Timothy Kaine (D-VA)
Appalachian Trail Centennial Act
A Democratic bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See all 2 cosponsors
Last activity — Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 119-238.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The Appalachian Trail Centennial Act aims to improve the preservation and management of national historic and scenic trails. It establishes a "cooperative management" model that allows the government to partner with non-governmental organizations and volunteers for trail operations. The bill specifically designates the Appalachian Trail Conservancy as a partner for the Appalachian National Scenic Trail. It also creates a process for prioritizing land protection and assessing the economic impact of trails on nearby gateway communities.
Yes· 3 of 22
- Scored +8
Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests?
Implements a cooperative management model between the government and NGOs for better trail stewardship.
- Scored +7
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
Establishes priority lists for land and resource protection of scenic and historic trails.
- Scored +6
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
Directly supports the economy and infrastructure of rural gateway communities.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The act increases government spending by authorizing new funds for trail management and acquisition.
- Scored -1
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
The bill authorizes additional appropriations for land acquisition and facility development.
- Scored -1
Does this make the government pay for what it commits to?
Allows certain partners to receive funds without a competitive bidding process.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Increased Volunteer Opportunities: The bill encourages the participation of volunteers and volunteer organizations in the operation and stewardship of trails (Section 4(d)(1)).
- Improved Trail Infrastructure: It authorizes funding for the acquisition of land and the construction and development of facilities for covered trails (Section 5(d)(2)).
- Economic Insight for Local Towns: The act requires the government to identify methods to assess how covered trails economically impact gateway communities (Section 5(b)(1)).
- Enhanced Land Preservation: It establishes a system for "proposed priority lists" to identify and protect specific parcels of land for the benefit of the trails' scenic, historical, and natural values (Section 4(b)(3)).
- Flexible Visitor Management: Visitor capacity will be determined based on specific segments of a trail rather than the whole trail, which can help maintain desired resource conditions (Section 5(a)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Non-Competitive Funding: Certain eligible entities designated as partners can receive appropriated funds without going through a competitive process (Section 4(b)(1)(B)(iii)(II)).
- Potential for Legal Costs: While the bill allows partners to request the government to enforce property rights, it also notes that Federal courts may award litigation costs to a partner if the government takes action on an alleged violation (Section 4(b)(2)(D)).
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 rural areas be better off under this? — Directly supports the economy and infrastructure of rural gateway communities. Would business owners be better off under this? — Specifically benefits owners of businesses in gateway communities. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Improves the quality of high-value recreational assets. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Enhances recreational trail systems and conservation efforts. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Improves the infrastructure of national trails for tourism and leisure. Would retired people be better off under this? — Enhances the preservation of scenic trails for retirement-age recreation. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Improves the quality and maintenance of national historic and scenic trails. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Expands outdoor recreational opportunities and volunteer roles. Would children be better off under this? — Increases access to preserved natural areas for outdoor recreation. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Provides better access to free or low-cost public recreational lands. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Requires consultation with federally recognized Indian Tribes in reporting and planning. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Increases the quality of destinations for urban dwellers visiting national trails. Would farmers be better off under this? — Potential for land conservation agreements, though impact varies by property owner.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — Implements a cooperative management model between the government and NGOs for better trail stewardship. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — Establishes priority lists for land and resource protection of scenic and historic trails. Does this invest in rural communities? — Specifically targets economic growth and infrastructure in rural gateway communities. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — Preservation of forests and natural lands via trails can support carbon sequestration.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to grow the economy? — Focuses on assessing and enhancing the economic impact of trails on gateway communities. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Gateway community businesses are likely to benefit from improved trail infrastructure and increased visitor capacity. Is this likely to create jobs? — Authorization of funds for construction and development of trail facilities may create local jobs. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The act increases government spending by authorizing new funds for trail management and acquisition. Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — Allows certain partners to receive funds without a competitive bidding process. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — The bill authorizes additional appropriations for land acquisition and facility development.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Encourages States to incorporate land protection into their own conservation plans.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into scientific research? — Authorizes the conduct of research projects relating to covered trails.
- 7/29/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 12/9/2025
- Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 119-238.
- 9/4/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in Senate
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Thomas TillisRepublican · North Carolina
Mark WarnerDemocrat · Virginia