Utah’s congressional delegation is considering the use of a rarely invoked federal law that could overturn the current management plan for Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. This proposal has drawn attention from both supporters and critics of federal land management.
The discussion centers on the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Resource Management Plan, which guides how the monument is administered on a day-to-day basis. The plan was finalized in 2025 after several years of public input, environmental review, and Tribal consultation. It addresses issues such as recreation, grazing, access, and conservation priorities within the monument’s existing boundaries.
The legislative tool under consideration is the Congressional Review Act, a 1996 law that allows Congress to overturn certain federal agency actions through a simple majority vote in both chambers, followed by presidential approval. The law is most often used to reverse federal regulations but has not previously been applied to a national monument management plan.
Interest in the Act increased after the Government Accountability Office issued an opinion concluding that monument management plans may qualify as agency “rules” under the law. This interpretation opened the door for Congress to consider a resolution disapproving the current plan.
If such a resolution were approved, the existing management plan would be nullified. However, several key elements would remain unchanged. The monument’s boundaries would not be altered, the designation itself would remain in place, and no immediate changes to land use would automatically occur. The presidential proclamation establishing the monument would continue to govern.
Supporters of the proposal argue that Congress has clear oversight authority and say the current plan does not adequately reflect local concerns related to access, grazing, and land use. They view congressional review as a way to revisit management decisions without reopening the broader monument designation debate.
Critics counter that using the Congressional Review Act in this way would bypass a lengthy public process and create uncertainty about how the monument would be managed moving forward. They also warn that the law limits an agency’s ability to issue a similar replacement plan.
Any resolution would still need to pass both the House and Senate and be signed by the president. Until that occurs, the existing management plan remains in effect.
For now, the debate centers on process and authority, rather than an immediate change to the monument itself.
https://www.sunews.net/post/what-a-proposed-congressional-review-could-mean-for-gsenm