Last month the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals made a decision that flew under the radar of what Sarah Palin calls the "lamestream media". This might be a rare moment where Sarah and I see eye to eye.

The decision was one of the most historic conservation victories so far this century. By throwing out the last legal challenge brought by the Bush administration and its allies in the timber and mining industries, the ruling ended a decade of uncertainty over roadless protections.

In a decision celebrated by conservationists and businesses alike, it was affirmed that the 2001 Roadless Rule is, and always has been legal. Of course, the story doesn't end there. Legislation has been introduced by House Republicans to undo the rule, and a bipartisan group of over 130 leaders have cosponsored legislation to make it permanent.

Whatever lies ahead, the ruling provides a good opportunity to look back and reflect on one of the most popular conservation measures in history.

Perhaps no one knows more about the Roadless Rule than Earthjustice's Tom Turner. In 2009, Turner literally wrote the book on the Rule entitled "Roadless Rules: The Struggle for the Last Wild Forests".

Q: Why is the roadless rule so important?

A: The rule itself is important because of the unprecedented support it received from the public. The lands protected are important because they aren't making any more.

Q: Why do you think it is so popular?
A: A gigantic fraction of the United States is developed - for cities, farms, highways, suburbs, and so on. Undeveloped lands are precious and in decline. The public more and more treasures places where nature can proceed unregulated.

Q: What is a common misconception about the rule?
A: One is that it is a sneaky way to establish wilderness areas, which only Congress can do. But there are important differences between the regulation of these lands and wilderness areas.

Q: How did the idea for the roadless rule come about?
A: It was at least in part the brain-child of Mike Dombeck, Chief of the Forest Service under Clinton. The agency was facing a $10 billion road-maintenance backlog, and every time it proposed a timber sale in a roadless area it would get sued. The Rule was an attempt to get the whole thing under control--and to save 58.5 million acres to boot.

Q: Some people call the Roadless Rule, a last minute Clinton administration initiative. Is this a fair characterization?
A: Heavens no. Dombeck proposed an 18-month moratorium on road-building in January 1998. This was followed by something like 600 public hearings and some 1.6 million public comments. The final rule was issued after three years of rigorous public process.

Q: Why did the Bush administration fail to overturn it?
A: The Bush crowd hoped it would go away under a barrage of lawsuits by states and the timber industry that it in turn failed to defend, reasoning that blame could be directed to the courts. When that didn't work, it tried to put a substitute rule in place, but failed to do any environmental analysis, in violation of federal law.

Q: Why did you write your book Roadless Rules?
A: I got interested because of a legal curiosity. The Rule was challenged in nine separate suits. Earthjustice intervened in them all on behalf of much of the environmental community. The Bush administration refused to defend the suits and refused to appeal injunctions that were issued in Idaho and Wyoming. Earthjustice--and here's what's unusual--was allowed to appeal the rulings even though the defendant had dropped out of the cases. It's a hell of a story, and that's only a small part of it.

Q: What is your favorite roadless area?
A: Who's your favorite child? An impossible question to answer. All are wonderful.