Overshadowed, if not lost, in the post-election tea-leaf pondering, not to mention the necessary attention to the report of the Iraq Study Commission and the administration's attempt to wish it away, has been a fair bit of roadless news. If this is your cuppa, you've come to the right place.

To recap. In September, Judge Elizabeth Laporte, of the federal bench in San Francisco, ruled that the Bush roadless rule (called "roadless repeal" by our side) was illegal and that the original rule, put in place in 2001, was, and still is, the law of the land.

The administration, led by Mark Rey, former timber-company lobbyist and for the last six years the Agriculture Department's overseer of the Forest Service, said that in its view Judge Laporte was wrong and that, meanwhile, it planned to go forward with a whole slew of projects in roadless areas that had been approved between 2003, when the rule was declared illegal by Judge Clarence Brimmer in Wyoming, and 2006, when it was reinstated.

This caused another flurry of briefs and motions, culminating in another order from Judge Laporte, issued in late November, telling the administration that its fanciful interpretation of the situation was still wrong and that the 300-plus projects, mostly oil and gas exploration efforts in Colorado, Utah, and Idaho, must not go forward. At press time, the administration still had not announced whether it will appeal Judge Laporte's order, but it seems likely.

The state of Utah went straight back to Judge Brimmer's court and asked him to declare the 2001 rule illegal. Again. As of this writing, the judge has remained silent.

Meanwhile, the state-petition process created by the Bush rule, the illegal one, has forged ahead through the good offices of the aforementioned Mr. Ray on the theory that finding out what the states think about all this is worthwhile. Most states that have submitted petitions have asked that all roadless areas within their borders be protected from road-building, logging, and so on. Colorado wants some exploitation, as does Utah, whose governor seems to have a bit of a rebellion brewing among his hunter and fisherman constituents. Idaho can't seem to make up its mind.

Meanwhile, we expect that a bill to enshrine the 2001 Roadless Rule into law will be introduced into the House and the Senate when the new Congress gets to work. We'll keep you posted.

Still a volatile situation, but roadless protection is looking good for now, owing on the one hand to exceptional lawyering by our amazing squad, an honest and perceptive judge, and determined organizing in the field conservation organizations as well as fishing and hunting organizations tired of seeing their best recreational lands disappear. Should be an interesting year.

Tom Turner, Senior Editor
yourturn@earthjustice.org