DISTRICT

FILED IN UNITED STATES

UTAH
OF
COURT, DISTRICT
NATHAN A. CRANE(UT Bar No. 10165)
SNOW,CHRISTENSEN & MARTINEAU
10 Exchange Place, 11th Floor
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Telephone:(801)521-9000
Facsimile:(801)363-0400
E-mail: nac@scmlaw.com

AUG 1 0 2015
CLERK
D. MARK JONES,
BY
DEPUTY CLERK

Attorneyfor Defendant Monte Wells

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF UTAH,CENTRAL DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

FILED UNDER SEAL

MONTE WELLS'POSITION
REGARDING RESTITUTION

v.
MONTE JEROME WELLS,
Defendant.

Case No. 2:14-CR-470

Judge Robert Shelby

NATHAN A. CRANE(UT Bar No. 10165)

SNOW,CHRISTENSEN & MARTINEAU
10 Exchange Place, 11th Floor
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Telephone:(801)521-9000
Facsimile:(801)363-0400
E-mail: nac@scmlaw.com
Attorneyfor Defendant Monte Wells

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF UTAH,CENTRAL DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

FILED UNDER SEAL

MONTE WELLS'POSITION
REGARDING RESTITUTION

v.
MONTE JEROME WELLS,
Defendant.

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 In
Recapture 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 ofthe 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.

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

See Gov. Report at 4; map of Recapture Canyon showing turnaround point and locations of
alleged 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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).

United States v. Silverstein, 737 F.2d 864, 867 (10th Cir. 1984)(internal quotation marks
omitted).
7 Gov. Trial Ex. 19A.

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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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, and
locations of alleged damage in Canyon.

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 at

http://wwvv.hirforg/san-Juan-hist/san-juan-history-complete-ch1-57.pdf.

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.

Utah statehood granted January 4, 1896.

History ofSan 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.
15

16

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-cr0039-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 Than

Lyman'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
29

18 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
responsibility."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.

Gov. Trial Ex. 35A.

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.
39

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 CoDefendants

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 coconspirators 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

http://wvvw.sltrib.com/home/2656452-155/taxpayers-off-the-hook-gov-herbert
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 omitted
49 Id.
5 See also United States v. Nucci, 364 F.3d 419, 422(2nd Cir. 2004)(Co-defendants were
apportioned a far smaller amount of restitution than the organizer ofthe scheme who was
ordered to pay full restitution).
45

46 See

13

In United States v. Matos, 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 ofthe total $1,400,000 in restitution.
In United States v. Smith, et. al., Case No. 3:08-cr-00031 (E.D. KY 2011), six coconspirators 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 ofthe 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 N
Attorneyfor Defendant

17

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 10th day of August, 2015, a true copy of the foregoing MONTE
WELLS POSITION REGARDING RESTITUTION was electronically filed with the Clerk of
the Court using the CM/ECF System to the following:
Jared Bennett
Lake Dishman
Attorneys for the United States of America
Suite 300
185 South State Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

( )U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid

( )Hand Delivered
( )Overnight Mail
( )Facsimile
(X)Electronic Filing

/s/MKu
3327607

18

EXHIBIT A

BooItior,
-1kOckfah SIN
)North End Site A

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

Ledge Asthi!eclura
Site

Steep 1.1111
SO" g
_/ J-4
Etrowes

Sleep Hill

Canym Siter

. ei
84

9Ite B

/.7.nre
*arm
Ingtood Symbol.

ATV ital6uriNel
ELIO;

to;

um Afc,noole;I:al Ste

BOO )w GM' F):Olt

go:411,141'ml

ulr 'rat

ING ..rw Tenn Vik

wy. Ap.r
:
;N.+.,r
Ihrut 4-2-1nrwlan

rue. ree,,a r::

112!

I W

as

CIO

:UV

rat 4.1.eft ::
43013, 1111[....
01T11.
5.1.1 raft U.Ifft
Zpin d C(14,
lrtto
MIro

1 n-

eases
Recapture Canyon
ell. Damage Assessment

635000

638000
10320.0.W

109.23
.
0-W

633000

s4i000--

.0000

103
.200-33

1..25018/

10934V34

GP

ti

Bouitiefi
Rockfish Site>,
North End Site A

rth End Site B

ecture

\Cmlonnral Pan.
Bla iding UT

Site B

to

Stoop Hill
SIM E
Steep Hill Site C
Sloop Hill
/SIeD
Steep Hill Site B

51e'aver Pond Site

Steep Hill

seams
013000'

1032838W

63000

635000

636000

(083633000

109.25.
0V
640000

639000

638000

Legend Symbols
CI

AN Trail Start Rein!

Ig

Staging and parking area

BLM Archaeological Site

San Juan Coanty Roads

Recapture Trail
Maior Highway
Rim Trail
Old Road

Coordinate System: NAO 1903 VMS Zone 1231

projection: Transverse Mercator
Oak.: North Amed.n 1983
False EaSting: 500.000.0000
Fake Northing. 0.0000

Central:-111.0000
Scale Factor:0.9996
Lab..Of Origin: 0.0000
Units: Mel.

0.125 0.25
HI I 1

0.5

Mike

1 in =1.250 feet

641000

Recapture Canyon
BLM Damage Assessment

0.75

'6'11777;'13aaten Path
Maps
- .otbpmaps.com

EXHIBIT B

NATHAN A. CRANE(Bar No. 10165)

SNOW,CHRISTENSEN & MARTINEAU
10 Exchange Place, Eleventh Floor
Post Office Box 45000
Salt Lake City, Utah 84145
Telephone: (801)521-9000
Fax No.: (801)363-0400
Attorneyfor Monte Jerome Wells
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH,CENTRAL DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

DECLARATION OF FERD JOHNSON

Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:14CR00470 RS

Judge Robert Shelby

v.
MONTE JERMOE WELLS,
Defendant.

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 ofTransportation
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 ofDirectors 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 ofthe 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 tobe 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

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 ofthe trail.
I declare under criminal penalty ofperjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
DA1ED this

3/

clay ofMay 2015.

FERD JOIINSESN

EXHIBIT C

NATHAN A. CRANE(Bar No. 10165)

SNOW,CHRISTENSEN & MARTINEAU
10 Exchange Place, Eleventh Floor
Post Office Box 45000
Salt Lake City, Utah 84145
Telephone: (801) 521-9000
Fax No.: (801) 363-0400
Attorneyfor Monte Jerome Wells
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH,CENTRAL DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

DECLARATION OF DAN SHUMWAY

Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:14CR00470 RS

Judge Robert Shelby

v.
MONTE JEROME WELLS,
Defendant.

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

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

3rd day of July 2015.

DAN SHUMWAY

EXHIBIT A

KLITA
6351 6365 T

Lr

A
4
,/'

(.4
,

1-6,?\,...r
-1

I
r.

f-,.
'
1

3-

it

S.

es,..,/

111

27' 30"

637

639

638
SCALE 1:24 000
o

Mi\P

EXHIBIT B

1.44
)

c/ad
-c2
,
-,

77 3-V-2-,2./-44 -57/A1&(,4
79'r
--P79'

40111L

P.2.5624

--0D?-74
- 3

( 0-1 b

p>07.../ry_slp

S -?2,./
4
/
,
1)PV-14770/

("'
771v,
,
94

51 Xrgi

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

1594 West North Temple, Suite 1210,PO Box 145801, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5801
telephone(801)538-5340 facsimile (801) 359-3940.TTY (801)538-7458.www.ozottuah.Rov

Ted next to trammel

Inspecus,u Date: June 3,2009

Page 3 of4
S/037/0064

Loading area with sluice equipment

1594 West North Temple, Suite 1210,PO Box 145801, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5801
telephone(801)538-5340 facsimile (801)359-3940TTY (801)538-7458 1, W.ORM,wah.zov

Misc. equipment

_-

On top

InspeL..un Date: June 3, 2009

Page 4 of4
S/037/0064

Top ofloading area

Lem

s(axe,' -e?

S,viar1

q v Day,

eicZtr,

,2

;7;7!

nove

dL, (1-Owe., giltiej 1.5 L-e_ce 7 /04"

1,7 it'e.r_41?-fz,r-e.-

Ot/e-e-cize- MA-ft:eta Uzwe

,Lef4-)

-4-raeCI

5h uotuzacf ice.' Ofertzterk?

_

,eAta

Mttier1.ie IS

1/7411'
,jz

ILS-to-t

4.5^

90-tetLE

v1nti '
'y
t'

L.,

'

#1-4.
1x-4titlir

.. --114.6

Is-

aft-tely
/oC-.(

riigiered /.5

cAri,

kl

14-ileriat 12.e-ezeef iqz>77? e.i

;e/17

/-/--2 9-

'

-; %.1

:.".0.4,bw'

410

ZCZ76-1/r);-7

V47Leoy2

0-7,

,1(.

/1-,29-9 2_
itirtt-

ifi:alefel_S-4/(c_6

ces-ke.e
5,11,41/
47 4rid
apz, dayved
(
s
z4-/-z)
,,s5/u/ce_ .64,/ 114241,
fm
u.izs-hgef

1-nze-r4
lly.vzs

144:1
,
V,
,c
-1
cW25

7-"P'

g742
7
,
1 1e4

4914
,
97p /1"41-5 C4A-2/;7
e
P,
71/5Q1R/Z7s ij

21)
Pf

1-2-p-21011a4alt'd
?WN'S ll-tfr,151 57 /73-'95 r'?"715.17
Z --4Z-'47
',I'M') zifW )..9i-d

EXHIBIT C

STAFF REPORT
SJ-91-03P
(U-069)

TITLE:

Water discharge from the Recapture Reservoir and impacts to downstream

Mining Operation of Dan Shumway.

DATE:

October 22, 1993

Dan Shumway, owner and operator of the Golden and Lucky Chantz mining claims in
Recapture Creek, came in the office today to express his concern about the recent discharge
of water from the Re9apture Reservoir. Dan said the water discharged sometime wednesday
caused appreciable damage to the existing access into his operation. The water also covered
his loader approximately half way and had the potential to destroy other property, including
heavy equipment (cat, dump truck ect.) The mine is a placer operation and as such requires
excavation directly in the active stream channel (when dry). This presents not only a threat
to personal property but to personal safety as well. Part of the damage caused was erosion
of the road at the culvert. Dan was very upset that he had to bear the cost of repairing it
each time the Water Consevancy District(WCD)decided to release water. This is the second
time that the WCD has discharged large volumes (high energy) water below the dam and into
Recapture Creek without giving prior notification to Dan. The last time (early Spring) the BLM
had 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 Utah
Dam 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 had
told him that he would give advanced notice before releasing water from the Dam in the
future. He also said he would send a letter to the State apprising them of the situation. I
requested a copy of the letter and he agreed. However, he stated that he didn't feel it was
the 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 storm
events are uncontrollable but that in my opinion, damage caused by the release of large
volumes 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 and
Mark Page will return call.
Both parties have rights on public lands. The WCD is authorized under a Right-of-Way for the
Recapture Dam and facilities, and Dan Shumway has an approved Mining and Reclamation
Plan.
It appears that Dan Shumway has a legitimate concern to protect his interests but it is not
clear what the BLM role would be in resolving the situation. The following are some
considerations 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

following may apply:

General Stip. #1 of the R-0-W requires compliance with all terms and
conditions of 43 CFR Part 2800. Regulation at 43 CFR 2801.2(3) states "To
rebuild 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 is
defined at 43 CFR 2800.0-5 as "surface disturbance greater than that which
would normally result when the same or a similar activity is being accomplished
by a prudent person... that takes into consideration the effects ... on other
resources and land uses, including those resources and uses outside the area
of activity...".
3.

The EA prepared for the Recapture Dam project stated that flood damage from
high 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 was
very critical about the damage to riparian areas and potential stream alteration.
It is very evident that the water discharge is causing much greater damage to
resources than the mining operation (including the beaver dams).

5.

If the situation over access maintenance can't be resolved, Dan inquired about
constructing an alternate access on the west side of the Creek to eliminate all
crossings. This would require significant new surface disturbance and
additional costs to the operator.
itet.44' 014) AC-4,te
Vi4A/aL-'-f

a/eCiOct.,--,a(0-eC ke/t,A,a.

.,CzAut..)

)t& can(-1

EXHIBIT D

CASE FILE COPY

mo

AUTH NUMBER: 4306614

DATE PRINTED:5/20/2009

Form 4130-2a
(February 1999)
STATE_
UT
OFFICE
LLUTY02000
AUTH NUMBER
4306614
PREFERENCE CODE
03
DATE PRINTED
05/20/2009
TERM
05/13/2009 TO 02/28/2019

UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
GRAZING PERMIT

BLUFF RIVER RANCH LLC

CfQ GUYMON, PARK
4085 ECCLES
-OGDEN: UT 84403

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

MONTICELLO FO
435 N MAIN PO BOX 7
MONTICELLO UT 84535

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 OF THIS GRAZING
PERMIT 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
06815
06806

EAST LEAGUE
BULLDOG

06815

EAST LEAGUE

PASTURE

LIVESTOCK
NUMBER KIND
339
62
300
339

CATTLE
CATTLE
CATTLE
CATTLE

GRAZING PERIOD
END
BEGIN
% PLTYPE USE
03/01 05/15
06/01 09/30
05/18 06/10
11/01 02/28

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/OR
OTHER ROUGHAGE ON THE PUBLIC LANDS UNLESS YOU HAVE THE AUTHORIZATION
OF THE FIELD KANAGER.

53
100
50
53

ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE

AUMS
449
249
118
709

AUTH NUMBER: 4306614

DATE PRINTED: 5/20/2009

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 IMPROVEMENT 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.

ALLOTMENT SUMMARY (AUMS)

ALLOTMENT
06806
06815

BULLDOG
EAST LEAGUE

ACTIVE AUMS
368
1160

SUSPENDED AUMS
0
0

TEMP SUSPENDED AUMS GRAZING PREFERENCE

0
0

368
1,160

CASE FILE COPY

AUTF1 NUMBER:4306614
DATE 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 regulations
now 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 be
incorporated 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 this
order 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 authorized
during 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 otherwiseprovided in the grazing permit or lease. Ifpayment.is not made within that time frame, a late fee (the greater of $25 or 10 percent of the amount owed but not
more 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, and
during nis/her continuance in office. and no officer, agent or employee of the Department of the Interior, other than members of Advisory committees appointed in
accordance 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 anyshare or part in a permit or lease, or derive any benefit to arise therefrom: and the provision of Section'3741 Revised
Statute (41 U,S.C. 22), la U.S.C. Sections 431-433, and 43 CFR Part 7, enter into and form a partof a grazing permit or lease, so far as the same may be
applicable.

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 APPLICABLE
LAW,(B) ANNUAL REVIEW AND MODIFICATION OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS APPROPRIATE: AND(C)THE TAYLOR GRAZING
ACT, AS AMENDED,THE FEDERAL LAND POLICY AND MANAGEMENT ACT,AS AMENDED,THE PUBLIC RANGELANDS IMPROVEMENT
ACT. AND THE RULES AND REGULATIONS NOW OR HEREAFTER PROMULGATED THEREUNDER BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.
g.am

ACCEPTED:
SIGNATOFF1 OF FERMITTP..,

DAT

APPROVED
BLM AUTHORIZED 0

DATE

CER

Dq

tI)
, _1

'...k,

-7--

-2,

34

__fibb__.-P._.___.

3..

4'..,

'
Pfl

-.... MI
.

. ..--..,.-

11
9

,
1 'I
ik.. 15 ----C j
f'

t
' 4.4,r
._ ,
...10
Q.

1)74..-

18

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

....
C..'
,
Plinenti

21;
,,
,,,

,4

k.iV I
1
, ...

, i iv.
1 ,

-11.1.

- 1 ,
. \ \ ----4-

,
3I

1.,\-- I

/ ))
1
c-,
I031.." 0.)
( ('

...
i

.
,./-

ii,---_

..i
,

\ .'i

,P, 9 ^
("1 ( ! .,'
,

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

I
i ?'

b
..

li
1;

1 4I

.
.

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

..
..

,
t
.

a
'

4.

' 31.
.,.;7

..
0
\ ',' \ ',:' ,
t.:.,,'-
;i-=.---,

*q

41

la
BLM
Monticello Field Office

.-.
r I--

-.

-___,

Legend
Land Status

iii.,

1:65,000

Private
State

Date: 3/19/2015

This product may 1701 meet BLAI standardsfor accuracy and content
Different data .50111CCS and input scales may cause some misalignment
layers. No warranty is made by Me Bureau ofLand Afanagement
at
.for the use ofthe data for purposes not intended by the BLI.

)
'

%,..

- li

..

1 '1
,,../

,.., _ _.._.
'7

ss
21

,11 20
- MESA'

24'

National Park Service (NPS)

US Forest Service(USFS)

I
W'IITE

Indian Reservation (IR)

- fir 1

: 5

Bureau of Land Management(BLM)

.
,

16

17

]ut_Igd

aa .
--in i

1 Miles

0'.5
E IN

C)
. t.,
\...i
al.

___

.
1
0
.9

'1 ',-.
i "

i In

,b
k c...Y.

1
.

''''
mnimmly

10--4-t )

,.

,.

12

.4.11
'
'

-.

5.f..1
4
1
/
_ .
il

34

', t C''
..,- '1
1
1

32

--..

6 .
'

'1".>
.. ,

--.1
,

27

7aie

. ,,

.
;. , . .
,
A
.
. 35 41 .;,-;34B- I ..I,

--

Blfin

- ----,--,
- ,

-.1.

.i
'1

,:,,,,

22

21

.,,V. 44

26

)
_ __..-/

'-'- -).--

Ili
i,

-i

[trwl
P

i-,.

,/
-.- '

5382

"

15

' .

il

a
,

16

.".--..-

,
CC)
Cir)

10

k;:,s.uu_obq ,,

..
-.

,
/ Ii

' ,

.____....__
....-..
,,_.(i,

f .
8

-'''

t..s.> !

.,'

r.

(
___ ___.,t,_

..----

22 I

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

-\
\

//,/

25 '.
7
,/'

72:,,

i4
\
.5

AUTH NUMBER:4306615
DATE PRINTED: 4/19/2010

CASE. FILE COPY

Form 4130-2a
(February 1999)
STATE
UT
OFFICE
LLLITY02000
AUTH NUMBER
4306615
03.
PREFERENCE CODE
DATE PRINTED
04/19/2010
TERM
03/01/2010 TO 02/28/2020

UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
GRAZING PERMIT

ADAMS LIVESTOCK CO.

C/O KEITH IVINS
280 E.APPLE LN
BLANDING UT 84511

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

MONTICELLO FO
435 N MAIN PO BOX 7
MONTICELLO UT 84535

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 GRAZING
PERMIT 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
06840

WHITE MESA

PASTURE

LIVESTOCK
NUMBER KIND
719
719
12
12

BEGIN

CATTLE
CATTLE
HORSE
HORSE

03/01
12/01
03/01
12/01

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.

END: / PL TYPE USE

05/31: :100 ACTIVE
100 ACTIVE
100 ACTIVE
100 ACTIVE

02/28
05/31
02/28

AUMS
2175
2127
36
36

AUTH NUMBER:4306615
DATE PRINTED: 4/19/2010

CASE FILE COPY

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 IMPROVEMENT 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
06840

WHITE MESA

ACTIVE AUMS
4374

SUSPENDED AUMS
3932

TEMP, SUSPENDED AUMS GRAZING* PREFERENCE

0

8,306

CASE FILE COPY

AUTH NUMBER:4306615
DATE PRINTED: 4/19/2010
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
regulations
now 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 Managemen
t 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 managemen
t plans if such plans have been prepared. Allotmen management plans
MUST be
incorporated in permits or leases when completed.
4. Those holding permits or leases MUST own or control and be responsible for
the management oflivestock 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 bythe 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 this
order 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 authorized
during 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 ofthe 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 not
more than $250)will be assessed.
11. No.Memberof, or Delegate to, Congress or Resident Commissioner,
after his/her election of appointment, or either before or after he/she has
qualified, and
during his/her continuance in office, and no officer, agent or employee of
the Department ofthe Interior, other than members of Advisory committees
appointed in
accordance 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 ofSection 3741
Revised
Statute (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`be
applicable.

THIS GRAZING PERMIT:

1. CONVEYS NO RIGHT,TITLE OR INTEREST HELD BY THE UNITED
STATES

IN ANY LANDS OR RESOURCES

2. IS SUBJECTTO(A) MODIFICATION, SUSPENSION OR CANCELLA
TION AS REQUIRED BY LAND PLANS AND APPLICABLE
LAVV:(B)ANNUAL REVIEW AND MODIFICATION OF TERMS AND
CONDITIONS AS APPROPRIATE;AND(C) THE TAYLOR_GRAZING
ACT, AS AMENDED,THE FEDERAL LAND POLICY AND MANAGEM
ENT ACT, AS AMENDED,THE PUBLIC RANGELANDS IMPROVEM
ENT
ACT, AND THE RULES AND REGULATIONS NOW OR HEREAFTE
R PROMULGATED THEREUNDER BY THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR.

ACCEPTED
SIGNATURE OF PERMITTEE
APPROVED
SIN AUTHORIZED OFF CER::

DATE: .
1a-S
4

0/

EXHIBIT E

SAN JUAN HEALTH SERVICE bISTRICT

BOAR!) MEETING
FEBRUARY 27, 2014
SIHSb CONFERENCE ROOM
MONTICELLO, UT
NAME

ADDRESS
/
)
01

NoArc,
<-)
l.

tRiqu_s--)
-:
t/toc,L-vA

Age

jc

/e-',..i....?-`24 6.

:
72
14,i4

1 0 hvA2

Alt

chki,titfik