What a proposed congressional review could mean for GSENM

Utah’s congressional delegation is consider­ing use of a rarely in­voked federal law that could overturn the cur­rent management plan for Grand Staircase- Escalante National Monument, drawing attention from both supporters and critics of federal land manage­ment. The proposal has prompted questions locally about what, if anything, would ac­tually change at the monument.

A landscape view within GSENM. The current congressional debate focuses on the monument’s management plan rather than its boundaries.

The discussion cen­ters on the Bureau of Land Management’s Resource Management Plan, which guides how the monument is administered day to day. 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. It 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. That 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.