SALT LAKE CITY (KUTV) — There have been hundreds of human-caused wildfires this year in Utah, but the legal outcomes are hard to track.

At least two people have been charged recently for starting fires: one for the Memory Grove Fire in Salt Lake and one for the Mountain Road Fire in Ogden.

This year alone, 327 wildfires have been started by people in Utah — an act that should carry consequences, according to some.

“Certainly, if it’s intentional, it’s against the law,” resident David Mastroianni said. “If it’s not intentional, then they weren’t being as careful as they should be with something they should be careful with.”

But, before anyone gets to that point, there’s a lot of work that goes into figuring out what started the fire, let alone who.

“The fire investigator will show up on scene and will look at the scene, collect evidence, and then turn it over to the proper authorities,” said Kelly Wickens with Forestry, Fire, and State Lands.

Tracking which fires end with criminal charges or civil suits is difficult.

Wickens said that once the fire is out and the investigator turns the evidence over, their work is done, and it’s up to the proper authorities to press charges.

“Arson does require — this is what makes it difficult — is that you have to establish someone intentionally started a fire,” said former prosecutor Nathan Evershed.

Evershed said there are more charges than just arson, such as reckless burning.

“So, if it’s not intentional and it’s more accidental, it can still be viewed as being reckless,” Evershed said.

That could mean if a firework accidentally causes a fire.

Evershed said that there’s also a difference between causing a structure fire and a grass fire. A structure fire could result in aggravated arson charges.

But what happens if a fire is completely accidental?

“It’s more difficult to find a criminal sanction on that … still could be a civil sanction on that, where somebody would have to pay restitution,” Evershed said.

So, while there’s no concrete number for how many human-caused fires have led to charges or civil suits, there are a lot of avenues if someone does get caught.

Evershed said you can even be charged if you just abandon a campfire that causes a fire.

_____

Four lifts, 174 acres, night skiing and a concert venue near Logan are up for grabs.

President Donald Trump sharply reduced the size of two national monuments in Utah, undoing protections established by his Democratic predecessors on public lands that are sacred among many Native Americans.

Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments in southern Utah have ancient cliff dwellings, petroglyphs and scenic canyons, as well as coal and uranium deposits that state officials want made available for development.

Trump, a Republican, issued proclamations Monday under the Antiquities Act to reduce their size by about 90% each. He took similar actions during his first term, but those were reversed by President Joe Biden, a Democrat.

The latest move comes as Trump and other Republicans have drastically reshaped the management of vast taxpayer-owned lands concentrated in Western states. Trump administration officials and congressional Republicans have sought to expand drilling, mining and logging on public lands, while removing protections for imperiled species and rolling back rules for conservation.

“They took the land from the people quite honestly,” Trump said at a signing event at the White House Monday. “We’re giving it back.”

President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, established Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in 1996, and President Barack Obama, also a Democrat, created Bears Ears National Monument in 2016 under the Antiquities Act. The 1906 law gives presidents the powers to protect sites considered historic, archaeologically significant or culturally important.

Davina Smith-Idjesa, a citizen of the Navajo Nation and co-chair of the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition, said tribal leaders had braced for a reduction since Trump was elected to a second term. She said it was “heartbreaking” and accused federal officials of sidestepping their legal responsibility to consult with tribal nations that would be impacted.

“From a Navajo perspective, Bears Ears is not simply a piece of federal public land,” Smith-Idjesa said. “This is a living cultural site that holds our histories, our ceremonies, our traditional foods and medicines and our ancestors’ footprints.”

‘Big day for Utah’

Utah officials had long fought against the monument designations and argued that the state should be in charge of controlling its own lands. Trump in his first term reduced their size, calling their creation a “massive land grab.” Combined they spanned more than 3.2 million acres (13 million hectares), an area nearly the size of Connecticut.

Trump reduced them Monday to less than 303,000 acres (123,000 hectares) combined.

That’s a greater reduction than his first term, when he left Grand Staircase Escalante at 1 million acres (405,000 hectares) and Bears Ears at 213,000 acres (86,000 hectares).

“This is a big day for Utah,” Utah Gov. Spencer Cox as he stood next to Trump at the White House. “These monument designations are supposed to be the smallest area as possible to protect the antiquities.”

Bears Ears was the first national monument created at the request of tribal nations that consider the land sacred. The landscape contains ancestral villages, ceremonial and burial sites and features in some tribes’ creation and migration stories. Its designation honored five tribes in the region — Navajo, Hopi, Zuni, Ute Mountain Ute and Uintah-Ouray Ute.

Home to hundreds of thousands of objects of cultural and scientific significance, Bears Ears is jointly managed by an agreement between tribal nations and federal agencies.

Grand Staircase-Escalante consists of cliffs, canyons, natural arches and archaeological sites, including rock paintings. It holds large coal reserves, while the Bears Ears area has uranium.

The national monument designation provides sweeping protections not just for significant geological features or artifacts but also for the surrounding landscape, banning drilling, mining and new construction nearby. Proponents of Trump’s move to downsize say the protective boundaries stretch too far and hinder mining for critical minerals.

Trump asserted Monday that people can not hunt, fish or “virtually not even walk” on the monuments. That’s false: Hunting, fishing, camping and other recreation are permitted under state and federal regulations, said Steve Bloch, legal director for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, a conservation group.

Biden designated or expanded more than a dozen monuments and had a goal to conserve at least 30% of U.S. lands and waters by 2030.

Trump’s policies are largely the opposite: He wants to tap into the natural resource wealth of federal lands that total more than 100,000 square miles (260,000 square kilometers) and offshore areas under federal control, such as in the Gulf of Mexico and off Alaska.

That’s drawn backlash from Democrats who warn of the wholesale disposal of treasured landscapes for commercial gain.

“Today’s executive action is another chapter in this administration’s war on the West,” Democratic Sen. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico said Monday. He added that Trump was “turning the Antiquities Act on its head.”

Land sale proposals fell flat

Trump Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said last year that federal officials would review and consider redrawing monument boundaries as part of a push to expand U.S. energy production.

Trump in his current term has used proclamations to lift commercial fishing prohibitions within expansive marine monuments in areas of the Pacific Ocean and in the Atlantic Ocean off the New England coast. Those monuments were created by Democratic and Republican administrations. The effort to boost the fishing industry, which has been challenged in court, marks a dramatic shift in federal policy by prioritizing commercial interests over efforts to allow the fish supply to increase.

Some Republicans have tried to sell or transfer federal lands to states or other entities. Those efforts have largely fallen flat: A push by some GOP lawmakers in the House to sell public lands ran into bipartisan opposition, while another proposal by Sen. Mike Lee of Utah to sell more than 3,200 square miles (8,300 square kilometers) of federal lands was removed from Republicans’ big tax and spending bill.

The U.S. Supreme Court last year turned back a lawsuit from Utah officials who sought to wrest control of vast areas of public land within the state from the federal government.

__

Hannah Schoenbaum reported from Salt Lake City.