The Utah Monuments football has been kicked again…I think what’s missing from some of the stories are (once again) the mechanisms of how things actually work
Our friends at Center for Western Priorities made some claims in their newsletter that made me wonder.
Land inside the original monument boundaries could be opened to oil, gas, mining, and logging leases within 60 days.
It seems to me that the RMP based on the previous designation would still hold until amended. If you look at the current ROD (January 2025.. hmm) on page 17
Numerous rights and privileges have been established on BLM-administered lands under law, regulation, or planning decisions. The decisions included in this ROD and Approved RMP supersede the 2020 BENM ROD/MMPs, the 2008 Monticello RMP, the 2008 Moab RMP, and the 1986 MantiLa Sal LRMP, as amended. Beyond the decisions in the Approved RMP, all BLM-administered lands remain subject to valid existing rights and to the stipulations and conditions of approval associated with the given right at the time it was granted.
Poor BLMers.. there was a whole lot of planning going on and we can only expect them to have to start again. I wonder who is enjoying the political football, and who just wants a sustainable deal to be done. And previously we’ve discussed the mapping that suggests there is not oil and gas.
But let’s hear (part of) the White House side of the story..
Finally, a monument designation and reservation of land were unnecessary to protect many of the objects of historic and scientific interest identified by Proclamation 10285, which are already subject to enhanced protections under Federal laws enacted after the Antiquities Act that preserve archaeological, historic, cultural and paleontological resources, as well as plants and animals and their respective habitats. These laws, including the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. 470aa–470mm), National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 300101 et seq.), Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668–668d), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988 (16 U.S.C. 4301 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), National Forest Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.),Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703–712), Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1976 (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.), and Paleontological Resources Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470aaa–470aaa–11), authorize the BLM or the USFS to limit and condition activities on Federal lands for the protection of certain natural or cultural resources, whether they are within or outside a national monument.
For instance, more than 500,000 acres of the Monument were already being managed to maintain, enhance, or protect their roadless character before they were designated as part of a national monument. Specifically, the BLM manages approximately 380,759 acres of lands within the existing monument as Wilderness Study Areas, which the BLM is required by law to manage so as not to impair their suitability for future congressional designation as Wilderness. On lands managed by the USFS, 46,348 acres are part of the congressionally designated Dark Canyon Wilderness Area, which, under the 1964 Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136), and the Utah Wilderness Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-428), the USFS must manage so as to maintain or enhance its wilderness character. As a result, many of the objects previously designated as monuments by Proclamation 10285 are already adequately protected by Federal law and do not require a reservation of land under the Antiquities Act for protection.
1.2.1 Summary of Management Decisions
The Approved RMP provides a detailed account of the management directions authorized by this ROD. The Approved RMP includes the following key management decisions:
• Manage recreation based on a zoned approach on all BLM and NFS lands within BENM and designate four zones: Front Country, Passage, Outback, and Remote. Establish six Management Areas and seven Sub-Areas that underlie the recreation zones on BLM administered land.
• Recreational shooting will be prohibited in campgrounds, developed recreation sites, rock writing sites, and structural cultural sites. Additionally, recreational shooting will be prohibited in all developed recreation sites and areas under 43 CFR 8365.2-5(a) and 36 CFR 261.10(d) in all portions of the Monument.
• Allocate 162,217 acres as unavailable (BLM)/not suitable (USDA Forest Service) and restrict 10,917 acres to trailing/trailing with emergency grazing only. Apply adaptive management to John’s Canyon, North Cottonwood, and North Cottonwood Upper Pastures.
• Designate the San Juan River, Lavender Mesa, Shay Canyon, Valley of the Gods, Indian Creek, and Aquifer Protection ACECs to protect relevant and important values with special management.
• Designate 591,185 acres as closed to off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and 483,917 acres as limited to OHV use on BLM-administered lands. On NFS lands, designated wilderness will be closed to OHV use and all non-wilderness NFS lands will be limited to OHV use. Public use of BENM for landings and takeoffs of motorized aircraft will be limited to Bluff Airport and Fry Canyon Airstrip or on routes designated for such use in the travel management plan (TMP).
• Manage 205,594 acres of LWC to protect their wilderness characteristics while allowing for compatible uses. Manage 216,371 acres of LWC to minimize impacts to wilderness characteristics. Under the Approved RMP, LWC are only applicable to BLM-administered lands
It seems like it’s not about logging (most of it is not timber country) or oil and gas, or mining. Remember this piece in 2020 about sharp-stickery?
It will be interesting to see if we agree on the SSE (sharp stick) factor. I’d give Bears Ears an 8 on a 1-10 scale.
I don’t think the “uniting” approach would be to “immediately reverse” what the Trump Administration did. That would be just another sharp stick in the eye.. haven’t we had enough of those? What about sitting down again with folks in the area and concerned groups looking at a variety of alternatives without the drama of the Nationally Significant Focus by Some Groups as a Symbol. Certainly the only choice is not “these 2016 lines with these 2016 restrictions”. As Chris Wood said about the 2001 Roadless Rule, “it wasn’t written on stone tablets.”
Despite the fears, we didn’t see any oil and gas nor additional uranium development. Maybe, as we have seen, increasing recreation in the area would be bad for the environment, or people come whether or not it’s a Monument, or people overuse trails and spread Covid to locals. Seems like the last four years have had changes that could be considered in such a discussion.
So here we are on another doom loop, requiring both BLM employees and the public to engage on yet another of these efforts. Whose job would it be to work on a finding a durable solution? Certainly the political feds aren’t doing so well.
Oops.. last time this happened, there was much wringing of hands (almost word for word, the same as today), but not much in the way of oil and gas nor uranium actually happened. Was that because it takes four years to get another RMP out? Or because there isn’t oil and gas to speak of, and maybe the Energy Fuels people were telling the truth. At the same time, there is a renewed focus on strategic minerals which may include uranium for national security goals.
If we go by the ROD, the issues seem to be grazing and OHVs. But maybe more OHVs are not as scary to put in press releases, although possibly more accurate?
Finally, remember this story from 2017?
The new Bears Ears National Monument is already impacting land use in the region after a judge said an 12-year-old proposal to build an off-road trail is contrary to the presidential proclamation.
A judge with the Interior Board of Land Appeals ruled this week that no work can begin on the 6.4 mile ATV loop the Bureau of Land Management approved for the Indian Creek area until an appeal brought by environmental groups is settled.
The loop, sought by San Juan County since 2005, was approved by the BLM in December, just a little under two weeks before then-President Barack Obama made the 1.35 million-acre monument designation in southeast Utah.
Or maybe you remember Zinke Proposes Co-Management With Tribes
There are probably dozens of posts about Bears Ears over time on TSW that can be found by using the search bar for Bears Ears.
Without my comment reflecting on the current controversy either way, I wish to offer this historical tidbit that may not be well known.
Congress once revoked a presidentially designated national monument.
The Wheeler Geologic Area near Creede, Colo., was once the Wheeler National Monument.
President Roosevelt designated it as Colorado’s first national monument in 1908.
But so few people visited it that it became too costly to maintain that status, and in 1950 President Truman signed legislation revoking it.
Incidentally, I have ridden to it on my mountain bike. It is spectacular. By mountain bike is an ideal way to get there, if one can handle the thin air at that elevation and strenuous climbs through a high alpine landscape. It is not something a typical recreational mountain biker should attempt.
https://5280.com/wheeler-geologic-area-is-one-of-colorados-most-beautiful-and-least-accessible-landscapes/
A little more on Wheeler. My understanding, the issue was that Wheeler as a national monument was being administered by the NPS out of Mesa Verde, which is three hours away just to get to the gravel road (that turns into a 4×4 road) that takes you into Wheeler. The Rio Grande National Forest actually did most of the maintenance and day to day oversight of Wheeler. Guided horseback trips were run out of 4UR Ranch, which also has a hot springs. The NPS supposedly asked for its monument status to be removed because they couldn’t take care of it. At least that is what I was able to uncover in my many hours of research about Wheeler Geologic Area.
I used to be able to go to Wheeler in September – a glorious time to see it – and not see anyone. Between increased publicity about the area and the popularity of ATVs and side-by-sides, it now gets substantially more use and the 4×4 road is a quagmire during a good monsoon season.
All that said, your point Lourenço, is an interesting one. Is the amount of use a factor in determining if an area should be designated and administered as a national monument?
I’m sorry to hear that it’s getting more visitors. I also mountain biked to it on a September day, IIRC, and the aspens were a brilliant yellow. This may have been 10 years ago. I do recall seeing a few vehicles, but not many. I don’t have a good answer to your question.
Wouldn’t it have been more direct just to transfer the Monument to the Rio for administration, like the SJ does for Chimney Rock, and the BLM does for Browns Canyon? Sounds like an interesting story.
How much does extra does it really cost to be a National Monument? Would they need a separate plan? Or just based on the expectation of getting more people…???
It sounds like National Monuments are (sometimes) designated because local people want them.. and sometimes locals disagree with “greenish” groups that want them (e.g. the Utah one), I think Dolores Canyon is an example of that. Some local people want to get more business, other locals don’t want it to be Moab-ized. I think it’s a way for Wilderness-y groups to get more restrictions without being able to get Wildnerness designations through Congress. As Jon says, the Executive branch swoops in. Everyone gets photo ops and the public and the employees get another planning process.
Were there national monuments not managed by the NPS back in 1950? For some reason I thought that was once a paradigm – national monuments were managed by NPS – that has now shifted.
I think it’s potentially significant that President Truman didn’t just unilaterally declare it not a monument – as Trump seeks to do. It could be that legislation to undo a monument was seen as legally necessary. And that fact (the Antiquities Act) hasn’t changed since then.
The Proclamation says he is reducing the size, not “unilaterally” (aren’t all Presidential Proclamations unilateral?) “declaring it not a monument.”
https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2026/07/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-modifies-two-national-monuments-restoring-sensible-land-management/
Trump unilaterally declared a couple of million acres to be not a monument.
That is an interesting point about who can extinguish a national monument, though, as Sharon notes, President Trump wants to reduce these two, not eliminate them.
In 2021, Chief Justice Roberts, in a formal comment that was not part of an opinion on the merits, said that he’s very doubtful about the scope of a president’s authority to declare vast areas to be a national monument:
(Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association, et al. v. Raimondo, et al., 592 U.S. ___ (2021))
IMHO Presidents will keep doing it until the Supremes tell them not to.
I think that’s quite right. In that vein, although one can’t be sure that Chief Justice Roberts would be of the same view that he was in 2021, probably he would, and his disquisition suggests that the Supreme Court will someday disallow national monuments that encompass vast acreage, if the majority continues to be conservative.
It’s funny that the Proclamation doesn’t specifically address the existing management plan for the excluded areas, but it does say this:
“the public and National Forest System lands excluded from the Monument reservation shall be open to:
(1) entry, location, selection, sale, or other disposition under the public land laws and laws applicable to the USFS;
(2) disposition under all laws relating to mineral and geothermal leasing; and
(3) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/07/modifying-the-bears-ears-national-monument/
I meant to add that I don’t think a president can order an agency to ignore a planning decision made pursuant to statutory requirements. (See the BLM sage-grouse litigation where this was tried and failed.)