Jared Huffman (D-CA)
To amend the National Trails System Act to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study on the feasibility of designating the Bay Area Ridge National Scenic Trail, and for other purposes.
A Democratic bill with 11 Democratic cosponsors · See all 11 cosponsors
Last activity — Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 752.
Cleared committee, waiting for its first floor vote
A committee approved it and it is on the calendar of the chamber it started in.
This is further than most bills get, and still no promise of a vote: the calendar is a queue, and the majority leadership decides what is called. A bill can sit here until the Congress ends.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- On Calendar
What this bill would do
This bill amends the National Trails System Act to require a feasibility study for the Bay Area Ridge National Scenic Trail. The Secretary of the Interior must complete and submit this study to Congress no later than 3 years after the enactment of the paragraph. The trail is described as a multi-use trail extending approximately 550 miles along the ridgelines surrounding the San Francisco Bay Area in Northern California and connecting over 75 parks and open spaces. The Secretary must conduct the study in consultation with interested organizations, including the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council. Consultation is also required with each Federal and State agency that administers lands through which the trail passes. Additionally, the Secretary may complete the study by reviewing and certifying a study completed by interested organizations, and must consider previous studies and reports.
Yes· 3 of 29
- Scored +3
Would people in cities be better off under this?
Directly benefits residents near urban areas of the San Francisco Bay Area by expanding local trail access.
- Scored +2
Would children be better off under this?
Provides enhanced outdoor recreational opportunities and access to nature for youth and families.
- Scored +2
Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this?
Expands access to non-motorized multi-use trails for recreation and fitness.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
How the text last changed
Reported in House (10/29/2026), compared with Introduced in House. Each change is on the Text tab.
The newer version of the bill extends the deadline for completing and submitting the feasibility study for the Bay Area Ridge National Scenic Trail from 1 year to 3 years after the date of enactment. It also adds a provision allowing the Secretary of the Interior to complete the study by reviewing and certifying a study completed by interested organizations, including the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council, and requires the Secretary to consider and potentially include information from previous studies and reports. Additionally, the entire section containing congressional findings about the trail has been removed, and the section numbering has been shifted accordingly.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Section 1 (adding paragraph (50)(B)): Requires a study on the feasibility of designating the trail, which involves consulting with interested organizations and agencies, potentially bringing attention to the 550-mile multi-use trail connecting over 75 parks and open spaces.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- The provided text does not contain any specific sections or provisions that identify negative consequences or burdens for individuals or groups of people in the United States.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people in cities be better off under this? — Directly benefits residents near urban areas of the San Francisco Bay Area by expanding local trail access. Would children be better off under this? — Provides enhanced outdoor recreational opportunities and access to nature for youth and families. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Offers recreational and scenic opportunities for adults in the San Francisco Bay Area. Would retired people be better off under this? — Offers accessible outdoor spaces for walking, hiking, and leisure for older adults. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Provides accessible outdoor spaces and scenic trails for walking and passive recreation. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Expands access to non-motorized multi-use trails for recreation and fitness. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Benefits diverse populations in the Bay Area by expanding access to recreational public lands. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Benefits diverse populations in the Bay Area by expanding access to recreational public lands. Would business owners be better off under this? — May slightly benefit regional tourism and hospitality businesses. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Benefits diverse populations in the Bay Area by expanding access to recreational public lands. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Improves public access to free outdoor recreational spaces near urban population centers. Would men be better off under this? — Provides general community benefits through improved outdoor recreational infrastructure. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Enhances local outdoor amenities and recreational trail availability. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Multi-use trail designations often incorporate accessibility improvements for diverse users. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Engages rural and open space areas along the trail route through coordinated agency study. Would students be better off under this? — Provides outdoor educational and recreational opportunities for students in the region. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Offers outdoor recreational spaces that can support veteran well-being and recreation. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Benefits residents of the Bay Area by expanding access to recreational public lands. Would women be better off under this? — Provides general community benefits through improved outdoor recreational infrastructure.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — Supports the study and potential designation of a scenic trail connecting parks and open spaces. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — Directs the Department of the Interior to study public land use for the Bay Area Ridge Trail. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — Promotes non-motorized multi-use trail recreation, encouraging low-emission outdoor activities.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Establishes a clear, mandated one-year timeline for reporting study findings back to Congress. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Requires consultation with state and local agencies administering lands along the trail route. Does this give the federal government more power? — Tasks a federal agency, the Department of the Interior, with conducting a formal feasibility study.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to grow the economy? — Local outdoor recreation and tourism may see minor economic benefits from trail recognition and development. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Local businesses near the trail may benefit slightly from increased outdoor recreation and tourism potential. Is this likely to create jobs? — The bill could create temporary jobs related to conducting the feasibility study for the trail.
- Healthcare
- Does this make mental health care easier to get? — Access to outdoor recreation areas can support general mental health and well-being.
A committee approved it and sent it to the floor
What changed from Introduced in House
The newer version of the bill extends the deadline for completing and submitting the feasibility study for the Bay Area Ridge National Scenic Trail from 1 year to 3 years after the date of enactment. It also adds a provision allowing the Secretary of the Interior to complete the study by reviewing and certifying a study completed by interested organizations, including the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council, and requires the Secretary to consider and potentially include information from previous studies and reports. Additionally, the entire section containing congressional findings about the trail has been removed, and the section numbering has been shifted accordingly.
Each change
-
Section 1: Removed the findings detailing the characteristics, length, completion status, and environment of the Bay Area Ridge Trail.
-
Section 1 (formerly Section 2): Renumbered the section from Section 2 to Section 1.
-
Section 1: Extended the deadline for the Secretary of the Interior to complete and submit the feasibility study to Congress from 1 year to 3 years after enactment.
-
Section 1: Changed the designation of the consultation requirement from subparagraph (C) to clause (i).
-
Section 1: Added a provision allowing the Secretary to complete the study by reviewing and certifying a study completed by interested organizations, including the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council, that meets statutory requirements.
-
Section 1: Added a requirement that the Secretary consider and potentially include information from previous studies and reports prepared by the National Park Service or other interested organizations.
Written by an AI model from a comparison of this version’s text with the one before it, not by a person. .
-
- 10/29/2026
- Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-855.
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 752.
- 9/15/2026
- Subcommittee on Federal Lands Discharged
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
- 7/1/2026
- Subcommittee Hearings Held
- 6/24/2026
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Federal Lands.
- 1/27/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
- 11 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
Mark DeSaulnierDemocrat · California
John GaramendiDemocrat · California
Ro KhannaDemocrat · California
Zoe LofgrenDemocrat · California
Sam LiccardoDemocrat · California
Kevin MullinDemocrat · California
Nancy PelosiDemocrat · California
Jimmy PanettaDemocrat · California
Eric SwalwellDemocrat · California
Lateefah SimonDemocrat · California
Mike ThompsonDemocrat · California