither side of that trade‑off; it simply moves the corridor from local aspiration into the federal feasibility pipeline, where competing priorities and scarce resources will determine whether aspiration becomes policy.
Two practical implementation questions loom. First, the bill creates a study obligation but includes no funding or deadline; whether the study happens promptly depends on Interior’s resource allocation or later appropriations.
That can produce lengthy delays and frustrate local partners who expect federal action once a corridor is named.
Second, the corridor language—‘‘trails and potential trails’’—reflects a patchwork reality: segments are municipal, county, state, and privately held. Feasibility will hinge on securing easements or rights‑of‑way across private property and resolving differing priorities among dozens of jurisdictions.
Those negotiations can be time‑consuming and politically fraught, and a favorable study does not force landowners to sell or grant easements.
Finally, the bill is silent on the scope and standards for the study. The Department will need to decide how to weigh environmental impacts, cultural‑resource protections, continuity thresholds for designation, and economic benefit estimates.
Those methodological choices will shape outcomes but are not prescribed by the bill, leaving important implementation discretion to Interior.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.