Here is the press release that omits any actual recommendations. Here is the report summary that also says nothing.
But this excerpt asks us readers to assume that comments by supporters of national monuments should be ignored because they are merely statements “orchestrated” by “national . . . organizations”:
Comments received were overwhelmingly in favor of maintaining existing monuments and demonstrated a well orchestrated national campaign organized by multiple organizations.
Update: news coverage from earlier today quoting a Utah politician attacking national monument supporters as “rock lickers” — an excerpt:
Mike Noel, a Utah state representative, said that reducing or eliminating Bears Ears would be “a victory for our state.” Federal management of land in his state had constrained drilling, mining and grazing, he said, adding that Washington had no business setting aside so much land for the strict protection that monument status affords.
“When you turn the management over to the tree-huggers, the bird and bunny lovers and the rock lickers, you turn your heritage over,” Mr. Noel said.
Turtle Talk 
Besides public opinion in favor of land preservation, there is the clear inconvenient agency / administrative law that follows any agency decision. Too bad. Time for the courts to play their role. Reasonable people should be reasonable ideally.