At the same time, U.S. District Court Judge Dee Benson emphasized that the settlement itself remains valid and in place.

During a motion hearing at the Frank Moss Federal Courthouse in downtown Salt Lake City, Benson said that he never intended for his approval of the settlement to be considered a consent decree - and thus binding in perpetuity. He feared that such a reading of the agreement would tie the hands of future administrations in their ability to manage public lands as they see fit.

"My present inclination," Benson said, "is to get the court out of an area where it shouldn't be."

The settlement, signed by former Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt and Interior Department Secretary Gale Norton on April 11, 2003, ended a lawsuit the state had brought against the federal government over wilderness area inventories conducted during the Clinton administration. The agreement froze the state's designated Wilderness Study Areas at 3.2 million acres and eliminated nearly 6 million acres of potential wilderness identified by the Clinton-era Bureau of Land Management and conservation groups.

Environmental groups challenged the settlement earlier this year before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, arguing that the deal was illegal, violated federal land management practices and made it impossible for the BLM to give future wilderness protections to lands around the West.

The appeals court sent the case back to Benson, ruling that the district court had not been given a chance to review the challenges to the settlement.

Earthjustice attorney Jim Angell, who is representing a consortium of environmental groups, called Benson's Monday ruling a good start.

"Today we got everything we could have asked for," he said, citing another ruling from the bench that gave environmentalists a chance to submit additional documents to the court. "We're hopeful because he's honed in on a real issue - the Bush administration's use of the courts to forward its policy goals."

Benson was explicit in saying that the Bush policy will remain in place under his temporary pullback, and won't change should he make his withdrawal permanent.

"I am not in anyway vacating the settlement between the Department of Interior and the state," he said. "I am removing the court from it until we sort out this motion [request for the court to permanently withdraw]."

However, Utah attorney Constance Brooks said even a temporary removal of the court's approval could have ramifications for the BLM and the state. The BLM has another gas and oil lease sale scheduled for later this month. Brooks fears Monday's ruling will give prospective buyers pause, costing the BLM and Utah potential revenues.

"It will create confusion about the validity of those leases in [inventoried wilderness areas]," she said. "And it will create confusion within the agency as to whether to halt the lease sale."

Benson pointed out that given the agreement between the Bush administration and the state about public land management, that shouldn't be a problem. "There is no longer a dispute," he said.

But Brooks noted that it still took over two years of negotiations with the administration to reach a settlement.

The next hearing in the case is scheduled for Sept. 26.

jbaird@sltrib.com