NATHAN A. CRANE (UT Bar No. 10165)SNOW, CHRISTENSEN & MARTINEAU10 Exchange Place, 11th FloorSalt Lake City, Utah 84111Telephone: (801) 521-9000Facsimile: (801) 363-0400E-mail: nac@scmlaw.com

Attorney for Defendant Monte Wells

FILED IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT, DISTRICT OF UTAH

AUG 1 0 2015

D. MARK JONES, CLERK

BY

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

DEPUTY CLERK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MONTE JEROME WELLS,

Defendant.

FILED UNDER SEAL

MONTE WELLS' POSITIONREGARDING RESTITUTION

Case No. 2:14-CR-470

Judge Robert Shelby

NATHAN A. CRANE (UT Bar No. 10165)SNOW, CHRISTENSEN & MARTINEAU10 Exchange Place, 11th FloorSalt Lake City, Utah 84111Telephone: (801) 521-9000Facsimile: (801) 363-0400E-mail: nac@scmlaw.com

Attorney for Defendant Monte Wells

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MONTE JEROME WELLS,

Defendant.

FILED UNDER SEAL

MONTE WELLS' POSITIONREGARDING RESTITUTION

Case No. 2:14-CR-470

Judge Robert Shelby

Monte Wells ("Wells") by and through undersigned counsel hereby files his Position

Regarding Restitution.

Wells adopts and incorporates Defendant Phillip Lyman's Objection to Matters Relating

to Restitution Provisions Set Forth in the Presentence Report.

No restitution should be ordered in this matter because: 1) the government has failed to

offer any evidence tying those that committed the alleged damage in the Southern portion of

Recapture Canyon to the Conspiracy; 2) it is undisputed that Wells and Lyman did not drive

their ATVs in the Southern part of the Canyon; 3) the government cannot link any damage to the

Defendants because the Canyon has been used by motor vehicles for over 120 years; and 4) the

Canyon has been "damaged" by factors not related to May 10, 2014. As a result this Court

should not order Wells to pay any restitution.

I. NO RESTITUTION IS OWING

The government has taken the position that there is over $170,000 of restitution owing.

The government's requested restitution is absurd, based solely on guess work and is not

supported by facts.

A. The Government Does Not Know Who Caused The Alleged Damage InRecapture Canyon

The government has failed to offer any evidence of who caused the complained of

damage in Recapture Canyon. Government inspectors, in anticipation of the May 10, 201 ride,

inspected Recapture Canyon on April 29-30, 2014. These observations took place a full 10 days

before the protest ride on May 10, 2014. During the inspections on April 29-30, 2014 the

government's inspector noted "I did observe full-size vehicle tracks on the Southern most

portion of the trail, and outside of the area of the May 10th event."1

The ride took place on May 10, 2014 and was concluded by approximately noon.

On May 12, 2014 the government inspectors returned to Recapture Canyon and only

inspected limited "portions of the Closure Area."2 The government inspectors then returned on

May 19-22, 2014 for a more thorough inspection of Recapture Canyon.3

1 Gov.'s Archaeological Damage Investigation & Assessment Report ("Gov. Report") at 20.2 Id.3 Id. at 5.

2

The government cannot claim, with any reasonable surety that the alleged damaged was a

result of the May 10, 2014 event. The ride took place 10 days after the government conducted its

initial inspection of the Canyon. The government inspectors conducted a brief spot check of

only certain portions of the Canyon 2 days after the protest ride. The government's more

thorough inspection of the Canyon did not occur until 9 days after May 10, 2014. In total there

are 16 full days between the initial inspection and final inspection. Any number of people and

motor vehicles could have traveled through Recapture Canyon during those 16 days. As the

government inspectors noted on April 29, 2014, they observed full size vehicle tracks in the

Canyon. These full size vehicle tracks confirm that individuals other than Lyman and Wells, and

on days other than May 10, 2014, operated motor vehicles in Recapture Canyon. It is highly

probable that motor vehicles were used in the Canyon during the 16 unaccounted for days.

The government did not maintain any security, surveillance, or even a locked gate at

Recapture Canyon during those 16 days. There is no evidence that Lyman or Wells were in

Recapture Canyon during the 16 unaccounted for days. The government cannot tell the Court

who was in Recapture Canyon during those 16 days.

B. Wells and Lyman Did Not Travel Beyond The Pipeline Trail

The Conspiracy to ride into Recapture Canyon terminated when the parties reached the

end of the pipeline trail. Where the Conspiracy terminated is important because the government

alleges the damages that make up the $170,000 restitution figure occurred South of the pipeline

turnaround point.4 "[A] conspiracy, once instituted, continues to exist until it is abandoned,

4 See Gov. Report at 4; map of Recapture Canyon showing turnaround point and locations ofalleged damage attached as Exhibit A.

3

succeeds, or is otherwise terminated by some affirmative act, such as withdrawal by the

defendant."5 "The time at which the conspiracy ends depends upon the particular facts of the

case. Generally, however, a conspiracy terminates when its central criminal purposes have been

attained."6

The object of the Conspiracy was to operate motorized vehicles in Recapture Canyon in

defiance of the BLM's road closure. The Conspiracy succeeded once the parties crossed the road

closure line. The central purpose of the Conspiracy was to cross the line, drive approximately

two miles to the end of the pipeline trail and then turn around and proceed out of the Canyon.

It is undisputed that Wells and co-defendant Lyman drove their ATVs on the pipeline

trail and stopped at the end of the pipeline trail. The government's evidence established that

Wells and Lyman entered Recapture Canyon from the North, drove to the end of the pipeline

trail to the pipeline turnaround point. At the end of the pipeline trail the defendants stopped and

did not proceed any further South into Recapture Canyon.

The ride into the Canyon was not a free for all. Lyman organized the ride with a specific

purpose and with specific rules. At the San Juan County Commissioners meeting on April 28,

2014 Lyman told the Commissioners that on the morning of May 10, 2014 he would inform the

protest riders of the "rules, and where they can go, what the lay of the land is."7 The "rules"

Lyman wanted to address were that all riders should stay on the trail and stop at the pipeline

turnaround point.

5 United States v. Russell, 963 F.2d 1320, 1322 (10th Cir. 1992).6 United States v. Silverstein, 737 F.2d 864, 867 (10th Cir. 1984)(internal quotation marksomitted).7 Gov. Trial Ex. 19A.

4

Government witness Joshua Ewing testified that prior to the ride in Recapture Canyon

Lyman told others that Lyman's plan was to only ride to the end of the pipeline road.8 Mr.

Ewing testified that on May 10, 2014 he was positioned near the turnaround point on the pipeline

trail.9 Mr. Ewing testified that on May 10, 2014 he observed Lyman go only as far as the

pipeline turnaround point and that Lyman did not proceed South of the turnaround point.19 Mr.

Ewing was asked if Lyman turned around at the end of the pipeline trail.11 Mr. Ewing responded

"Yeah, he was good to his word there."12 All of the government's witnesses were consistent in

their testimony concerning the point where Lyman and Wells terminated their ride into the

Canyon.

On the morning of May 10, 2014 the protest riders met at Centennial Park in Blanding,

Utah.13 The park is located approximately 2 miles from the Southernmost access point to

Recapture Canyon. After the protest rally at Centennial Park, the riders went out of their way

along the highway to the Northern most access point to enter Recapture Canyon. The Northern

most access point is where the pipeline trail begins. Lyman and Wells went out of their way to

the Northern access point because the conspiracy was to ride on the pipeline trail and only go as

far as the end of the pipeline trail. If the conspiracy was to simply ride in Recapture Canyon, the

riders would have accessed the Southern part of the Canyon which was the closest to Centennial

Park.

8 Trial Tr. April 29, 2015 at 100.9 Id.10 Id.1i Id.12 Id.

13 See map attached as Ex. A showing location of Park, access points to Recapture Canyon, andlocations of alleged damage in Canyon.

5

In addition, the government has not identified who rode an ATV South of the pipeline

turnaround point. The government has not offered any evidence that those who traveled South of

the turnaround point were part of the conspiracy. Without linking those who traveled South of

the turnaround point to the conspiracy, Lyman and Wells cannot be held responsible for their

actions.

Other than Lyman and Wells, the only other two individuals that the government has

shown riding ATVs in Recapture Canyon were former co-defendant Shane Marian and Franklin

Holliday. However, he jury acquitted both Marian and Holliday being members of any

conspiracy. The government has failed to identify any other riders in Recapture Canyon on May

10, 2015 and has failed to offer any evidence of other co-conspirators that drove an ATV South

of the pipeline trail.

The Conspiracy in this case was to ride into Recapture Canyon on the pipeline trail and

then turnaround at the end of the pipeline trail. Having achieved their goal, the Conspiracy was

terminated when its central criminal purpose was attained. Those who rode ATVs South of the

pipeline trail were not part of the charged conspiracy.

C. Recapture Canyon Has Been Used For Hundreds of Years

Historical records show that a road has existed in Recapture Canyon for over 120 years.

"In 1890 a road, at least it was called a road in that day, was opened across Devil and Long

Canyons to Verdure."14 This road extended through Recapture Canyon and was created six

14 Albert R. Lyman, History of San Juan County 1879-1917, 1919, at 80 available athttp://wwvv.hirforg/san-Juan-hist/san-juan-history-complete-ch1-57.pdf.

6

years before Utah became the 45th State.15 "Recapture too, was the scene of many thrilling

adventures, both along the hillside on its north, and in the crooked wash where every now and

then a raging flood played freaks with the crossings."16 In 1890 the road was opened southwest

from Devil Canyon, crossing Recapture and traversed fifteen or more miles of White Mesa."

Lifelong resident of San Juan County Ferd Johnson, testified that he has been using the

Recapture Canyon road since 1960.18 "I first traveled the canyon in a Jeep and was able to travel

the canyon from the top of the canyon to the bottom."19

Dan Shumway operated a gold mine in the closed portion of Recapture Canyon from

1991 to 2009.20 As part of his mining operation Mr. Shumway testified that he used large

mining equipment through the Canyon.21 The equipment Mr. Shumway used in Recapture

Canyon included "front end loaders, dump trucks, wash plant, a Bobcat Loader used to excavate

the materials, a D-4 Caterpillar Dozer with a nine foot blade, a diesel tractor and dump trailer to

haul the materials to the wash site, and a sluice box for processing with water."22

In addition, all of Recapture Canyon was open to motorized vehicles prior to 2007.

15 Utah statehood granted January 4, 1896.16 History of San Juan County at 80.17 Id.18 Decl. Ferd Johnson attached as Ex. B.19 Id. at 2.20 Decl. Dan Shumway attached as Ex. C.21 Id.22 Id.

7

a. Recapture Canyon Was Not In Pristine Condition Prior To May 10,2014

As expected with a road that is over 120 years old, Recapture Canyon was not in pristine

condition on May 10, 2014. Prior to 2007 the entire Recapture Canyon was open to use by

motor vehicles. Jeeps, trucks, four-wheelers, and other ATVs have traversed Recapture Canyons

for many decades. Large construction equipment was used in Recapture Canyon for 18 years as

part of the gold mine operation and as part of the construction of the pipeline in the Canyon. For

the construction of the pipeline a trench approximately 3 miles long, 25 feet wide and 3 feet deep

was dug in the Canyon.

Currently, the BLM has granted cattle grazing permits in Recapture Canyon to Adams

Livestock Co. and Bluff River Ranch LLC.23 The permits allow up to 1,058 head of cattle to

graze in Recapture Canyon. There are no restrictions to keep the cattle confined to the existing

trail in Recapture Canyon. While grazing, the cattle are free to roam the entire Canyon.

In the early 1970s, before the construction of the dam, there was significant flooding in

the Canyon.24 Most of the damage that occurred in the Canyon from the flooding was in the

Southern part of the Canyon.25 In October 1993, after the dam was constructed, water was

released from the dam into Recapture Canyon.26 The October 1993 release of water caused

extensive damage in the Canyon including damage to the gold mine's equipment and washed out

portions of the trail in recapture Canyon.27

23 Permits attached as Exhibit D.24 Decl. Johnson at 2.25 Id. at 2-3.26 Decl. Shumway at 2.27 Id.

8

In United States v. Kenneth Brown and Dustin Felstead, Dist. of Utah Case No. 2:11-cr-

0039-SA two defendants were charged with Destruction of Property of the United States for

creating new ATV trails in the Southern part of Recapture Canyon. These defendants pled guilty

to creating an authorized trail in Recapture Canyon by removing boulders, rocks, vegetation, etc.

to create the unauthorized trail. In the Brown case Defendant Brown was ordered to pay

restitution in the amount of $27,000 and Defendant Felstead was ordered to pay restitution in the

amount of $8,000. In the Brown case the defendants drove their ATVs all over Recapture

Canyon creating a new trail and the total amount of restitution was $35,000. Here, Lyman and

Wells stayed on the existing pipeline trail and the government wants them to pay over $170,000

in restitution.

The significant use of motorized vehicles in the Canyon for decades, the gold mine, the

construction of a pipeline, hundreds of head of cattle in the Canyon, and damage from floods are

all factors that have resulted in Recapture Canyon being used by many individuals prior to May

10, 2014.

II. RESTITUTION SHOULD BE APPORTIONED

If the Court determines some amount of restitution is outstanding in this matter the Court

can apportion an award of restitution amongst the co-defendants. Under the Mandatory Victim

Restitution Act ("MVRA"), a sentencing court is required to order the payment of restitution for

any provable loss amount.28 However, restitution does not have to be ordered to be paid in full

by all co-defendants. Under the MVRA a sentencing court "may apportion liability among the

defendants to reflect the level of contribution to the victim's loss and economic circumstances of

28 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663A-3664.

9

each defendant."29 Thus, when a defendant's level of contribution to the victim's loss is less

than other defendants, courts will apportion liability according to the level of that defendant's

contribution to the loss amount. Apportionment of restitution is appropriate in this matter given

Wells significantly lower level of contribution to the Conspiracy when compared to Lyman.

A. Wells' Level of Contribution To The Conspiracy Is Significantly Less ThanLyman's Contribution.

On February 27, 2014 Lyman hosted a town hall meeting where the idea of conducting a

protest rally was first discussed.3° Wells did not attend the town hall meeting on February 27,

2014 as he was attending the San Juan Health Service District Board Meeting.31

At the April 21, 2014 and April 28, 2014 San Juan County Commissioners meetings

Lyman and the other county commissioners discussed the protest ride.32 At the April 28, 2014

meeting it was Lyman that announced "we are going down the trail on May 101h."33 Wells did

not participate in those meetings.

Lyman had discussions with multiple government officials regarding the protest ride

including: Juan Palma, BLM; Lance Porter, BLM; Donald Hoffheins, BLM; Rick Eldredge, San

Juan County; Laird Naylor, BLM; Bruce Adams, San Juan County; Kenneth Maryboy, San Juan

County; Mike Noel, Kanab; Beth Ransel, BLM; Bob Turri, San Juan County; Lynn Laws, San

Juan County; and Kelly Pehrson, San Juan County among others.34 Evidence at trial showed that

Wells only attended one lunch meeting between Lyman and Juan Palma. Mr. Palma testified

2918 U.S.C. § 3664(h).

3° Gov. Trial Ex. 35C.31 See Sign in sheet for board meeting attached as Ex. E.32 Gov. Trial Ex. 18, 19A.33 Gov. Trial Ex. 19A.34 See Gov. Trial Ex. 22-24, 26-29, 31-33.

10

that during the meeting his conversation was predominantly with Lyman.35 Mr. Palma never

spoke with Wells before or after the one lunch meeting.36

In a letter written to BLM manager Lace Porter on April 29, 2014 Lyman outlined all that

he alone had done to set up the protest ride.37 Referencing the protest ride, Lyman stated in the

letter "As an elected Commissioner in San Juan County, I claim the authority and I accept the

re sponsibility. "38

On his San Juan County Commissioner facebook page Lyman unilaterally announced

that he was moving the protest ride to May 10, 2014.39 It was Lyman who published two

editorials in the Deseret News regarding Recapture Canyon.° Wells has never had an article

published by the Deseret News.

Lyman went on radio shows to promote and advertise the protest ride.41 Wells did not

promote or discuss the protest ride on the radio.

What was shown at trial was that Wells published an article on the Petroglyph that was

written by Lyman42, he wrote an editorial about Recapture Canyon that he self-published,43 and

he interviewed Lyman regarding Recapture Canyon.44

35 Trial Tr. April 29, 2015 at 157-58.36 Id.37 Gov. Trial Ex. 24.38 Id.39 Gov. Trial Ex. 35A.4° Gov. Trial Ex. 44, 103.41 Gov. Trial Ex. 93-94.42 Gov. Trial Ex. 35C, 73.43 Gov. Trial Ex. 74.44 Gov. Trial Ex. 79.

11

During the evening of May 9, 2014 a protest rally was held at Centennial Park, a public

park in Blanding, Utah. At the rally Lyman addressed the group of protesters that were present.

Wells did not address the group of protestors. During the morning of May 10, 2014 a large

protest crowd gathered at Centennial Park. During the morning protest rally multiple

individuals, including Lyman, addressed the crowd. Wells did not address the large crowd on

May 10, 2014.

Lyman was heavily involved in the planning and execution of the protest rally. Aside

from the two articles and the interview of Lyman, there is no other evidence that Wells did

anything to promote, plan, or carryout the protest ride on May 10, 2014. Wells' lack of

involvement is contrasted with Lyman who held public town halls meetings to discuss the ride,

discussed the protest ride at San Juan County Commissioner meetings, met with multiple

government officials both in the State and Federal governments, submitted to interviews on the

radio, and published two articles in the Deseret News.

It is Lyman who had the sole authority and ability to carry out or stop the protest ride. If

Wells would have withdrawn from the protest ride, the ride would still have taken place. If

Lyman had withdrawn from the protest ride, the ride would not have taken place.

Even after the protest ride and the jury trial, it is Lyman who continues to receive all of

the credit for the protest ride. Lyman has received the support of the Governor of the State of

Utah who has pledged $10,000 to his defense along with multiple elected officials who have also

12

given Lyman thousands of dollars in support.45. Wells has been ignored by these elected

officials.

B. Federal Sentencing Courts Routinely Apportion Restitution Amongst Co-Defendants

This Court is not bound by the amount of restitution ordered to be paid by Lyman. This

Court may apportion an amount of restitution to Wells based upon his level of contribution to the

loss.46 Federal courts have regularly apportioned restitution amongst co-defendants and co-

conspirators based upon their level of contribution to the conspiracy. On appellate review "a

restitution order is reviewed for abuse of discretion."47

In United States v. Bunn, 277 Fed. Appx. 25, 27 (2nd Cir. 2008), the co-defendants were

convicted of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and wire fraud in a scheme to divert funds from a

corporation. The appellate court stated "the record reveals that the District Court considered the

evidence relating to each defendant's role and properly concluded that Bunn (the CEO) was the

creator of the scheme and the one who profited the most from it."48 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §

3664(h) the district court apportioned a higher amount of restitution to be paid by the CEO

creator of the scheme than his co-conspirator.49 The creator of the scheme was ordered to pay

118 times more restitution than his co-conspirator.5°

45 http://wvvw.sltrib.com/home/2656452-155/taxpayers-off-the-hook-gov-herbert46 See 18 U.S.C. § 3664(h).47 United States v. Luis, 765 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2014).48 Id. at 28 internal citations omitted49 Id.5° See also United States v. Nucci, 364 F.3d 419, 422 (2nd Cir. 2004) (Co-defendants wereapportioned a far smaller amount of restitution than the organizer of the scheme who wasordered to pay full restitution).

13

In United States v. Mato s, 611 F.3d 31, 44-45 (1st Cir. 2010) thirteen co-defendants were

charged with conspiracy and aiding and abetting in a mortgage fraud scheme. The court

apportioned restitution amongst the co-defendants based upon their differing levels of

contribution to the victim's loss. The court ordered eleven of the co-defendants to pay restitution

in amounts ranging from $10,000 to $1,293,858. Two of the co-conspirator defendants were not

required to pay any restitution.

In United States v. Mason, 2011 WL 863491 (W.D. VA 2011), four defendants were

charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States. At sentencing the court apportioned

restitution finding that the two individuals that were the organizers and conceived the scheme to

defraud were responsible for the entire amount of restitution. The co-conspirators who had a

lower level of contribution to the victim's loss were apportioned restitution of 7% of the total

amount.

In United States v. Koch and Johnson, Case No. 4:10-cr-0048 (N.D. OK 2010)(Dkt. 105),

the defendants were convicted of conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States by

inter alia, defrauding the Bank of Oklahoma. The court noted that it had the ability "to take a

defendant's level of contribution to the total loss into account and apportion the loss accordingly

among multiple co-defendants."51 The court found that the two co-defendants had different

levels of contribution in the conspiracy. In determining the co-defendants level of contribution it

found that an individual's motivation for involvement in the crime was relevant to the nature of

the offense.52 The court specifically found that one co-defendant was a key actor in the

51 Koch, Case No. 4:10-cr-0048 (Dkt. 105 at 15).52 Id. at 16.

14

fraudulent scheme and received a direct financial benefit from the scheme. The organizer was

ordered to pay the full amount of restitution. The co-defendant who played a less active role in

the conspiracy and did not participate in the initial stages of the conspiracy was ordered to pay

$100,000 of the total $1,400,000 in restitution.

In United States v. Smith, et. al., Case No. 3:08-cr-00031 (E.D. KY 2011), six co-

conspirators were charged with conspiracy to commit mail fraud. The court, pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 3664(h) made a determination as to each co-conspirators level of contribution to the

conspiracy in determining the appropriate amount of restitution each conspirator was to pay.

The organizer of the conspiracy and the individual that received the most benefit from the

conspiracy was ordered to pay 40% of the restitution. The remaining amount of restitution was

divided amongst the other five co-conspirators each being responsible for 12% of the total

amount.

In United States v. Burstenin et. al., Case No 4:06-cr-0072 (E.D. Ark. 2006), the court

apportioned liability for restitution amongst six co-defendants who were charged with aiding and

abetting one another in a scheme to steal trade secrets from a corporation. The organizer of the

criminal acts and the individual that reaped most of the financial benefit from the scheme was

ordered by the court to pay restitution in the full amount. Two of the co-conspirators were

found to have a lower level of contribution in the scheme and were ordered to pay $0 in

restitution. The court found that the remaining three co-defendants played a role in stealing trade

secrets but that they did not bear the same culpability as the organizer. The court found that the

three co-defendants' actions were at the request of their boss and organizer of the criminal

15

scheme. Even though the three co-defendants were convicted of offenses that involved aiding

and abetting the organizer they were apportioned restitution in the amount of $1 each.

Like the cases cited above, apportionment of restitution to Wells is appropriate given his

significantly lower level of contribution to the conspiracy when compared to Lyman's

contribution.

If restitution is to be awarded, this is an appropriate case to apportion that restitution.

Wells involvement in this matter is much less when compared to the organizational effort put

forth by Lyman. It is Lyman who introduced the idea for a protest ride at a town hall meeting he

hosted. It is Lyman who worked with government officials to organize, plan, and carry out the

protest. It is Lyman who addressed the large gathering of protesters on May 9, 2014 and

May 10, 2014.

IV. CONCLUSION

The government has failed to establish that Wells is responsible for any restitution based

upon his involvement in the May 10, 2014 ride. The government has failed to offer any evidence

of when and who committed the alleged damage in Recapture Canyon. The government cannot

inform the Court of who was in the Canyon during 16 unaccounted for days. The conspiracy

ended when Wells and Lyman reached the end of the pipeline trail and the government has failed

to offer any evidence of who rode past the turnaround point and show whether they were

members of the conspiracy. Recapture Canyon has been in use for over 120 years resulting in an

/ / /

/ / /

16

impact in the Canyon. Therefore, the government has not met its burden to establish that

restitution is owing. Wells should not be ordered to pay any restitution.

DATED this 10th day of August, 2015.

SNOW, CHRISTENSEN & MARTINEAU

By: N THAN A. C NAttorney for Defendant

17

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 10th day of August, 2015, a true copy of the foregoing MONTEWELLS POSITION REGARDING RESTITUTION was electronically filed with the Clerk ofthe Court using the CM/ECF System to the following:

Jared BennettLake DishmanAttorneys for the United States of AmericaSuite 300185 South State StreetSalt Lake City, Utah 84111

3327607

( ) U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid( ) Hand Delivered( ) Overnight Mail( ) Facsimile(X) Electronic Filing

/s/ MKu

18

EXHIBIT A

/.7.nre•

Q ATV ital6uriNel

ELIO; to;

• um Afc,noole;I:al Ste

BooItior,-1kOckfah SIN

)North End Site A

*-----NI?rth End Site El

~ Ledge Asthi!ecluraSite

Steep 1.1111SO" g

_/ J-4 Sleep HillEtrowes

► 4

^ Canym Siter 84. ei 9Ite B

*arm

Ingtood Symbol.: wy. Ap.r ING ..rw Tenn Vik

BOO )w• GM' F):Olt ;N.+. ,r

go:411,141 'ml Ihrut 4-2-1nrwlanrue. ree,,a r:: :UVrat 4.1.eft ::• •01•T11.43013, • 1111[....

ul•r• 'rat 5.1.1 raft U. Iff tlrtto Z•pin d C(14,

M•Iro

112! CIO as D—I W I

1 n -

eases

Recapture Canyonell. Damage Assessment

635000103•20.0.W 109.23.0-W

638000103.200-33

6330001..25018/

.0000 s4i000-- 10934V34

ti

\ Cmlonnral Pan.Bla iding UT

GP

Bouitiefi•Rockfish Site>,

Steep Hill Site C

Steep Hill

•

North End Site A

rth End Site B

ectureSite B

Stoop HillSIM E

Sloop Hill/SIeD

Steep Hill Site B

51e'aver Pond Site

,

013000'seams63000 635000

CI AN Trail Start Rein! =

Ig Staging and parking area

• BLM Archaeological Site

1032838W636000

Legend Symbols

(083633000

Coordinate System: NAO 1903 VMS Zone 1231San Juan Coanty Roads projection: Transverse Mercator

Oak.: North Amed.n 1983Recapture TrailFalse EaSting: 500.000.0000

Maior Highway Fake Northing. 0.0000Central:-111.0000

Rim Trail Scale Factor:0.9996Lab.. Of Origin: 0.0000

Old Road Units: Mel.

638000

0.125 0.25

639000

0.5 0.75HI I-1

1 in =1.250 feet

Mike

109.25.0V640000 641000

Recapture CanyonBLM Damage Assessment

'6'11777;'13aaten PathMaps

- .otbpmaps.com

to

g

5

EXHIBIT B

NATHAN A. CRANE (Bar No. 10165)SNOW, CHRISTENSEN & MARTINEAU10 Exchange Place, Eleventh FloorPost Office Box 45000Salt Lake City, Utah 84145Telephone: (801) 521-9000Fax No.: (801) 363-0400

Attorney for Monte Jerome Wells

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MONTE JERMOE WELLS,

Defendant.

DECLARATION OF FERD JOHNSON

Case No. 2:14CR00470 RS

Judge Robert Shelby

FERD JOHNSON declares as follows:

1 I am over the age of eighteen (18) years old and the following is true of my own

personal knowledge.

2. I have been a resident of Blanding, Utah for fifty-five (55) years.

3. I worked as a Surveyor and Field Engineer for the Utah Department of Transportation

from 1958 to 1987 in San Juan County, Utah.

4. As part of my duties with the Utah Department of Transportation, I assisted with the

construction of the dam in Recapture Canyon in 1985 to 1986.

5. I have been an employee of the San Juan County Water Conservancy District since

1987. I was on the Board of Directors from 1993 until 2002.

6. During my employment with Utah Department of Transportation and with the San

Juan County Water Conservancy District, I was aware of the pipeline that was put in

Recapture Canyon, which is approximately three miles of the canyon.

7. I understand the San Juan County Water Conservancy District has a right-of-way in

the Recapture Canyon that is approximately 50 feet wide that runs along the pipeline.

8. My current duties for the San Juan County Water Conservancy District include

maintenance of the pipeline in Recapture Canyon. As part of :my duties, I travel the

Recapture Canyon pipeline trail once a week on my ATV or pickup truck checking

for leaks in the pipeline, reading the meters and winding the clock in the pump house.

9. Since my employment with the San Juan County Water Conservancy District, I have

traveled the pipeline trail over three hundred times.

10. During my weekly ride through Recapture Canyon, if a leak iis located, I hire a

plumber to repair the leaks. The plumber will travel the pipeline trail in a pickup

truck in order to reach the area to •be repaired.

11. I have traveled and hunted in Recapture Canyon since 1960. I first traveled the

canyon in a Jeep and was able to travel the canyon from the top of the canyon to the

bottom.

12. In the early 1970s, before the dam was constructed in Recapture Canyon, there was

significant flooding that occurred in the canyon. Most of the .flood damage occurred

in the Southern portion of Recapture Canyon South of the turnaround point for the

2

current pipeline trait The flood was severe enough that it washed out the trail in the

canyon.

13. After the protest ride .on May 10, 2014, I ran my usual route through Recapture

Canyon on the pipeline trail to check for leaks, check the meter and wind the clock in

the pump house. During my ride through the canyon, I did not see any damage to the

trail nor did .I see that anyone had driven their ATV off of the trail.

I declare under criminal penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

DA1ED this 3 / clay of May 2015.

FERD JOIINSESN

3

EXHIBIT C

NATHAN A. CRANE (Bar No. 10165)SNOW, CHRISTENSEN & MARTINEAU10 Exchange Place, Eleventh FloorPost Office Box 45000Salt Lake City, Utah 84145Telephone: (801) 521-9000Fax No.: (801) 363-0400

Attorney for Monte Jerome Wells

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MONTE JEROME WELLS,

Defendant.

DECLARATION OF DAN SHUMWAY

Case No. 2:14CR00470 RS

Judge Robert Shelby

DAN SHUMWAY declares as follows:

1. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years old and the following is true of my own

personal knowledge.

2. I have been a resident of Blanding, Utah since 1971.

3. In 1989, I staked a gold mine claim in Recapture Canyon, which is approximately one

mile below the Recapture dam. (See map attached hereto as Exhibit A.)

4. In June 1991, I received approval for the Plan of Operations for my Lucky and

Golden Chantz gold mine in Recapture Canyon.

5. As part of my operation for the gold mine, I excavated and processed sand and gravel

to obtain gold.

6. I used a variety of large equipment in my mining operation including front end

loaders, dump trucks, wash plants, a Bobcat Loader used to excavate the material, a

D-4 Caterpillar Dozer with a nine foot blade, a diesel tractor and dump trailer to haul

the materials to the wash site, and a sluice box for processing with water. I traveled

to the gold mine in my pickup truck. (See photographs of the equipment attached

hereto as Exhibit B).

7. Most of my mining activities took place within the area that was closed in 2007 to

pedestrian motor vehicle use. After the 2007 closure I was allowed by the BLM to

continue my mining activities using the equipment listed above.

8. When I received my mining rights in Recapture Canyon, the BLM conducted a

riparian assessment. The BLM determined that my large mining activities would cost

approximately $1,000 to reclaim. Consequently I was required to pay a $1,000

reclamation bond to the BLM.

9. In November 2009 I finished the reclamation work from my mining activities. I

completed the reclamation of the entire mining site for less than $800. My

reclamation work was inspected and approved by the BLM.

10, During my time working the mine in Recapture Canyon water was often released

from the Recapture dam into Recapture Canyon. The Recapture dam is located on

the upper North side of Recapture Canyon. In October 1993, a significant amount of

water was released from the Recapture dam into Recapture Canyon. The water

2

released caused extensive damage to the existing access road in Recapture Canyon.

The water covered my loader half way up and had the potential to destroy my dozer

and dump truck. The release of the water prevented me from accessing my mine and

the BLM had to provide an alternate access route to the mine (See Staff Report

attached hereto as Exhibit C). The water that was released in October 1993 caused

much damage in Recapture Canyon.

I declare under criminal penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

DATED this 3 rd day of July 2015.

DAN SHUMWAY

3

EXHIBIT A

U

KLITA6351— ° 6365 T

L r

4

•

111

27' 30"

,/'

r.

' -

e -

s,..„,/ f

,

11 •

it

; \

•

637

• 1-6,?\,...r

--

S.

(.4

1

638

SCALE 1:24 000o

1

I

• A

•

f-,.-

• :„3- _

Mi\ P639

EXHIBIT B

40111L

1.44)

P.2.5624

7

79' r

---P7

9'77 3-V-2-,2./-44 -57/A1&(,4

,-,-c2c/ad

( 0-1 b S -?

2,./4/1,) PV

-14770/ 51 Xrgi

-- 0D?-7

- 43

("7 '71v,,

p>07 .

../r

y_sl

p 94

Lucky/Golden Chantz Reclamation. Equipment has been removed from the small site andthe site has been graded and topsolled.

Inspecus,u Date: June 3,

2009

Page

3 of 4

S/03

7/00

64

Ted nex

t to trammel

1594 West Nor

th Tem

ple,

Suit

e 12

10, PO Box 145801, Sa

lt Lake City, UT 841

14-5

801

tele

phon

e (80

1)53

8-53

40 • fa

csimile (80

1) 359-3940. TTY (80

1) 538-

7458

. www.

ozot

tuah

.Rov

Loading area with sluice equipment

InspeL..un Dat

e: Jun

e 3, 2009

Page

4 of 4

S/03

7/00

64

On top

_ -

-

Misc. equipment

1594 Wes

t North Temple, S

uite

121

0, PO Box

145801, Sa

lt Lak

e Ci

ty, UT 84114-5801

telephone (801) 538-5340 • fa

csim

ile (80

1) 35

9-3940 • TTY (80

1) 538-

7458

• 1,

W. ORM, wah.zov

Top of lo

ading area

Lem

;7;7!

,2

q v

Day, 5h uotuza c

f ice.' O

fertzterk?

1,7

it'e

.r_4

1?-fz

,r-e.-

_ Mt

tier

1.ie IS

IL

S-to

-t —90-tetLE

eicZtr,

S,viar1 -4

-rae

„CI

dL, (1 -Ow

e., gilti

ej

1.5

L-e_ce 7 /04"

1/741 1-'

4.5^

s (axe,'

-e?

n ove O

t/e-e- ciz

e- MA-ft:eta Uzwe, Lef4-)

,eAta

,jz

' • ••••• L.,#1-4.1-x4titlir

• •

kl•:.".0.4,bw' • -

/-/--2 9- ;e/1714-ileriat 12.e-ezeef iqz> 77? e.i V 47Leoy2

.. ---114.6 Is- aft-tely/oC-.( 410 ZCZ76-1/ r);-7 0- 7 ,

riigiered /.5cAri, ,1(.

• •

v1nti 'y't'•

• '•

•-; •%.1

/1-,2 9- 9 2_

ifi:alefel-

itirtt-

_S-4/(

c_6

ces- ke.e

47 4rid

5,11,41/

apz, dayved

fm

( s

u.iz

s-hgef z4

-/-z)

,,s5/u/

ce_

.64,/ 11

4241

,

144:1,V ,

-,c1cW25

7-"P'

1-2-p-21011a4alt'd

1-nze-r4 4914,

97p /1"41-5

C4A-2 /;7 21) ?WN'S ll-tfr,151 57 /

73-'95 r'?"715.17

lly.vzs

P—,71/5Q1R/Z7s ije

g74271,

1e4

Pf ',I'M') zifW

)..9i-d Z

--4Z-'47

EXHIBIT C

STAFF REPORTSJ-91-03P(U-069)

TITLE: Water discharge from the Recapture Reservoir and impacts to downstreamMining Operation of Dan Shumway.

DATE: October 22, 1993

Dan Shumway, owner and operator of the Golden and Lucky Chantz mining claims inRecapture Creek, came in the office today to express his concern about the recent dischargeof water from the Re9apture Reservoir. Dan said the water discharged sometime wednesdaycaused appreciable damage to the existing access into his operation. The water also coveredhis loader approximately half way and had the potential to destroy other property, includingheavy equipment (cat, dump truck ect.) The mine is a placer operation and as such requiresexcavation directly in the active stream channel (when dry). This presents not only a threatto personal property but to personal safety as well. Part of the damage caused was erosionof the road at the culvert. Dan was very upset that he had to bear the cost of repairing iteach time the Water Consevancy District (WCD) decided to release water. This is the secondtime that the WCD has discharged large volumes (high energy) water below the dam and intoRecapture Creek without giving prior notification to Dan. The last time (early Spring) the BLMhad to provide an alternate access route into the mine.

I called Mr. Bud Nielson of the WCD to talk about the situation. Apparently, the State of UtahDam Safety Committee of the Division of Water Right, Department of Natural Resources,requires testing of the facility occasionally. Mr. Nielson said he had talked to Dan and hadtold him that he would give advanced notice before releasing water from the Dam in thefuture. He also said he would send a letter to the State apprising them of the situation. Irequested a copy of the letter and he agreed. However, he stated that he didn't feel it wasthe responsibility of the WCD to replace the culvert or repair the road when damage occurs.He said that was a natural phenomenon beyond their control. I agreed that natural stormevents are uncontrollable but that in my opinion, damage caused by the release of largevolumes of water for testing purposes is avoidable with proper mitigation.

I was unable to get in touch with anyone at the State Engineers office. I left a message andMark Page will return call.

Both parties have rights on public lands. The WCD is authorized under a Right-of-Way for theRecapture Dam and facilities, and Dan Shumway has an approved Mining and ReclamationPlan.

It appears that Dan Shumway has a legitimate concern to protect his interests but it is notclear what the BLM role would be in resolving the situation. The following are someconsiderations to keep in mind:

1. BLM must provide reasonable access to the Shumway operation.

2. Does the WCD R-O-W contain provisions to protect downstream users? The

5. If the situation over access maintenance can't be resolved, Dan inquired aboutconstructing an alternate access on the west side of the Creek to eliminate allcrossings. This would require significant new surface disturbance andadditional costs to the operator.

itet.44' 014) AC-4,te

)t& can(-1

following may apply:

General Stip. #1 of the R-0-W requires compliance with all terms andconditions of 43 CFR Part 2800. Regulation at 43 CFR 2801.2 (3) states "Torebuild and repair roads...that may be destroyed or damaged by construction,operation or maintenance of the project and to ... maintain... existing roads...that intersect the project". Additionally, Unnecessary or undue degradation isdefined at 43 CFR 2800.0-5 as "surface disturbance greater than that whichwould normally result when the same or a similar activity is being accomplishedby a prudent person... that takes into consideration the effects ... on otherresources and land uses, including those resources and uses outside the areaof activity...".

3. The EA prepared for the Recapture Dam project stated that flood damage fromhigh discharges would be eliminated (This is of course not the case).Therefore, no mitigation was required.

4. When the EA was prepared for the Mining Operation, the State of Utah wasvery critical about the damage to riparian areas and potential stream alteration.It is very evident that the water discharge is causing much greater damage toresources than the mining operation (including the beaver dams).

Vi4A/aL-'-f ,

• a/eCiOct.,--,a(0-eC ke/t,A,a.

.,CzAut„..)

EXHIBIT D

CASE FILE COPY

Form 4130-2a

(February 1999)

UNITED STATESDEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIORBUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

GRAZING PERMIT

mo

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

MONTICELLO FO435 N MAIN PO BOX 7MONTICELLO UT 84535

AUTH NUMBER: 4306614DATE PRINTED: 5/20/2009

STATE_ UTOFFICE LLUTY02000AUTH NUMBER 4306614PREFERENCE CODE 03DATE PRINTED 05/20/2009TERM 05/13/2009 TO 02/28/2019

BLUFF RIVER RANCH LLCCfQ GUYMON, PARK4085 ECCLES-OGDEN: UT 84403

THIS GRAZING PERMIT IS OFFERED TO YOU UNDER 43 CFR PART 4100 BASED ON YOUR RECOGNIZED QUALIFICATIONS.YOU ARE AUTHORIZED TO MAKE GRAZING USE OF LANDS, UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENTAND'COVERED BY THIS GRAZING PERMIT, UPON YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS GRAZINGPERMIT AND PAYMENT OF GRAZING FEES WHEN DUE.CONTACT YOUR LOCAL BLM OFFICE AT 435-587-1500 .IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS.

MANDATORY TERMS AND CONDITIONS

ALLOTMENT PASTURE

06815 EAST LEAGUE06806 BULLDOG

06815 EAST LEAGUE

LIVESTOCK

NUMBER KIND

339 CATTLE62 CATTLE

300 CATTLE339 CATTLE

GRAZING PERIOD BEGIN END % PLTYPE USE

03/01 05/1506/01 09/3005/18 06/1011/01 02/28

53 ACTIVE100 ACTIVE50 ACTIVE53 ACTIVE

AUMS

449

249118709

OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS:

THIS PERMIT IS THE RESULT OF A TP FER OP GRAZING PREFERENCE APPROVED

5/13/2009.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 325, TITLE 111. H.R. 2691, DEPARTMENT OF THE

INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004 (P.D. 108-1083,

WHICH WAS ENACTED ON 11/10/03, THIS GRAZING PERMIT IS RENEWED UNDER

SECTION 402 OF THE FEDERAL LAND POLICY AND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1976,

AS AMENDED (43 U.S.C. 1752). IN ACCORDANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 108-108

THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN THE EXPIRED OR TRANSFERRED

PERMIT RAVE SEEN INCORPORATED INTO THIS PERMIT AND SHALL CONTINUE II

EFFECT UNDER THE. RENEWED PERMIT UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE SECRETARY OF

THE INTERIOR COMPLETES PROCESSING OF THIS PERMIT IN COMPLIANCE WITH

ALL APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS, AT WHICH TIME THIS PERMIT MAY BE

CANCELED, SUSPENDED CR MODIFIED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, TO MEET THE

REQUIREMENTS OF SUCH APPLICABLE LAWS AL REGULATIONS.

GRAZING MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WILL COMPLY WITH STANDARDS POR RANGELAND

HEALTH AND GUIDELINES FOR GRAZING MANAGEMENT FOR.BLM LANDS IN UTAH

(1997)

YOU MUST PAY YOUR BILL WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THE DUE DATE OR YOUlgILL BE

CHARGED A LATE FEE OF 10% OF THE BILL AMOUNT (NOT LESS THAN $25 OR

MORE THAN $250). TRESPASS ACTION NAY BE TAKEN IF YOU DON'T PAY THE

BILL WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DUE DATE.

YOU MAY NOT FEED PROTEIN SUPPLEMENTS, SALT-GRAIN MIXTURES, HAY, AND/OROTHER ROUGHAGE ON THE PUBLIC LANDS UNLESS YOU HAVE THE AUTHORIZATION

OF THE FIELD KANAGER.

CASE FILE COPY

YOU MUST SUBMiT ANACTUAL USE GRAZING REPORT TO THE ELM WITHIN 15 DAYS

AFTER THE END OF THE GRAZING UST, PERIOD.

RANGE IMPROVEMENTS ASSIGNED IN COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS AND RANGE IM-

PROVEMENT PERMITS MUST BE MAINTAINED IN USABLE CONDITION PRIOR TO

LIVESTOCIC USE EACH YEAR. CONSTRUCTION OF NEW RANGE IMPROVEMENTS ON

BLM LANDS IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE FIELD MANAGER.

AUTH NUMBER: 4306614DATE PRINTED: 5/20/2009

ALLOTMENT SUMMARY (AUMS)

ALLOTMENT ACTIVE AUMS SUSPENDED AUMS TEMP SUSPENDED AUMS GRAZING PREFERENCE

06806 BULLDOG 368 0 0 36806815 EAST LEAGUE 1160 0 0 1,160

CASE FILE COPY AUTF1 NUMBER: 4306614DATE PRINTED: 5/20/2009

1. Grazing permit or lease terms and conditions and the fees charged for grazing use are established in accordance with the provisions of the grazing regulationsnow or hereafter approved by the Secretary of the Interior.

2. They are subject to cancellation, in whole or in part, at any time because of:a. Noncompliance by the permitteeilessee with rules and regulations.b. Loss of control by the perrnittee/lessee of all or a part of the property upon which it is based,c. A transfer of grazing preference by the permittee/lessee to another party.d. A decrease in the lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management within the allotment(s) described.e. Repeated willfUt unauthorized grazing use.f. Loss of qualifications to hold a permit or lease.

3. They are subject to the terms and conditions of allotment management plans if such plans have been prepared. Allotment management plans MUST beincorporated in permits or leases when completed.

4. Those holding permits or leases MUST own or control and be responsible for the management of livestock authorized to graze.

5. The authorized officer may require counting and/or additional or special marking or tagging of the livestock authorized to graze.

6. The permittee's/lessee's grazing case file is available for public inspection as required by the Freedom of Information Act.

7. Grazing permits or leases are subject to the nondiscrimination clauses set forth in Executive Order 11246 of September.24, 1964. as amended. A copy of thisorder may be obtained from the authorized officer.

8. Livestock grazing use that is different from that authorized by a permit or lease MUST be applied for'prior to the grazing period and MUST be filed with andapproved by the authorized officer before grazing use can be made.

9, Billing notices are issued which specify fees due. Billing notices, when paid, become a part of the grazing permit or lease. Grazing use cannot be authorizedduring any period of delinquency in the payment of amounts due, including settlement for unauthorized use.

10. Grazing fee payments are due on the date specified on the billing notice and MUST be paid in full withirt 15 days of the due date, except as otherwise-provided in the grazing permit or lease. If payment.is not made within that time frame, a late fee (the greater of $25 or 10 percent of the amount owed but notmore than $250) will be assessed.

11, No Member of, or Delegate to, Congress or Resident Commissioner, after his/her election of appointment or either before or after he/elle has qualified, andduring nis/her continuance in office. and no officer, agent or employee of the Department of the Interior, other than members of Advisory committees appointed inaccordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App,1) and Sections 309 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. .1701 et seq.) shall be admitted to any share or part in a permit or lease, or derive any benefit to arise therefrom: and the provision of Section'3741 RevisedStatute (41 U,S.C. 22), la U.S.C. Sections 431-433, and 43 CFR Part 7, enter into and form a part of a grazing permit or lease, so far as the same may beapplicable.

THIS GRAZING PERMIT:1. CONVEYS NO RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST HELD BY THE UNITED STATES IN ANY LANDS OR RESOURCES

2. IS SUBJECT TO (A) MODIFICATION, SUSPENSION OR CANCELLATION AS REQUIRED BY LAND PLANS AND APPLICABLELAW, (B) ANNUAL REVIEW AND MODIFICATION OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS APPROPRIATE: AND (C) THE TAYLOR GRAZINGACT, AS AMENDED, THE FEDERAL LAND POLICY AND MANAGEMENT ACT, AS AMENDED, THE PUBLIC RANGELANDS IMPROVEMENTACT. AND THE RULES AND REGULATIONS NOW OR HEREAFTER PROMULGATED THEREUNDER BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.

„g.am

—ACCEPTED:SIGNATOFF1 OF FERMITTP..,

APPROVEDBLM AUTHORIZED 0 CER

DAT

DATE ) Dq

tI) _

344

'...k, , __fibb__ .-••P._.___.

-7--_•1 — 3 ..

4-2, 4' .., Pfl• '

--

.... MI

911 7

.____....__....-

. . ..--

/

..,.- f . 8 •

19 10

-..

i,,,_.(, .1 'Iik..

t' 4.4,r / 18

,• / I i 1)74..- 16 15

115 -

----C

f'

j._ ...10 ,

Q...•

."‘.-- uu_ob ..-

k;:,s. q ,,,- '

' ,

,

-. _;;;Lto _.. _ __-_-- .,

" • 5382

• .

)

CC)

Cir) ,21;

,,,,,

C..',„

....

Plinenti

,•

k.iV I

1 •

a

•

,4

, /

il

% [trwlP

i•-,.,:,,,,

_

/

_ __..-/

21

.i'1

.

•,./.,-

.

22

iv.

, ...- ' -.- - '-'-• -).-- ii,---_ _

..i•

, i-i

Ilii•, — \ 'ii , - - •

1 , .,, V..

44,9 ^

27

3I, - 1 i—,

-11.1.26

Blfin . /

,P,("1( ,'! .

-

. \1.,•\--\ ----4-

I

- ----,--,-.1. - , •

0.<7!--4-, 7aie

•...i ,_,,...4 , . ,, '1".>

1 / ))I .." c•-,

.-

; . , . .•• •• .

•I 35

.A ,

,--.1

32.. • , ', t C''

'134

031 0.)

( ( '• •,

..I., 41

I b 1 4I

i ?' • . .

—.;•••••,-;34B-li‘1 ; ..

)-4-----.... ..._

..,- •• 1

1

. . • --.... ,

t

•

• .' 6 • • .

• 2

a'

*q •..0

.

•4 - .

/3

4.•

• \ ',-' \

t.:.,, ',:'• ,

'-•i-=.---,

••

41 )10--4-t - _

' 31. . •;

il

,.

•.,.;•7_ .1/45.f..1

''.4 .11 • 12-.

-.-.

1 ' ',-.

i "

,‘..901.

la # r I--C)

t.,BLM

Monticello Field Office mnimmly'''' • k,b•c...Y.

i In

.

\...ial.

„.-

C

1. Legend 0 0'.5 1 Miles

Land Status E IN

___ -___,

Z 17

--in aa .

i

16 : 5

]ut_Igd N

Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

Indian Reservation (IR)

National Park Service (NPS)

Private 1:65,000State

24'iii.,

ck....

.

i1 -I r

1 '1,,../

W'IITEMESA ',1

t..s.>.,'

•ss

1 20! -'''

(

21,

r.

I

22 I

1i-\ t

.3,

US Forest Service (USFS) Date: 3/19/2015

This product may 1701 meet BLAI standards for accuracy and content

Different data .50111CCS and input scales may cause some misalignment

at layers. No warranty is made by Me Bureau of Land Afanagement

.for the use of the data for purposes not intended by the BLI.

'7

,.., _

25 '.7•

_„.._. ___ ___.,t,_ ..---- . r

//,/

72:,,

.., -------1--\

i 4\.5

- fir 1 ' ) %,.. - li, /'

CASE. FILE COPY AUTH NUMBER: 4306615

DATE PRINTED: 4/19/2010

Form 4130-2a(February 1999)

UNITED STATESDEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIORBUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

GRAZING PERMIT

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENTMONTICELLO FO435 N MAIN PO BOX 7MONTICELLO UT 84535

STATE UTOFFICE LLLITY02000AUTH NUMBER 4306615PREFERENCE CODE 03.DATE PRINTED 04/19/2010TERM 03/01/2010 TO 02/28/2020

ADAMS LIVESTOCK CO.C/O KEITH IVINS280 E.APPLE LNBLANDING UT 84511

THIS GRAZING PERMIT IS OFFERED TO YOU UNDER 43 CFR PART 4100 BASED ON YOUR RECOGNIZED QUALIFICATIONS.

YOU ARE AUTHORIZED TO MAKE GRAZING USE OF LANDS, UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE BUREAU. OF LAND MANAGEMENT

AND COVERED BY THIS GRAZING PERMIT, UPON YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CF THIS GRAZINGPERMIT AND PAYMENT OF GRAZING FEES WHEN DUE.

CONTACT YOUR LOCAL BLM OFFICE AT 435-587-1500 IF YOu HAVE QUESTIONS.

MANDATORY. TERMS AND. CONDITIONS

ALLOTMENT PASTURE

06840 WHITE MESA

LIVESTOCK

NUMBER KIND

719 CATTLE

719 CATTLE12 HORSE

12 HORSE

BEGIN END: / PL TYPE USE

03/01

12/0103/01

12/01

05/31: :100 ACTIVE

02/28 100 ACTIVE

05/31 100 ACTIVE

02/28 100 ACTIVE

AUMS

2175

212736

36

OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS:.

THIS PERMIT IS ISSUED UNDER AUTHORITY OF SEC. 325, TITLE III, H R.

2691 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS

ACT, 2004 (P.L. 108-108), WHICH WAS ENACTED ON 11/10/03. IN ACCORDANCE

WITH SECTIONS 106 AND 150 OF PUBLIC LAW 110-329 ENACTED 9/30/08 (FY

2009 CONTINUING RESOLUTION). THIS GRAZING PERMIT IS RENEWED UNDER

SECTION 402 OF THE FEDERAL LAND POLICY AND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1976,

U.S AMENDED (43 U.S.C. 1732). IN ACCORDANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 108-108

THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN THE EXPIRED OR TRANSFERRED

PERMIT HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THIS PERMIT AND SHALL CONTINUE

IN EFFECT UNDER THE RENEWED PERMIT UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE SECRETARY

OF THE INTERIOR COMPLETES PROCESSING OF THIS PERMIT IN COMPLIANCE

WITH ALL. APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS, AT WHICH TIME THIS PERMIT

MAY BE CANCELED, SUSPENDED OR MODIFIED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, TO MEET

THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUCH APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS.

GRAZING MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WILL COMPLY WITH STANDARDS FOR RANGELAND

HEALTH AND GUIDELINES FOR GRAZING MANAGEMENT FOR BLM LANDS IN UTAH

(1997)

YOU MUST PAY YOUR BILL WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THE DUE DATE OR YOU WILL BE

CHARGED A LATE FEE. OF 11)% OF THE BILL AMOUNT (NOT LESS THAN $25 OR

MORE TENN $2501. TRESPASS ACTION MAY BE TAKEN IF YOU DON'T PAY THE

BILL WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DUE .DATE.

YOU MAY NOT FEED PROTEIN SUPPLEMENTS, SALT-GRAIN MIXTURES, HAY, AND/OR

OTHER ROUGHAGE ON THE PUBLIC LANDS UNLESS YOU HAVE THE AUTHORIZATION

OF THE FIELD MANAGER.

CASE FILE COPY AUTH NUMBER: 4306615

DATE PRINTED: 4/19/2010

YOU MUST SUBMIT AN ACTUAL USE GRAZING REPORT TO THE BLM WITHIN 15 DAYS

AFTER THE END OF THE GRAZING USE PERIOD.

RANGE IMPROVEMENTS ASSIGNED IN COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS AND RANGE IM-

PROVEMENT PERMITS MUST BE MAINTAINED IN USABLE CONDITION PRIOR TO

LIVESTOCK USE EACH YEAR. CONSTRUCTION OF NEW RANGE IMPROVEMENTS. ON

BLM LANDS IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE FIELD MANAGER.

ALLOTMENT SUMMARY (AUMSa

ALLOTMENT ACTIVE AUMS SUSPENDED AUMS TEMP, SUSPENDED AUMS GRAZING* PREFERENCE

06840 WHITE MESA 4374 3932 0 8,306

CASE FILE COPY AUTH NUMBER: 4306615DATE PRINTED: 4/19/20101. Grazing permit or lease terms and conditions and the fees charged for grazing use are established in accordance with the provisions of the grazing regulationsnow or hereafter approved by the Secretary of the Interior.

2. They are subject to cancellation, in whole or in part, at any time because of:a. Noncompliance by the permitteeriessee with rules and regulations.b. Loss of control by the permitteeriessee of all or a part of the property upon which it is based.c. A transfer of grazing preference by the permittee/lessee to another party.d. A decrease in the lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management within the allotment(s) described.e. Repeated willful unauthorized grazing use.f. Loss of qualifications to hold a permit or lease.

3. They are subject to the terms and conditions of allotment management plans if such plans have been prepared. Allotmen management plans MUST beincorporated in permits or leases when completed.

4. Those holding permits or leases MUST own or control and be responsible for the management of livestock authorized to graze.

5. The authorized officer may require counting and/or additional or special marking or tagging of the livestock authorized to graze.

6. The permittee'sfiessee's grazing ease file is available for public inspection as required by the Freedom of Infcirmation Act.

7. Grazing permits or leases are subject to the nondiscrimination clauses set forth in Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1964, as amended. A copy of thisorder may be obtained from the authorized officer..

8. Livestock grazing use that is different from that authorized by a permit or lease MUST be applied for prior to the grazing period and MUST be filed with and-approved by the authorized officer before grazing use can be made.

9. Billing notices are issued which specify fees due. Billing notices, when paid, become a part of the grazing permit or lease. Grazing use cannot be authorizedduring any period of delinquency in the payment of amounts due, including settlement for unauthorized use.

10. Grazing fee payments are due on the date specified on the billing notice and MUST be paid in full within 15 days of the due date, except as otherwiseprovided in the grazing permit or lease. If payment is not made within that time frame, a late fee (the greater of $25 or 10 percent of the amount owed but notmore than $250) will be assessed.

11. No. Member of, or Delegate to, Congress or Resident Commissioner, after his/her election of appointment, or either before or after he/she has qualified, andduring his/her continuance in office, and no officer, agent or employee of the Department of the Interior, other than members of Advisory committees appointed inaccordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.1) and Sections 309 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.1701 et seq.) shall be admitted to any share or part in a pent* or lease, or derive any benefit to arise therefrom; and the provision of Section 3741 RevisedStatute (41 U.S.C, 22), 18 U.S.C. Sections 431-433, and 43 CFR Part 7, enter into and form a part of a grazing permit or lease, so far as the same may`beapplicable.

THIS GRAZING PERMIT:1. CONVEYS NO RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST HELD BY THE UNITED STATES IN ANY LANDS OR RESOURCES

2. IS SUBJECT TO (A) MODIFICATION, SUSPENSION OR CANCELLATION AS REQUIRED BY LAND PLANS AND APPLICABLELAVV: (B) ANNUAL REVIEW AND MODIFICATION OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS APPROPRIATE; AND (C) THE TAYLOR_GRAZINGACT, AS AMENDED, THE FEDERAL LAND POLICY AND MANAGEMENT ACT, AS AMENDED, THE PUBLIC RANGELANDS IMPROVEMENTACT, AND THE RULES AND REGULATIONS NOW OR HEREAFTER PROMULGATED THEREUNDER BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.

ACCEPTEDSIGNATURE OF PERMITTEE

APPROVEDSIN AUTHORIZED OFF CER::

DATE : .41a-S 0 /

EXHIBIT E

SAN JUAN HEALTH SERVICE bISTRICTBOAR!) MEETING

FEBRUARY 27, 2014SIHSb CONFERENCE ROOM

MONTICELLO, UT

NAME

/)01

No Arc, tRiqu_s---:)<-)

l. t/toc,L-vA

Age •

jc

/

1‘ 0 hvA2 Alt

chki,titfik

ADDRES S

/e-',..i....?-̀ 24 6.

:72

14,„i4