1. United States
2. R.I.
3. Letter

I am writing as a constituent to ask you to act on both the administrative and legislative threats to the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. USDA has proposed rescinding the national Roadless Rule through Docket FS-2025-0001, RIN 0596-AD66. At the same time, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee advanced S. 140 with an amendment that would nullify the Rule. These are distinct threats and require a coordinated response. I respectfully ask you to: 1. Oppose S. 140 so long as it contains language nullifying the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, and oppose any comparable rider, amendment, or standalone measure that would accomplish statutory repeal. 2. Support and advance the Roadless Area Conservation Act (S. 2042 / H.R. 3930), which would give durable statutory protection to inventoried roadless areas. Senator Whitehouse is already a cosponsor of S. 2042; I ask the rest of the delegation to support the corresponding measure available to them and to help recruit additional cosponsors. 3. Submit or join congressional comments to USDA opposing full rescission and requesting retention of Alternative 1, the No Action alternative. 4. Request rigorous congressional oversight of USDA’s wildfire, fiscal, Tribal-consultation, recreation, climate, watershed, and cumulative-impact analyses. 5. Oppose appropriations riders or other legislative devices that would insulate a repeal from ordinary administrative-law review. The administrative record itself demonstrates why scrutiny is necessary. USDA states that rescission could make permanent roads permissible under current forest plans across approximately 18.2 million acres and expand potential active timber management across approximately 4.8 million acres. It acknowledges a $6.9 billion deferred-maintenance backlog for existing roads and bridges, acknowledges that increased access can increase human-caused wildfire ignitions, and estimates lost recreational economic benefits in affected areas. USDA further acknowledges that subsequent forest-plan amendments could increase impacts beyond its near-term estimates. The Rule does not make every roadless acre Wilderness, nor does it prohibit all active management. The relevant policy question is whether localized management needs justify eliminating a nationwide conservation baseline. Congress should require the government to demonstrate that less destructive and more targeted alternatives are inadequate before authorizing or endorsing a nationwide repeal. There is also a serious federal trust and consultation issue. USDA’s proposed rule reports that the majority sentiment among Tribal governments consulted is opposition to rescission, with concerns involving sovereignty, cultural survival, sacred sites, water quality, subsistence resources, and the burden of having to contest projects one by one after national protection is removed. I therefore ask the Rhode Island delegation to treat this as both a conservation issue and an institutional-governance issue. A durable national resource should not lose a quarter-century-old protection through an inadequately justified administrative rescission or a legislative provision attached to a wildfire bill. Please tell me what actions your office will take regarding S. 140, S. 2042/H.R. 3930, and USDA Docket FS-2025-0001.