Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
This bill requires the Secretary of Agriculture to designate and maintain at least 20% of the trails in Shawnee National Forest for recreational use by covered vehicles (defined as e-bikes and off-highway vehicles, including ATVs and ORVs). The Secretary must manage and monitor those trails to ensure recreational use, minimize adverse natural-resource impacts, and keep at least one such trail open at all times.
Environmental impact concerns versus access and liberty arguments
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a specific substantive requirement directing the Secretary of Agriculture to reserve and maintain a defined portion of trails for certain vehicles and provides basic operational elements (definitions, management/monitoring duties, an open-trail guarantee).
This bill requires the Secretary of Agriculture to designate and maintain at least 20% of the trails in Shawnee National Forest for recreational use by covered vehicles (defined as e-bikes and off-highway vehicles, including ATVs and ORVs).
The Secretary must manage and monitor those trails to ensure recreational use, minimize adverse natural-resource impacts, and keep at least one such trail open at all times.
The bill also bars prohibiting covered vehicles on paved roads within the forest.
Limited geographic scope and modest fiscal effects raise chances, but subject-matter controversy and lack of compromise features reduce prospects, especially in the Senate.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a specific substantive requirement directing the Secretary of Agriculture to reserve and maintain a defined portion of trails for certain vehicles and provides basic operational elements (definitions, management/monitoring duties, an open-trail guarantee).
Environmental impact concerns versus access and liberty arguments
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Environmental impact concerns versus access and liberty arguments
Likely skeptical or opposed.
The mandate expands motorized trail access in a national forest, raising concerns about environmental harm, wildlife disturbance, and trail-user conflicts.
Supporters' access and recreation arguments are recognized, but inadequate funding and mitigation details worry this persona.
Cautiously conditional support.
Values recreational access and clear rules but wants stronger detail on implementation, funding, and environmental safeguards.
Sees the management/monitoring language as useful but incomplete without budget and stakeholder processes.
Likely strongly supportive.
Frames the bill as protecting individual recreation rights, preventing blanket bans, and preserving rural recreation economies.
Sees the prohibition on banning covered vehicles on paved roads as a helpful protection for users.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Limited geographic scope and modest fiscal effects raise chances, but subject-matter controversy and lack of compromise features reduce prospects, especially in the Senate.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Environmental impact concerns versus access and liberty arguments
Limited geographic scope and modest fiscal effects raise chances, but subject-matter controversy and lack of compromise features reduce pro…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a specific substantive requirement directing the Secretary of Agriculture to reserve and maintain a defined portion of trails for certain vehicles and pro…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.