SB1376 amends the National Trails System Act to require the Secretary of Agriculture to study whether the Benton MacKaye Trail should be designated a National Scenic Trail and to report that feasibility analysis to Congress. The bill adds the trail to the Act’s list of candidate studies and directs agency consultation with interested organizations.
This is a procedural but consequential move: the mandated study is the formal gateway to congressional designation. The report will frame practical issues — land ownership, resource conflicts, stewardship responsibilities, and cost estimates — that will determine whether Congress can or will adopt a National Scenic Trail designation and what federal role would follow.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts the Benton MacKaye Trail into the National Trails System Act’s roster of feasibility studies and directs the Secretary of Agriculture to complete and submit a feasibility study to Congress. It requires the Secretary to consult with interested organizations, explicitly naming the Benton MacKaye Trail Association.
Who It Affects
Primary actors are the Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Forest Service (responsible for conducting the study), the Benton MacKaye Trail Association and other conservation organizations (consultation partners), and state and local governments in Georgia, Tennessee, and North Carolina that host trail segments and adjacent communities that rely on trail-driven tourism.
Why It Matters
A feasibility study is the statutory prerequisite for congressional designation as a National Scenic Trail; its findings set the factual and cost baseline Congress will use to decide whether to add the trail to the National Trails System. The study will also surface cross-jurisdictional management issues — federal, state, park, wilderness, and private land intersections — that determine future stewardship and funding needs.
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 narrow but consequential thing: it requires the federal government to answer whether the Benton MacKaye Trail is a suitable candidate for National Scenic Trail status. That question is not just symbolic.
A feasibility study typically maps the route, inventories land ownership and access rights, evaluates environmental and cultural resources, identifies where the route intersects other protected designations, and produces a realistic estimate of the legal and financial steps needed to secure long-term public access and management.
Preparing the study will force the Forest Service and USDA to translate local knowledge — much of the trail’s upkeep is currently run by volunteers and a nonprofit — into formal resource assessments and management options. Expect the study to examine cooperative agreements, potential easements or acquisitions, maintenance standards, visitor use projections, and cost-sharing arrangements with states, National Park Service units, and nonprofit partners.Because the Benton MacKaye route crosses multiple federal designations and three states, the study will be as much about interagency coordination as it is about trail quality.
Key practical topics include how to manage trail segments that pass through wilderness areas and a national park, how to reconcile volunteer management practices with federal stewardship standards, and what incremental funding and staffing would be required if Congress decides to designate the trail. The study’s conclusions will frame any future legislative language about boundaries, administration, and funding sources.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds the Benton MacKaye Trail as item (50) to section 5(c) of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1244(c)).
The Benton MacKaye Trail runs about 287 miles through Georgia, Tennessee, and North Carolina.
The trail traverses six designated Wilderness Areas and passes through the Great Smoky Mountains National Park and three National Forests (Chattahoochee‑Oconee, Cherokee, and Nantahala).
Congress’s text notes that approximately 95 percent of the trail is located on Federal land, which the study will evaluate for implications on land acquisition needs.
The bill records that the Benton MacKaye Trail Association has constructed, managed, and maintained the trail since 1980 — a fact the study will consider when assessing stewardship capacity and transition risks.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Gives the Act its formal name: the Benton MacKaye National Scenic Trail Feasibility Study Act of 2025. Naming is purely descriptive but signals congressional intent to prioritize this trail for study under the National Trails System Act.
Congressional findings
The bill lists findings about the trail’s scenic qualities, recreational range, biodiversity, and the role of local communities and the Benton MacKaye Trail Association. These findings serve two purposes: they frame the trail as a candidate worthy of study and signal to the agency and stakeholders the attributes Congress expects the study to consider (scenery, public access, economic benefit, and existing stewardship). While not legally binding policy, such findings shape the study’s narrative and can influence how agencies prioritize issues during the assessment.
Adds the Benton MacKaye Trail to the statutory list of studies and prescribes study requirements
This is the operative change: the bill amends the National Trails System Act by inserting a numbered entry that identifies the trail and then requires the Secretary of Agriculture to complete and submit a feasibility study. The provision directs consultation with interested organizations, which institutionalizes stakeholder input into the study process. Practically, the amendment creates a statutory trigger obligating the Department to allocate staff time and resources to a defined study product for congressional review.
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
- Local tourism economies in communities along the trail — a positive feasibility finding could increase visitation and expand lodging, guide services, and retail spending tied to trail use.
- Benton MacKaye Trail Association — formal study and potential designation can lead to federal recognition, technical support, and grant eligibility that bolster the association’s preservation and maintenance efforts.
- Conservation organizations — designation often strengthens long‑term protection and coordinated management of scenic and ecological corridors that are priorities for habitat connectivity and biodiversity.
- Federal land managers (USFS and potentially NPS) — a completed study provides a clear administrative pathway and legal basis to plan and request funding for long‑term trail stewardship.
Who Bears the Cost
- U.S. Forest Service / Department of Agriculture — the agency must conduct the study (staff time and analysis) and, if designation follows, may face added long‑term management responsibilities and funding needs.
- National Park Service (Great Smoky Mountains National Park) — coordinating trail management within park boundaries could require additional staff time, signage, and operational adjustments.
- Private landowners adjacent to the trail — if the study recommends easements or acquisitions to formalize the route, affected landowners may face negotiation pressure or new access arrangements.
- Volunteer organizations and local trail managers — moving from an informal volunteer maintenance model to federally prescribed standards could increase administrative burdens and require capacity building.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between formal federal recognition and the practical consequences of that recognition: designation can deliver coordinated protection, visibility, and funding, but it also imports federal management standards and obligations that can displace local volunteer practices, complicate stewardship across wilderness and park lands, and create unmet fiscal demands unless funding follows the study’s recommendations.
Two implementation challenges stand out. First, the study’s scope is inherently cross‑jurisdictional: the route intersects wilderness designations and a national park where statutory protections and management rules differ from standard Forest Service trails.
Reconciling nonmotorized trail maintenance with wilderness protection and park management protocols can be complex and may limit certain management tools (for example, motorized equipment for reconstruction). Second, the bill prescribes agency consultation but not funding for either the study or subsequent management outcomes.
The study can identify needs, but without committed appropriation language, prospective recommendations may outstrip available resources, leaving volunteer groups and local governments to bridge gaps.
Operationally, the one‑step study does not resolve longer governance questions: if Congress proceeds to designation, it must decide on boundary language, lead agency responsibilities, and explicit funding mechanisms. The statutory findings emphasize volunteer stewardship and extensive federal land coverage, but those factors cut both ways — they lower acquisition costs on paper while exposing the trail to federal administrative priorities and standards that may require local stakeholders to adapt practices and accept new constraints.
Finally, a feasibility study done on an accelerated timeline may produce blunt cost and environmental estimates; detailed implementation plans will likely require follow‑on planning work and budget requests.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.