SB 3720 amends the National Trails System Act to add the Bay Area Ridge as a candidate national scenic trail and directs the Secretary of the Interior to complete and send Congress a feasibility study within one year. The bill names the trail in statute (approximately 550 miles, connecting over 75 parks and open spaces) and requires consultation with interested organizations and each federal and state land-managing agency through which the trail passes.
This is a procedural but consequential step: the study will map ownership and management issues, estimate costs and acquisition or easement needs, and recommend whether Congress should designate the trail. If the study supports designation, the region could gain a new federal-level planning and funding pathway — but also face new management and coordination obligations across federal, state, local, and private lands.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts a new paragraph into 16 U.S.C. 1244(c) that describes the Bay Area Ridge Trail and instructs the Secretary of the Interior to complete a feasibility study on designating it as a national scenic trail and submit that study to Congress within one year. It requires consultation with interested organizations and each federal and state agency that administers land the trail crosses.
Who It Affects
Federal land managers (Interior component agencies and any other agencies that administer lands along the route), California state agencies and local park districts, the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council and other NGOs, private landowners along unfinished segments, and recreation and tourism stakeholders in the Bay Area.
Why It Matters
A formal feasibility study is the primary data step before Congress decides on designation; it frames boundaries, management options, cost estimates, and legal/land-acquisition needs. That analysis can unlock federal planning tools and funding but also shifts coordination and potential fiscal responsibilities among multiple jurisdictions.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill places the Bay Area Ridge Trail on the statutory radar by amending the list of potential national scenic trails and ordering a focused feasibility study. The statute itself defines the trail’s rough scope — roughly 550 miles along Bay Area ridgelines that link more than 75 parks and open spaces — and the study must be finished and sent to Congress within one year.
That timeline is mandatory in the bill text.
The study must be carried out by the Secretary of the Interior and the text explicitly requires consultation with interested organizations (the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council is named as an example) and with every federal and state agency that manages land the route traverses. Practically, that pulls in multiple land managers — federal (for any federally managed parcels), California state parks and resource departments, and numerous county and municipal park districts — and it means the study will need to inventory land ownership, easement status, trail completion gaps, and current management arrangements.Although the bill does not itself designate the trail, it creates the core analytic product Congress uses to decide on designation: recommended boundaries, a management framework, and preliminary cost and acquisition needs.
The study will likely address trail routing options where segments are incomplete, compatibility of uses across urban-adjacent and sensitive natural areas, and how the proposed national scenic trail would interact with adjacent trail systems like the Bay Trail. The bill leaves implementation choices — whether to pursue designation, which lands to include in any federal role, and how to fund improvements — to Congress and the agencies after the study is delivered.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds a new paragraph (numbered as paragraph 50) to 16 U.S.C. 1244(c) describing the Bay Area Ridge National Scenic Trail as a roughly 550-mile, multi-use ridgeline route.
The Secretary of the Interior must complete and submit a feasibility study to Congress not later than one year after enactment.
The bill directs the Secretary to consult with interested organizations (specifically naming the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council) as part of the study process.
The study must be conducted in consultation with each federal agency and each state agency that administers land crossed by the trail, forcing cross-jurisdictional coordination on mapping, ownership, and management issues.
The text uses the phrase 'Notwithstanding subsection (b),' creating a mandatory one-year study schedule that departs from or overrides any conflicting procedural timing in the cited subsection.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Establishes the act’s short name as the 'Bay Area Ridge National Scenic Trail Feasibility Study Act.' This is purely stylistic but signals congressional intent that the measure is focused on producing a feasibility study rather than immediate designation.
Congressional findings about the trail
Lists facts Congress considers relevant: the trail’s approximate length (550 miles), the split between completed and uncompleted segments, its location adjacent to major population centers, and the variety of scenic, geological, and cultural features it connects. These findings will guide the study’s scope by emphasizing recreation, scenic value, and connections to existing parks and trails, and they provide a record of legislative intent that could matter if Congress later considers designation language or scope disputes.
Statutory description of the candidate trail
Inserts a compact statutory description that pins the proposal to a defined corridor (ridgelines surrounding the San Francisco Bay Area) and quantifies connectivity (over 75 parks and open spaces). That description will serve as the baseline corridor for the feasibility study and as a reference point for any future legislative maps or boundary debates.
Mandatory feasibility study and one-year deadline
Directs the Secretary to complete and deliver a feasibility study to Congress within one year 'notwithstanding subsection (b).' The mandatory deadline compresses the usual timeline and requires the Interior Department to assemble mapping, ownership, cost, and management analyses quickly, which affects staffing and prioritization inside agencies tasked with the work.
Consultation requirements for the study
Requires the Secretary to consult with every federal and state agency that administers land along the route. That creates a procedural obligation to coordinate with an alphabet of managers (e.g., NPS, USFS if applicable, Bureau of Land Management where relevant, California State Parks, county park districts) and to incorporate their data, constraints, and preferences into the study rather than producing a unilateral Interior analysis.
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
- Bay Area outdoor users and residents — stand to gain clearer planning, improved connectivity, and potentially upgraded trail segments and amenities if the study leads to designation or federal investment.
- Regional trail organizations and NGOs (for example, the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council) — gain a formal role in study consultation, which can amplify funding and partnership opportunities and strengthen coordination across jurisdictions.
- Local and state parks agencies — could access new federal planning resources and potential funding streams tied to a national scenic trail, helping complete gaps and standardize management across adjacent jurisdictions.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of the Interior and participating federal agencies — must allocate staff, mapping, and analytic resources to meet the one-year study deadline and may face future budget needs if designation proceeds.
- State and local land-management agencies and park districts — will need to participate in the study, potentially contribute data and staff time, and later negotiate roles, easements, or maintenance responsibilities.
- Private landowners along unfinished segments — may face increased pressure or incentive negotiations for easements, land acquisition, or routing adjustments if the study recommends a continuous public corridor.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between securing a continuous, publicly accessible scenic trail across a heavily populated region (which argues for federal involvement, coordinated planning, and potential acquisitions) and preserving local control, private property rights, and fiscally sustainable management (which resists large-scale federal intervention and unfunded obligations). The bill pushes toward analysis and coordination but does not resolve who will bear the long-term costs or how competing landowner and conservation interests will be balanced.
The bill requires a tightly scheduled feasibility study but leaves several critical implementation details unresolved. It does not appropriate funds for the study or for any subsequent land acquisition, easement purchase, or infrastructure upgrades.
Agencies will need to identify funding sources (Interior reprogramming, appropriations, or partner cost‑sharing) to meet the one-year deadline, and the lack of an explicit funding line increases the risk that the study will be constrained in scope or delayed despite the statutory timeline.
The statutory description and consultation mandate compel cross-jurisdictional coordination but do not assign post-study management responsibilities or a governance model. The study will need to weigh private-property constraints in urban-adjacent areas, reconcile multi-use demands with sensitive natural and cultural resources, and propose how federal, state, local, and nonprofit actors will share long-term stewardship and liabilities.
Those choices implicate acquisition strategies, easement terms, maintenance funding, and potential regulatory overlays — none of which the bill specifies — leaving open the question of how a designation, if recommended, would be operationalized without further legislation or intergovernmental agreements.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.