Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
This bill directs the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to prioritize completing the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail as a continuous route within 10 years, subject to appropriations. It requires formation of a joint Forest Service–BLM Trail Completion Team, a comprehensive development plan identifying gaps, easement opportunities, and costs, and encourages partnerships with volunteers and nonprofits.
Left emphasizes conservation, access, and economic benefits from recreation
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill functions as a focused administrative directive: it assigns responsibility to agencies, creates an interagency team, sets deadlines, and requires a development plan with specified content.
This bill directs the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to prioritize completing the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail as a continuous route within 10 years, subject to appropriations.
It requires formation of a joint Forest Service–BLM Trail Completion Team, a comprehensive development plan identifying gaps, easement opportunities, and costs, and encourages partnerships with volunteers and nonprofits.
The bill forbids using any new land acquisition authority beyond the National Trails System Act, including eminent domain, and does not make Trail land acquisition a priority over other authorized acquisitions.
Content is modest and bipartisan-friendly, but no funding guarantee and legislative calendar/procedural hurdles reduce standalone chances.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill functions as a focused administrative directive: it assigns responsibility to agencies, creates an interagency team, sets deadlines, and requires a development plan with specified content. It integrates appropriately with existing law by limiting acquisition authority and acknowledges appropriations constraints. The bill is strongest in defining actors, broad tasks, and timelines, and weakest in specifying funding, procedural detail for land access/resolution, team composition, and formal accountability/reporting to oversight bodies.
Left emphasizes conservation, access, and economic benefits from recreation
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Left emphasizes conservation, access, and economic benefits from recreation
Likely supportive overall because the bill advances public lands access, conservation, and outdoor recreation.
Concerns would focus on the adequacy of funding, strong tribal and community consultation, and ensuring ecological protections in routing and management.
Generally favorable as a pragmatic, time-bound plan that emphasizes planning and stakeholder consultation.
Main concerns will be cost, implementation feasibility, and respect for private property and local input.
Cautious to somewhat opposed due to concerns about federal spending and potential regulation, though the explicit prohibition on eminent domain reduces a major concern.
Will worry about long-term costs and impacts on private landowners and local control.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content is modest and bipartisan-friendly, but no funding guarantee and legislative calendar/procedural hurdles reduce standalone chances.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Left emphasizes conservation, access, and economic benefits from recreation
Content is modest and bipartisan-friendly, but no funding guarantee and legislative calendar/procedural hurdles reduce standalone chances.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill functions as a focused administrative directive: it assigns responsibility to agencies, creates an interagency team, sets deadlines, and requires a development plan w…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.