Unfortunately, the recent proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule comes at a time when the current administration is reorganizing the entire U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, proposing the closure of experimental forests and talking about opening other national lands to extractive industries (e.g., mining and drilling). All this casts a cloud over the debate about rescinding this rule. And the issue is not as simple as many have suggested.
Rescinding this rule is not a “first step” to opening the White Mountain National Forest (WMNF) up to mining and drilling. There are still many regulatory and legal checks in place to prevent that. Rescinding the Roadless Rule removes a politically-motivated policy from a prior administration that should have never been adopted. Rescinding it moves the management of our national forests back to the scientists, land managers and the millions of forest users that participate in the forest management planning process. Lastly, it is a step toward removing politics from public land management and letting the planning process work. It is as true today as it was in 2005, we need to stick to the plan.
A lot of public land policy debates emerged during the last quarter of 2025. The announcement by the Forest Service to repeal the “Roadless Rule” is one of the most talked about. While it has existed in some form since 1924, reexamination of the rule was initiated in 2001 with an executive order from President Bill Clinton. This rule went through a multi-year rulemaking process, disrupting the planning process of many national forests. We welcome the effort to rescind it. Our opposition to the Roadless Rule is based on process and science.
Simply, the 2001 Roadless Rule usurped the local planning process. Under the National Forest Management Act, national forests, such as the WMNF, are obligated to develop management plans. These plans are developed after a lengthy scientific assessment and public participation process examining forest health, wildlife health, water quality and how the public interacts with the forest (e.g., recreation, production of forest products). Forest scientists (e.g., experts in wildlife, soil, silviculture, water quality, landscape architecture) assess how the forest meets the stated goals of the current management plan, identify the areas of need (e.g., habitat diversity, additional wilderness, allowing motorized recreation, forest health) and provide management options to satisfy these needs.
These options are presented and the public is invited to comment. Tens of thousands of comments, in-person and written, are received and there are many more hours of testimony and meetings. Ultimately, a management plan option is adopted by the Forest Service for the particular forest. This management plan is truly a study in “multiple-use management.”
Think of the adopted plan as a zoning map. It designates areas for developed recreation, forest management, wilderness and research. Each of these designated areas have management goals and attributes. It is important to note that the WMNF is not a national park. It is a national forest, a federal designation where multiple-use management is its mission — not just recreation. Lastly, it is worth noting here that whenever management activity occurs in these areas, there is another entire project-level approval process that includes research and public input.
Unheard of in modern forest planning, the 2005 WMNF Management Plan was adopted and was neither appealed nor litigated. There was broad support for the new plan. The Roadless Rule overlays the entire forest with a “roadless area” definition. This means areas of the WMNF where forest management and timber harvesting were planned are encumbered with satisfying the “roadless definition,” a national, one-size-fits-all definition that ignores the complexities and nuances of individual forests and local needs. Because timber harvesting is prohibited in roadless areas, forest management and timber harvesting become de facto unmanaged wilderness areas that are not being managed for forestry or wildlife habitat.
Over the WMNF’s 800,000 acres, 60% is set aside from timber management. Of the 40% eligible for timber harvesting, less than 1% receive active management in any given year. Moreover, staff at the WMNF confirm that rescinding the Roadless Rule will affect about 2.25% of the WMNF’s total land acreage. Long and short — the rescission will have little effect on the WMNF.
Despite all the rhetoric and fear-mongering, the bottom line is rescinding the Roadless Rule for the WMNF will have minor effects on the management of this national forest but will allow the full implementation of the locally produced forest plan.
Jasen Stock is the executive director of NH Timberland Owners Association. Charles Levesque is the policy chair, Granite State Division, of the Society of American Foresters.