Case 2:14-cr-00470-DN Document 216-5 Filed 10/09/15 Page 2 of 5 JOHN W. HUBER, United States Attorney (#7244) JARED C. BENNETT, Assistant United States Attorney (#9097) LAKE DISHMAN, Assistant United States Attorney (Provisionally admitted; Licensed in VA) 185 South State Strect, #300 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone: (801) 524-5682 jared.bennett@usdoj.gov Attorneys for the United States of America IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 2:14CR470RJS-BCW Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF DANIEL W. WEBB vs. Honorable David Ogden Nuffer PHILLIP KAY LYMAN & MONTE Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells JEROME WELLS; Defendants. 1, Daniel W. Webb, under 28 U.S.C. § 1746, hereby declare the following: 1 I currently serve as the Chief of the Branch of Geographic Sciences, Division of Lands and Minerals, in the Utah State Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). I am also the Chief Cadastral Surveyor for BLM in the State of Utah. As Chief Cadastral Surveyor, I am responsible for the United States’ Cadastral Survey Program in the State of Utah, which includes maintaining the official survey and survey records of all federal lands within the stat. Among other things, I ensure that cadastral surveys are appropriately planned, organized, and executed; jurisdictional boundaries are established or reestablished according to all applicable legal, policy, and technical standards; and BLM’s official land records are correctly created, reviewed, approved, and maintained. I also provide technical advice to BLM offices in the state, other federal agencies, state and local authorities, and others on the Public Land Survey System (PLSS) and related matters. 2. Prior to my present position, I obtained a Bachelor of Science in Land Surveying, in 1980 from Michigan Technological University. Shortly after, I became registered as aCase 2:14-cr-00470-DN Document 216-5 Filed 10/09/15 Page 3 of 5 Professional Land Surveyor in the State of Alaska, and I continue to maintain that registration. Since obtaining my degree, I have been continuously employed by BLM, including as a Supervisory Land Surveyor in the Alaska State Office from 1980 to 1992; in the Washington, D.C., Headquarters Office from 1992 to 1997; and in the Utah State Office from 1997 to present. 3. Throughout my career, I have routinely used or reviewed maps of all forms and varieties. Iam very familiar with all mapping technologies and conventions. 4, [have reviewed the motion for new trial filed by Defendant Phillip Kay Lyman in the above-captioned matter, including Exhibit A, which is a copy of the 1979 edition of the map labeled “Monticello W.” I have been able to review Exhibit A digitally, which allowed me to increase the size of the map up to several hundred percent. | will refer to the map in Exhibit A as the 1979 Monticello W map. 5. The 1979 Monticello W map shows a broken red line to the east of Recapture Creek running from a junetion with Highway 47 to the northeast of the Town of Blanding south for about 8 miles to the junction with another road, locally called Perkins Road, to the southeast of the Town of Blanding. As I understand it, Mr. Lyman contends that this broken red line represents a road and that the presence of this broken red line on the 1979 Monticello W map indicates BLM’s acknowledgement that the alleged road is an R.S. 2477 right-of-way. 6. There is nothing on the 1979 Monticello W map to indicate that the broken red tended to represent a road. The 1979 Monticello W map legend indicates that the primary intent of the map is to show land ownership. Two paragraphs in the lower left-hand comer of the map indicate the source of the data reflected on the map. Those paragraphs read as follows: ‘The base grid was compiled by the Bureau of Land Management from the official records of cadastral surveys. Map information was taken from maps prepared by the Army Map Service (FSGE), Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, Washington, D.C., and quadrangles prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey. ‘The land status was compiled for printing by the Bureau of Land Management from the official federal records with additional data furnished by the Utah State Land Board, and US. Forest Service maps. 7. Ihave reviewed the official records of cadastral surveys as may be relevant to this map and I have found no indication of a route of any kind in the vicinity of the broken red lineCase 2:14-cr-00470-DN Document 216-5 Filed 10/09/15 Page 4 of 5 shown on the 1979 Monticello W map. I have also reviewed the official federal land records (c-g., master title plat, historical indices) maintained by BLM as may be relevant to this map and similarly found no indication of a route in the vicinity of the broken red line. Tam unaware of any other “official federal records” that may have been a source for the data shown on the 1979 Monticello W map. 8. For there to be a valid R.S. 2477 right-of-way, at a minimum, the road must have existed prior to October 21, 1976, when the Federal Land Policy and Management Act repealed R.S. 2477. I have reviewed all topographical maps, including quadrangles, prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and published before October 21, 1976. None of the USGS maps published before 1976 that I reviewed show a route of any kind in the vicinity of the broken red line shown on the 1979 Monticello W map. 9. I cannot determine that the data used to show the broken red line on the 1979 Monticello W map originated with BLM or the USGS. 1 also reviewed the relevant files in the Utah State Office of BLM and made several inquiries of a number of BLM employees familiar with the history of BLM efforts to compile and to produce maps in Utah over the last several decades. My investigation indicates that the data that were used to show the broken red line did not originate with BLM or USGS. 10. Asa result of my investigation, the Monticello Field Office found two other editions of the Monticello W map, one from 1967 and one from 1975, which are attached as Exhibits W1 and W2. I am unaware of any other versions of the Monticello W map. The 1967 version of the Monticello W map does not show the broken red line along Recapture Creek. The 1975 version does show the broken red line in the same place as on the 1979 version, However, the 1975 version indicates the same source data were used as in the 1979 version, and my conclusion that the data that were used to show the broken red line on the 1979 version did not originate with BLM or the USGS applies to the data used to show the broken red line on the 1975 version. 11, Also as a result of my investigation, I found a 1968 map of the general area with two titles, “Southeast Utah Recreation and Wildlife on BLM Lands” in one place and “Monticello Recreation Map” in another. For ease, | will refer to this as the 1968 Recreation Map, which is attached as Exhibit W3. The 1968 Recreation Map shows a double-dashed line (with every other double-dash drawn as a sideways “H”) near the vicinity and east of Recapture Creek. ‘The legend to the 1968 Recreation Map indicates that this symbol represents a 4-wheel drive road. However, the map has topographical lines only at 1000” contour intervals and its scale is such that it is impossible to ascertain whether the 4-wheel drive road depicted is in theCase 2:14-cr-00470-DN Document 216-5 Filed 10/09/15 Page 5 of 5 same location as the route depicted by the broken red line on the 1979 Monticello W map. In addition, the 1968 Recreation Map does not have any indication of the source of the data used for the map, nor have I been able to determine the source. 12, The Monticello Field Office of BLM provided me a map that indicates the route traveled on May 10, 2014, by the vehicles that illegally entered that portion of Recapture Canyon closed to public vehicular use. I will refer to that route as the “trespass route,” and I attach the ‘map of the route as Exhibit W4. I have been informed by the BLM personnel that prepared the map that the trespass route is based on data taken with a Global Positioning System (GPS) device and plotted on a USGS 7 4 minute topographical map using Geographical Information System (GIS) software. Using this technology, the trespass route as shown on the map is accurate to approximately 40 feet. I attach the map as Exhibit W4 to this declaration. 13, Thave closely reviewed the location of the red broken line shown along Recapture Creek in the 1979 Monticello W map and the location of the trespass route shown on the map in Exhibit W4. In my professional opinion, due to the scale of the 1979 Monticello W map, and the obvious crudeness by which routes on it are depicted (they appear to be hand-drawn), the location of the route depicted by the broken red line may vary by up to approximately 500 feet from east to west. However, even taking into account this degree of error, it is clear that the trespass route and the route depicted by the broken red line do not coincide. 14. For example, as can be seen in Exhibit W4, the trespass route crosses Recapture Creek at least at least 6 times, whereas the broken red line depicted on the 1979 Monticello W map, northerly of Perkins Road, is consistently on the east side of Recapture Creek. In addition, the trespass route at its southern end turns sharply west to cross the creek and exit Recapture Canyon, whereas the broken red line continues in a southerly direction along the east side of the creek for several miles. Presumably whoever was responsible for adding the broken red line to the 1979 map was familiar enough with the route that he or she would have shown it crossing Recapture Creek at least a few times if it actually did so. Because the broken red line is, consistently on the east side of Recapture Creek, I conclude that the trespass route is different from the route shown by the broken red line on the 1979 Monticello W map. I declare the foregoing under the penalty of perjury. Dated this © day of October, 2015. ) ) ) ) Daniel W. Webb