Since the new monument proclamations were issued, social media has been flooded with claims about what the changes will mean for Utah’s public lands. A few claims are partially accurate. Most are misleading or simply false. This article examines the most common claims against the language of the Presidential Proclamation, the Grand Staircase–Escalante Resource Management Plan, and existing federal law.

One of the most common statements circulating on social media is that the recent monument proclamation ‘gave away federal land’ or transferred millions of acres to the State of Utah. That simply did not happen.

The proclamation modified the boundaries of the National Monument. It did not transfer ownership of a single acre. Every acre removed from the monument remains federal public land managed by the Bureau of Land Management. A National Monument designation changes how federal land is managed—not who owns it. Congress would have to enact separate legislation to transfer ownership.

Bottom Line: The management designation changed. Ownership did not.

This claim is contradicted by more than a century of presidential practice. Presidents from both political parties have modified National Monument boundaries dozens of times since the Antiquities Act was enacted in 1906. The Department of Justice issued a comprehensive legal opinion of the history of past modifications and The laconcluding that this authority exists, and Congress has repeatedly legislated against the backdrop of those modifications without prohibiting them.

Although opponents continue to challenge this authority in court, there is currently no judicial decision holding that Presidents lack the authority to modify monument boundaries. The current proclamations therefore remain legally effective.

Bottom Line: More than 100 years of presidential practice, supported by a formal Department of Justice opinion, demonstrates that Presidents have exercised this authority repeatedly. The current proclamations remain in full force unless a court rules otherwise.

The proclamation itself authorizes no drilling, mining, or leasing. It restores management of lands outside the revised monument boundaries to BLM’s multiple-use framework. Any future lease would require separate agency decisions, NEPA review, public comment, consultation, and compliance with numerous federal laws. Many federal leases are never developed.

Bottom Line: Future leasing may be considered, but nothing has been automatically approved.

The proclamation specifically directs the Secretary of the Interior to improve public access, including for recreation and hunting. The Proclamation language specifically states “When preparing a management plan for the Monument, the Secretary shall take into account, to the maximum extent consistent with the proper care and management of the objects identified above, the importance of) improving public access, including for recreation and hunting.”

Many hunters rely on motorized access to reach trailheads and retrieve game. The current Proclamation only strengthens the importance of improving access for hunting.

Bottom Line: The proclamation expressly recognizes hunting as an important public use.

The 2025 Resource Management Plan designated approximately 1,245,600 acres—about 67 percent of the monument—as areas where OHV travel would be prohibited. Although a future Travel Management Plan would identify individual routes, it had to conform to that management direction. Every red section of this map from the 2025 RMP would not have allowed any OHV.

Bottom Line: The restrictions were embedded in the approved RMP even though implementation had not yet occurred.

Existing routes remained available because a new Travel Management Plan had not yet been completed. However, the approved RMP had already established the management direction that would govern those routes once travel planning was finalized.

Bottom Line: The restrictions had been approved but not yet implemented.

Changing monument boundaries does not eliminate the extensive framework of federal laws protecting cultural, archaeological, historic, and natural resources. Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, FLPMA, NEPA, NHPA, ARPA, the Antiquities Act, and many other statutes continue to apply.

Bottom Line: Monument boundary changes do not remove federal resource protections.

Conclusion

Public lands belong to all Americans, and reasonable people can disagree about how they should be managed. Healthy debate is an important part of the public planning process. However, that debate should be based on facts—not fear, misinformation, or misleading social media posts.

As you’ve seen, many of the claims being circulated about these monument changes simply are not supported by the Presidential Proclamation, the 2025 Resource Management Plan, or existing federal law. That doesn’t mean everyone has to agree with the changes, but it does mean we all have a responsibility to base our opinions on accurate information.

Utah Public Lands Alliance and BlueRibbon Coalition have spent years reviewing these plans, meeting with agency officials, lawmakers, and local communities, and advocating for balanced public land management that protects our natural and cultural resources while preserving responsible public access for future generations. We believe Americans deserve honest information so they can make informed decisions for themselves.

If you found this article helpful, please consider sharing it with your friends and family. The best way to combat misinformation is with facts.

Tell Me What You Think

Have you heard any of these claims? Do you agree or disagree with the recent monument changes?

We’d love to hear your thoughts. 

If you found this fact check useful, please share it on social media and help others separate fact from fiction.

Two Years of UPLA Advocacy Helped Shape a New Direction for Utah’s Public Lands

July 13, 2026, marks a historic day for public lands in Utah, and for Utah Public Lands Alliance.

President Donald J. Trump signed proclamations modifying both the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase–Escalante National Monuments. While much of the media coverage has focused on the reduction in monument acreage, the proclamations accomplish far more than simply redrawing boundaries. They fundamentally change how these lands will be managed in the future, restoring multiple-use principles, improving local representation, and placing renewed emphasis on public access.

For Utah Public Lands Alliance (UPLA), this day represents the culmination of more than two years of persistent advocacy.

A Vision We Have Pursued Since Day One

From the beginning, UPLA has never argued that Utah’s priceless archaeological, historical, cultural, and scientific treasures should be left unprotected. Instead, we have consistently advocated for a balanced approach that:

• Protects the specific objects identified under the Antiquities Act.
• Limits monument boundaries to the “smallest area compatible” with protecting those resources, as required by federal law.
• Restores the Bureau of Land Management’s traditional multiple-use mission on surrounding public lands.
• Preserves opportunities for responsible recreation, grazing, hunting, energy development, and other lawful public uses.

Those principles have guided every meeting, every letter, every public comment, and every conversation we have had with decision-makers over the past two years.

Taking Utah’s Message to Washington

Last month, UPLA traveled to Washington, D.C., where we met with senior officials from the White House, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture, Members of Congress, and numerous national partners. Restoring Utah’s National Monuments was one of our primary objectives during those meetings.

We emphasized that these landscapes could—and should—protect nationally significant resources while also respecting the rights of the American people to responsibly enjoy and use their public lands. We advocated for restoring multiple-use management, expanding recreational opportunities, improving local involvement in monument management, and ensuring that monument boundaries complied with the Antiquities Act.

Seeing many of those same principles reflected in the President’s proclamations is both encouraging and gratifying.

The Story Is Much Bigger Than Monument Boundaries

Although the reduction in monument acreage has received the most attention, several other provisions may have an even greater long-term impact.

A Balanced Advisory Committee

The proclamation replaces the previous Bears Ears Commission with a new Monument Advisory Committee designed to provide broader representation.

The new committee includes:

• Five representatives of the federally recognized Tribes with historical ties to Bears Ears.
• Representatives from San Juan County, Monticello, Blanding, and Bluff.
• Six members recommended by the Governor of Utah representing diverse stakeholder groups, including:
  • Archaeological and historical experts.
  • Livestock grazing permittees.
  • Outdoor recreation interests, including commercial recreation providers or off-highway vehicle users.
  • Conservation organizations.
  • Private landowners.
  • Local business owners.

For the first time, off-highway vehicle users are specifically recognized as an important stakeholder in monument management.

Recreation Restored as a Core Management Objective

UPLA has long argued that responsible recreation deserves equal consideration alongside other traditional public-land uses.

The proclamation restores emphasis on multiple-use management, specifically identifying recreation—including off-road recreation—as an important use of these public lands.

This recognizes that responsible motorized recreation and resource protection are not mutually exclusive and can coexist through thoughtful planning and management.

Protecting What the Antiquities Act Was Intended to Protect

Rather than managing millions of acres under monument status, the proclamation establishes new boundaries focused on protecting the specific objects identified under the Antiquities Act.

The revised Bears Ears Monument continues to protect nationally significant resources, including the Shash Jáa Unit and the Indian Creek Unit, while returning surrounding lands to traditional multiple-use management.

This reflects the principle UPLA has consistently advocated: protect the important resources while allowing the surrounding public lands to remain available for the many uses Congress intended.

A New Transportation Plan Focused on Public Access

Perhaps one of the most exciting provisions for recreation is the direction given to the Secretary of the Interior and Agriculture.

The proclamation requires preparation of a new transportation plan that endeavors to maximize public access throughout the monument by designating roads and trails for both motorized and non-motorized use while providing for their maintenance.

Even more significant, pending completion of that transportation plan, the Secretary may allow public use of roads and trails that existed before the original Bears Ears proclamation and maintain those routes for continued public access.

For those who have spent years advocating for responsible access to public lands, this represents a remarkable change in direction.

Our Work Is Not Finished

These proclamations do not automatically reopen every road or trail.Future travel management plans, transportation planning, and resource management decisions will still require extensive public involvement.

That is where UPLA will continue to play an essential role.

Through our TrailSaver program, route inventory analyses, public education, and continued engagement with federal agencies, we will work to ensure these new opportunities result in meaningful improvements for public access while continuing to protect the remarkable resources that make these landscapes so special.

Thank You

None of this happens without you.

• Every membership.
• Every donation.
• Every volunteer.
• Every substantive public comment.
• Every conversation with elected officials.

Together, we have demonstrated that informed, respectful, and persistent advocacy can influence public policy at the highest levels of government.

It feels great to win, and today’s proclamations are not the end of our work—but they are an important milestone.

UPLA will continue fighting to ensure that Utah’s public lands remain protected, accessible, and responsibly managed for generations to come.

Loren Campbell
Utah Public Lands Alliance President
Email Your Comments

UPLA Analysis Shows Major Improvements—But Many Miles of Existing Routes Are Still Proposed for Closure or Missing in Dolores River

The Bureau of Land Management has released preliminary alternatives for the Dolores River Travel Management Plan. UPLA completed a detailed comparison of the current alternatives with the original 2021 route inventory and our 2024 scoping comments. The results are encouraging.

UPLA warned BLM during scoping that the Dolores River route inventory was significantly incomplete. The preliminary alternatives now evaluate 196 routes—78 more unique routes than appeared in the 2024 data. While this alone cannot prove that UPLA’s comments caused the change, the expanded inventory directly addresses one of UPLA’s primary scoping concerns. That represents real progress and demonstrates that substantive public participation can influence the planning process.

We Still Have Two big concerns that represent even greater opportunity:

• The majority (62 routes/39 miles) of those added routes are designated in Alternative B for closure. We need to revisit these and they can be identified in the Detailed Analysis Report that follows
• We still believe there are substantial routes missing from the inventory, we need your help in finding them. 

Click for our Detailed Analysis

Why This Matters

The preliminary alternatives suggest the BLM took a closer look at its route inventory after the scoping process. That is exactly why public participation matters. But the job isn’t finished.

Many of the proposed closures remain unsupported by the available information and deserve careful review before any final decisions are made.

UPLA Makes Commenting Easier

At this stage of the process, there is no formal comment period, but UPLA will consolidate your reports submitted through TrailSaver and provide them to BLM for evaluation before they finalize their Draft EA.  TrailSaver will again help you write detailed, route-specific comments that we need.

Identify the routes that matter to you, then use TrailSaver to help you prepare substantive comments that explain:

• Why you use the route
• What access it provides
• Why closure is unnecessary
• Why the route should remain open

UPLA will consolidate comments submitted through TrailSaver and deliver them to the BLM outside the formal comment period.

Read the Complete Analysis

Download the complete UPLA Dolores River TMP Analysis to review:

• Alternative comparisons
• Mileage summaries
• Priority closure routes

Here’s other Useful Links to Assist You

BLM’s Interactive Map with New Features Requested by UPLA that include a Route Locator on the Map

Improved BLM Route Reports in Easy to Read Format

BLM Dolores River TMP Project Home Page 
     Includes PDF Maps and Monitoring Reports on Routes

Stay Involved

This is one example that demonstrates public participation works. Now we need to ensure the remaining proposed closures receive the same level of careful public review.

Together, we can help keep responsible access open for future generations.

Loren Campbell
President
Utah Public Lands Alliance

Dino North Travel Management Plan: A Different Kind of Travel Plan

For years, Utah Public Lands Alliance has argued that Travel Management Plans should not become exercises in simply reducing motorized access. If routes exist on the ground, serve a public purpose, and can be managed responsibly, they deserve an honest evaluation—not automatic closure.

The Draft Dinosaur North Travel Management Plan is different.

Unlike many recent travel plans that focused primarily on reducing access, the Dinosaur North proposal evaluates an existing transportation network that is far larger than the routes designated in the 2008 Vernal Resource Management Plan.

Our analysis of the Draft Environmental Assessment shows that the current inventoried route network contains approximately 700 miles of existing routes, yet only 279 miles were formally designated in the 2008 Travel Management Plan. That means roughly 421 miles—about 60 percent of today’s inventoried network—were never officially designated for motorized use in 2008. The Draft EA explains that those undesignated routes are treated as closed under Alternative A because they were never formally evaluated or designated. That makes Dinosaur North fundamentally different from most recent Travel Management Plans.

More Than a Closure Analysis

In recent years, much of UPLA’s work has focused on defending existing access against unnecessary closures. That work remains critically important.

Alternative B would still close many existing routes that riders, hunters, campers, photographers, rockhounds, and other public land users value. If you use those routes, your comments remain essential.

However, Dinosaur North also presents something we have long encouraged the Bureau of Land Management to do. It is one of the first major examples where the BLM is proposing to formally designate existing inventoried routes that were not included in the 2008 travel network, almost 400 miles. Rather than simply deciding which routes to eliminate, the agency has evaluated hundreds of miles of existing routes that have long existed on the landscape but were never officially designated. Alternatives C and D would incorporate many of those routes into the official designated transportation system.

That represents the kind of comprehensive route evaluation UPLA has advocated for years.

Your Comments Can Make a Difference

Most people naturally focus on routes proposed for closure. You absolutely should.

If Alternative B proposes closing a trail that provides meaningful recreation, access to hunting areas, campsites, overlooks, historic sites, or connects other important routes, tell the BLM exactly why that route should remain open.

But don’t stop there.

The 400 miles of newly proposed designations deserve your support as well. If a route appears on UPLA’s Newly Designated Routes worksheet and you believe it should become part of the permanent designated transportation system, tell the BLM why that designation is important.

Use TrailSaver.com to format your comments to describe how you use the route, what destinations it provides access to, why it contributes to a connected and sustainable trail system or why formally designating the route improves responsible public access.

Positive comments supporting appropriate route designations are just as valuable as comments opposing unnecessary closures.

Make Your Comments Substantive

Simply saying “keep this trail open” or “I oppose closures” carries very little weight during the NEPA process.

To influence the decision, your comments should be substantive. That’s exactly why UPLA developed TrailSaver.com.

TrailSaver walks you through a series of simple questions about the specific route you use. Based on your answers, it generates a detailed, route-specific comment that addresses the kinds of information land managers are required to consider during the decision-making process. The better your answers and more details you provide, the stronger your comment becomes.

Whether you’re commenting on a route proposed for closure or supporting one of the newly designated routes, TrailSaver helps you create comments that are far more likely to be considered substantive rather than general expressions of support or opposition.

A Better Conversation About Public Lands

Travel management should never be viewed as a choice between opening everything and closing everything.

Good travel planning identifies the routes that provide meaningful public access, protects sensitive resources where necessary, and creates a transportation system that is both sustainable and usable for future generations.

The Dinosaur North Draft TMP provides an opportunity to accomplish exactly that.

Where the BLM proposes unnecessary closures, UPLA will continue advocating to keep valuable routes open.

Where the BLM proposes to formally designate long-existing inventoried routes that were never included in the 2008 travel network, we believe those proposals deserve careful public support when they improve responsible public access.

Both deserve your attention.

UPLA’s Expanded TMP Analysis

To help the public better understand this planning effort, UPLA has expanded its TMP Analysis System to identify not only proposed closures, but also Newly Designated Routes—existing routes that were not designated in the 2008 Travel Management Plan but would become officially designated under Alternatives B, C, or D.

We encourage everyone reviewing the Dinosaur North Draft TMP to look beyond the closure statistics. Study the routes proposed for closure. Study the routes proposed for new designation.

Then use TrailSaver.com to prepare detailed, substantive comments supporting the routes that matter to you.

We are finally beginning to win this battle, but we need your support and engagement to bring it over the finish line.

Thank you for all your Support!

Loren Campbell
President

Trail Canyon TMP (Kanab) – Comments opened June 22 and are open till July 22, 2026. The Trail Canyon Travel Management Area (TMA) is located in Kane County, Utah. It is bounded by the Dixie National Forest on the north, U.S. Hwy 89 on the east, the Utah-Arizona border on the south, and Zion National Park on the west. There are 129 miles of routes proposed for new closures in Alternative B out of 450 miles of routes currently open, that’s 29% unless we take action. BLM is having trouble with their Interactive Map, and I want to start examining the trails in detail, so I created GPX files you can upload into OnX or Gaia you can get at the link below.

• • For a complete analysis about the impacts of this plan, visit our Trail Canyon Travel Plan Analysis

  • Comments can be submitted on the BLM EPlanning website listed below or emailed to blm_ut_kn_mail@blm.gov

  • Trail Canyon Project Website and Participate Now Button

  • Draft EA for Project DOI-BLM-UT-P020=2026-0003-EA

  • NEW!!!!Trail Canyon Alternative B New Closures GPX Files for OnX or Gaia Uploads
  • Trail Canyon Interactive Map-Great Tool for Finding Routes Affected

  • Trail Canyon BLM Route Reports

  • Link to UPLA TrailSaver to form substantive comments by just answering a few questions about each trail.

  • If you have questions or comments, please email Loren Campbell

UPLA created an analysis tool to give a high level overview of the various travel management plan alternatives. In the analysis, you’ll find a complete list of all the routes sorted by Route number (with common names where we have them), another tab shows the Alternative B closures, and then a Top Priority page that shows the largest impacts based on mileage. It should be noted that there are many other factors that may be more important such as connectivity to other routes and other important features on the route.

You can download the complete report here or just tap on the following summary