Judge Dee Benson also said in a 52-page opinion that the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance and other environmental groups cannot legally challenge the settlement, signed by then-Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt and Interior Secretary Gale Norton, because they have failed to prove any harm to existing, congressionally approved Wilderness Study Areas, or changes in the management of WSAs that would damage their status.

"Without the existence of such possibilities, or some other form of actual or imminent harm," Benson concluded, there is "neither case nor controversy under Article III of the Constitution. There is no standing, no ripeness, no final agency action."

The settlement froze the state's designated Wilderness Study Areas at 3.2 million acres, and eliminated nearly 6 million acres of potential wilderness that had been identified by the Clinton-era Interior Department and conservation groups and designated as "Wilderness Inventory Areas."

Utah officials were happy with the decision.

"What he did was say that Utah and the Interior Department correctly interpreted the law," said Mark Ward, assistant Utah attorney general. "Since the settlement was signed in 2003, people have been saying this and that about the agreement. But the bottom line is the judge agreed with it."

For that reason, attorneys representing the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance and other environmental groups challenging the settlement also were pleased to see a full-scale decision - which they argue will create a clearer path for an appeal.

Said Earthjustice attorney Jim Angell: "Judge Benson made it pretty clear where he was going to go [with this case], so we're not surprised. And we're not overly dismayed either, because everyone knows this is going to be decided by the 10th Circuit, not a district court judge in Utah. So it's onward and upward."

Benson narrowed the scope of the settlement last year, ruling that the agreement did not have the force of a consent decree that would have bound future Interior officials to the Bush policy of not recognizing the status of Wilderness Inventory Areas nationally.

Benson upheld the position the state and Interior Department have argued from the start: that Wilderness Study Areas are the only legally recognized form of wilderness protection under the Wilderness Act and the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act.

Angell of Earthjustice called that definition flawed.

"This was a back-door settlement that completely ignored FLPMA's wilderness elements and robs the [Bureau of Land Management] of the ability to protect lands that every previous administration has recognized," he said. "Our feeling is Judge Benson misinterpreted that."

Lynn Stevens, director of the state's public lands policy coordination office, disagreed.

"We were pleased he would rule on the merits," Stevens said.

jbaird@sltrib.com