The Rescission of the Roadless Rule and What This Could Mean for Vermont
By Maddy Foley

The United States Department of Agriculture recently announced that they will rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (the “Rule”). The lack of legislation protecting national forests will devastate communities that rely on their roadless areas for their health and economy. This post will compare the immediate effects of the Rule’s recission on Alaska to those in Vermont.

The Forest Service Department of Agriculture (USDA) enacted the Rule in 2001.[1] The Rule protects certain roadless areas in the National Forest Service System from road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting.[2] The purpose of the Rule is to promote lasting positive effects on forest preservation in the national forest system.[3] In general, the Rule protects about 30% of national forest lands.[4] Public input such as public comments motivated the enactment of the Roadless Rule.[5] The public wanted areas of wild backcountry to benefit the people and wildlife.[6] The Rule represents the public’s need for land conservation, but the Trump administration does not view roadless areas in this way.

On June 23, 2025, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins, announced that the USDA will rescind the Roadless Rule.[7] Rollins described the Rule as outdated and that it contradicted “the will of Congress and goes against the mandate of the USDA Forest Service to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands.”[8] This rescission will open up the 59 million acres of protected forests to road construction and timber production.[9] The USDA claims that the Rule is “overly restrictive and poses real harm” to the trees in the national forests.[10]

The USDA argues that the Rule recission will improve fire prevention safety.[11] The USDA also states that the rescission will allow Americans to “reap the benefits of this great land.”[12] Additionally, land use decisions will be made at a local level[13] so communities can decide what is best for their land.[14]

The rescission of the Rule could harm Alaska. For example, the Rule recission would further President Trump’s executive order to extract natural resources such as timber and oil from the state.[15] Specifically, the executive order rescinds another executive order that protected the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.[16] The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge sustains several aspects of environmental justice.[17] The Refuge protects biodiversity in Alaska.[18] Additionally, the Refuge exists on the land of the Iñupiat and Gwich’in peoples, thus preserving Indigenous culture and traditions.[19] The  Rule provides vital resources for environmental justice initiatives in Alaska.

What President Trump ordered in Alaska could set a precedent for future calls for the destruction of other protected roadless areas. Vermont could face similar calls for destruction as Alaska. Deforestation in the Green Mountains would cause devastating environmental justice impacts such as loss of healthy ecosystems and collapse of the ecotourism industry.

Vermont has a special interest in protecting the roadless lands’ ecology. New England continues to recover from the historic overharvesting of forests and heavy land development.[20] Vermont’s Green Mountains contain 376,000 acres of National Forest System lands that includes 25,000 acres of inventoried roadless land.[21] The roadless areas in Vermont provide habitats for critical species such as beavers.[22] Beaver damns naturally regulate the flow of water down the waterways.[23] Additionally, the roadless areas allow water to naturally seep back into the earth to refill aquifers.[24] Further, the roadless areas in Vermont act as carbon sinks, thus making the overall environment healthier.[25] The Rule protects these environmental benefits. The Rule must continue to protect these roadless areas to ensure a healthy environment for the citizens of Vermont.

Further, the state has an important interest in protecting the roadless area because the mountains provide a significant attraction for tourists. Tourists visit Vermont to see the Green Mountains.[26] The mountains attract tourists with the foliage in the fall, skiing in the winter, and lush green views in the spring and summer.[27] Vermont’s $4 billion tourism industry provides over 10% of jobs in Vermont’s work force.[28] For example, the Telephone Gap Project Area contains roadless lands.[29] This area is a popular site for recreational activities such as skiing, hiking, and watching wildlife.[30] Millions of tourists visit the Telephone Gap Project Area every year.[31] Destroying large amounts of forests for roads and logging could damage Vermont’s reputation for beautiful mountain views. Deforestation would cause a drop in tourism and loss of jobs. Thus, the Rule ensures that Vermont has a reliable tourism industry.

The Roadless Rule should stay in place to ensure environmental justice to regions across the U.S. Vermont’s Green Mountains ensure a healthy environment because they protect the ecology and biodiversity of the land. Further, the mountains draw in tourists which are essential to Vermont’s economy. The roadless areas in Vermont provide substantial support to both the health of the environment and the tourism industry. The Green Mountains, like other national forests in the U.S., need the Roadless Rule to stay.

[1] 66 C.F.R. § 3244 (2001).

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] The Repeal of the Roadless Rule Threatens Our Wildest Public Lands, EARTHJUSTICE (Aug. 27, 2025), https://earthjustice.org/feature/roadless-rule-photos .

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Press Release, USDA, Secretary Rollins Rescinds Roadless Rule, Eliminating Impediment to Responsible Forest Mgmt. (June 23, 2025) (on file with USDA), https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/06/23/secretary-rollins-rescinds-roadless-rule-eliminating-impediment-responsible-forest-management.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] Id.

[12] Id.

[13] Id.

[14] Id.

[15] 90 C.F.R. § 8347 (2025).

[16] Id.

[17] Cite needed.

[18] Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv. https://www.fws.gov/refuge/arctic (last visited Oct. 12, 2025).

[19] Id.

[20] New England National Forest Roadless Areas, CTR. For BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/forests/new_england_national_forest_roadless_areas/index.html (last visited Nov. 1, 2025).

[21] Roadless Areas Inventoried by State, Forest Serv., U.S. Dep’t. of Agric., https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/planning/roadless/state-maps (last visited Oct. 12, 2015).

[22] Id.

[23] Id.

[24] Id.

[25] Green Mountain National Forest, Vermont, Telephone Gap Integrated Resource Project, Climate Forests, https://www.climate-forests.org/post/green-mountain-national-forest-vermont-telephone-gap-integrated-resource-project (last visited Oct. 12, 2025).

[26] Tourism and Marketing, Agency of Com. and Cmty. Dev., State of VT., https://accd.vermont.gov/tourism (last visited Oct. 12, 2025).

[27] Id.

[28] Tourism Research, Agency of Com. and Cmty. Dev., State of VT., https://accd.vermont.gov/tourism/research (last visited Oct. 12, 2025).

[29] Climate Forests, supra note 25.

[30] Id.

[31] Id.