Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Roadless Area Conservation Act of 2025
A Democratic bill with 29 Democratic cosponsors · See all 30 cosponsors
Last activity — Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 119-237.
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
This bill is called the Roadless Area Conservation Act of 2025. It aims to provide lasting protection for inventoried roadless areas within the National Forest System. The text states that the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest Service, shall not allow road construction, road reconstruction, or logging in an inventoried roadless area where those activities are prohibited by the Roadless Rule. By keeping these areas undisturbed, the legislation highlights benefits like protecting clean water supplies, wildlife habitats, and outdoor recreation. It also points out that the Forest Service currently faces a huge backlog of maintenance needs for its existing road system. Ultimately, the bill seeks to lock in protections while keeping multiple-use management intact.
Yes· 3 of 24
- Scored +9
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
Provides lasting protection for inventoried roadless areas and biodiversity.
- Scored +8
Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests?
Establishes clear, lasting protections for roadless areas within the National Forest System.
- Scored +6
Would Native Americans be better off under this?
Protects sites sacred to Native Americans and Alaska Natives.
The opposite
- Scored -4
Would union members be better off under this?
Prohibits logging in specified areas, potentially impacting logging jobs.
- Scored -2
Is this likely to lower the price at the pump?
May limit accessibility for new fossil fuel resource extraction.
- Scored -2
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
Limits state-level or local flexibility to allow logging in these areas.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 2(a)(2) notes that protecting roadless areas ensures a supply of clean water for domestic, agricultural, and industrial uses, and provides drinking water to tens of millions of citizens. This is a positive outcome because it helps maintain affordable, clean water for a growing population and saves downstream communities millions of dollars in water filtration costs.
-
Section 2(a)(7) explains that roadless areas provide unparalleled opportunities for outdoor recreation, including hiking, camping, picnicking, wildlife viewing, hunting, fishing, cross-country skiing, canoeing, and mountain biking. This directly benefits individuals who enjoy the outdoors and supports recreation-based economies that depend on public land without roads for jobs, revenue, and consumer spending.
-
Section 2(a)(9) points out that roadless areas contain many sites sacred to Native Americans, Alaska Natives, and other groups. Protecting these areas helps preserve spaces used for spiritual and religious practices, access, and customary and traditional uses.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
Based on the provided text, there are no specific sections or provisions identified that outline negative consequences or burdens for individuals or groups of people in the United States. Section 2(a)(11) explicitly notes that the Act does not impose any new limitations on inventoried roadless areas or on the use of, or access to, National Forest System, State, or private land outside inventoried roadless areas.
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 Native Americans be better off under this? — Protects sites sacred to Native Americans and Alaska Natives. Would gun owners be better off under this? — Protects backcountry game habitats for hunting. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Reduces community costs for water filtration. Would farmers be better off under this? — Ensures a supply of clean water for agricultural use. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Provides outdoor recreation opportunities. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Increases opportunities for outdoor recreation. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Provides free or low-cost outdoor recreation opportunities. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Increases opportunities for outdoor recreation. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Protects watersheds providing drinking water to millions. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Increases opportunities for outdoor recreation. Would business owners be better off under this? — Benefits owners of recreation-based businesses. Would children be better off under this? — Ensures cleaner water and healthier environments for future generations. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Balances recreation benefits with potential logging restrictions. Would union members be better off under this? — Prohibits logging in specified areas, potentially impacting logging jobs.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — Provides lasting protection for inventoried roadless areas and biodiversity. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — Establishes clear, lasting protections for roadless areas within the National Forest System. Does this reduce how much oil, gas and coal is produced? — Prohibits new road construction which is often required for extraction. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — Protects forests which act as carbon sinks. Does this invest in rural communities? — Supports rural recreation-based economies. Does this put more money into wind, solar and other renewable power? — Allows for the continued development of hydropower projects. Is this likely to lower the price at the pump? — May limit accessibility for new fossil fuel resource extraction.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Benefits small businesses tied to outdoor recreation and tourism. Is this likely to create jobs? — Supports jobs and revenue for recreation-based economies. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Promotes growth in the outdoor recreation sector.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this protect the freedom to practise a religion? — Protects sacred sites used for spiritual and religious practices by Native groups.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — Codifies federal protections for roadless areas. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Limits state-level or local flexibility to allow logging in these areas.
- 9/22/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/15/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/14/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 7/20/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 12/8/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 12/2/2025
- Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 119-237.
- 12/1/2025
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- 10/23/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 10/8/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/30/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/8/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/8/2025
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 6/26/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/12/2025
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 6/11/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
- 12 Cosponsors 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.
Angela AlsobrooksDemocrat · Maryland
Michael BennetDemocrat · Colorado
Richard BlumenthalDemocrat · Connecticut
Cory BookerDemocrat · New Jersey
Catherine Cortez MastoDemocrat · Nevada
Richard DurbinDemocrat · Illinois
Tammy DuckworthDemocrat · Illinois
Kirsten GillibrandDemocrat · New York
Ruben GallegoDemocrat · Arizona
John HickenlooperDemocrat · Colorado
Mazie HironoDemocrat · Hawaii
Mark KellyDemocrat · Arizona
Timothy KaineDemocrat · Virginia
Andy KimDemocrat · New Jersey
Ben LujánDemocrat · New Mexico
Edward MarkeyDemocrat · Massachusetts
Patty MurrayDemocrat · Washington
Christopher MurphyDemocrat · Connecticut
Jeff MerkleyDemocrat · Oregon
Alex PadillaDemocrat · California
John ReedDemocrat · Rhode Island
Bernie SandersIndependent · Vermont
Adam SchiffDemocrat · California
Tina SmithDemocrat · Minnesota
Chris Van HollenDemocrat · Maryland
Ron WydenDemocrat · Oregon
Peter WelchDemocrat · Vermont
Sheldon WhitehouseDemocrat · Rhode Island
Mark WarnerDemocrat · Virginia
Elizabeth WarrenDemocrat · Massachusetts