HR-2768-119
Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 426.
Sponsored by Charles Fleischmann (R-TN)
What it does
This bill would amend the National Trails System Act to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a feasibility study on designating the Benton MacKaye Trail — a 287-mile nonmotorized trail crossing Georgia, Tennessee, and North Carolina — as a national scenic trail. The Secretary would be required to consult with interested organizations, including the Benton MacKaye Trail Association, and submit the completed study to Congress within two years of enactment.
Who benefits
Hikers, backpackers, and outdoor recreation enthusiasts who use the Benton MacKaye Trail and would benefit from potential future federal designation and associated resources. The Benton MacKaye Trail Association and other trail advocacy organizations that would gain a formal consultative role. Local tourism-dependent businesses in rural Georgia, Tennessee, and North Carolina communities near the trail corridor. Conservation organizations interested in protecting the trail's natural and scenic resources.
Who is hurt
Private landowners along the 287-mile trail corridor who may be concerned that a feasibility study could be a precursor to federal designation, which could affect land use near or adjacent to the trail. Motorized recreation users (e.g., off-road vehicle enthusiasts) who could face restrictions if the trail were eventually designated. Taxpayers who would bear the modest cost of conducting the study. Other trail designation proposals competing for the Secretary of Agriculture's limited study capacity and resources.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the Benton MacKaye Trail — conceived by the same planner who envisioned the Appalachian Trail — traverses ecologically significant and scenic terrain across three states that merits the same federal recognition afforded to comparable trails. They contend that a feasibility study is a low-commitment, information-gathering step that allows Congress to make a fully informed decision about designation without obligating any federal spending or land acquisition, and that national scenic trail status has historically brought increased maintenance funding and visitor economic benefits to surrounding communities.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that commissioning a feasibility study is often the first step toward full federal designation, which can impose land-use restrictions on private property owners along the trail corridor and expand federal administrative reach into predominantly rural, state-managed landscapes. They contend that the three affected states and local trail organizations have successfully maintained the trail without federal designation, raising questions about whether the added bureaucratic layer of national scenic trail status would produce benefits that justify the cost and potential regulatory consequences for adjacent landowners.
Constitutional context
No significant constitutional issue is raised by this bill. Congress has clear authority under the Commerce Clause and the Property Clause (Art. IV, §3, cl. 2) to manage federal lands and direct studies of trails crossing federal and mixed-ownership corridors. The bill directs only a study, not a regulatory action, so post-Loper Bright scrutiny of agency authority is not implicated at this stage.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (Secretary of Agriculture) gains a directed study obligation, but Congress retains full authority over any subsequent designation decision, as the study results must be submitted to Congress before any action could be taken.
Historical precedent
Congress has directed dozens of similar feasibility studies under Section 5(c) of the National Trails System Act, including studies that preceded the designation of the New England National Scenic Trail (2009) and the Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail (2009).