Loading...
2002-1414-Minutes for Meeting December 10,2002 Recorded 12/27/2002DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS yJ 7001�14j4 MARY SUE PENHOLLOW, COUNTY CLERK 1rd v ++ COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 12/27/2002 01:19;03 PM 1111itiIIIIIJ1111111111 2 14 DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK CERTIFICATE PAGE This page must be included if document is re-recorded. Do Not remove from original document. Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1130 NW Harriman St., Bend, OR 97701-1947 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 388-4752 MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING www.deschutes.org DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TUESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2002 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building 1130 NW Harriman St., Bend Present were Commissioners Tom De Wolf, Dennis R. Luke and Michael M. Daly. Also present were Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; Catharine Tilton, Devin Hearing and Kevin Harrison, Community Development; George Kolb, Road Department; and ten other citizens. There were no media representatives in attendance. This Hearing is on Two Appeals 'of the Hearings Officer's Decision to Approve Minor Partition No. MP -02-12, to Divide an Approximate 482 -Acre Parcel in the Forest Use Zone into Three Parcels (File No. A-02-10, Thomas - the Applicant; and A -02-I1, Sisters Forest Planning Committee). Chair Tom De Wolf opened the meeting at 3: 00 p.m. Chair De Wolf began reading the opening statement. (A copy is attached as Exhibit A.) Both attorneys indicated that a half-hour should work for their initial presentations. Catharine Tilton said that the staff report should take around twenty minutes. Chair DeWolf clarified that the plan is for the first three presentations to be given without interruption, except by questions from the Board; there will be an opportunity later to ask questions of, or offer rebuttal to, these presentations. He also said that the last person to offer testimony today would be the applicant. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 1 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 DALY: What if a Commissioner wants to make a site visit? DEWOLF: If we close the hearing today for oral testimony and leave it open only for written testimony, and the Commissioners make a site visit, their observations from their site visit have to be in writing, and any rebuttal to the site visit report(s) would be in writing. Typically the time left open for this type of thing is a week. At this time, Chair DeWolf read the preliminary hearing statement on Files No. A- 02-10 and A-02-11, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A. Under Section V, pre -hearing contacts, bias, and conflict of interest, he read the following. DEWOLF: Do any of the Commissioners have any ex -parte contacts, prior observations, bias or conflicts of interest to declare? If so; please state the nature and extend of those. DALY: I have none. DEWOLF: I have none. LUKE: I built Matt Thomas' house in the 1980's, and have known the family for quite a while, but this doesn't influence any decision I will make. DEWOLF: Does any party wish to challenge any Commissioner based on ex -parte contacts, bias or conflicts of interest? No challenges were offered. DEWOLF: Hearing no challenges, I shall proceed. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 2 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 DEWOLF: I want to point out that we received a fax from Nancy Craven of Ball Janik, Attorneys, late today; and I will provide a copy to Paul Blikstad and to whoever else wishes one. CATHARINE TILTON: Ms. Tilton gave her oral report on the appeals. (A copy is attached as Exhibit B.) She then placed the applicable criteria on the overhead projector for the audience to view, and put into place some oversized maps of the property and the surrounding area. The maps show the parcels and the surrounding area. The area outlined in blue indicates the 482 -acre parcel. Parcel A is going to be 322 acres, and it has direct access to a U.S. Forest Service road. Parcels B and C are each 80 acres. There are two access routes identified by the Hearings Officer in her decision. The primary access is the U.S. Forest Service road connecting down from Skyliners Road all the way up to the subject property, and it is identified and highlighted in pink on this map. The secondary access road connects to the public road, Johnson Market Road, and is identified as Bull Springs Road, which is a private easement, which is highlighted in orange. The most likely route that the applicants intend to take will be from the private Bull Springs Road that connects to the U.S. Forest Service road that goes to the property. DEWOLF: So, is the reason that one is called primary, when it's actually going to, in reality, be intended to be secondary because it's the one without the private road on it? What's the reason for one being primary over the other? TILTON: Don't know the exact intent of the Hearings Officer. My guess is that the Code requires that any partitions off of U.S. Forest Service roads -- well, that partitions have access off of public roads, and in this case it allows for partitions to have access off of U.S. Forest Service roads. But it is not allowed to have access off of private easements. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 3 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 So there are two routes, and the applicant is most likely going to use the one off of Bull Springs Road to gain access. From Bull Springs Road, the applicants are proposing another new easement to gain access to parcels B and C; however, it is not identified on this map and that was one of the conditions of approval by the Hearings Officer, to include -- to revise the tentative plat to show it. Proposed uses of the parcels are forest and residential. The applicants have not submitted any development proposals as part of this application, but it is their intent to use the property as forest and residential. Water is going to be supplied by on-site wells, and there will be an on-site septic system. DEWOLF: But any residential use would require a separate process to go through to receive approval, correct? TILTON: Right. To establish a single-family dwelling in the F-1 zone, a person would have to apply for a conditional use permit. There are several different types of homes that can be applied for. One happens to be a large tract dwelling, in which the minimum criteria is 240 acres to place a house on it. DEWOLF: Are there criteria that would allow for a house on an 80 -acre parcel? TILTON: There is, but the approval criteria are more stringent. It has to do with surrounding houses and how many there are. It's called a template dwelling. It's a little bit more complicated to analyze, but it is based on surrounding houses and how many there are, and if there's road frontage. DEWOLF: So there are also access issues. TILTON: The Code requires in the forest use zone for applicants to comply with fire siting standards for roads. That does require that the roads be constructed or built to handle a 50,000 -pound vehicle, and also to be twenty feet wide, and to have an aggregate surface. So having to have emergency access does establish standards for roads. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 4 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 LUKE: I would point out, that as hard as it is for you to interpret this on a template, it was even harder to draft the legislation. TILTON: There is no guarantee that any houses would be approved on this lot. It's just that a large tract dwelling has less approval criteria than a template dwelling. The appellants believe the road improvements do not relate to the impacts created by the partition; that there is no rational nexus to apply this requirement; and they believe it is unconstitutional to require it. DEWOLF: State or federal? TILTON: Both. Regarding the legal issues, staff is referring to legal counsel for advice, since it is really a legal issue that needs some interpretation by a legal expert. The second legal issue is a fairness issue. And that's guaranteeing to each :person. the equal protection of the laws. This is related to a previous recent decision by the Hearings Officer on a similar three -parcel partition by Tweedfam and Hap Taylor, located directly south of the subject property. The Hearings Officer did not specifically require road improvements to the U.S. Forest Service road from Skyliners Road to the partition. DEWOLF: Who was the Hearings Officer in that case? TILTON: Karen Green. The same one. What she did in the Tweedfam and Hap Taylor approvals where she affirmed staff s administrative decision, which was for approval, and did not state specific standards to improve the road all the way from Skyliners Road to the subject property. DEWOLF: How similar were these two cases, in your opinion? Minutes of Public Hearing Page 5 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 TILTON: They are actually very different cases. There are some similarities. Both cases use the U.S. Forest Service road as their access to the partition. But they are not the same application. They both have three parcels; the Hap Taylor and Tweedfam application was for a three -parcel partition, but one of the parcels was for an existing surface mine. The applicant was saying that one of the reasons they wanted to partition it is to split off the ownership issues. It was my understanding it was so Hap Taylor could operate his surface mine, and Tweedfam could have the other section of the property to do whatever they were going to do with it, forest use and residential, the same use. DEWOLF: So what size was the break -off parcel? TILTON: That parcel was much bigger. DEWOLF: I'm trying to get a sense of whether the standards were the same as applied to these 80 -acre parcels. Would it be the template? TILTON: No. In this case, in Tweedfam and Hap Taylor, I believe that all of the resulting parcels would be in excess of 240 acres. (She then checked some paperwork for this) Parcel one is 341 acres, parcel two is 260, and parcel three is 1,306. Yes, all three parcels would each be greater than 240 acres. DEWOLF: So the cases really aren't all that similar. TILTON: They are different cases. There are some similarities. The Hearings Officer made a distinction between the Tweedfam and Hap Taylor case and this case in that in Tweedfam and Hap Taylor, all three parcels had direct access off the U.S. Forest Service road. And in this application, only Parcel A has direct access; and Parcels B and C would be accessed by a proposed private road easement. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 6 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 At this time, she distributed a flow chart to help the Board and others focus on the issues for discussion purposes, and to move the process along. (A copy is attached as Exhibit C.) TILTON: The flow chart raises several different "yes" and "no" questions for the Board to consider, and they are good issues to focus on as we go through this hearing. She then referred to the questions as detailed on Exhibit B; the flow chart; and she also referred to an oversized regional map showing Forest Service land and private lands in the area. It was explained that this map is also contained in a smaller size in a notebook of information previously provided to the Commissioners. DEWOLF: Are these easements in perpetuity; are they revocable? TILTON: I'm not really up on the legal analysis. That may be something to look at. But the Hearings Officer reviewed these easements and she found that the easements do constitute a written agreement and they do provide permanent, legal access. She actually spends quite a lot of time on these easements, on pages 5 through 11 of her decision. One of the main reasons is that she said that they provide legal, written agreements is because the applicant is successor to all three easements in this case. So that was a major point; not only were they agreements between the timber companies and the Forest Service, but the applicants are actually successors to these agreements. So she concluded that these agreements constitute a written agreement. DEWOLF: There's no expiration, and they aren't revocable? LAURIE CRAGHEAD: I have not reviewed these easements, and I will be looking to the legal representatives of the applicants and opponents to help make those arguments. TILTON: She then went back to her written report, page S. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 7 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 The intent was to require road frontage, but not necessarily fifty feet of frontage; just that each parcel has to have road frontage on a U.S. Forest Service road. DALY: That's in conflict with the Hearings Officer's decision. TILTON: That's correct. The intent was for each parcel to have direct access to the U.S. Forest Service road to insure permanent, legal access to each of the parcels. DEWOLF: But access is different than frontage. Those are not necessarily the same thing. TILTON: Right. DEWOLF: I mean, I have access to the other side of this building, but I'm not connected to it right now. TILTON: You're absolutely right. There's access versus frontage, and there are two requirements. One requires that the partition be accessed by U.S. Forest Service road, and the other one requires that you have road frontage. Then you have this ambiguous language contained in that section of the Code that doesn't specify whether the frontage requirement is applicable to partitions off of U.S. Forest Service roads. The Hearings Officer found that the only thing she could come up with in her analysis is that it doesn't require frontage; that each parcel does not have to have frontage. DEWOLF: And our staff agreed or disagreed? Or do different people say different things? TILTON: I think if you look deeper into when you partition properties, you want to make sure that they have permanent legal access. Apparently the question back at this time, and again raised in this question, is whether private easements provide permanent legal access. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 8 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 My understanding is that back when they were looking at this part of the Code is that easements don't always provide permanent legal access. And the problem with interpreting easements is that sometimes it is a legal interpretation, and is that what the Code wants to say, and is that what we want to do, require easements where we have to interpret it and go to legal counsel. Or, do we want to just say, look, you've got to have frontage on the road, and that's that. For normal partitions, off a public road, that's a requirement. So we avoid getting involved in these easement things. DEWOLF: But this whole thing is predicated upon one of those easement things. TILTON: The Code does provide for partitions off of U.S. Forest Service roads where a written agreement is there between the applicant and the U.S. Forest Service. In this case, the written agreement happens to be easements. DEWOLF: So we'll trust the Forest Service but not our neighbors. LUKE: May I ask Legal Counsel something? It's my understanding that an easement between two parties can only be invalidated if both parties agree. There are all sorts of ways that an easement can go away. There can be an abandonment; there can be various ways. LUKE: A continuously used easement to access a piece of property, as opposed to an easement for utilities or those kinds of things where the utility company abandons it, or if you haven't used it for a certain number of years, I'm sure you can go to the private landowner and ask that it be taken out. A continuously used easement, though, for it to go away, doesn't that require both parties to agree? Minutes of Public Hearing Page 9 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 CRAGHEAD: I believe so. There is also the issue of when it is created. Because if all three adjoining parcels are owned by the same person, you don't have a binding easement. You have an easement between the Forest Service possibly, and the landowners because there are two separate ownerships. LUKE: So an easement to these other two pieces of property -- CRAGHEAD: Doesn't occur until they get transferred. DEWOLF: But that's a condition of approval, that the Hearings Officer found, that it requires that permanent easement be in place for the Parcels B and C, correct? TILTON: Actually, she requires a revision of the tentative plat to include that easement. It says, condition number two on page 21 of her decision, "prior to. final plat approval, the applicant shall submit a revised tentative plat showing the location and width of the easement from Sisters Mainline Road to Parcels B and C." LUKE: It's not dedicated. There's nothing that says it has to be dedicated; it just shows where it's going to be. As long as it is in the same ownership, it makes no difference. DEWOLF: Right. And when it's splits into two and somebody wants to put a house on it, if they can't get an easement, they couldn't put a house in anyway. LUKE: I don't think I'd buy the piece of property if it didn't have an easement. TILTON: So maybe one of the things the Board wants to consider is revising condition two to be clearer, to make sure the easement is established. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 10 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 LUKE: You mentioned you talked with a previous planner who helped write this. The intent of the planner, with all due respect, is not what the law is about. The law is about what the intent of the people who voted for the change was. That would be the elective body. That is helpful, but it is not the entire thing. DEWOLF: It is helpful, but what you are saying is that the interpretation -- I mean, five years ago; or five years from now, three different people sitting here could interpret this differently. And then that's the law. TILTON: And that's a really good point. I mean, you may believe that road frontage should be required, but you may say, look, the Code says this and the Hearings Officer is right in her interpretation. And planning staff, we are going to direct you to change the Code but we're going to have to accept what the Hearings Officer has said in her decision. It gives you -- you're absolutely right, in terms of the face of the language versus interpretation. Ms. Tilton again referred to the flow chart. LUKE: Who owns the property that Bull Springs Road runs across? TILTON: The easement is between Crown Pacific, which grants Thomas access and a utility easement, running from Johnson Market Road along what is called Bull Springs Road and the Sisters Mainline Road, through Section 22, and so on. (She referred to a copy of the easement documents; this information is attached as Exhibit D) LUKE: So it's not only an access easement; it's a utility easement as well. DALY: How wide is the easement? TILTON: It is sixty-six feet in width. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 11 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 DALY: So it specifically grants to Thomas. TILTON: (She then referred again to the flow chart and her report, page 6.) DALY: Does that relate to both roads? She required both roads. TILTON: The Hearing Officer required that the Forest Service road from Skyliners to the southern boundary of the subject property be improved. She required that to the extent that it is not, Bull Springs Road be improved. I know that's a paved road, because there are surface mining trucks using it. It's paved from Johnson Market Road to about the U.S. Forest road. LUKE: Bull Springs Road up to that point is paved? TILTON: As far as I know, it is. DALY: Is the U.S. Forest Service road paved at all? TILTON: To my knowledge, some of it is cinders, but mostly it is a hard pan dirt. CRAGHEAD: George Kolb is here to answer any questions regarding the roads. TILTON: (She went back to the flow chart and her report, page 7.) DEWOLF: If there is a battle between the U.S. Forest Service and the owner, and the maintenance doesn't get taken care of, who bears any liability? Would the court decide? Minutes of Public Hearing Page 12 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 TILTON: If the Board believes that the easement does not address this issue, a condition can be added to address it. The easement I gave you is just for Bull Springs Road. The U.S. Forest Service agreement is in the record, but is quite big. DEWOLF: There's no agreement between the Forest Service and the applicant? TILTON: The agreement is between the timber company and its successors, and the U.S. Forest Service. The Hearings Officer says it does constitute a written agreement and it does address maintenance. LUKE: The applicant's appeal refers to several decisions. We have a copy of one in our binders. I would like the others as well. I would also like to see a map that shows the existing houses in the area, maybe within a two-mile radius or whatever you think is appropriate. Those in the forest use zone, and their access. And I understand that this division will still require the template. The other appeal talks about the forest template. Have you looked at that at all? TILTON: No. The Hearings Officer did some brief analysis on that. LUKE: The other applicant also mentioned Section 21. Where is that, and how is it relevant to this? Something about the road doesn't cross Section 21. Karen (Green) addressed that a little bit. TILTON: I think maybe the Sisters Forest Planning Committee can address that. For your information, the applicant tolled the 150 -day deadline to January 29, 2003. So we have a little time to do this. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 13 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 GEORGE KOLB: For the record, I'm George Kolb with the County Road Department. I was asked to be here to answer any questions you might have regarding the roads. I've been on all of them, actually. I drove some of the roads of the partition being discussed, and have also driven from there south down to Skyliners Road. DEWOLF: Not in January. LUKE: Bull Springs is a paved road? KOLB: (Referring to the oversized map) Bull Springs is paved from here roughly to here, to Taylor's pit. DEWOLF: So it goes down south a little bit? KOLB:. And then from here the road goes down south for five or so miles to Skyliners Road. The road isn't paved probably from here on south, and from this point on north. It meets the twenty -foot wide requirements and is in good shape. Actually, when you get down to probably a mile and three-quarters, to Section 27, the stretch is pretty rough, but the roadbed is there. This was the south boundary of what they call the Tweedfam partition. Basically the gravel surface that they put on ends right there. From there on, the road base is there, but it is pretty rough. There are some areas where you wouldn't be able to shape it up with a blade; you'd have to add material. You also have a bridge probably right there that is load rated to ten tons. DEWOLF: Is that the one the cross-country skiers would go over in the winter to head up towards Tumalo Falls? KOLB: No. This is the little paved road that goes off near the trailhead to Phil's trail. Right past the railroad overcrossing. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 14 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 DALY: Is the road's surface such that you could -- would you have any problem on both of these roads with a 50,000 -pound fire truck getting there? KOLB: From the one parcel, Section 27 south, it's a rough road. LUKE: On Bull Springs Road, how wide is that road? KOLB: The portion that we're looking at right now is twenty feet. The actual road bed is probably wider. Brush has grown in the sides. It narrows down a few places, but is a hard surface road. There are no bridges on that one. I did drive the roads to the parcel you're discussing, and the roads that I was on were in good shape. They'd been graded and had gravel surfacing on them. So there's access all through there. There are plenty of roads through there. There is access to that parcel. LUKE: Legal Counsel, please let me know if this is not an appropriate question. We have some subdivisions, especially in south County, where the secondary access or emergency access is on Forest Service roads. And the County has easements with the Forest Service on different roads. What is your experience with those on how they are used and what kinds of agreements are in place? KOLB: I'm not really familiar with them. Normally when I've dealt with easements, pretty much once they are written up it takes the people who created them to dissolve them. DEWOLF: Does anyone else need George to stay here to answer any other questions? Minutes of Public Hearing Page 15 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 TIA LEWIS: (Off the microphone.) I have just one question, maybe he can tell me now and we'll be done with it. At this time, she took the microphone. LEWIS: George (Kolb) drove all of the roads that we propose for access, which I'll talk to you about in a minute. But I wanted him to tell you about the condition of those roads, aside from Bull Springs Road. There's an easement that goes north from Bull Springs, up the eastern property boundary. He drove that as well as Bull Springs and a section of the Sisters Mainline between Bull Springs and the property. I just wanted him to tell you about the condition of those. KOLB: Okay. The road (referring to the map) -- we drove this one right here. It is improved to about a twenty -foot width. I didn't get out and check if there was five inches of aggregate. We came up here and drove a road roughly .back into here. All of those roads weren't the twenty -foot width, but he had done grading on them and there was aggregate surfacing on them. WE" The first road you talked about is a gravel or cinder road. KOLB: Right. It's a gravel road, not cinders, and was twenty feet wide; I measured it. This road was in good shape. The rest of them were single, not the twenty -foot width, but had surfacing on them and were in good shape. TIA LEWIS: (Attorney for the applicants. She distributed a thick set of documents; and a copy is attached as Exhibit E.) She referred to oversized road access drawing MP -02- 12 at this time. I'll just refer to the first four pages; that's all that's needed. It's mostly exhibits. Can you see this one okay? The Board indicated yes. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 16 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 I am here to address the question that have been raised, and then will respond after Mr. Dewey speaks. I am going to try to stick to the single issue that we raised in our appeal for right now. We do have one single issue, and that was the imposition of condition 4-A, which requires road improvements to approximately five and one-half miles of the Sisters Mainline Road. We have asked the Fire Department and the Road Department to come out and evaluate this parcel for access. You've heard from the Road Department. We have a letter from the Fire Department in the package that I just handed you, attached as exhibit E. DEWOLF: From what Fire Department? LEWIS: The City of Bend, which contracts with the Rural Fire Protection District, and we're in the process of becoming annexed into it. Before I get to that, I want to talk to you a little bit about the property and the easements associated with it. This piece of property is in a unique situation from most parcels in the forest zone that have access from a Forest Service road. And that is because we have three different points of access to this property. In the packet of material that I gave you, our first point of access is a map and the easement associated with it attached as exhibit A. That is this easement, in blue here. (She referred to the oversized map.) It runs from Johnson Road, along Bull Springs Road, and then it takes off of Bull Springs Road and runs north along our eastern property boundary. It is how all of the people who have homes out here access their piece of property. DEWOLF: Currently? LEWIS: Currently. There are about eight easements, making eight owners that have easements along this road. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 17 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 DEWOLF: Then why are you being -- did you request to have an easement through Parcel A to get to B and C? LEWIS: We didn't ask for that. We did that so that the parcels could have access to the Sisters Mainline. DEWOLF: Why? LEWIS: To meet the legal standard of access to a Forest Service road. DEWOLF: So what is this other road? LEWIS: It's a private easement. DEWOLF: So are they willing to turn that into a public road? LEWIS: Not this section. But this section absolutely. We tried to dedicate it to you guys but you wouldn't take it from us. The property owners to the south tried to dedicate Bull Springs Road to the County, but there are a lot of different easements across Bull Springs Road and there was some concern with the County about accepting the dedication of Bull Springs with its overlapping easements. We would love to dedicate it at this point. LUKE: An easement puts a requirement on both parties. And if they so request, the other party needs to go along with a dedication to the County or other governmental agency. LEWIS: That's correct. We negotiated the public dedication provisions of those easements in the event that the County would ever agree to accept this as a dedicated road. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 18 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 DEWOLF: But it would have to be brought up to County standards. LEWIS: We're very close. We're talking about Bull Springs here. It's paved. It wouldn't take much. DEWOLF: I would like to ask George Kolb about that. KOLB: To accept Bull Springs Road, I would have to know what kind base it has, and the depth of the asphalt; it does wind through the trees and things. I just don't know what is there. DEWOLF: What we're talking about is to accept that as a dedicated road; that means we take over maintenance, which would require bringing it up. KOLB : It would have to be brought up to County standards. DEWOLF: It could be minimum County standards, in which case we would not be maintaining it, correct? LUKE: There's a County accepted road, like LID's. But you also have a public right of way, which doesn't have to be County standards for asphalt. KOLB : If we're not maintaining it, I don't know if you have planning issues in land use action. A dedication could be a part of that action. There are class 1, 2 and 3 road improvements. At this time, Mr. Kolb was excused from the hearing. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 19 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 LEWIS: Getting back to where I was. Our first point of access is from Johnson Road, along Bull Springs Road, and then it takes off north along the eastern property boundary. Again, there's a map attached as exhibit A, and an easement granting us that right of access is also attached to that map. Again, it is how all of these property owners access their properties. They are on the map; the book and page numbers for each one of these easements is referenced. As you noticed, there are a lot of different book and page numbers, because a lot of different people hold easements. DEWOLF: Can you point to examples of parcels where there are existing homes? LEWIS: Yes. (She then pointed out various locations on the oversized map.) Mr. Smith's home is right here. He owns two parcels. Peeks have a home here. I'm not sure exactly how you pronounce her name, but Nancy Onkst has a home here. Bill Hopp owns two parcels, and only one of them has a dwelling on it. Jim Bussard owns this parcel here; it was just approved, I believe, for a dwelling. And he just sold this. There's one more. DEWOLF: Approved without appeal? It's moving forward? LEWIS: Correct. That's my understanding. I'm not positive about that. LUKE: Their addresses show Saddleback, Bull Springs, and Johnson Market Road. Their addresses aren't on that easement. LEWIS: Most of them are on Bull Springs Road or Johnson Market, which is how they get to their properties. There are a few that have access through Saddleback, but very few. Most of the people along this line access off Bull Springs and Johnson Market. They aren't addressed off the easement. Hopp also has an easement off here, and I don't know if he uses Saddleback or this, or both. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 20 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 The second point of access is represented by this orange line. It's attached as exhibit B to the materials that I gave you. There's a map showing the easements associated with it. Again, this comes from Johnson Road; this is along Bull Springs Road, cutting over to the Sisters Mainline Road to the southern boundary of the property. The third access is the Sisters Mainline Road, what you've all seen, as it leaves Skyliners and travels north to the southern boundary of the property. Again, this piece of property is unique in that we have easements across the Forest Service roads. Most properties don't. There's a federal right of access across Forest Service roads for private landowners, but most private landowners do not have easements like this. DEWOLF: Why would you even have, as one of the access points, this five and one-half mile stretch if you've got two separate opportunities to come out on Bull Springs? LEWIS: Because the Code criterion requires either that we have access from a public road or from a Forest Service road. DEWOLF: Well, you do. If Johnson Market Road is a public road, and your access is off Bull Springs Road to your property, you've got it, right. LEWIS: Bull Springs Road is a private easement. DEWOLF: Okay. If you've got an easement, and if it were to be accepted that an easement constitutes legal access, if it is a permanent, irrevocable easement in perpetuity, then you've got access, correct? LEWIS: Absolutely. I tried to tell Karen (Green) that at the hearing, but I didn't want to get us in trouble. But we'll never drive this. Why would we? And the Fire Department, in its letter to you, tells you that they won't either. They are coming from the Tumalo substation to respond to this property, which is four miles away. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 21 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 They aren't going to come up Skyliners to get to this property. Deputy Jensen came out there and drove all of our roads. I want to talk a little bit about the history, and then will talk about Karen's decision and why we believe that these road improvements are not necessary. When we first bought this piece of property, we bought about 1,100 acres. It took up part of Section 21, all of Section 16, and over here. That was in 2002 or 2001. We split it into three parcels. We bought it with another gentleman, and in order to let him have his separate ownership, we split it into three parcels. We used the Sisters Mainline Road to establish our legal standard for access. An administrative approval of that decision was issued; it was MP -01-13. Staff issued findings that road access was adequate, and that the impacts from the partition did not justify road improvements. Again, it was a three -lot partition. Just after that, Hap Taylor and Kevin Spencer bought 1,900 acres to the south. They split that into three parcels. Again, staff issued an administrative decision that road. access was adequate, using the Sisters Mainline to establish their legal access; and that the impacts from the proposal did not warrant road improvements. That was appealed to the Hearings Officer, who upheld staff s decision and did not require road improvements with this partition. Karen Green was the Hearings Officer. Just two months later, our decision came through for a three -lot partition, using the Forest Service lot for access. DEWOLF: A three -lot partition, including two that are smaller than 240 acres. LEWIS: Each one of the lots in our partition could be approved for a dwelling or forestry uses. Each one of the lots in Hap Taylor's and Kevin Spencer's partition could be used for forestry or residential purposes. DEWOLF: Under residential purposes, but under different sets of standards; one much more difficult than the other. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 22 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 LEWIS: But none of them anything to do with the road improvement standards, though. We're not looking at what applications they are going to make in the future and what those standards are. We're looking at what they can do with their property now, what impacts come from this partition, requiring these road improvements. In that decision, they said that the impacts from this partition do not require road improvements. The conceivable impacts are one house per lot plus forestry uses. Those are the exact same conceivable impacts from our partition. I will not argue with you that the partitions, the actual configuration of the property and how it lays out, is not the same. But the impacts from the partition are the same. They are exactly the same. There are three lots, and each has one use per lot. There are no deed restrictions that the surface mining site could never be used for residential purposes, that it couldn't be split up further, and in fact their parcels are much larger and could be partitioned further. Those conceivable impacts are really far greater. DEWOLF: Eighty is the minimum, right? LEWIS: When you look at the impacts from this partition, they are exactly the same as they relate to the road standards. DEWOLF: Okay. LEWIS: So, then we get our decision requiring road improvements. But if you look at the decision carefully, Karen (Green) specifically found that the traffic impacts from this partition do not justify road improvements. She found that on page 15, the middle paragraph, of her decision. It is very clear. She found that we needed road improvements for other reasons. DEWOLF: Okay. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 23 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 LEWIS: What she found is that the legal standard for access from a Forest Service road would be annulled if physical access from that road were not possible. She also found that we needed to improve this to accommodate emergency vehicle access. So we're going present evidence to you today that we have physical access from this road -- in fact, we have presented it, because the Road Department representative testified that he drove the road and it does provide for physical nKK4X* DEWOLF: But him having access is different than -- LEWIS: The point I am making is that it does provide physical access down to Skyliners. You can drive it. DEWOLF: You can? Ina Miata? LEWIS: Yes. DEWOLF: If you go for a ride with me and we get stuck, you'll push? LEWIS: No. DALY: Your issue of Karen Green requiring the improvements in access to accommodate a 50,000 -pound fire truck doesn't make a lot of sense if you can't go over the bridge. LEWIS: Well, her decision would make us improve that bridge to accommodate that truck. That's why we're here. DEWOLF: That's not what the letter from Don Jensen says. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 24 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 LEWIS: The letter from Don Jensen says that the Fire Department would not use this road for access, and that is our evidence that we do not need it for emergency vehicle access. We've had the Fire Department out there, they've told us the routes that they intend to take, and told us the access is acceptable for emergency vehicle access. So, that's our whole point, that the road improvements to this road -- had they been included in the Spencer decision, we wouldn't be here. Both of us would have split the cost and done the improvements. But because they weren't, here we are. And we don't need it. DEWOLF: Cathy, when you give us the map of the other homes and their access, can you verify that they are all in Rural Fire Protection District #2? I assume that is the case. LEWIS: Let me testify for you on that one point. One of the property owners out there isn't in the Fire Protection District, and they are participating with us for annexation into that District. (Discussion off microphone.) Okay, Mr. Thomas said that Smiths are not in it, Hopps are not in it. We have a petition that incorporates Bussard's property currently. I want to tell you a little bit about how that letter came about, because there are some other things in there that you might not understand when you read it. I'll give you some background, as it is not self-explanatory. We asked Don Jensen, the Deputy Chief of Operations with the City of Bend Fire Department, to come out and evaluate the property for access, which he did. He drove all of the access roads, including the Sisters Mainline Road. As you can see from the letter, he concluded that the response route would be via Skyliners and along our existing access easements. He also concluded that they are adequate for access. As a part of doing that evaluation, the Rural Fire Protection District had been asked whether they had any standards for annexing property into the District. In fact, the City of Bend Fire Department is asking the Rural Fire Protection Districts the same thing. The answer to that question was no. The next question was, well, should they? Minutes of Public Hearing Page 25 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 And so one of the things that Don Jensen did for us, which is the purpose of the letter to Chief Langston, is that when he came out to look at this piece of property, he said in his letter that it should be used as a model for the districts to determine whether they should allow parcels to be annexed. Because of the fire protection measures that Mr. Thomas has undertaken on the property, it not only creates defensible space for his own property, but also would protect the properties to the east should a fire spread from the west. He has taken some aggressive steps out there for fire protection, and it's not a small issue to us. We are very careful to make sure that there will be adequate emergency vehicle access out there, because we do intend to use this for residential purposes. That's all I have on my appeal issue. My client would like to say a few words, and then Mr. Dewey has all the other issues. Then I have a whole bunch more to tell you about these other issues, and it's really hard for me to sit still and not talk to you about them, but I have to. MATT THOMAS: I am one of the property owners. My wife and I went through about a five-year. process to get this property, and of course in doing so I had to get a bigger piece of property and partition it into three pieces. Part of our decision to live out there is to divide the two 80's out of the property. When we were going through that process, our first concern before we started was the fire protection. We've gone pretty much around the whole property right now. We moved a fence line one-quarter mile away from our neighbors, the Smiths, so they couldn't see it. And when came through this process, we were right behind that Taylor and Spencer planning issue. When Tia (Lewis) and I heard about this appeal by the Sisters Forest Planning Commission, I didn't know who they really are. I didn't know if any of them were neighbors. It sounds really official, like it's a government agency or something. So we don't know if the people who are appealing this really have anything to do with this property, and don't know why they are doing this to us versus the first time we partitioned or the Taylor/Spencer partition. Our issues are exactly the same. We're using the same forest service road for access. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 26 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 (Ms. Lewis now referred to the oversized maps.) The primary road that runs up the eastern border, the Smiths live here and that's their only road in and out. They may have a back road somewhere, but that's their primary access road. The Greens live here and that's their only way in and out. These folks, I believe they come in somehow from the back. Bill Hopp has these two, and he accesses his from the back. This parcel is using just this road, and the same with these for sure. This is actually going to be our route going in and out of there. When I drove this with the Fire Marshall, he said he would have no reason to come from this other side since the fire station is in Tumalo. They would go up Johnson. I've gotten some really good feedback from those people. Some of the issues that have been raised by the Sisters group about wildlife and what have you, and fire protection. I think that fire is a big issue for everybody. We lost a house in a forest fire - the one that Dennis (Luke) built actually - in the Awbrey Hall fire. So we're very well aware of fire protection. We plan to put some ponds out there. That will be for a double purpose, for fire protection and for wildlife in the area. And we're going to the Department of Wildlife, the federal and state fire agencies, .to try to get some help from them to get that put in out there. A lot of the issues that were raised we have already addressed. I think I would like you guys to come out for a site visit. I think if you look at what we've done and what we're trying to do out there compared with the existing property owners out there, you are going to see quite a bit of difference in how we are approaching the development and maintenance of this property. I have a forest plan in effect right now. It was just signed off in October. That's been approved. DEWOLF: Is it in the record? THOMAS: I can get a copy of it to you. I just want you know that it isn't a hind -sighted development type program. We are looking at it for the long term, and the best use of the land. It's been logged pretty heavily a couple of times and we're going to try to repair it. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 27 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 (The Board took a brief break at this time.) PAUL DEWEY: I represent the Sisters Forest Planning Committee. I, too, have a few packets of material. (He then distributed some handouts to the Commissioners; a copy of these documents is attached as Exhibit F.) LUKE: For the benefit of the audience, could you give a brief overview of the Committee, please? DEWEY: Yes, I'd be glad to. I represent the Sisters Forest Planning Committee, which was organized in the early 1980's. The Committee was originally concerned with national forest timber sales. Over the years, for example we are in the consensus process of the Metolius basin, to reduce fire danger in the Metolius/Camp Sherman area. We are working with the City of Bend about a similar consensus process for the west side of Bend. We've also been active in use issues. When Bill Reed was proposing a .number of parcels along Three Creeks Road.as part of what I will refer to as the Crown timberland log, which is an exhibit. Although it's not identified, it's a large green area that is essentially the industrial timberland block that used to be owned by Brooks Resources, then Diamond, then DAW. It's now primarily owned by Crown. I've given you materials and a colored map that's in the record, of current ownerships in this area. The Sisters Forest Planning Committee opposed the parcels up here, the creation of a number of 80 -acre parcels, and also opposed partitions by Hap Taylor and Tweedfam. The context for all of this is very important, because this is not an issue of some technical interpretation of a Code provision. The context here is everything. What we are seeing over the past couple of years is essentially the conversion of the private timberland block between Bend and Sisters into residential uses. I've attached a few exhibits of newspaper articles and other information identifying this process. (At this point, the sound/recording system cut out and Mr. Dewey's comments were not clear.) Minutes of Public Hearing Page 28 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 Somebody mentioned fire earlier. One of the great concerns of the Oregon Department of Forestry as well as the Sisters Forest Planning Committee has been the fire danger that occurs because of building in forestlands; the incursion of forest dwellings in the F-1 zone. (There was a short break while the problem with the sound system was addressed.) DEWEY: I refer to the packet of material I gave to you, and I highlighted the conclusion of the Oregon Department of Forestry. The point I was trying to make is that Oregon Department of Forestry concluded that the results support the hypothesis that residential development in the urban forest interface significantly increases the risk of wildfire. The results also show that large fires that threaten residential developments cost significantly more to extinguish than similar fires in populated areas. What is critical here is that the only thing really holding back development at this point in this area is actually the development Code regarding access requirements. I would like you to turn to exhibit D if you would. What that is a blown -up statement of your Section 17.22.020 a.3. I'd like to read that if I could. The Code provision provides that "the partition is accessed either by roads dedicated to the public, or by way of United States Forest Service: or Bureau of Land Management roads where the applicant has submitted a written agreement with the appropriate land management agency, providing for permanent, legal access to the parcels and any required maintenance. This provision shall not be subject to variance." DEWOLF: So how did those other parcels get access? The ones that were pointed out where there are three or four other homes along there that are using a road that comes off of Bull Springs Road, which is private, and onto another road that is private. DEWEY: Those were earlier parcels. They are in an F-2 zone, not the F-1 zone that we have here. And I don't know when those parcels were created or why the County granted them access. I do want to emphasize - and I'm glad you brought that up - that the Bull Springs Road is really irrelevant here. Because the standard for granting a partition is a public road or a Forest Service road. Bull Springs Road is neither. It is a private road. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 29 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 And to give you a little bit more history, maybe more than you want, when Hap Taylor and Tweedfam originally applied for their partition, they tried to use the Bull Springs Road. But because the Bull Springs Road is a private road, encumbered with easement upon easement, Deschutes County said, no way are we taking this on, no way can we go through all of these easements and come up with what is going to be a road open to the public. So then Hap Taylor and Tweedfam went back and said, okay, our only other alternative is to use a Forest Service road. They used a public road, Skyliners Road, out from Bend, until it intersects with the Sisters Mainline Road. So, that's the history of the Bull Springs Road. I'm concerned that staff, in their diagram and their flow chart here, talking about "how about the Bull Springs Road being the access here", actually the applicant didn't even apply for that. The only application here, the only access under the Code that has been applied for here, is the Sisters Mainline Road and Skyliners Road. LUKE: I have a question on that. Do you agree that the property is accessed or at least bordered by a Forest Service road? DEWEY: No. I'll explain. Part of the road -- one of the parcels is accessed by part of the road. IRIVAN Okay, let's say that the main piece of property is accessed by a Forest Service Road. DEWEY: No. It's touched by it, but there are breaks. That's one of our arguments, that these easements date back forty years with timber companies, some of which we contend are no longer legally binding, and that there are breaks in this road so that they are not accessed. LUKE: Okay. Let's throw out the rest of the road. The property that goes along the length of the property, that touches the property, does access that piece of property. Whether the easements work their way up or not. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 30 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 WCUT A Yes. The overall land to be partition is touched by a Forest Service road. LUKE: Okay. There is nothing in the provisions that say how you access that Forest Service road. DEWOLF: What you are saying is that there is nothing in here that says it has to be fronting on it. LUKE: No. What it says is that it has to be accessed by a Forest Service road. The property is accessed by a Forest Service road. It doesn't say how you need to access that road, though. DEWEY: Well, if you interpret your provisions to make sense, access is critical. And that's why this provision is in here, to make sure that there is safe and convenient access to parcels that are being created, for obvious reasons - emergency vehicles. If there is just an isolated piece of Forest Service road out there that you can't get to, that's not going to provide the kind of access that the Code really is requiring here. When this was adopted, the Commissioners said that this provision shall not be subject to variance. This was an important provision, that any new parcels that are created have access, and real access. You have to get there; otherwise the access is meaningless if there is just a piece of Forest Service road out there. LUKE: I appreciate the fact that you have to get there. They don't say you have to get there on a Forest Service road. It just says that the property has to be accessed by Forest Service road. DEWOLF: But, then, define access. 0 '14 The property does touch the Forest Service road. It doesn't say that you have to come the full length of the Forest Service road to get there. This piece of property actually has the Bull Springs Road that comes across that accesses the Forest Service road. It doesn't say you can't do that. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 31 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 DEWEY: Commissioner, your provision says that a partition is accessed either by roads dedicated to the public or the Forest Service. If you create precedent here, and of course it is always up to you to create precedent or interpretations of your Code provisions, that private roads suffice - that you don't need to have public roads, and you don't have to have Forest Service roads to get to these properties - that's your prerogative. And you should go through a Code change to provide that. But that's not what your current section provides. Bull Springs Road is a private road that the public is not allowed on. The additional issues, and I briefly touched on them, regarding this timberland block, besides fire, is also the private timber supply issue. I've quoted a number of provisions from your comprehensive plan that say that the F-1 zone is to be protected for timberland, because that's the private timberland supply remaining in Deschutes County. A third reason is that this is also the Tumalo deer winter range, which has been recognized not only in your Code but also by the ODF&W (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife) and the U.S. Forest Service. So there are a lot of reasons to require these access requirements; that is to hold these access requirements strictly. One of the key issues is whether there are written agreements, and whether these timber company easements constitute written agreements. Our argument is that first of all, you really need to have a written agreement between the applicant and the Forest Service. And having an agreement between somebody who signed a timber easement providing for log hauling on the road forty years ago, is not what the Code has in mind. Again, that is a matter of interpretation for you, but we believe it is essential for this provision to truly have meaning that an applicant has an agreement with the Forest Service, not a timber company. Also, we don't believe that these timber easements work. If you would please turn to what I believe is exhibit E. This was a map originally prepared by Hickman Williams for the Hap Taylor application. What was interesting about this is that you'll see the red arrows; that's where the timber company's easement runs. If you'll note where the road actually runs, it's off to the east. I've designated that as a private road. Also on page 2 are photographs showing this. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 32 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 DEWOLF: So you are claiming that the existing road that is in use now is not within the easement as described. DEWEY: That's correct. And the reason is that the old easement roads run right through the middle of Hap Taylor's mine. If you drive along there, you will run into the gate, which is shown in the top photo on that page, and you'll run into a pit. I assume it was Hap Taylor who closed this off years ago. What they then created was this private road, which is clearly marked as a private road. To answer a question that came up earlier, can these easements be terminated, obviously they can be terminated, and this one got terminated. There is substantial law on abandonment and number of other legal reasons why easements are not permanent. I'll remind you again that your Code provision requires written agreements providing for permanent legal access. The written agreements of the applicants .and the Hearings Officer are relying upon.no longer exist; I mean the paper exists but the road does not exist; the road does not access this parcel. I'm going to jump ahead to another issue regarding maintenance. There's a requirement for a written agreement for a maintenance agreement. That was one disagreement that we had with Hearings Officer, who said that yes, you're right, but these timber company easements from forty years ago mention the possibility of maintenance. So you could probably get a special use permit from the Forest Service. Well, that is pure speculation. I mean, we don't know whether this applicant can get a special use permit for the required maintenance. But that speculation shouldn't be necessary, because the Code requires a written agreement. In fact, I don't think you can get a written agreement from the Forest Service for this maintenance without going through a NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) process, a planning process, that considers the impacts on federal lands and the federal road system, particularly with regard to the deer winter range. LUKE: Do you know that for sure? Minutes of Public Hearing Page 33 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 DEWEY: I talked with the Forest Service about it, and they said they don't know. I've cited the statute for the National Environmental Policy Act. It is certainly our position that given the importance of this Act and the importance of the Tumalo deer winter range, an analysis would have to be done before the maintenance level on this road was increased. As your own Road Department representative stated, this road really isn't adequate. And the Forest Service refers to this level of maintenance as a level 2, which is defined as shown under SFPC exhibit F. This is an e-mail from the Forest Service, Dale Putman. Level 2 is described as "assigned to roads open for use by high clearance vehicles; passenger car traffic is not a consideration. Traffic is normally minor, usually consisting of one or a combination of administrative, permitted, disbursed recreation or other specialized uses. Log haul may occur at this level. Appropriate traffic management strategies are either to 1) discourage or prohibit passenger cars; or 2) accept or discourage high clearance vehicles." So, Commissioner DeWolf, you probably shouldn't take your car on that road. DEWOLF: Well, as long as she's covering any•damages, Td give it a whirl.: Thanks, though. 101XVIi%= I want to emphasize, and I take your point, Commissioner Luke, that there is a little bit of a shell game going on here. Because your Code clearly requires a legal access road - that's a public road or a Forest Service road - and it's not going to work. The fact that it can't carry a fire truck - and just because the Fire Department says, "Oh, we'll take a back road; we won't have to use the legal access road that your County would require even to partition this in the first place" - is irrelevant. For all intents and purposes, for all legal purposes, this is the road. It's the Sisters Mainline Road that is the legal road. Another issue that came up, and it's particular to this application and didn't apply to Hap Taylor and Tweedfam, and the Hearings Officer made this point, is that two of the parcels to be created here are not actually accessed by the Forest Service road. And she concluded that the language was ambiguous, that perhaps it's not necessary to touch all the parcels; that all you need to do is touch one of the parcels with this public access road. Again, please refer to the language or the blown -up section on the partition provision. You'll see underlined, "access to the parcels"; it's not access just to the partition; it's to the parcels. If you think about it, it just makes sense. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 34 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 Just as Cathy mentioned that the planner who originally drafted this provision intended, the whole idea, if you are going to be requiring access to parcels resulting from a partition, is for that access to reach all of the parcels. Otherwise you are just reaching one, and what would be the point then of not being able to reach all of the other parcels. There's no ambiguity here; your Code provision does refer to the "parcels". Unfortunately, the Hearings Officer didn't consider that language, or at least she didn't discuss the particular language of that section in her report. What she did do is refer to some other provision regarding frontage, and she concluded that since there was mention of frontage of fifty feet for some roads, and thirty feet for other roads, and there was no particular mention of a certain number of feet for a Forest Service road, that it could be none. And therefore there wasn't a need for any frontage on a Forest Service road. But there is no need to go to that extreme. I mean, you have a basic requirement of a twenty -foot wide road. And because this provision doesn't mention how many feet of Forest Service access road must front a property, doesn't mean that it would be zero. It would be the minimum of twenty. All this provision does is give exceptions of that twenty -foot wide rule, of thirty feet or fifty feet. So we disagree, with the Hearings Officer in her analysis of this section, and believe that it's not . ambiguous; that access is required to each of the parcels. DEWOLF: I'm confused. You talk about twenty feet; that's the width of the road, correct? And somehow, in my mind I am getting it confused with the amount of distance of frontage on that road. Are we taking two different things here? DEWEY: Well, I am assuming that when there is a reference to frontage - she assumed that since it wasn't mentioned how many feet of frontage there was with the Forest Service road, that it must be zero - and I'm saying that if you have an access requirement, if this Forest Service road has to access each of these parcels, by implication, since every road needs twenty feet, then there has to be at least twenty feet of frontage for the Forest Service road. DEWOLF: And that doesn't make sense to me necessarily. Let me try to explain a bit better. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 35 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 There needs to be access - forget parcels B and C - on the frontage there, whatever distance it is; the access for them is the width of their driveway, for instance. DEWEY: Right. DEWOLF: And so it seems to me that's how much frontage you would need, whatever is required for the width of a driveway, which may be twenty feet. I don't know if we have any provisions out there for a specific width of a driveway. Is that making sense? DEWEY: Yes. We're saying it should be twenty feet. By implication, you reach twenty feet with this provision. Again, I don't know why she went to that, because there is no ambiguity with the underlying requirement for access to each parcel. LUKE: To follow up on that, if these were flag lots that came down with a twenty -foot strip that came all the way down to the road, that would be acceptable? DEWEY: I haven't researched that issue. And since we aren't dealing with that, I hesitate to say. DEWOLF: I'll say for you. No, it wouldn't, because it doesn't follow that there isn't a continuously unbroken easement on the Forest Service road. That would be your answer. You've got a private road as part of it. DEWEY: Thank you, Councilor. LUKE: If the lot itself was a flag lot, then your property that accesses the Forest Service road. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 36 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 DEWOLF: But it doesn't access it if you don't have access. In fact, what he is claiming is, because you've got this section of road that's private road, you don't have access over to Skyliners and you don't have access over to here. LUKE: We were speaking in general terms. DALY: Regarding the private road part of that, do you know if that's on the Hap Taylor property? DEWEY: Yes. I assume so. It looks like their signing of it. But I don't know exactly whose it is, but it is just marked as a private road. I assume it's theirs because it's their pit and they are the ones who are primarily using it. DALY: Has anybody done any research on how you have the right to destroy the Forest Service road or take it out? DEWEY: No, I haven't done any research on that. I did call the Forest Service and they said they hadn't noticed. DEWOLF: Well, it happens. I mean, look what we did out at the Cook Avenue interchange. We found out that - who had that pit? - they'd been digging on our property for decades and nobody knew about that. I DI C LIMWA If I could answer a question that Commissioner Luke raised earlier regarding template dwellings. We hope that County staff, when they give you information on houses and parcels, that they note those that were in existence as of January 1, 1993, because the statute in your Code as you well know requires a certain number of parcels to have existed as of a certain date. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 37 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 We've included as exhibit G, the final exhibit, records from the Soil Conservation Service showing the growth rate in this area in feet. What that means is that under your template dwelling test, if the productivity of the soil is between 21 and 50, then there has to have been three existing dwellings and seven existing lots as of January 1, 1993, within a 160 -acre square around the subject parcel where a dwelling would be requested. Our argument is that they can't use these 80 -acre parcels for the use intended. DEWOLF: At all? DEWEY: Not for residential, not for dwellings. We doubt whether you could actually use 80 acres adequately for forestry; that is your minimum standard under the Code, as to whether you can make a meaningful go of it. LUKE: Just because you can't farm 20 acres, doesn't mean you can't farm it. You just have to have two outside jobs. I 111 !,TJ Wd I'll try to conclude very quickly here. I would like to reserve the opportunity to respond to Tia's equal protection arguments until I have a chance to read her materials. DEWOLF: I'm absolutely guaranteeing that we are going to leave this open for at least written comments. Because of the holidays, and the fact that we have until the end of January to make a decision, I'm guessing that we will leave enough time so that we can make site visits, and so that anybody can respond to things. We'll stretch this out enough to make it work for everybody. �11VTJ Wd I do encourage you to take a site visit, and go the route of Skyliners and drive up the Sisters Mainline Road, since that is the access being applied for here. DEWOLF: But you are claiming that it can't be, because the road is not all Forest Service road. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 38 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 DEWEY: Right. The easement has been broken; and we think that the fact that this bridge is only rated to ten tons and can't service emergency vehicles is another reason. DEWOLF: So why doesn't the Forest Service then sue Hap Taylor; or why don't you sue the Forest Service and Hap Taylor for this road not being in the appropriate right-of- way? DEWEY: This is exactly the point why you shouldn't rely on written agreements between timber companies from twenty to thirty years ago or more to provide the written agreements for access to these parcels. This gets so convoluted. The more these get parceled up and divided up, and the more ownerships you get up there and the different people using the roads for different purposes, it's going to be a nightmare. And you should deny - because of that and all the other reasons - you should deny their application. But, as a final point, I want to say again that this flow chart is incorrect in a number of respects, because the key here is access under 17.22.020..a.3. It's not a frontage issue so much as it is an access issue. Second, the private road is not at issue here. There has been no application for a legal access by them via Bull Springs Road because you can't do it. I'll just leave it at that, unless there are any other questions. DALY: Hap Taylor has a gate across the road, but is the road gone? DEWEY: There's a pit there. You couldn't drive across it. And actually you'll see on the third -- DEWOLF: I want to follow this line of questioning, though. Is it at least plausible that if this were the requirement and the applicant agreed to comply with this requirement, that they could enforce the fact that the easement exists and reclaim that portion of the road, right through that pit? Minutes of Public Hearing Page 39 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 DEWEY: Maybe. But maybe Hap Taylor or whoever closed it has a legal right to break that easement. DEWOLF: That there may be an agreement between Hap Taylor and the Forest Service that none of us is aware of, that allowed for that change of road? DEWEY: Right. There are any number of reasons why an easement can be terminated. LUKE: Or it could have been vacated for a specific period of time while it is being mined, with a temporary easement around it, and he could be required to rebuild the easement when he's done. DEWEY: Right. A number of possibilities are there. The reality is that there is no access by that road right now, under these easements. DALY: Legal access may exist, but may have been interrupted by Hap Taylor and that may be a legal interruption or not. DEWEY: Actually, we are contending that there are other problems with these easements, in other sections as well. But we've submitted that in writing and decided not to raise those at this time. I wanted to raise these key issues instead. DEWOLF: Thank you, Paul. Are there any others who wish to testify now? Yes, yes, yes. Now, I don't have to be a lawyer to read this. Number 3, you get your chance. Number 4, Paul gets his chance. Number 5, after the representatives of the proponents of both appeals have testified, any others who wish to testify and present evidence will be given the opportunity to do so. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 40 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 CRAGHEAD: (To Ms. Lewis) With what we had talked about just before, is that you were going to present everything right at the front, I realize now that you changed it when you stood up here. Because I gave it to you in writing ahead of time. LEWIS: Right. I was going to present my appeal. And then rather than try to anticipate what Mr. Dewey was going to argue about each of these issues, I was going to sit down and let him argue. Then I was going to respond to what he argued, and then we were going to open it up for public testimony. Then we were going to do rebuttal. CRAGHEAD: We discussed this before the hearing. Because that's how I wrote the instructions that I gave to you. LEWIS: That is how we discussed it. Ask Paul (Dewey). LUKE: Excuse me. When she was up there, that's exactly what she said. CRAGHEAD: Right. That's what I'm saying. LEWIS: I need to be able to respond. LUKE: There didn't seem to be any objection to what she said. She stated that. So I think it's okay. CRAGHEAD: That was different than the instructions we had worked out before. DEWOLF: I'm going to ask the audience. Does anybody have a problem with her continuing here for five minutes? Because if nobody does, we're going to go forward and let her break the rules that we all agreed to, and then we'll go on with anyone else who wants to testify. Is that okay? Paul, you okay with that? Minutes of Public Hearing Page 41 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 Litl r�" For the purpose of any potential appeal, I don't believe there were any rules broken here. For the record. DALY: And I agree with that. DEWOLF: For the record, I get to give anybody I want to a hard time just because it's late. No objection was received from the audience. LEWIS: Thank you. I am going to be brief. One additional point is that I do object to the inclusion of Mr. Blikstad's testimony, if that's what we want to call it, on the intent of the ordinance. LUKE: He wasn't named by anyone. LEWIS: Okay. I object to the inclusion of the testimony of the planner who drafted the subdivision ordinance, on what that was intended to mean. DEWOLF: Why? LEWIS: Because it's not a part of a legislative history; it's undisclosed; it's hearsay; and we need to rely on what the actual language says, and I think that Commissioner Luke's point was well taken on that. DEWOLF: We will always rely on what it says. But don't you agree that it's reasonable to try to understand somebody's intent to help you interpret? LEWIS: If that intent is a part of a legislative history. If it comes from a conversation with a planner, who drafted it five years ago, no. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 42 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 DEWOLF: Would you prefer that we have him put that in writing and submit it into the record? LEWIS: No. I object to it being put into the record, completely. DEWOLF: Why? I don't understand that. If he wrote it, that is part of the legislative history. LEWIS: Part of what is in his mind now, looking back on what he wrote five years ago, is not legislative history. LUKE: And it doesn't speak to the intent of those who voted at that time. LEWIS: Correct. Who are the people whose opinions are the ones that matter for the purpose of what the intention was in the language. It's just a record objection. DALY: You would have to go through the record and actually see what was actually said. LEWIS: That's correct. If we want to rely on legislative history, we rely on what was said at the time the statute or ordinance was adopted. Let's talk about the frontage issue. The first point I want to make with regard to this is that this argument about access isn't about access. It is really about frontage. That's what we are talking about with regard to whether Parcels B and C front along the Sisters Mainline Road. The first thing I want to say about it is that this was not raised below. It has never been briefed or argued before a Hearings Officer. DEWOLF: This is de novo. Anything can be brought up. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 43 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 LEWIS: That's correct. However, one of the criteria that you look at when deciding whether to accept de novo review is whether an issue could have been raised below. I don't get a chance to talk to you about de novo review because of the procedures set forth in the Code, so now I'm going to talk to you about it. DEWOLF: But you requested de novo review, right? LEWIS: I requested de novo review of condition 4-A. That's all. DEWOLF: De novo means de novo. LEWIS: You can accept de novo review of a single issue if you want. CRAGHEAD: Right. But the Board did not. LEWIS: They didn't. But I didn't get a chance to tell you about this before, so I'm going to tell you now. I'm asking you to reconsider your decision to accept de novo review on this one issue. Because the issues could- have been presented before and they weren't. That's one of the criteria that you looked at. CRAGHEAD: The notice of the de novo hearing, number 3, under 22.30.027 says, "not withstanding any of the criteria, the Board may decide on its own to hear a timely filed appeal de novo." So you can disregard all the criteria and decide to do it de novo anyway. DEWOLF: And, can she now ask us to change our minds and can we change our minds on what criteria we're going to hear de novo, and decide to hear it only on 4-A? CRAGHEAD: I don't believe so, because it was noticed as a full de novo hearing. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 44 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 DEWOLF: So you can complain, but -- LEWIS: On the record. That's all I wanted. Thank you. DEWOLF: That way if you don't get your way, you can use this at LUBA? Is that the reason? LEWIS: If necessary, I suppose. But that's not quite the way I would put it. 4 = Z Additionally, staff just pointed out to me that under 22.32.025(c), it says, "In instances of multiple appeals where separate appellants have asked for differing codes of review, any granted de novo review shall control over any separate requests for a more limited review on appeal." LEWIS: Okay. Moving on. With regard to this frontage issue, when you look at the criterion related to access, and that's the criteria that Mr. Dewey blew up for you and had in front of you, it says, "Partitions shall be accessed from a public road or from a U.S. Forest Service or a BLM road." That is the criteria applicable to this application that relates to access. If you look at the criteria that relates to frontage, that is found at 17.36.180. DEWOLF: Do I have that in this book? DALY: What does it say? Go ahead; we'll find it. LEWIS: It says that partitions off of the U.S. Forest Service roads are exempt. If you read it, it says, "There shall be fifty feet of frontage for partitions on a public road, thirty feet on a cul-de-sac, except for partitions off of U.S. Forest Service roads." Minutes of Public Hearing Page 45 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 Now, there is some argument that the exception is meant to be not an exception at all, but to impose a frontage requirement of some width that we don't know. The better reading of that, because there is no width in there, is that it is meant to be an exception; that partitions off of Forest Service roads do not have a frontage requirement. If they did have a frontage requirement, it would be in your Code; it wouldn't be left for us to decipher, to figure out what it might be. And when you read those two Code sections together, there is no ambiguity. It becomes very clear. Partitions off of Forest Service roads are exempt from the frontage requirement. Nevertheless, if we want to go there, Mr. Luke had a valid point. We have enough frontage along the Sisters Mainline Road to bring each one of these parcels down and make them a flag lot, of whatever width. Assuming that fifty feet is the maximum that would be required, because that's what is in the Code, we have enough frontage to make each parcel have fifty feet of frontage. It's not a practical or an economical use of the property. As Mr. Thomas testified, we have a forest management plan on this entire parcel. The owner of each parcel is responsible for his or her aspect of the forest management plan. If we have to bring Parcel B and Parcel C down as flag lots, it takes up about five acres of each lot. The owner of Parcel B has to manage five acres for forestry purposes, as would the owner of Parcel C, because each of these comes down here. If we do it like we have it now, there is an easement road running up here that's about twenty feet wide, and takes up about 2.5 acres. Mr. Thomas then manages the rest of it in conjunction with his larger parcel. Rather than have our application denied, if you determine that the frontage is required, we would request a condition that we modify our plan to create flag lots, which we will do if necessary. However, as I mentioned, we believe that we meet the requirements without the flag lot creation by virtue of reading the two applicable Code sections, access and frontage, together in the way in which Ms. Green did. Then let's talk about the easements. In the packet of information that I gave you, attached as exhibit C is a map of the Sisters Mainline Road, and all three easements that give us a right of access along the Sisters Mainline Road are also attached to that map. I've given you the language of the easement documents themselves so that you can see that they bind the successors and interests of each of the timber companies that entered into these agreements with the Forest Service. They bind all of the successors and interests, of which we are. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 46 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 I want to emphasize that these easements, while they were entered into many years ago, the existence of them has been reaffirmed most recently through this application process, and through the Crown - Forest Service timber exchange that was done in 1999. In the record, and I can tell you where it is but you don't have it in front of you, I've attached the deed where Crown and the Forest Service exchanged properties. It's attached as exhibit H to my third supplemental burden of proof statement. That deed specifically re -references this easement and re - reserves all three of these easements along the Sisters Mainline Road as being valid and in place. There is also, in the materials that I just gave you, as exhibit F, two affidavits and an e-mail from two different Forest Service officials, all of which have maps attached, attesting to the fact that we have access along this stretch of the Forest Service road through these three easements. DEWOLF: So how do you answer the question that, if in fact there's a section of that which is now a private road because the actual easement runs through the middle of the pit that Hap Taylor is running, they can say all they want to. If in fact that easement doesn't run along that road, you don't have access. LEWIS:' We do have access. And the easement itself provides for it. Now, I am not aware of a gate being placed across this. We have traveled the Sisters Mainline Road just recently, and I'm not aware of a gate being placed across it. I am aware that Hap Taylor and Kevin Spencer did construct a private road on their property to their pit. I don't have any information that the picture that Mr. Dewey gave you showing the gate is across the Sisters Mainline Road. I will check that out. However, what I do know is that these easements provide us with legal access. Also attached, as exhibit G to the packet of information that we gave you, is a letter from Western Title Company. Western Title did an entire chain of title research on this piece of property, the bulk of which is in the record. It's 104 pages long. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 47 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 They concluded that we have access along these easements; that any changes in ownership through the course of Crown Pacific and Diamond International passed to us; that we have a legal right of access across these easements; that they will insure access based on these easements alone; and that they will not insure over or eliminate these easements from the underlying title holders' policy. Now, if in fact Hap Taylor did block off this easement and created a road around it, they are in violation, because we have easement rights. It is undeniable; these documents in the record speak for themselves. DEWOLF: But, that gets back to the point of if you can't do it, if you get to a spot and there's a ravine that you can't get over to your access, that's virtually the same thing as not having access. Is it not? LEWIS: If you can't physically use it, I guess so. I've shown you how much access we have. And we certainly can use the Sisters Mainline Road from Bull Springs Road. We don't need to go down:through.Hap Taylor's property to use the Forest Service road as access. Another point I want to bring up, with all due respect, is that I disagree actually with Mr. Dewey about us not having applied for access along these other roads. When we applied for this application, we applied to show that the Sisters Mainline Road provides us with a legal right of access. We also showed our access across Bull Springs Road, and we showed our access up the eastern property boundary. We've submitted all of these easements, and they have all been in the record from the beginning. So we've applied for access in every direction that we have access. DEWOLF: So what I need -- and you don't need to do it today necessarily -- where I am in conflict here is that you are claiming that you have access to that property because the Forest Service road goes all the way over the Skyliners, and that's the connection that meets the provisions of the Code. And yet, you object to having to bring it up to the standards that would be applied by the Hearings Officer who agreed with you in order to have that access. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 48 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 You are saying you're going to use this other access, so you are using a technicality. This is my problem. What I interpret you saying is that you are using the technicality of the 5.5 -mile Forest Service road in order to meet the provisions of the Code to get the subdivision done, but the reality is you aren't going to use that, so therefore you don't have to improve it since you are going to use the private Bull Springs Road. LEWIS: We are using the Sisters Mainline Road, though. We're using a section of it. And we have no objection to improving that part. DEWOLF: But that does not connect directly to another public road that is improved to a standard that would accept a fire truck. LEWIS: That's correct. DEWOLF:. That's what is being argued by Paul Dewey; is that is exactly what is being required. And that's where we are stuck in this decision. LEWIS: I disagree with Mr. Dewey. DEWOLF: I can tell that. We've got frontage on the Forest Service road. I think everybody would agree that there are pieces of the Forest Service road that abut this property directly, for some length of space. The question becomes, is there continuous access on publicly dedicated roads? That's when it seems to me, and that's where I want you to help me to understand to make your case, that you are saying, technically we do, down to Skyliners; but in reality since we aren't going to use it, we don't have to do the other part that the Hearings Officer required. That is to bring it up to useable standards. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 49 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 LEWIS: My point is, and the reason why I say that we shouldn't have to bring it up to standards, is the point I was trying to make at the beginning. The reason she said it has to be up to standards, the findings related to why it needs to be up to standards, are not because we have traffic impacts. It's because she says it has to provide you with physical access; we've presented you evidence that it does provide us with physical access. And that it is needed for emergency vehicle access; and we've presented you with evidence that it is not needed for emergency vehicle access. DEWOLF: But in regard to Don Jensen, who I have every bit of respect for, and I trust his judgment, his letter is not in reference to our Code; it's in reference to fire codes. And for fire suppression purposes, I'm sure everything is just fine. But what we've got is two separate codes, and you are taking a piece of each one in order to make your argument work. Make the whole thing work for me, which is what I need to see happen here. LUKE: I want to build on that a little bit. We're probably going to need something in the record that says that the Fire Department can legally travel on a private road for access. LEWIS: We can certainly provide you with that. LUKE: I think you are going to need that. DEWOLF: I don't understand, with this being one of the key issues here, why you didn't or why you don't make application or get agreements so that Bull Springs Road from Johnson all the way up to that property becomes a publicly -dedicated road, brought up to County standards, as well as the one that you want to use as access on the eastern border of the property. LEWIS: We will not be able to dedicate this one, because we don't have the right to do it. Because we are governed by the provisions of the easements that we have on this road, and we do not have a right to dedicate this one. We absolutely have a right to dedicate this other one. We would like to dedicate it. But we've been down that road. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 50 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 DALY: We won't take it; is that what you're saying? DEWOLF: Because it's not brought up to County standards. LEWIS: We're willing to bring it up to County standards. But the County won't take it because of the easements that are on it. Is that accurate, Laurie? CRAGHEAD: Absolutely. DEWOLF: I need you to help me understand that part. CRAGHEAD: Because it would mean that the County would be taking a road with encumbrances. DEWOLF: We've got all kinds of roads with encumbrances like that LUKE: Are you going to make constitutional arguments today? LEWIS: Not today, no. I've made those for the record. My constitutional arguments are related to the fact that we have fifty percent of a road traveling through the southern partition that has the exact same impacts, and we didn't get the same conditions. Those are my arguments, as well as that there is no evidence in the record that the impacts from this proposal justify the road improvements. Those are in writing and are sufficiently developed in writing to my satisfaction. DALY: I have a question. If, for example, the Sisters Mainline Road didn't access Skyliners but accessed a private road, are we still going to consider that not sufficient? In other words, it accesses Skyliners; but, for instance, if there was a private road that -- Minutes of Public Hearing Page 51 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 DEWOLF: If Skyliners were a private road. CRAGHEAD: That's what the Sisters Forest Planning Committee is arguing, is that because the Code says there can be no variance, you can't consider private roads as the access. That's their argument. DALY: So, in other words, if Skyliners were a private road, we wouldn't even be here. DEWOLF: Correct. CRAGHEAD: Right. DALY: I guess that's my point. CRAGHEAD: The applicant is arguing that having easements does not mean there is a variance to that Code provision. DEWOLF: I don't understand why we wouldn't accept a road just because there are easements on it. Help me to understand that. CRAGHEAD: This particular road has several things on it. I remember this coming up a long time ago, but don't remember all the main issues. I'd have to look at it again. DEWOLF: Can we get it in writing, sometime within the time period allowed? I'd like to understand what it is about this road that we're unwilling to accept it as a County road. Whether it is maintained by the County or not. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 52 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 I'm talking about Bull Springs Road. We've got an applicant saying that they are willing to dedicate this as a public road, and that they have the legal right to do so. And we are rejecting that, and I'd like to understand why. CRAGHEAD: You have full ownership of Bull Springs Road? LEWIS: In the easement document, we specifically bargained for the right to dedicate it to the public. MUM% If either Crown or the applicant requests the other one to sign the dedication papers, the easement agreement papers say they have to do it. CRAGHEAD: I think that was the other issue, is that all they are doing then is assigning or giving the easement, not the road itself. DEWOLF: And that's what we would require. LEWIS: We can get the underlying property owner, who is now Kevin Spencer, who tried to dedicate the road in the first place, to dedicate the road. That's not an issue. CRAGHEAD: I will talk with the Road Department on that. DEWOLF: Okay. Because that it what I'd like to understand. LEWIS: My understanding is that Kevin Spencer owns almost all of the property under this road, and that Crown owns the rest. And we do have the right to get Crown to dedicate it as well. DEWOLF: Not the easement, but the road. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 53 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 LEWIS: The road. DEWOLF: Okay. That is one issue here. DALY: If that issue were resolved, then we wouldn't have to worry about the Hap Taylor property. DEWOLF: Well, if in fact there were a public road that ran from Johnson all the way to that subject property, I think that would satisfy this particular issue for Parcel A. LEWIS: I agree. But let's go back to the fact that there isn't right now. And I would love to explore that issue to the extent that the County would reconsider its position. However, now we're stuck with what we have. And what I would like to address is the fact that Mr. Dewey says the road isn't there anymore. The road is there. We've driven on it. The road has been in existence and use for the past twenty. years. DEWOLF: But if it's not in the legal right-of-way -- LEWIS: It is in the legal right-of-way. Hap Taylor and Kevin Spencer constructed a road around the Sisters Mainline Road. They may very well have put a gate over it; I do not know. But if they did, we will make them remove that gate, pursuant to our legal right to do so in the easements that I gave you. DALY: You're going to have to make them put the road back, too. LEWIS: I don't think they've moved it. I think they just gated it and built a road around it. They can't do that. We have a legal easement right across it. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 54 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 DALY: You're right, they can't do that. LEWIS: They can't. And the documents speak for themselves. DEWOLF: If they did, that means they can. It might not be right. DALY: They have the ability to do it. Whether they did it legally or not, that's the question. LEWIS: The other thing I wanted to address is the maintenance provisions. Each one of these easements, which are attached as exhibits, are broad grants of access. They do not restrict the access to commercial timber hauling or any type of forestry activities. They are very broad grants of access for whatever purpose. The maintenance provisions in there are in the document themselves, providing for a pro rata share of maintenance based on usage. They also provide a right to apply for a special use permit to perform an elevatedlevel of maintenance at the applicant's expense. Lastly, again, they bind all successors and interests. The Code provision specifically related to this does not require that an agreement be between the applicant and the public agency. It simply requires that there be a written agreement with the public agency providing for access. And we have provided that. Finally, somebody asked a question about whether the easements along the Sisters Mainline Road with the Forest Service are perpetual. You can see from the documents themselves that they are perpetual, permanent easements. They do have termination provisions upon the consent of all parties, upon five years of non- use, or upon condemnation. Beyond that, they are permanent and reciprocal. DEWOLF: That raises another question, then. Let's say that we accept that you've got a 5.5 - mile easement, and that makes it just fine. But for the next five years you only use Bull Springs Road, and the Forest Service says since their road no longer being used, they are terminating your easement. Then you no longer have easements. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 55 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 LEWIS: We would have a hearing. The Forest Service, in order to terminate an easement, has to have a hearing and must prove that we haven't used it. By virtue of our decision requiring us to maintain it and keep it for our legal access, we would be able to prove that we have used it. DEWOLF: So driving on it is not the definition of use or non-use. The fact that you need it for access is what you're defining as its use? LEWIS: I think that it's not defined in the easement itself. However, that would be our argument, is that we need it for access and are using it, by virtue of this decision. DALY: I have one question of Mr. Dewey. DEWOLF: Well," I have one of Tia. I'm not buying your Dolan argument. Idon't understand ,what is being taken from you. LEWIS: The Dolan argument is related to the impacts from this proposal. Whenever a jurisdiction imposes exactions, so to speak, upon an applicant, they need to establish that the impacts from the proposal have a rough proportionality, roughly related to the exaction that they have imposed. In this case, Karen Green specifically issued a finding that the traffic impacts from this proposal do not warrant road improvements. And yet we have road improvements called for. DEWOLF: The reason for the road improvements are emergency access, which can only be, according to her interpretation, accomplished by virtue of not Bull Springs Road but the Sisters Mainline Road. And if, in fact, the only way for them to build a home is to improve that 5.5 miles, it's their choice to build it or not. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 56 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 LEWIS: If that were the only way, that would be correct. But it isn't the only way. That's why I keep saying that this property is in a unique situation. I'm not saying that a property that is located well into the forest with the only access being a Forest Service road would not warrant different requirements, and would not warrant road improvements for emergency vehicles. But because we have different points of access, neither of which needs this for emergency vehicle access, that's my argument. DEWOLF: Both of which come off a private road. LEWIS: Both of which come off Bull Springs Road. That's correct. DEWOLF: So according to Karen Green, that's not access. Physically, yes. Legally, no. Because it's a private road, and that's what the Code says. Why didn't you go for a Code change? LEWIS: Because we've been through this three times before. And we have a history of how the County interprets this. Unfortunately, now it's different. DEWOLF: How do you know? LEWIS: It has been up to this point. Seriously, that's why we need to be able to rely on these previous decisions, and the way in which the County has interpreted this in the past has not been this way. That's part of my equal protection and the constitutional arguments; if you have a historical way of interpreting things, your applicants need to be able to rely on those. Otherwise, how are they to know what to do? Thank you. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 57 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 1_97.11wd I have a question of Mr. Dewey. Mr. Dewey, on your map showing the reroute of the road around the closed part of the easement, is this an actual survey; did someone go out an survey, and do you know exactly how that goes around there? mean, it's drawn on here by an engineer, apparently. How did you get this drawing? DEWEY: I think this was done by Hickman Williams, and they must have done that for Hap Taylor and Tweedfam in their application, because this large parcel is actually one of the Tweedfam parcels. So they must have, by whatever means, done this. And if you drive it, you'll see that it looks accurate. I do encourage you to go out there and drive it just to see it. I assume that they measured how that road goes. I didn't draw this. DALY: So this was made by Hickman Williams for Hap Taylor? DEWEY: Must have been made for Hap Taylor and Tweedfam as part of their application. On behalf of the Sisters Forest Planning Committee, I obtained it from their hearing. Also, if you go to Johnson Market Road and you are turning off onto Bull Springs Road, there's a real estate advertisement sign there, where they want to subdivide another five or seven parcels out there. I think they also used that map on one of their advertisements for the partition that they are doing. It seems to me that a company like Hap Taylor's would not arbitrarily close a road and build something around it without having some legal authority to do it. I'd be interested in learning how this was done. DEWEY: Certainly. DEWOLF: Just out of curiosity, on the parcels of Bill Reed's on the top of the dark green area, what ended up happening in that case? Minutes of Public Hearing Page 58 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 DEWEY: The County approved it. It's actually a good segue way into what Ms. Lewis was just arguing, that if the County approves something, you are forever bound by it. Yes, there was an administrative decision; your staff approved it, but there was no decision by the County Commissioners. And there hasn't been. This is the first hearing in which the County Commissioners have really addressed all of these partitions and access issues. So there's no precedent here. For example, near Smith Rock, a number of non-farm dwelling parcels were approved. The third one came along and we appealed it, and we were upheld. Just the fact that your staff approves things that aren't legal doesn't mean that you all are bound by that. DEWOLF: So nobody appealed the administrative decisions on that? DEWEY: No. May I also comment? Maybe this is a good time to do it. It is really hard to appeal decisions to the County Commissioners. The charge is like $1,300. You've got, your own reasons for it, but it's expensive for a public interest group to do -this work. That's why sometimes we haven't done it in the past. I'll respond to the rest of Ms. Lewis' arguments in writing. DEWOLF: Thank you, Paul. DEWOLF: Is there anyone else who would like to testify in this matter? EARL NICHOLS: I'm a professional forester of over fifty years. I came to Bend in 1969 and was supervisor of the Deschutes National Forest for eleven years. I left the Forest Service and went into private consulting. Most of what I do is write management plans for people who own larger tracts of forestland. That's forty or more acres. I've gone to over five or six hundred acres for a number of my clients. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 59 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 These plans spell out the condition, the need for enhancement and the protection of all the resources that I identified as needing attention on the property. In addition, we deal with roads, we deal with recreation, and we deal with fire protection. I have clauses written in this that tell the landowner how to protect the land, to be able to withstand the onslaught of a catastrophic type fire. In fact, verbally I tell most of them that I'll come there and hold their hand if you do what I tell you to do. One of my clients is Matt and Rachel Thomas. I've been with them for about a year. I wrote a plan earlier this year of some hundred pages, giving them direction and recommendations on how to take care of their land. This plan is called the Oregon Forest Stewardship Plan for this particular property, and has been approved by the State Division of Forestry. It makes the landowner able to receive cost -share money to do certain types of improvements. The Thomas' have done more work in fire protection than any of the other clients that I've had, and I have over thirty clients that I take care of. The plan is to continue to do this on the whole property, as well as for the sites for the homes. One of the things the plan has in it, for the 483 acres, provides that if the land is divided up in any manner, that the portion of the plan which is applicable to that piecethat is broken off of the whole are the provisions that I've written for the management and protection, go with that piece of land. DEWOLF: Is this all voluntary on their part? NICHOLS: It's voluntary, but it's outlined in the plan that this is what they need to do to take care of the land. DEWOLF: But if they don't want to do it, who is going to enforce it? NICHOLS: If they don't want to do it, they don't receive any compensation for part of the moneys that they expend to do the work. 1II7iile)" So they haven't hired your services because of any state law or County ordinance requiring them to do so. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 60 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 NICHOLS: No. They wanted to know from a professional what's best for the land. DEWOLF: To me, that is one of the, if not the main issue here, is as we build out into the forest interface -- I mean, if my house starts on fire, it's an awful lot less expensive and hassle for the Fire Department to get to my place than it would to get to this place. And we taxpayers end up paying for all of that. They mentioned a number of homes that are out there that aren't in the Rural Fire Protection District, and those are the ones, I don't know, if they have a fire out there, then they just burn up. That doesn't seem very bright. NICHOLS: The State Forestry is just a wildland fire -fighting agency. They're not a structural agency. If there's a choice to be made, the fine line is that if the fire is burning in a house and is spreading to the forest, they've got put protection in the forest. LUKE: There was some testimony about 80 acres being not sufficient property,. with good forest practices, to make any money on. You said some of your clients. are down to 40 acres. NICHOLS: Some of it, if it's in real good site land. Some of the 160's that they are talking about are, in my book, considered very poor forestland and it needs lots of help to even get up to an adequate stage of vegetation. There's are a lot of problems there of soil, light rainfall, and those kinds of things. In my plan it's spelled out to the Thomas' how they can counteract this, but it's going to be an expensive process. A timber company can't make money there. LUKE: Corporate farms can't make a living on 40 acres, but sometimes an individual can if they don't care how much they make. NICHOLS: All the work they do now, it will probably be three generations from now before they can make anything out of it. But the land needs it. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 61 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 NANCY LOWES: (She gave documents to the Board at this time. A copy is attached as Exhibit G.) I do have some things for you that I printed off. I tried to make it very easy. I'm Nancy Lowes and I live on Collins Road. We just realized what was going on in the area about the land being sold for development, or we would have been more active before now. It's the Tumalo winter range, and it is critical that this area is saved. The map you have before you is black and white. I have a color version, and so does Steve George. It shows the encroachment of development, and properties that have been sold; and everyone is very concerned about the loss of the winter range. There's also a map showing the Tumalo winter range. I have that in the packet, too. I do have a color map; you can have my only copy if you want it. (The Board declined.) Also, there's also a letter that was written up when the land exchange took place. In it, it talks about the loss of the mule deer habitat. And that's what is being lost as the land is sold and subdivided and broken into smaller parcels. DEWOLF: So, define how it is being lost, with one house on 80 acres. LOWES: They go in and take all the underbrush out, and clear everything out. When the winters hit, the deer and elk just have this small section to come into. That's why this was developed back in 1972, and then they did a Tumalo winter study on it, back in 1977. I've included some pages from that that I thought you might like to see. The deer have elevations of coming down in the snow. And in this Tumalo winter range is the lower habitat for them to survive and have their young. And if it gets developed and all of that is gone, where are they going to go? They aren't going to survive. And there will be people in there; there will be harassment. Right now it's road closure in the winter; that's going to be gone. Who's going to control who goes in there? There will be motorcycles, and it's going to go backwards instead of forwards. LUKE: This Forest Service road is closed in the winter? Minutes of Public Hearing Page 62 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 LOWES: Yes, it is. DEWOLF: Well, there's no way to get into it. LOWES: It is closed. There's a sign there. It's closed. You cannot go in there. DALY: Where is it closed at, at what point? Can you show us on the map over there? LOWES: It's closed; you'll see a sign (she pointed out a place on the map). It's right along Bull Springs Road. DALY: These folks have letters from the Forest Service saying that it is open all time. LOWES: It's not open all the time. It's road closure by the ODF&W. DEWOLF: You also understand that there are standards and procedures in place for anyone who does build within this area, in order to protect the habitat. If they were to come in and apply for a residential dwelling on this property, and I assume that if this is approved that's what they would do, there's a whole set of criteria different from people who are not in the deer winter range that they would have to comply with in order to successfully build a home in there. There are designs for the fences so deer can get over them, and so on. LOWES: What we need is an updated, scientific report of the Tumalo winter range. That's what Steve George said. DEWOLF: For the record, could you identify who Steve George is? Minutes of Public Hearing Page 63 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 LOWES: He is with ODF&W, a wildlife biologist. He said it would take an extensive four- year study, and they need the funds to do that, they need to get out there, and they need to protect it now, because once it's developed and gone, you can't go backwards. And they did this study back in 1977, and they set it up for a reason, because it was being destroyed. And they did a good start on it, but they never thought when they did this report that the land would be sold and it wouldn't be kept in forest production. And now Crown Pacific is going into the real estate business instead of tree production. DEWOLF: Is your home in this area? LOWES: We're on Collins Road. We're on the other side of Tumalo. Not within the deer winter range. DALY: Are you saying that if homes are built there, it would harass the deer so badly that they wouldn't survive? LOWES: They won't survive in that area in the winter if the roads are opened. There would be people, there will be dogs, poachers, who knows who would be in there. Everybody will be in there. DALY: I've got to make a point here. Are you familiar with Crooked River Ranch? It's the largest subdivision in the State of Oregon. There are thousands of people living there. That ranch at the present time is overrun with deer. In other words, there are deer in everybody's yard and everything else. It seems to me that it is going the other way; that the deer seem to be attracted to subdivisions and they adapt. I question it when someone says that a house on 40 acres is going to destroy the deer range, because of what I see there. You can go down there at any time, and you'll always see deer in that subdivision where you won't see them anywhere else. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 64 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 LOWES: In this particular area, there is just a small area that you'll see on the map. The deer cannot go across the highway to winter, as there is too much development. And they come down in there, and there are herds of them. And you can go back there and see them. And they pool all in that area. DEWOLF: They're along Johnson Market Road on farmland, on private land now. LOWES: They don't stay right in that area, if the snow doesn't keep pushing them down. But they have to have an area to go to, especially in deep winter. Not only that, Bull Springs is there. If that is sold, that's their fresh water. We need to protect where they get their water and their survival. That is why this was all set up to begin with. That's why we're here, and we're very concerned about what's going on back there. We'd like to see you look into it and possibly change it to where it isn't going to be developed. You know what I'm saying? DEWOLF: I do. It's something that we've been trying to address. I'm sure there are people who would disagree with this statement, but I think the County has done:a pretty good job of recognizing the needs out there specific to the Tumalo deer winter range. We dealt with this issue on a property located out on Sizemore Way, a total of five parcels, two of which that have structures on them. Dealing with those, that's when I learned about this overlay and the requirements that people have to follow in order to build a residence. I was comfortable that the habitat was protected. And, in fact, in most cases enhanced from what it was before. There's no question that there are people who would disagree with me on that, but I was comfortable when we made that decision. The original intent there was for those five parcels to have homes on them, the only ones in the area. It's been a battle for years on that particular one as well. Here you've got an area that already has homes on a number of parcels, I don't know if they are 80's or 40's. Cathy, do you know if they are 80's or 40's? They look like 40's to me. The ones directly to the east. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 65 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 TILTON: I'm not really sure. I think they're 40's in the F-2 zone. DEWOLF: Okay. Anyway, we are sensitive to these issues and want to be sure to incorporate any protection we have the authority to incorporate as we make these decisions. I don't know if that helps or not. LOWES: It's concerning to us that Crown Pacific can sell the land that they own and people could come in and develop it, put highways through there, put shops and who knows what in later on down the line. And what will happen? Where's there a limit to this area particularly? DEWOLF: The one thing that I will tell you about this area in particular is that 75% of Deschutes County's landmass is owned by either the BLM or the Forest Service. Another ten percent is owned by cities, the County and the State. There is only 15% of the entire landmass of Deschutes County that is in private hands, from people like you and me, to. Crown Pacific. In order to turn this into Manhattan, which also used to be a deer range and wide- open spaces, that's a little different now as well. When we're looking long-term, I think one of the advantages that we have in Deschutes County is the very fact that things will progress in a logical manner because we have no choice. The United States government owns literally three-quarters of the land within the County's borders. When people talk to me about sprawl and the destruction of the natural habitat, this is not like Pennsylvania where the federal government owns one percent of the land. I mean, here, to me it's a built-in protection that so much of our land is controlled by these federal agencies. LOWES: Well, we're not against development. It's just that in this particular area I think it needs to be looked at closer to see what is there, and what can be done to help preserve what this report started back in 1977. And I think it is important that it does get looked at closer and it isn't just, oh, let's just develop it all. That's why we got involved and decided to see what we could do to bring it to your attention. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 66 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 DEWOLF: I appreciate you doing that. There are not a lot of folks that will come out and get involved in things like this. We do appreciate it. I hope that by sitting through this three hour, so far, meeting, you'll see that we do our best to really understand these issues and will go after both sides for clarity of what they are doing before we make our decision. LOWES: That's all I can ask, is that you look at it and think further down the line on what could happen. Thank you. DEWOLF: Thank you very much. There's nobody else on this list. Is there anyone else who wishes to testify? BRUCE BERRYHILL: I'm Bruce Berryhill, and I live in Sisters. My concern is with fire prevention out there.. I.t's very difficult to get in. If Bull Springs Road were blocked and you had to come in from the north, it's very. poor access back in there. This is also precedent setting. I'm looking to the future with those acreages of Bill Reed's. You are slowly squeezing that piece down, and it's going to be developed quite thickly, it's my fear, in the future. One of his 80's already has utilities in for ten -acre parcels. That's maybe way down the road before it ever goes to RR -10. DEWOLF: It's in an F-1 zone? BERRYHILL: Yes. It's that corner up there. (He referred to the oversized map.) DEWOLF: Well, they certainly haven't been approved for ten -acre parcels. BERRYHILL: Right. But he has already anticipated that it will be someday. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 67 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 LUKE: I don't believe it could be done without changes to state law. DEWOLF: There are a few people who get disappointed, anticipating what they can do with their land. BERRYHILL: I do see also that in 1993, in the template law, that's not going to be there forever either. I am just concerned, looking to the future. LUKE: If you knew how hard it was to get that through, you wouldn't believe that it won't be there forever. CRAGHEAD: Mr. Chair, staff reminded me that because each one who testified is now a party, the decision will have to be sent to them, so we will need their addresses. So if they will sign up on the signup. sheet, we can send the decision.to them. UNIDENTIFIED PERSON IN AUDIENCE: If you testified earlier, do you still need to sign up? DEWOLF: Have you been receiving information all along? You would still get it. But if you want to be sure to receive the decision in the mail, to be double sure, you should probably sign up again. LEWIS: This will be really quick. The only thing I wanted to say about the winter road closure is, and it's in the record, that there is some testimony from Forest Service officials that the winter road closure is only for the general public. It is not to restrict people who have easements and private parcels located within the Forest Service boundaries. The evidence, testimony from the Forest Service, is in the record. Also, Karen (Green) mentions it in her decision as well. Everything else I'll do in writing. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 68 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 CRAGHEAD: One other point of information. Staff believes, but does not know for sure, that Skyliners Road is a U.S. Forest Service road, maintained by the County. LUKE: That's what I thought. CRAGHEAD: I also want to point out that Commissioners have asked for several instances of new evidence to be entered in. The instructions originally were read such that the record be left open for rebuttal testimony only. But because you are now asking for new evidence, you then need to extend the period for the written record. You've asked for information about whether the County would accept the dedication of Bull Springs. You've also asked for evidence from each of the parties to be entered into the record. DEWOLF: But we do allow ourselves the possibility of a continuance to a date ,certain. So that anticipates that we could have new evidence, doesn't it? CRAGHEAD: Right. But if you want a continuance, you'd have to clarify if you are leaving the record open, and for how long. Also, new evidence would be any site visits. DEWOLF: So here's what we'll do. We'll leave the record open for new evidence for a period of seven days, to the 17th. We'll go for any new evidence, which means any site visits, and what we have asked to be put in, will have to be in by 5:00 p.m. on the 17th. This information should go to Catharine Tilton at Community Development. DALY: That information that I asked about, the Hap Taylor easement, that's new. DEWOLF: So, for all of that, everything needs to be in by the 17th. And then we need two more time frames for rebuttal. One, that anybody can respond to anything that has been turned in by the 17th; and then another one that is just for Ms. Lewis to respond. Right? Minutes of Public Hearing Page 69 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 Seeing is how the following week is Christmas, let's not do that week. CRAGHEAD: One thing to consider, too, is the timing problems with the fact that the 150 days runs out on January 291h° and the Board will need time to deliberate on their findings, and for staff to write the findings. DEWOLF: How long do you need? Let's back off from there. TILTON: (Not on microphone. She explained that no less than two weeks would work.) DEWOLF: So, what I'm thinking is that we have until December 17th for any new testimony. Why don't we leave it until December 31 st for any rebuttal from any party? LUKE: Does the applicant want to extend the time frame? LEWIS: Not at this point. DEWOLF: Okay. The 17th of December is for any new testimony. Then the 31 st of December will be for any rebuttal of testimony by anyone. Then we'll give you (to Ms. Lewis) seven additional days to January 7th for the applicant's final rebuttal, with no new evidence at that point. That's at 5:00 p.m. on all of those days. The Board's decision will take place on Tuesday, January 14th, at 2:00 p.m. The decision will be finalized in writing and in the mail by January 29th, 2003. Io •1./ I think the only new evidence we are taking in is what we asked for, for clarification purposes. Are we going to allow any new evidence to come in? CRAGHEAD: That's your choice. Various requests were made to enter information. This would all be new written evidence. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 70 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 DEWOLF: Which I think is reasonable. If we get lots of documents, and if it's too much for us to get through, we may ask the applicant for an extension. Being no further discussion brought before the Board, Chair DeWolf adjourned the meeting at 6:20 p.m. DATED this 10th Day of December 2002 for the Deschut County Board of Commissioners. T m De olf, Chair Dennis R. Luke, 66-mtnissioner ATTEST: lchael M. Daly, ommissioner Recording Secretary ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: The Board's opening statement. Exhibit B: The preliminary hearing statement on Files No. A-02-10 and A-02-11, as presented by Catharine Tilton. Exhibit C: A copy of a flow chart of the process relating to the appeal, as provided by Catharine Tilton. Exhibit D: A copy of the easement documents, provided by Tia Lewis, who represents the applicants. Exhibit E: A thick brief of documents, as provided by Tia Lewis, most of which is not attached but is contained within the record held by Community Development. Exhibit F: A thick packet of documents, as provided by Paul Dewey, most of which is not attached but is contained within the record held by Community Development. Exhibit G: A package of documents, as provided by Nancy Lowes. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 71 of 71 Pages (File No. A-02-10, Thomas; and A-02-11, Sisters Forest Planning Committee) Tuesday, December 10, 2002 PRELIMINARY HEARING STATEMENT File: A-02-10 and A-02-11 Date of Hearing: December 10, 2002 I. INTRODUCTION This is a de novo hearing and is on the appeal of the Deschutes County Hearings Officer's approval of Minor Partition MP -02-12. In that application, the applicant requested to divide an approximate 482 -acre parcel into three parcels consisting of one 322 -acre parcel and two 80 -acre parcels in the in the Forest Use (F-1) zone. II. BURDEN OF PROOF AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA A. The applicants have the burden of proving that they are entitled to the land use approval sought. B. The standards applicable to the application before us are listed on pages 1 and 2 of the Hearings Officer's decision dated October 2, 2002. C. Testimony and evidence at this hearing must be directed toward the criteria set forth in the decision of the Hearings Officer report, the staff report as well as toward any other criteria in the comprehensive land use plan of the County or land use regulations which any person believes applies to this decision. D. Failure on the part of any person to raise an issue with sufficient specificity to afford the Board of County Commissioners and parties to this proceeding an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals on that issue. Additionally, failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to the proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow the Board to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. III. HEARINGS PROCEDURE The Board's decision on this application will be based upon the record before the Hearings Officer, the Hearings Officer's decision, the Staff Report and the testimony and evidence presented at this hearing. Page I of 3 -Chair's Opening Statement File: A-02-10 and A-02-11 Date of Hearing: December 10, 2002 axe j t 1. The grant of a continuance or record extension shall be at the discretion of the Board. 2. If the Board grants a continuance, it shall continue the public hearing to a date certain at least seven days from the date of this hearing. 3. If at the conclusion of the hearing the Board leaves the record open for additional written evidence or testimony, the record shall be left open for at least seven days for submittal of new written evidence or testimony and at least seven additional days for response to the evidence received while the record was held open. Written evidence or testimony submitted during the period the record is held open shall be limited to evidence or testimony that rebuts previously submitted evidence or testimony. 4. If the hearing is continued or the record left open, the applicant shall also be allowed at least seven days after the record is closed to all other parties to submit final written arguments but no new evidence in support of the application. V. PRE -HEARING CONTACTS, BIASES, CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS Do any of the Commissioners have any ex -parte contacts, prior hearing observations; biases; or conflicts of interest to declare? If so, please state the nature and extent of those. Does any party wish to challenge any Commissioner based on ex -parte contacts, biases or conflicts of interest? (Hearing no challenges, I shall proceed.) Page 3 of 3 -Chair's Opening Statement File: A-02-10 and A-02-11 Date of Hearing: December 10, 2002 7 ORAL REPORT Thomas Appeals A-02-10 & A-02-11 ➢ Name The purpose of today's hearing is to accept relevant testimony and evidence on two appeals of the Deschutes County Hearings Officer's decision to approve Minor Partition MP -02-12 to divide an approximate 482 -acre parcel into three parcels consisting of one 322 -acre parcel and two 80 -acre parcels in the in the Forest Use zone—F-1 zone. ➢ The file numbers of the appeals are: A-02-10 filed by the applicant, Matthew and Rachel Thomas, and A-02-11 filed by the Sisters Forest Planning Committee. ➢ The entire record is located here in this box for the Board and anyone else who wishes to review it. I am also placing the record as part of this record for these appeals. ♦ The property is located at 18400 Bull Springs Road, Bend and identified on the County Assessor's tax map as tax lot #17-11-00-4300. ♦ The 482 -acre property is zoned Forest Use, F-1, and Wildlife Area Combining Zone. The southernmost portion of the property also partially falls within the Surface Mining Impact Area Combining zone. Date of hearing: December 10, 2002 ♦ The property is currently vacant. ♦ The applicants are Matthew and Rachel Thomas, represented by their attorney, Tia Lewis. ♦ Applicable criteria to review this application are listed in the overhead. + Proposal: The applicant proposes to partition the 482 -acre parcel into three parcels with access from the USFS Sisters Mainline Road: Parcel A will consist of 322 acres and Parcels B and C will each consist of 80 acres. Prima access as identified by the HO on page to the partition will be would be from the south via Skyliners Road, Sisters Mainline Road and permanent easements and secondary access would be from the east via Johnson Market Road, Bull Springs Road and permanent easements. As indicated by the applicant's attorney, the most likely route to be used by the applicant is the secondary access as it is more direct than the primary access. Proposed uses of the parcels are forest and residential; however, he applicant is not proposing to develop the properties at this time. Water will be supplied by on-site wells and septic will be supplied by on-site septic systems. ➢ Background: A public hearing was held before the Hearings Officer on July 12, 2002. The Hearings Officer issued her decision on October 2, Date of hearing: December 10, 2002 2 2002 to approve the partition subject to 10 conditions. Subsequent to the issuance of the Hearings Officer's decision, the Planning Division received two appeals on October 14, 2002, for a de novo hearing: one by the applicants and the other by the Sisters Forest Planning Committee. On October 23, 2002, the Board voted to hear both appeals de novo and a hearing was set for today, December 10, 2002. ➢ Issues: The specific issues raised by the appellants are identified in each of the appellants Appeal Application forms and a summary of these issues are also included on page 2 of my memo to the Board dated December 3, 2002. ➢ Begin by discussing the Main Issues raised by each of the appellants. ➢ First of all, the main issues raised in these appeals are: • Legal • Interpretation of the Subdivision code and the Zoning Ordinance relative to partitions in the Forest zone. ➢ LEGAL issues were raised by the applicant and involve federal and state Constitutional issues, including: • A takings issue— The HO is requiring the access roads to the partition be improved—to the extent they are not improved—to the county's minimum road standards of 20 feet wide with 5 inches of aggregate, cinders or gravel. • The appellants believe the road improvements do not relate to the impacts created by the partition --that there is no rational Date of hearing: December 10, 2002 3 nexus to applying this requirement and believe it's unconstitutional to require it. • Fairness issue—guaranteeing to each person the equal protection of the laws. This is related to a previous recent decision by the HO on a similar 3 -parcel partition by Tweedfam and Hap Taylor located south of the subject property where the HO did not specifically require road improvements to the USFS road from Skyliners Road to the partition. Regarding these constitutional issues: We refer the Board to legal counsel for advice. ➢ The SECOND issue raised by the Sisters Forest Planning Committee involves the Hearings Officer's INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE. The Sisters Forest Planning Committee believes the HO erred in her interpretation of the code primarily relative to access to the partition and maintenance of the USFS road. Questions: 1. Do the agreements between the timber companies and the USFS constitute "written agreements" between the applicants and the USFS? The Subdivision code requires for partitions with access from USFS roads the submission of a written agreement with the USFS providing for "permanent legal access to the parcels." The applicants' submitted three easements between timber companies, Diamond International and Brooks - Scanlon, and the USFS that allows for the use of the road and covers the segment of the road from Skyliners Road to the subject property in support Date of hearing: December 10, 2002 4 of this requirement. Following a lengthy discussion and analysis on pages 5-11 of the HO decision, the Hearings Officer concluded that the 3 easements do constitute a "written agreement" as the applicants are the successor in interest to these easements. REFER TO FLOW CHART. If the Board finds that the easements do not constitute written agreements . . .. If yes, then ... We agree with the Hearings Officer's findings that the easements contained in the record between the timber companies and the USFS constitute written agreements and, thus, satisfies this section of the code. 2. Does each new parcel in the partition have to have road frontage on the USES road? The Subdivision code requires each parcel to abut a public road for at least 50 feet. However, the Subdivision code provides an exception to this standard for cul-de-sacs, which require a 30 -foot road frontage for each parcel, and for partitions off of USFS or BLM roads. However, the language in the code does not specify any specific standard of frontage for partitions off of a USFS or BLM road. This is where the HO found the language of the code to be ambiguous and vague—and we agree. The HO found, as discussed on pages 5 and 6, that the most plausible interpretation of the code is that there are no frontage requirements for partitions off of USFS roads. Staff discussed this frontage requirement with the Planner who drafted the language sometime in the early 1990s and the intent was not to eliminate a Date of hearing: December 10, 2002 5 frontage requirement for partitions with access from a USFS road—the intent was to require road frontage, but not necessarily 50 feet of frontage just that each parcel had to have road frontage on a USFS road. 3. Does the applicant have an easement over the private Bull Springs Road that provides permanent legal access to the partition? This question relates to the applicants' intent to use the Bull Springs Road and USFS route as their main access route to the partition. Although, this is a legal question, the purpose is to ensure permanent legal access to the partition. The record contains a copy of the applicant's easement over Bull Springs Road. Refer to flow chart. 4. Does the easement over Bull Springs Road provide access to Parcels B and C? This again is a legal question and what we want to ensure here is that each parcel has permanent legal access. Follow flow chart. 5. Do the County's minimum road standards apply to partitions with access from USFS roads? The issue here is ensuring that each parcel has both physical access as well as access to accommodate emergency vehicles. Lacking any specific road standards for USFS roads, the Hearings Officer has adopted the County road standards—i.e. 20 feet of all-weather surface, such as gravel or cinders, adequate to support a 50,000 -pound fire truck—which seems reasonable to staff. Follow flow chart. Date of hearing: December 10, 2002 6 MAINTENANCE OF USFS ROAD: The Sisters Forest Planning Committee also believes the HO erred in her interpretation of road maintenance requirements to the USFS road. The code requires the agreement between the USFS and the applicant include or spell out any required maintenance provisions to the Forest Service road. The HO found on pages 11 and 12, that the three easements provide for any required maintenance. Staff agrees with the Hearings Officer's findings and believes the code only requires the applicant to identify "any required maintenance," which was done — and not whether or not the USFS would issue a permit for such maintenance at an elevated level. ➢ Conclusion: The appellants are each raising different issues: (1) the applicant is raising legal constitutional questions and (2) the Sisters Forest Planning Committee is raising code interpretative questions related to access and frontage standards for partitions off of a USFS road. The Board can accept the HO interpretation of the code or make your own interpretations and come to a different conclusion. If the Board finds the code is vague or provides a loophole that needs to be changed—the let us know what you want the code to say so we can amend the text to reflect the Board's decision. Date of hearing: December 10, 2002 7 150 -Day Period The applicant submitted a November 7, 2002 letter agreeing to toll the 150 - day deadline to January 29, 2003. That means that the Board should issue their decision no later than January 291h unless the clock is tolled by the applicant. Date of hearing: December 10, 2002 8 H r1:2l ri = U N � co LL co cQ ow a ,a N Q O � O a= W W H �VOL: 2001 PAGE: 29789 RECORDED DOCUMENT STATE OF OREGON COUNTY OF DESCHUTES � IIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�I OMI -29789 *Val -Par Prime& 06=12001 11-4339 DO NOT REMOVE THIS CERTIFICATE (This certificate constitutes a part =riginal instrument in accordance with ORS 205.180(2). Removal of thisate may invalidate this certificate and affect the admissibility of the original instrument into evidence m any legal proceeding.) I hereby certify that the attached instrument was received and duly recorded in Deschutes County records: DATE AND TIME: RECEIPT NO: DOCUMENT TYPE: FEE PAID: Jun. 22, 2001; 11:41 a.m. 37340 Easement $171.00 NUMBER OF PAGES: 29 MARY SUE PENHOLLOW DESCHIJTES COUNTY CLERK I EXHIBIT PAGE -L_ 017a' 4-7 After recording return to: F4ECORDm 7 Myles Conway wum «a ii. ;+t'i ow Ball Janik, LLP //�9%kA- 15 SW Colorado, Suite K Bend, OR 97702 E[EASEMENT RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREEmzNT THIS RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREEMENT (the "AAgreemis made and entered into as of June„, 2001 by and between CROWN PACIFIC L =I) PARTNERSHIP, a Delaware limited partnership ("Crown Pacific'), and Matthew J. and Rachel Thomas ("Thomas"). Recitals A. Contemporaneously with the execution of this Agreement, Crown Pacific has ' conveyed to Thomas that real property in Deschutes, County, Oregon that is described in Exhibit 1 attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (hereafter the "Property'). The parties enter this Agreement to provide Thomas with the access and utility easements needed to serve the Property and to provide Crown Pacific with the access and utility easements necessary to serve its surrounding land holdings. B. Crown Pacific and its affiliated companies, own or control large parcels of real property in Deschutes County, Oregon (hereafter referred to as the Bull Springs Block). A legal description of the lands currently within the Bull Springs Block is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. ' The easements reserved by Crown Pacific in Section 2 of this Agreement are intended to benefit and are appurtenant to all of the land now owned or hereafter acquired by Crown Pacific in Deschutes County, Oregon, including, but not limited to, the Bull Springs Block. ' C. The parties intend the easements defined in this agreement to be perpetual in duration and to run with the land, binding the parties and any successors in interest to either the Property, the Bull Springs Block or other land now owned or hereafter acquired by Thomas or Crown Pacific in Deschutes County, Oregon. Agreement ' In consideration of the mutual covenants of the parties set forth herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, ' and intending to be legally bound, the parties agree as follows: 1. Grant of Access and Utility Easements from Crown Pacific to Thomas. Crown ' Pacific hereby grants to Thomas, their heirs, successors and assigns the non-exclusive, perpetual access and utility easements described below. W8337 A - RECIPROCAL EASEMENT wcxsEMMU E :HIBIT PAGE -.,L Of 11 I 11 1.1 Crown Pacific grants Thomas an access and utility easement running from Johnson County Road along what is called the Bull Springs Road and the Sisters Mainline Road through Section 22 to its intersection with the Property boundary. A more precise description of the location of this easement is attached as Exhibit 3. This easement shall be 66 feet in width, measured 33 feet from each side of the centerline of the existing roadway. Thomas shall have the right of ingress and egress on this easement together with a right to place underground utilities within the easement. Crown Pacific or its successors shall have the right to re -locate this easement, at their expense, provided that the new location provides equivalent access, including dedication consideration, to the Property. Pursuant to Section 5 of this Agreement, Crown Pacific covenants that it shall, on the demand of Thomas use reasonable efforts to dedicate fee title underlying this easement to Deschutes County (or other governmental body) as a public roadway. This easement shall be appurtenant to the Property and shall serve the future partition, subdivision or development of the Property. 1.2 Crown Pacific grants Thomas an access easement running in a northerly direction off of the Bull Springs Road in Section 22 along the boundary of neighboring property owner Jim Bussard to its intersection with the property boundary in Section 15. A more precise description of the location of this easement is attached as Exhibit 4. This easement shall be 30 feet in width, measured 15 feet from each side of the centerline of the existing roadway. This access easement shall be appurtenant to the Property and shall serve the future partition, subdivision or development of the Property. 2. Access and Utility Easements Retained by Crown Pacific. Thomas hereby grants to Crown Pacific and Crown Pacific hereby retains and reserves the following assignable and transferable access and utility easements from its conveyance of the Property to Thomas. The easements identified below shall benefit Crown Pacific and its successors and assigns, and shall be binding on Thomas, their heirs, successors and assigns. The easements created in this Section 2 are appurtenant to the Property, the Bull Springs Block and any land now owned or. hereafter acquired by Crown Pacific in Deschutes County, Oregon. 2.1 Thomas grants to Crown Pacific a 66 -foot wide roadway and utility easement along the route of the Sisters Mainline Road as it crosses Sections 22, 21 and 16 of the Property. The easement shall serve the commercial logging, timber harvest, timber management and related operations of Crown Pacific, including any future partition or subdivision of lands now or hereafter owned or controlled by Crown Pacific. This easement shall be measured 33 - feet on each side of the centerline of the existing roadway. A more precise description of the easement to be reserved by Crown Pacific is attached hereto as Exhibit 5. Pursuant to Section 5 of this Agreement, Thomas covenants that it shall, on the demand of Crown Pacific, use reasonable efforts to dedicate fee title underlying this easement to the County (or other governmental body) as a public roadway. 2.2 Thomas grants to Crown Pacific a 66 -foot wide roadway and utility easement in Sections 22 and 21 of the property. The easement shall serve the commercial logging, timber harvest, timber management and related operations of Crown Pacific, including ' any future partition or subdivision of lands now or hereafter owned or controlled by Crown Pacific. This easement shall be measured 33-fect on each side of the centerline of the existing 2 0258337vi - xrcUMocAL LASENCENTAGREDAENr E""HISIT D I PAGE 3 OF I • • 2M1 .019N9.3 roadway. A precise description of the easement to be reserved by Crown Pacific is attached hereto as Exhibit 6. Pursuant to Section 5 of this Agreement, Thomas covenants that it shall, on the demand of Crown Pacific, use reasonable efforts to dedicate fee title underlying this easement to the County (or other governmental body) as a public roadway 2.3 Thomas grants to Crown Pacific a 66 -foot wide roadway and utility easement in the west half of Section 16 of the Property. The easement shall serve the commercial logging, timber harvest, timber management and related operations of Crown Pacific, including any future partition or subdivision of lands now or hereafter owned or controlled by Crown Pacific. This easement shall be measured 33 -feet on each side of the centerline of the existing roadway. A precise description of the easement to be reserved by Crown Pacific is attached hereto as Exhibit 7. Pursuant to Section 5 of this Agreement, Thomas covenants that it shall, on the demand of Crown Pacific, use reasonable efforts to dedicate fee title underlying this easement to the County (or other governmental body) as a public roadway 2.4 Thomas grants to Crown Pacific a 66 -foot wide roadway and utility easement in the northwest corner of Section 16 of the Property. The easement shall serve the commercial logging, timber harvest, timber management and related operations of Crown Pacific, including any future partition or subdivision of lands now or hereafter owned or controlled by Crown Pacific. This easement shall be measured 33 -feet on each side of the centerline of the existing roadway. A precise description of the easement to be reserved by Crown Pacific is attached hereto as Exhibit 8. Pursuant to Section 5 of this Agreement, Thomas covenants that it shall, on the demand of Crown Pacific, use reasonable efforts to dedicate fee title underlying this easement to the County (or other governmental body) as a public roadway 2.5 Thomas grants to Crown Pacific a 66 -foot wide roadway and utility ' easement that shall begin at the Property's southeast property line in Section 15 and runs roughly along the Property boundary in the location depicted in the attached Exhibit 9. The parties anticipate that Crown Pacific will assign the rights to utilize this easement to neighboring ' property owners in exchange for their relinquishment of existing access rights across the Property. This easement shall be sufficient to allow the future partition, subdivision or development of surrounding properties. This easement shall be measured 33 -feet on each side of ' the centerline of the existing roadway to the extent it has been constructed A precise description of the easement to be reserved by Crown Pacific is attached hereto as Exhibit 9. 3. Use by Permitees. The parties to this agreement may allow their invitees, agents, contractors, subcontractors, and licensees and purchasers of timber to utilize the access easements created by this Agreement (hereafter "Permitted Users"). ' 4. Compliance with Laws. In connection with use of the easements identified in this agreement, the parties agree that they shall, at all times, and shall cause all Permitted Users at all ' times to, comply with all applicable laws, statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, and other governmental requirements. 5. Public Dedication. The parties to this Agreement create the following covenants ' that shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties, their respective heirs, successors and assigns 3 M8337 A - RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREEMENT EX41:31T _�— ' . __ PAGE LI OF � 1 ` 0 0 accl •x9''189 •y ' and shall run with the land for a perpetual duration. All costs associated with the public dedications described below shall be borne by the party seeking to dedicate the roadway. The ' covenants described below are appurtenant to the Property, the Bull Springs Block and any property now owned or hereafter acquired by Thomas or Crown Pacific in Deschutes County, Oregon 6. Allocation of Maintenance and Repair Costs. '. 6.1 Subject to the provisions of this Section 6, the costs of maintaining and repairing the easements created by this Reciprocal Easement Agreement shall be allocated between Crown Pacific and Thomas based upon the respective use of such easements by Crown ' Pacific and its agents, contractors, subcontractors, and licensees (the "Crown Pacific Users'), on 4 a58337 vl - RDCIFROCAL F.ASEM Nr AGREEMENT r;:11-41;SIT 1� PAGE -5 OF, 5.1 On the written request of Thomas, Crown Pacific shall use reasonable efforts to promptly dedicate fee title (or such rights, title and interests held by Crown Pacific) to ' the real property burdened by the easement identified in Section 1.1 above (and described in Exhibit 3) as a public roadway to Deschutes County (or such other governmental body designated by Thomas). Crown Pacific acknowledges and agrees that any breach of this covenant will cause irreparable injury to Thomas for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Accordingly, Crown Pacific expressly agrees that, in the event of any breach, Thomas shall be E: entitled, in addition to any and all other available remedies, to seek and obtain injunctive and/or equitable relief to require specific performance of this covenant. The parties further agree to use their reasonable efforts to do, or cause to be done, all things necessary, proper or advisable under the applicable laws and regulations to consummate the public dedication of the roadways ' contemplated in this covenant as expeditiously as possible, including, without limitation, the performance of such finther acts or the execution and delivery of any additional instruments or documents as any party may reasonably request in order to carry out the purposes of this ' covenant and the dedication of the public roadway contemplated herein. 5.2 On the written request of Crown Pacific, Thomas shall use reasonable efforts to promptly dedicate fee title (or such rights, title and interests held by Thomas) to the real property burdened by the easements identified in Section 2 above (and described in Exhibits 5, 6, 7 and 8) as a public roadway to Deschutes County (or such other governmental body designated ' by Crown Pacific). Thomas acknowledges and agrees that any breach of this covenant will cause irreparable injury to the Crown Pacific for which there is no adequate remedy at law.. Accordingly, Thomas expressly agrees that, in the event of any breach, Crown Pacific shall be ' entitled, in addition to any and all other available remedies, to seek and obtain injunctive and/or equitable relief to require specific performance of this covenant. The parties further agree to use their reasonable efforts to do, or cause to be done, all things necessary, proper or advisable under the applicable laws and regulations to consummate the public dedication of the roadways contemplated in this covenant as expeditiously as possible, including, without limitation, the performance of such further acts or the execution and delivery of any additional instruments or documents as any party may reasonably request in order to carry out the purposes of this covenant and the dedication of the public roadway contemplated herein. 6. Allocation of Maintenance and Repair Costs. '. 6.1 Subject to the provisions of this Section 6, the costs of maintaining and repairing the easements created by this Reciprocal Easement Agreement shall be allocated between Crown Pacific and Thomas based upon the respective use of such easements by Crown ' Pacific and its agents, contractors, subcontractors, and licensees (the "Crown Pacific Users'), on 4 a58337 vl - RDCIFROCAL F.ASEM Nr AGREEMENT r;:11-41;SIT 1� PAGE -5 OF, i1 d �a9 qs � I � I � I the one hand, and 'Thomas and its Permitted Users, on the other hand. Unless otherwise agreed from time to time by the parties, Crown Pacific shall generally be responsible for undertaking such maintenance and repair, subject to Thomas's obligation hereunder to reimburse Crown Pacific for its share of the costs thereof-, provided that at any time when an easement is being used exclusively by Thomas or one or more of its Permitted Users, Thomas shall be responsible for undertaking the maintenance and repair of such road. Each party agrees to maintain records showing its use of roads within the Reciprocal Easement Agreement in reasonable detail, and to make such records available to the other party upon request. 6.2 In the event that any road within the Reciprocal Easement Agreement is damaged as a result of use in excess of normal and prudent usage for ingress and egress, timber harvest, management, and related activities, the party responsible for such damage shall be responsible for the repair of such damage and the payment of all costs associated with such repair. 6.3 Any amount owing from one party to the other pursuant to this Section 6 shall be paid within five business days after written demand accompanied by reasonable supporting documentation for the costs incurred. Any such amount not paid when due shall bear interest from the due date until paid in full at the rate of 12% per annum (such interest being in addition to any interest owing pursuant to Section 4.2). 7. Indemnification. 7.1 Crown Pacific hereby indemnifies, protects, defends and saves Thomas harmless from any and all liability, damage, expense, causes of action, suits, claims, or judgments arising from personal injury, death, or property damage and occurring on or from the use of the easements created in Section 2 of this Agreement by Crown Pacific or its Permitted ' Users, except if caused by the act or neglect of Thomas, or its agents, employees or contractors. 7.2 Thomas hereby indemnifies, protects, defends and saves Crown Pacific harmless from any and all liability, damage, expense, causes of action, suits, claims, or judgments arising from personal injury, death, or property damage and occurring on or from the use of the easements created in Section 1 of this Agreement by Thomas or its Permitted Users, except if caused by the act or neglect of Crown Pacific, or its agents, employees or contractors. 8. Miscellaneous Provisions. 8.1 Binding Effect. The provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective successors and assigns with respect to the Property and, in the Case of Crown Pacific, the Bull Springs Block and any other property now owned or hereafter acquired in Deschutes County, Oregon.. 8.2 Authority to Enter Ageement. Each party to this Agreement warrants that it is the owner of the real property described herein and is authorized to enter into this Agreement encumbering the real property as set forth herein. S AW8337 v t . RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT I PAGE ( 0 OF I r 0 01M 1•*Ig1V 9 -b 83 Notices. All notices under this Agreement shall be in writing. Notices may be (i) delivered personally, (ii) transmitted by facsimile, (iii) delivered by a recognized national overnight delivery service, or (iv) mailed by certified United States mail, postage prepaid and return receipt requested. Notices to any party shall be directed to the address set forth below, or to such other or additional address as any party may specify by notice to the other tparty. If to Thomas: Matthew L Thomas and Rachel Thomas ' PO Box 5519 Bend, OR 97708 Facsimile No: (541) 389-7077 . If to Crown Pacific: Crown Pacific Limited Partnership 121 S.W. Morrison Street, Suite 1500 Portland, Oregon 97204 Facsimile No: (503) 2284875 ' Attw Roger L. Krage 8.4 Waiver. Any partys failure to exercise any right or remedy under this ' Agreement, delay in exercising any such right or remedy, or partial exercise of any such right or remedy, shall not constitute a waiver of that or any other right or remedy hereunder. A waiver of any breach of any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any succeeding ' breach of such provision or a waiver of such provision itself. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be binding on a party unless it is set forth in writing and signed by such party. 8.5 Amendment. This Agreement may not be modified or amended except by the written agreement of the parties. ' 8.6 Attorneys' Fees. If a suit, action, or other proceeding of any nature whatsoever (including any proceeding under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code) is instituted in connection with this Agreement, or to interpret or enforce any rights or remedies hereunder or ' thereunder, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its attorneys' fees and all other fees, costs, and expenses actually incurred and reasonably necessary in connection therewith, as 6 0258337 vl - RECIPROCAL. EASEMENT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT Der:F 'I n ' determined by the court at trial or on any appeal or review, in addition to all other amounts provided by law. 8.7 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, then (i) such provision shall be enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, and (u) the validity and enforceability of the other provisions of this Agreement shall not be affected and all such provisions shall remain in full force and effect. 8.8 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon (without regard to the principles thereof relating to conflicts of laws). 8.9 Construction and Interpretation. The headings or titles of the sections of this Agreement are intended for ease of reference only and shall have no effect whatsoever on the construction or interpretation of any provision of this Agreement; references herein to sections are to sections of this Agreement unless otherwise specified. Meanings of defined terms used in this Agreement are equally applicable to singular and plural forms of the defined terms. As used herein, (i) the term "party" refers to a party to this Agreement, unless otherwise specified, (ii) the terms "hereof," "herein," "hereunder," and similar terms refer to this Agreement as a whole and not to any particular provision of this Agreement, and (iii) the term "including" is not limiting and means "including without limitation." In the event any period of time specified in this Agreement ends on a day other than a business day, such period shall be extended to the next following business day. All provisions of this Agreement have been negotiated at arm's length and this Agreement shall not be construed for or against any party by reason of the authorship or alleged authorship of any provision hereof IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first set forth above. Crown Pacific: CROWN PACIFIC LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Delaware limited partnership, By. Crown Pacific Management Limited Partnership, ' General Partner. By. Roger L. RnpkAmdbVicc President Thomas: By. Matthew J. Thomas 7 02S8337 vi - RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT D c e r.F 9 nF determined by the court at trial or on any appeal or review, in addition to all other amounts provided by law. 1 8.7 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, then (i) such provision shall be enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, and (ii) the validity and enforceability of the other provisions of this Agreement 1 shall not be affected and all such provisions shall remain in full force and effect 8.8 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon (without regard to the principles thereof relating to conflicts of laws). 8.9 Construction and Interpretation. The headings or titles of the sections of this Agreement are intended for ease of reference only and shall have no effect whatsoever on the construction or interpretation of any provision of this Agreement; references herein to sections are to sections of this Agreement unless otherwise specified. Meanings of defined terms used in this Agreement are equally applicable to singular and plural forms of the defined terms. As used herein, (i) the term `party" refers to a party to this Agreement, unless otherwise specified, (ii) the terms "hereof," "herein," "hereunder," and similar terms refer to this Agreement as a whole and not to any particular provision of this Agreement, and (iii) the term "including" is not limiting and means "including without limitation." In the event any period of time specified in this Agreement ends on a day other than a business day, such period shall be extended to the next following business day. All provisions of this Agreement have been negotiated at arm's length and this Agreement shall not be construed for or against any party by reason of the authorship or alleged authorship of any provision hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first set forth above. Crown Pacific: CROWN PACIFIC LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Delaware limited partnership, By: Crown Pacific Management Limited Partnership, its General Partner. By: Roger L. Krage, Senior Vice President Thomas: By: Matthew J. 7 0238337 rl • RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT PAGE Off; STATE OF OREGON ) ) Ss. County of n_ ) • ROD I-;Ar8l-I FBI / The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on 2001, by Roger L. Krage, as Senior Vice President of Crown Pacific Management Limited Partnership, General Partner of Crown Pacific Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership. Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: STATE OF OREGON ) Ss. County of ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on CLic�� d 0% , 2001, by Matthew Thomas. OFFICIAL SEAL KART ANDERSON NOTARY PUBLIC -OREGON COMMISSION NO. 335661 NO yPublic for Oregon MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY 11, 2004 My Commission Expires: r7 0,17 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on 2001, by Rachel Thomas. Iz r—� Notary Public for Oregon ` _D My Commission Expires: OFFICIAL SEAL KARIANDERSON NOTARY PUBLIC -OREGON COMMISSION NO. 335661 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY 11, 2004 ' 8 02SO337 A - RECIPROCAL EASEMEKr AGRE MUff - EXHIBIT ' _ _. PAGE .I. OF � I � I aO01-Agl89 - io STATE OF OREGON ) ss. County of �-- The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on //LiLr.p 90 , 2001, by Roger L. Krage, as Senior Vice President of Crown Pacific Management Limited Partnership, General Partner of Crown Pacific Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership. „ OWCiAL sM KAKI L SKYLES NOTARY PUBUC-OREGON COMMISSION NO.3118" W COMMISSION EWRES APR. Z2.2002 STATE OF OREGON ) ss. County of ) Notary Public for Oregon �����My Commission Expires• The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2001, by Matthew Thomas. Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2001, by Rachel Thomas. Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: 8 008337 v1- RWIMOCAL FASO"M ticxrUdxr EXHIBIT n•^E 11 nr i Jun 19 01 11:04a kman, Williams 6 Rssac 5&388-5416 p.•7 I i EXHIBIT 1 ADJUSTED TAX LOT 4300 Section 21, Township 17 South, Range 11 East, Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon. EXCEPTING TBFREFROM: The South One -Half of the North One -Half (S1/2 NI/2) and the South One -Half (Sl/2) of Section 21, Township 17 South, Range 11 East, Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon TOGETHER WITH: That portion of Parcel 2, Partition Plat 1999-54, located in Township 17 South, Range 11 East, Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon being more particularly described as follows: Section 1S: The Northwest One -Quarter (NW1/4), the Northwest One -Quarter of the Southeast One -Quarter (NW1/4 SE1/4), the North One -Half of the Southwest One -Quarter (N1/2 SW1/4), the West One -Half of the Southwest One -Quarter of the Southwest One - Quarter (W1/2 SW1/4 SW1/4). Section 16: All Section 22: The West One -Half of the Northwest One -Quarter of the Northwest One - Quarter (W1/2 NWIA NW 1/4). Subject to; All easements, restrictions and rights-of-way of record and those common and apparent on the land. S.UAnd J4o1eaW010408\does%ADJU5TED TAX LOT 4300.doe REGiSTEA��EDtt��,, LAND SURYEYOR S OREGON 3 JULY 19.1994 DAVID R. WII-UAMS EXPIRES: JUNE 30, 2002 EXHIBIT PAGE 12.,,- OF a EXHIBIT Z EXHIBIT 1 ae(;E 13 OI Deschutes County Desehuce les lOt 7 s1/2N1/2 i fl/2 lot i, Lots 2-4, fi/2N3/2N21/4NM1/4. 31/21111/411113/1, DaelaLte 165 lot Sol/4MI/4. 81/2111/2111/21121/4. 81/2211/211CIA. 21/2161/4, Deachute 168 lot 21/28111/4, Sn/4 Deschute 168 102 s 21/2, 2111/4 i S92/21IN /4 Got 3. Lot, 4. S01/2NM1/4A111/4SZ1/4. Deschute 168 102 81/2N111/4S23/4, On/4311/4, S1/21V=n/211M1/4. 31/2N1/2NM1/4, Deschute 168 lot t1/2NM1/4, SMI/4 Deschute ISS lot is 5111/4 Deschute 163 102 16 Lots 3-4. 01/2521/4, 5M1/4 Deschute 36S lot 17 Lots 1-2. 111/21113/4, 11113/4 Desehute ISS lot 17 Lots 3-4. 01/2S21/4. 501/4 Deschute 16S lot is 4ots 1-3. 21/211111/4. Nil/4 Deschute ILS lot 1/ Lots 3-4. 31/2SM1/4. Sal/4 Deschute 165 lot It Lots 1-4. 21/201/2. 91/2 Deschute 193 lot 20 Lots 1-4, 03/221/2. 03/2 Deschute 163 lot 21 All Deechute 16S 102 22 NMI/4, S1/2 Deschute 16S lot 26 NMI/4. 31/2 Deschuce 16S lot 27 All Deschute 163 &at 28 All Deschute 168 lot 29 Lots 1-4. 111/281/2, 01/2 Deschute 16S 101 30 Lots 1-4, 21/2111/2, 11/2 Deschute 163 102 31 Gots 1-4. 21/2M1/2. 11/2 Deschute 169 101 32 All Deschute 165 102 33 All Deschute L63 lot 34 All Deschute 16S lot 35 All Deschute 169 lot 16 All Deschute 17S 102 1 toots L-4. Sl/2M1/2. SI/2 EXHIBIT 1 ae(;E 13 OI � •9 •i3 1/22/00 -3 Deschut 17S. IOE 2 Lots 1-4. Sl/281/2. Sl/2 Deschut 17S 106 3 Lots 1.4, 51/211/2. S1/2 Deschut 17S log 4 Lots t-4. S1/2101/2, S1/2 Deschul.-17S 109 S Lots 1-4, Sl/2N1/2, S1/2 Deschut 17S 106 6 Lots 1-7. S1/2NE1/4. SEI/4NM114. E1/2S11/4. SEI/4 Deschut 17S lot a N1/2 Deschut 17S 109 9 N1/2, Sti/4 Deschut 17S 106 10 All Deschut 172 LOB II All Deschut 175 106 12 All Deschut 17S 106 13 All Deachut 178 los 14 A11 Deachut 17S los 1S All Deschut 172 lot 16 tl/2 Deschut 178 108 22 All Deschut 17S lot 23 All Deschut 17S los 24 All Deschut 17S lot 2S All Desehut 17S lot 26 All Deaehut 178 los 27 91/2 Deschut 173 109 3S All Deschut 27S los 36 •All Deschut 27S lit i Lot 7, 291/4011/4, S1/2Ss1/4 Deschut 17S lit 7 Lots 1-4. LI/2M1/2. 91/2 Deschut 17S lit t All Deschut 17S lit 9 A11 Deschut 17S lit IS N11/4. N1/2S11/4, 111/4Ss1/4. M1/2S11/4S11/4 Deschut 27S 119 li All Deschut, 17S llt 17 Ali Deschut 17S 119 >4 Lots 1 i 2, 21/21111/4. Ntl/4 Deschut 172 119 is Lots 3-4. 91/2511/4. SRI/4 Deschut 27S Its 19 Lots 1-4. 31/211/2, 91/2 Deschut 17S lit 20 All Deschut 17S lit 21 All Deschut 17S lit 22 Portion SMi/4221 4191/4 south of loggiag/edninq road. S1/22M1/4891/4, M1/20M1/4111/4, 4MI/48X1/4111/4, 41/201/2111/4, 8111/4. 11/211/2891/4. M1/281/213/2Sa1/4, tl/28t1/4N13/4S93/4. M1/2191/4311/4 . 343.96 - Deschut ITS 119 23 Portion N1/2N1/2211/4 Meat of Shevlin Park and Johnson toad and South 441 of S614NM1/4 lest of Johnson Road 23.61 Deschut 17S lit 27 M1/2M1/2N61/4, M1/291/2M1/2N81/4. M1/2. M1/211/2NM1/4St1/4. M1/291/211/2111/4Ssi/4. Portion SMI/4S21/4 northwest of Park 421.941-" Deschut 17S 116 20 All Deschut 178 lit 29 All Deschut 17S lit 30 Lots 1-4. 91/2111/2. MI/2 Deschut 17S 119 31 LoCS 1-4, 91/211/2, 91/2 Deschut 11S lit 32 N1/2, 81/261/2 Deschut 17S 139 33 81/2111/4. S11/4N113/4. M11/4S11/4 � I r, EXHIBIT lb - ROAD DESCRIPTION A strip of land, 66.00 feet in width, following the centerline of an existing roadway, located in the West One -Half (WI/2) of Section 23, the North One -Half of the South One -Half (NI/2 S12) and the South One -Half of the North One -Half (S1/2 N1/2) of Section 22; all in Township 17 South, Range 11 East, Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon more particularly described as lying 33.00 feet each side of the following described centerline: Beginning at a point on the centerline of Johnson Road which bears North 880 21' 30" East a distance of 1561.53 feet from the One -Quarter Corner common to said Sections 22 and 23; thence North 70005'26" West a distance of 26.68 feet; thence South 78050'32" West a distance of 59.71 feet, thence South 64054'33" West a distance of 65.02 feet; thence South 43°27'52" West a distance of 190.85 feet; thence South 45049104" West a distance of 114.10 feet; thence South 73°30'03" West a distance of 121.05 feet; thence North 87°15'24" West a distance of 433.80 feet; thence North 83°20'15" West a distance of 208.02 feet; thence North 86°54'17" West a distance of 215.80 feet; thence North 84°51'02" West a distance of 146.12 feet; thence North 76°32'14" West a distance of 152.52 feet; thence North 67°20'14" West a distance of 166.26 feet; thence North 67037148" West a distance of 104.78 feet; thence North 77°5949" West a distance of 134.74 feet; thence North 83012'03" West a distance of 122.42 feet; thence North 79021145" West a distance of 117.26 feet; thence North 66040'37" West a distance of 112.04 feet; thence North 61055'03- West a distance of 197.37 feet; thence North 61021133" West a distance of 104.29 feet; thence North 69°42'35" West a distance of 105.40 feet; thence North 80°38'15" West a distance of 76.18 feet; thence North 8429125" West a distance of 75.45 feet; thence South 87°01'53" West a distance of 54.36 feet to the "Point of Beginning" of EXHIBIT 4, which bears North 78' 27' 31" West a distance of 1377.21 feet from said One -Quarter Comer common to said Sections 22 and 23; thence continuing South 87°01'53" West a distance of 15.22 feet; thence South 7101613" West a distance of 69.34 feet; thence South 68°35134" West a distance of 180.32 feet; thence South 6901217" West a distance of 130.01 feet; thence South 5925'13" West, a distance of 141.68 feet; thence South 65°52'38" West a distance of 100.04 feet; thence South 7403751" West a distance of 108.66 feet; thence South 70004119" West a distance of 85.77 feet; thence South 63°42'50" West a distance of 234.15 feet; thence South 72°28'08" West a distance of 24.84 feet; thence South 86047'05" West a distance of 130.70 feet; thence North 89°56'22" West a distance of 115.26 feet; thence South 86°04'58" West a distance of 234.39 feet; thence South 85119'45" West a distance of 59.98 feet; thence South 77°17'12" West a distance of 193.43 feet; thence South 79°21'53" West a distance of 197.63 feet; thence South 87048'57" West a distance of 178.57 feet; thence North 84°03'04" West a distance of 149.68 feet; thence North 49°01'01" West a distance of 222.69 feet; thence North S.U=d Pr0*tS\010404UDOCSX11BM.d0c EXHIBIT PACE jLL OF d^2 I'0i'789 I tp 55010'58" West a distance of 261.39 feet; thence North 55009'09" West a distance of 172.72 feet; thence North 52°OT38" West a distance of 114.96 feet; thence North 28025'53" West a distance of 87.30 feet; thence North 33°2746" West a distance of 291.27 feet; thence North 35°34140" West a distance of 404.38 feet; thence 493.28 feet along the arc of a tangent curve right with a radius of 1850.00 feet, the chord of which bears North 27°56121" West for a distance of 491.82 feet to the terminus of this centerline and the "Point of Beginning" of EXMIT 5, bears South 16° 26' 31'" East a distance of 1371.63 feet from the Northwest Corner of said Section 22. Subject to: All easements, restrictions and rights-of-way of record and those common and apparent on the land. See drawing attached hereto and hereby incorporated by reference. SA40d Projew\01040ADO sMMr AGO REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR JULT 1 .19 4 DAVID R. WILLJAMS e�/d o i 2686 EXPIRES: 30 JUNE, 2002 EXHIBIT - n . e -c 1 t-0 OF ! • 1 ��•aq�$9 r�� BULL SPR/NGS ROAD DESCRIPMNi' 1 EXHIST DRAWING LOCATED IN: SECTIONS 9, 15, 16, 21, 22 & 23, 717S, R11E, W.M., 1 DESCHUTFS COUNTY, OREGON ti's'- •'r' :Y' 'y�'�r-it#'-•-�. •4 �5� 'v "tiai.'.. ;�>/•,; f. P L..�.'{>F_,l..y•:�'e�u, .i Z. 4. 'h. ... f: y `•�f r �r a'.F`t``••} .sr"• w �+:�`i,y�Y-jp,�,tj*`1 1'''`-- 4, 1 / • 1 ��_ 6 r' .�,,, ..rte.;-t ;;: Z'•.. •• y '+' � +t . t.. / ` � � fir `, i 1 t J ?• '{,N ,.�'�'n t �r•'1 ^ [� ''"" r'"A i r, ��y�'�' � L � _ �. .�-.. 3�1.1•li'�' . I'G., rr ,T r t i �. K. � s` ' ' �•. ;�� _ ` � -,�•�N Ki+' y ¢�FYY �' . �. + r ``. `• 1 �. fir• '} :. ;�. +! a: �a' ��'. �, �,.. - �.y;•. �{ �v J �',Y�: .i :t .. ;�. � ;v;�'.�''��.. �� : �j, .,. ...•. A t �'ir;; ,:i '?i r� r�,�� r. a.. �.t1 d ^"x" 3 �•,i �l• �4.ir "'�.�•r 't-yy ~�� 3�fy �.,=•��?rC _ V t i}.2"" jT•�`_y; �� !, •' ,�., %/ 1 I Jri +S.�v �� :^t. .' ii'" � t• Y 1•►�` r•. •'l... . �f.•i � Jr �� +'�rr•�f^; . w L i•ir• v.�•r , ,131' t �• •1 • .�i .'i'" t"} � • . t iii tr f }� S. . 1 y• � ,c. •• . _ � is Fri f �� t Wit. � _ �Y �v4 iit . •�, t ray �.L f� .R .l4 rf.• Ojfl r .� 1 • i w.`{S . ,' � �p h ... � ,�� j F�9 On�� .i �. �:. •i ,^ �t*3tt.• ;7iS"+�µ.t"yt,�. � � = •�~- i i s �-/ !'i } • �j 4 /1 i• ���y1.�p :COY t�1Rt R: lT�/••'t �y. ? 4Y• ,. .� t � ' k y'j:i(� .r'M. �1•. �wtNT �� Y •V. f.ie.1 ti�.l .} f • �i0 .•,? it.• ,� t 1 r REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL PRE'PARE'D B � . LAND SUR SURVEYORS, ENGINEERS 1 E::1 :i3! s parF 1"l OF 0 nR:.m & PLAhwmts HIC"AN. NXUA1fS & ASSOCL47AX INC W5 SW IYDUSIAIAL WA AM 14 aM OR 97702-10" PHONE (541) JN -SW FAX (SII) 380-5118 • \ ALYx ►9 V "4 DAVID R. WILLIAMS 2686 EXPIRES, 30 JUNE. 2002 010508EAS EXHIBIT PAGE 19 OF `: • 04DI- I729.11 EXHIBIT 4 ROAD DESCRIPTION A strip of land, 30.00 feet in width, following the centerline of an existing roadway, located in a portion of the Southwest One -Quarter of the Southeast One -Quarter (SW 1 /4 SE 1/4) of Section 15 and the West One -Half of the Northeast One -Quarter (WI /2 NEI/4) of Section 22, all in Township 17 South, Range I 1 East, Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, being more particularly described as lying 15.00 feet on each side of the following described centerline: Beginning at a point on EXHIBIT 3, which bears North 78° 27' 31" West a distance of 1377.21 feet from the East One -Quarter Comer of said Section 22; thence North 00009149" East a distance of 3677.76 feet to a point on the north line of said Southwest One -Quarter of the Southeast One -Quarter (SWI/4 SEI/4) of said Section 15, the terminus of this centerline, which bears North 18° 43'42" West a distance of 4174.99 feet from said East One -Quarter Comer of said Section 22. Subject to: All easements, restrictions and rights-of-way of record and those common and apparent on the land. Sce drawing attached hereto and hereby incorporated by reference. S:U=d Projects%010404%DOCSIEXHIBIT4.doc REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR OREGON VIC11 JULY 19. 1994� DAVID R. WILLIAMS 2686 EXPIRES: 30 JUNE. 2002 EXHIBIT PAGE 1J OF 3c 1 L j�• � `4� � Y• BULL SPRINGS ROAD DESCRIPM " """"" l EXHIBIT DR 4 WING OCA TED W. SECTIONS 9, 15, 16, 21, 22 & 23, MS, R11& W.M., DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON ,f1 f �','�� `` Y 1 �j�'''j�'{1dh� L �J v Y �• � f' � � V �. , 5r 7y S 7+4 y.+ /. �. . rs•�{, t • rte'' ' '"-• � � ! r '� loll � iij :Y._ _ �.�l�sir�'�,G�.i.. � 1}i..r�. .. .•mow 11 .a�•.. .�F: .r 6 s® REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SUR Y R 1 OREGON JULY 19, 1994 nAVTn R. WTI I TAMC PACE, OF y m KICMMX NXUAMS & ASSOCIATES INC dos SW MOUS70AL WAY SIM/F 14 SM OR 97)02-10113 PHONC (sa) JM-9MI rAx (S+!) JW -sad • l 2686 --". - j , / EXPIRES, 30 JUNE. 2002 01050SEAS EXHIBIT -- PAGE -It- OF •._..,._----------------------------------- EXHIBIT 5 ROAD DESCRIPTION A strip of land, 66.00 feet in width, following the centerline of the Sisters Mainline Road, located in a portion of the West One -Half of the Northwest One -Quarter of the Northwest One -Quarter (WI/2 NWl/4 NWI/4) of Section 22, the Northeast One -Quarter of the Northeast One -Quarter (NEI/4 NE1/4) of Section 21, the South One -Half (Sl/2) and the West One-half of the Northwest One-Quarter(Wl/2 NWI/4) of Section 16 and the Southwest One -Quarter of the Southwest One -Quarter (SWI/4 SWI/4) of Section 9, all in Township 17 South, Range 11 East, Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, being more particularly described as lying 33.00 feet on each side of the following described centerline: Beginning at the terminus of EXHIBIT 3, on the intersection of the centerline of the Sisters Mainline Road and the south line of said Northwest One -Quarter of the Northwest One -Quarter of said Section 22, which bears South 16' 26' 31" East a distance of 1371.63 feet from the Northwest Comer of said Section 22; thence 119.95 feet along a. curve to the right with a radius of 1850.00 feet, the chord of which bears North 18026'35" West a distance of 119.93 feet; thence North 16°35'08" West a distance of 552.98 feet to the "Point of Beginning" of EXHIBIT 6, which bears South 150 59' 05" East a distance of 698.81 feet; thence continuing North 16°35'08" West a distance of 257.08 feet; thence 400.98 feet along the arc of a tangent curve to the left with a radius of 450.00 feet, the chord of which bears North 42°0647" West for a distance of 387.85 feet; thence North 671038'25" West a distance of 1716.45 feet; thence 373.45 feet along the arc of a tangent curve to the right with a radius of 1200.00 feet, the chord of which bears North 58°43'29" West for a distance of 371.95 feet; thence North 49°48'34" West a distance of 529.92 feet; thence 1017.51 feet along the arc of a tangent curve to the left with a radius of 1000.00 feet, the chord of which bears North 7805T32" West for a distance of 974.18 feet; thence South 71 °53'30" West a distance of 650.77 feet; thence 451.13 feet along the arc of a tangent curve to the right with a radius of 250.00 feet, the chord of which bears North 56°24'47" West for a distance of 392.36 feet; thence North 04°43'05" West a distance of 1332.46 feet to the "Point of Beginning" of EXHIBIT 7, which bears South 17° 30' 30" East a distance of 2852.84 feet from the Westerly Corner common to said Sections 9 and 16; thence continuing North 04°43'05" West a distance of 2180.47 feet; SALand Ptojects\010404U)OCSIEXH1Brr5.doc EXHIBIT ...._.�-- .._-PAGE 2L OF 0 thence 479.28 feet along the arc of a tangent curve to the right with a radius of 1451.31 feet, the chord of which bears North 04°4434" East for a distance of 477.11 feet; thence North 1401213" East a distance of 626.15 feet to the terminus of this centerline and the "Point of Beginning" of EXHIBIT 8, which bears North 58° 28' 30" East a distance of 1022.96 feet from the most Westerly Corner common to said Sections 9 and 16,. Subject to: All easements, restrictions and rights-of-way of record and those common and apparent on the land See drawing attached hereto and hereby incorporated by reference. S-\ImW Projects\010404\DOCS\Oa IIDM.doa REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL i --LAND SURVEYOR UKLUON 1 JOLT 14;, 9994 , �� DAVID R. WILLIAMS j /1 2686 EXPIRES: 30 JUNE, 9002 EXHIBIT - — — - - PAGE 22_q OF Q - ------------------ ---------- ,suLL spRIArs ROAD DEscRIP770Ad" EXHIBIT DR4 WING LOCATED IN: SEC77ONS 9, 15, 16, 21, 22 & 23, T17Sy R11E, WM., DESCHUTES COUNTY. OREGON nfr` 1• .,�>IIL A ,,,,Ir may- 6 -CM , PF OF; t, V, - 51 REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL PREPARED B Y.• LAND _SUR XYqR SURVSYDLARS� ENIGINNERS OREGON & PLA ERS r_",\'H!BIT E PAGE 2L OF, 04. M T�t W, may- 6 -CM , PF OF; t, V, - 51 REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL PREPARED B Y.• LAND _SUR XYqR SURVSYDLARS� ENIGINNERS OREGON & PLA ERS r_",\'H!BIT E PAGE 2L OF, I XIC"AN. PULIAAfS & ASSOCIATES;live 805 SW AVJS MAL WAY, SLI1E 14 BEND. W 97M-1093 PMW (541) J89 -9J51 FAM(NI)J80-3416 0 JULY 19, 1994 DAVID R. WILLIAMS 26@6 EXPIRES: 30 JUNE, 2002 01050SEAS E..HIBIT PAGE -2;5� OF EXHIBIT 6 ROAD DESCRIPTION A strip of land, 66.00 feet in width, following the centerline of an existing roadway, located in a portion of the North One -Half of the North One -Half (N1/2 N1/2) of Section 21, in Township 17 South, Range 11 East, Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, being more particularly described as lying 33.00 feet on each side of the following described centerline: Beginning at a point on the centerline of the Sisters Mainline Road which bears South 15' 59' 05" East a distance of 698.81 feet from the Northeast Corner of said Section 21; thence leaving said Sisters Mainline Road, North 39°1841" West a distance of 195.46 feet; thence North 45°01'20" West a distance of 102.48 feet; thence North 53026154" West a distance of 199.81 feet; thence North 64'48'57" West a distance of 194.54 feet; thence North 73°18'47" West a distance of 216.22 feet; thence South 84°17'38" West a distance of 156.11 feet; thence South 67°53'21" West a distance of 508.58 feet; thence South 56131'31" West a distance of 422.11 feet; thence South 6205646" West a distance of 261.63 feet; thence South 51°01'51" West a distance of 279.71 feet; thence South 35009'19" West a distance of 170.86 feet; thence South 24°3825" West a distance of 273.22 feet to a point on the south line of said North One -Half of the North One -Half (N1/2 N1/2) of Section 21, which bears South 59° 09'32" West a distance of 2549.43 feet from said Northeast Corner of said Section 21, the terminus of this description. Subject to: All easements, restrictions and rights-of-way of record and those common and apparent on the land. See drawing attached hereto and hereby incorporated by reference. REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR OREGON JULY 19. 1994 DAVID R: WILLIAMS 2686 EXPIRES: 30 JUNE, 2002 S:\Land Projects1010404\DOCS\EXHIBIT6.doc EXHIBIT PAGE ,Z(Q OF ,� �•�a�.aq�89•a3 BULL SPRINGS ROAD DESCRIP?1011�S� EXHIBIT DRA WNG LOCATED /N. SEC77ONS 9, 15, 16, 21, 22 do 23, MS. R11E, W.M., DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON i, T s 4� ./-:. .� 4� .. „per Ali 11�.. .'°,fib"} .•,� i' 1 ,� ,� • t r - ;/�' f- -'+� �, � �`Ait'Y .�' �'� `•4*• � x.��2 "y'� 'W,'�,y"rf 4 � 4. "� ��? r jQ � .. �`f 1 ` ' • �` � ,, �"".,,i.•.,, Y is �./• ,Sx' �r . S i _ • 't , Y +: 1iS `� , `rr�:� r `.�t.J�' • . S , �lal tt � � TS � ,��- `6���:C. `.+• .,.'• : , 3� (-•!, ]i'� 'i �fl ,_ .+:, .` t �1/ iiY'L CL1t:. 4 '1C' `F ..: h�i y. rtin- + �K, :'yM t { t: r y C 2 jya S» i,! f;j t • •'•r" �, '. ,' �,. 1 ` .� !7 }', i• fi'h� ik yhL •t'�" xll_y.,r� J 7+cr..: J v ra. •. �:-,1 r trE:. '" r..,, r,r e k ,�rxfi ti , �. {e �' :.�t! .�, �•� .ti h`r1., yt � -. c �: { � �:' Viµ. s ..t, iy •x:. •�• ww �• � 3, •� it � i� ' ' M`'� . � w � fr x�.. �. _�•� - a� ,..� � .fix:! ,:t ►5�. _ y , ox i �v17 }Iv�'.'!^"' - t� � fir .s • l:. • a " ����* .�?,'i t ` 1 + •Y - �• jl• l•. _ ..•� 'i AL2 - t fi �(1• f 'T , J � � iii - '' ' ..� t ••� - s. tyz. 1. Kta t i.�+.3 i�� �y vJ �i _3.7. � ! '� y 2 r s � . ks ' .• ,� ' JtC:4:, 1i�,'.`, •t '•:>;. ».tw :✓�r'i!: • •.••.a .. .:14' .. / i - ..S.a•^� :1.'�, j », �. REGISTERED ' PROFESSIONAL PREPARED BY.• LAND SURY R ; NwookSURVEYORS, ENGINEERS s do PLANNERS OREGON JULY 19, 1994 i PACE Z7 OF,3 MIC"AA& WULUM & ASSOCZAT= DVC 803 SW WDUSIMAL Mr. S1N1E /Q WYV. OR 97M-109.1 PHONE (311) JM -9351 FAX (311) JW -5416 DAVID R. WILLIAMS J "/�/ 2686 EXPIRES, 30 JUNE, 2002 01050BEAS EXHIBIT PAGE OFA ---------------- ------- � � ot�l��q�8q•� EXHIBIT 7 ROAD DESCRIPTION A strip of land, 66.00 feet in width, following the centerline of an existing roadway, located in a portion of the West One -Half of the West One -Half (Wl/2 W1/2) of Section 16, in Township 17 South, Range 11 East, Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, being more particularly described as lying 33.00 feet on each side of the following described centerline: Beginning at a point on the centerline of the Sisters Mainline Road which bears South 170 30' 30" East a distance of 2852.84 feet from the Northwest Comer of said Section 16; thence leaving said Sisters Mainline Road, South 75°01'49" West a distance of 622.60 feet; thence South 85°20'21 " West a distance of 268.71 feet to a point on the west line of said Section 16, which bears South 00' 13'04" West a distance of 2903.36 feet from said Northwest Corner of said Section 16, the terminus of this centerline. Subject to: All easements, restrictions and rights-of-way of record and those common and apparent on the land. See drawing attached hereto and hereby incorporated by reference S:11and Projcctsl01D4041DOCSIGXIDOM.doc REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR OREGON JULY 19. 199Val' DAVID R. WILLIAMS 2686 � EXPIRES: 30 JUNE. 2002 EXHIBIT D .._. PAGE .d OF >3 HIC"A)V, D7LLlmLS & ASSOCIATES, INC 805 SW IAMS1RAL WAY, SYD7E 14 8£M . OR 97702-1093 E (541) 389-9351 FAX (541) JW -5416 f DAVID R. WILLIAMS 2686 EXPIRES, 30 JUNE, 2002 nsncnnAVwc EXHIBIT , PAGE CQ OF F; HIC"AN. VXUAUS d: ASSOCIATES. INC QRS SM 1MDUSMYAL WAY SUITE /Q DOWL 0R 97702-1093 PHONE (341) J89—SMY fAX (341) .IE8-5416 0 1 DAVID R..6 6ILLIAMS l EXPIRESs 30 JUNE. 2002 J 01050SEAS EXNiBiT o e rF .1. - OF 1 ------------- EXHIBIT8 1 ROAD DESCRIPTION A strip of land, 66.00 feet in width, following the centerline of an existing roadway, 1 located in a portion of the Southwest One -Quarter of the Southwest One -Quarter (SWI/4 1 SWI/4) of Section 9 and the Northwest One -Quarter of the Northwest One -Quarter L (NW1/4 NW1/4) Section 16, all in Township 17 South, Range 11 East, Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, being more particularly described as lying 33.00 1 feet on each side of the following described centerline: Beginning at a point on the centerline of the Sisters Mainline Road which bears North 58' 28' 30" East a distance of 1022.98 feet from the most westerly corner common to said Sections 9 and 16; thence leaving Sisters Mainline Road North 79°13'50" West a distance of 149.94 feet; thence 135.38 feet along the arc of a tangent cu rve to the right with a radius of 750.00 feet, the chord of which bears North 74°03'34" West for a ' distance of 135.19 feet; thence North 68053118" West a distance of 48.84 feet; thence 227.17 feet along the arc of a tangent curve to the left with a radius of 150.00 feet, the chord of which bears South 67°43'32" West for a distance of 206.07 feet; thence South ' 24020'22" West a distance of 82.39 feet; thence 214.10 feet along the arc of a tangent curve to the left with a radius of 1142.44 feet; the chord of which bears South I8°58'15" West for a distance of 213.78 feet; thence South 13°36'08" West a distance of 215.57 ' feet; thence 311.06 feet along the arc of a tangent curve to the right with a radius of 296.87 feet, the chord of which bears South 43°37'10" West for a distance of 297.03 feet to a point on the west line of said Section 16, which bears South 000 13' 04" West a distance of 102.27 feet from said Northwest Comer of said Section 16, the terminus of this centerline. Subject to: All easements, restrictions and rights -of --way of record and those common and apparent on the land. REGISTERED ' See drawing attached hereto and hereby incorporated by reference. pROFESStONAL LAND SURVEYOR Z2� I- SM -and Projccts1010404%1)OCS%EXIi1BITS.doc OREGON JULY 19, 1994 DAVID R. WILUAMS E*'IHf S: JUNE 30,200!1 EXHIBIT PAGE BL OFA ��� ,suncr�rulor, d'NCi/NCEf4Y of & PLANNERS HIC"AIV, 17LUAAOS & ASSOCIA= IXC 80 Sw /NDUSMAL WA r. SLV1E 14 88VO. OR 97702-1093 PhVW (541) J89-9331 FAX (341) JW -3416 0 Y OREGON JULY 19, 1994 DAVID R. WILLIAMS 2686 EXPIRE& 30 JUNE, 2002 010908FAS EXHIBIT PAGE �, OF BULL SPRINGS ROAD DESCRIP77ONoc" EXHIET .R, WNG LOCA I DESCHUMS COOREGON '; �, iii.. � * _ - ti � C � .:. f'..• «;. l� i •j0. J_,C�'�� - � �`' � ��' .`+ `+,i��' '�,ti+'"+a^rf�si� �� �r"" • ` y.� , ���dr ��-f"AA'yz, -lI .iY ' `..r'Y..l�'f°11 Y -A �f'++",rl:A{{ ..:i.7r � • ws� `�w� Lw � 1, `!L 1�'rV .r . � {:� t�1 Ace- dr mom REGISTERED AP PROFESSIUNAL AVYqR �:a� ����� C�? I ��, e� � 17'a'r'��� �.•Y y, �.�„R(a� ' f / -�� dip .Let}" :l •*^�"• /Fyr��/��`•+{'�'r ` S �- ��•rr.' � �fJriOmiifu�� � J? �Cs',�_`� i :Y1.F '�F" Imo,. � � t2�iS� I •. •f.�ii� mss+'. � ��L ��r�- ,�� %� / Q 'I KICKVAN. 07LUAJ& & ASSOCIATES. INC 805 SW 1NDUSIMAL WAY, SLOW 14 WMD OR 97702-1093 PWWC (541) 389-D351 fAX (511)_ JW -5416 DAVID R. WIHIIAMS 2686 EXPIRES+ 30 JUNE. 2002 010508EAS IXHIBIT PAGE OF %-,ld ~ REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR OREGON EXHIBIT 9 JULY 19,1994 DAVID R. WILUAMS ROAD EASEMENT DESCRIPTION EXPIRES: JUNE 90, Z00%' A strip of land, 30.00 in width, following the centerline of an existing roadway, located in 6110, the West One -Half of the Southeast One -Quarter (WI/2 SEI/4) of Section 15 and the East One-half of the West One -Half (El/2 W1/2) of Section 15, all in Township 17 South, Range I l East, Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon more particularly described as lying 15.00 feet each side of the following described centerline: Beginning at a point which bears North 18° 43'42" West a distance of 4174.99 feet from the One Quarter Comer common to Section 22 and 23, said Township and Range; thence North 00°0949" East a distance of 911.25 feet; thence 532.63 feet along the arc of s tangent curve to the left with a radius of 330.00 feet, the chord of which bears North 461004'29" West for a distance of 476.67 feet; thence South 87°41'13" West a distance of 203.00 feet; thence 86.22 feet along the arc of a tangent curve to the right with a radius of 700.00 feet, the chord of which bears North 88*4704" West for a distance of 86.17 feet; thence continuing 89.87 feet along a curve to the right with a radius of 700.00 feet, the chord of which bears North 81°3419" West a distance of 89.81 feet; thence North 77053158" West a distance of 91.74 feet; thence 142.72 feet along the are of a tangent curve to the left with a radius of 700.00 feet, the chord of which bears North 83°4425" West for a distance of 142.47 feet; thence North 89°34'52" West a distance of 324.26 feet; thence 210.41 feet along the arc of a tangent curve to the right with a radius of 200.00 feet, the chord of which bears North 59026'34" West for a distance of 200.84 feet; thence North 29°18'15" West a distance of 106.25 feet; thence North 08°48'08" West a distance of 10726 feet; thence North 21°50'39" East a distance of 301.04 feet; thence 168.60 feet along the arc of a tangent curve to the left with a radius of 500.00 feet, the chord of which bears North 12°11'03" East for a distance of 167.80 feet; thence North 02031128" East a distance of 27.87 feet; thence 61.89 feet along the are of a tangent curve to the right with a radius of 500.00 feet, the chord of which bears North 06°04'13" East for a distance of 61.85 feet; thence North 0903658" East a distance of 333.01 feet; thence 126.19 feet along the arc of a tangent curve to the left with a radius of 200.00 feet, the chord of which bears North 08°2735" West for a distance of 124.11 feet; thence North 26°32'08" West a distance of 29.70 feet; thence 38.41 feet along the arc of a tangent curve to the right with a radius of 40.00 feet, the chord of which bears North 00°58'21" West for a distance of 36.95 feet, the terminus of this centerline, which bears North 2206'26" West a distance of 7110.69 feet from said One -Quarter Corner common to said Sections 22 and 23. Subject to: All easements, restrictions and rights-of-way of record and those common and apparent on the land. See drawing attached hereto and hereby incorporated by reference. SAIAnd Projects\0104041D0CS%EXHlBnV.doc E;(HIBIT __.�.. PAGE 2a OF 0 W�� S urc vc ruro; a'rvcrrvrr.•ror e & PLANNERS HIC"AN. N7LU S & ASSOCIATE: INC M SW MMSMAL WAY, S11I1E M SM. OR 97702-109J PHONE (341) J89 -9J31 FAX (541) 3W-5416 9 r ..• OREGON JULY 19. 1994 DAVID R. WILLIAMS 2686 EXPIRES 30 JUNE. 2002 010508EAS EXHIBIT PAGE .'-7)).ta/. OF MERRILL O'SULLIVAN, LLP MAX MERRILL ATTORNEYS AT LAW TERRENCE B. O'SULLIVAN BRIAN J. MACRITCHIE DAVID E. PETERSEN STEPHEN D. DIXON PATRICIA L. HEATHERMAN BRIAN L. GINGERICH DAVID W. SMILEY law5rm@merrill-osullivan.com December 10, 2002 1070 NW BOND STREET, SUITE 303 BEND, OREGON 97701 PHONE (541) 389-1770 FAX (541) 389-1777 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1130 NW Harriman Avenue Bend OR 97701 Re: Applicants' Memorandum in Support of Appeal MP -02-12 (A -02-10/A-02-11) Dear Commissioners: TIA M. LEWIS OF COUNSEL: JOIN M.COPENHAVER The Applicants/Appellants, Matthew and Rachel Thomas, submit the following Memorandum in support of their appeal of the Decision of the Deschutes County Hearings Officer, dated October 2, 2002. The Applicants' appeal is related solely to Condition No. 4(a) in the Hearings Officer Decision requiring the Applicants to make road improvements to Forest Service Road 4606 (Sisters Mainline Road). Set forth below is the Applicants' evidence and argument in support of eliminating Condition 4(a) from the Decision. The Applicants rely on the evidence and legal analysis in the record to address the appeal issues raised by the Sisters Forest Planning Committee (SFPC). Set forth below is a summary of that evidence and argument. 1. Road Improvements to Forest Service Road 4606 Are Not Warranted. The sole issue on appeal by the Applicants is the imposition of Condition No. 4(a) in the Hearings Officer's Decision requiring that Forest Service Road 4606 be improved "to a minimum width of 20 feet of all weather surface adequate to support a 50,000 pound fire truck" Decision of Deschutes County Hearings Officer, p. 21. There is evidence in the record that this road is approximately 20 feet wide, surfaced with gravel and suitable for passenger vehicles. There is evidence in the record that the Forest Service and Crown Pacific have used this road regularly for forest operations for the past 20 years. Conversely, there is no evidence in the record that the road is not adequate to provide physical access to the property. Unlike the Hearings Officer, officials from both the Deschutes County Road Department and the City of Bend Fire Department have traveled the Sisters Mainline Road from Skyliners Road to the subject property to assess its suitability for access. Significantly, neither department requested the road improvements imposed by the Hearings Officer when submitting comments on the partition application. 91 Deschutes County Commissioners December 10, 2002 Page 2 The traffic impacts associated with the partition do not warrant the required improvements. The Applicants have three points of access to the subject property. First, the Applicants have permanent legal access via a recorded easement running along the eastern property boundary south to Bull Springs Road and then to Johnson Road. A copy of the map and access easement is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Second, the Applicants have permanent legal access via a recorded easement running along the southern property boundary to Bull Springs Road and then to Johnson Road. A copy of the map and access easements are attached hereto as Exhibit B. Finally, the Applicants have permanent legal access via recorded easements along the Sisters Mainline Road from the southern property boundary to Skyliners Road. A copy of the map and access easements are attached hereto as Exhibit C. All of these roads exist on the ground and all are improved to County standards except the section of the Sisters Mainline Road from Skyliners Road north to the southern property boundary of the Tweedfam parcels approved under MP-01-16/MA-02/4 (A-0206). See, Map attached as Exhibit D. The present proposal is for a three -lot partition with each of the parcels to be used for forestry and residential purposes. The minimal traffic impacts associated with the proposal do not justify the improvements required under Condition No. 4(a). In fact, the Hearings Officer specifically found that "the minimal amount of traffic that would be generated by the development of three dwellings on the subject property would not be sufficient to justify requiring the applicants to construct improvements to these public roads." Hearings Officer Decision, p. 15. Instead, her decision requiring the improvements to the Sisters Mainline Road is specifically tied to the existence of physical access (Hearings Officer Decision, p. 6) and to emergency vehicle access (Hearings Officer Decision, p. 14, 21 requiring a "minimum of 20 feet all weather surface adequate to support a 50,000 pound fire truck"). There is evidence in the record that the Sisters Mainline Road from Skyliners Road north to the southern boundary of the subject property is approximately 20 feet wide and surfaced with gravel. Gary Judd of the Deschutes County Road Department will testify that both he and Tom Bloost traveled the road with the Applicants' engineer to assess its suitability for access. While the road does not meet County standards in all sections, Mr. Judd will confirm that it is accessible by passenger vehicles. To address the Hearings Officer's concerns about emergency vehicle access, the Applicants asked Don Jenson, Deputy Chief of Operations with the City of Bend Fire Department, to evaluate the subject property and its access points. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a letter from Mr. Jenson to Chief Langston specifically addressing emergency vehicle access to the subject property. Mr. Jenson specifically indicates that the existing access roads are sufficient for emergency vehicle access and that improvements to the Sisters Mainline Road are not necessary. Mr. Jenson further indicates that the subject property is located less than 5 miles from the Tumalo fire station and meets all guidelines for annexation into the Rural Fire Protection District. In fact, Mr. Jenson concludes that the fire protection and forest management measures undertaken by the Applicants are a positive example of how to create defensible space Deschutes County Commissioners December 10, 2002 Page 3 and that the subject property should be used as a model for other urban interface properties being considered for annexation into the district. Because the traffic impacts from the proposal do not justify road improvements and the evidence in the record shows that the existing access is adequate for emergency vehicles, the Applicants request that the Hearings Officer Decision be modified to eliminate Condition No. 4(a). 2. Appeal by SFPC. The Hearings Officer correctly found that the proposal meets all relevant criteria. Except for the modification of Condition No. 4(a) discussed above, the Hearings Officer Decision should be upheld. The Applicants rely on the evidence and legal analysis in the record to support upholding the Hearings Officer Decision. A summary of that evidence and argument as it relates to the points of appeal by SFPC is set forth below. a. Frontage One issue raised on appeal by SFPC is that not all parcels have frontage along the Sisters Mainline Road. On appeal, SFPC argues that the proposal does not meet the criterion related to access at DCC 17.22.020(A)(3) because parcels B and C must use an easement to get to the Sisters Mainline Road. This issue was not raised below by SFPC and is therefore waived. Pursuant to state law, the Hearings Officer specifically advised all parties at the public hearing that any issue not raised with sufficient specificity below would be precluded from further appeal. See, Transcript of July 2, 2002 Hearing Before Deschutes County Hearings Officer, p. 2, Ins. 16-21. Despite SFPC's failure to raise this issue below, the Hearings Officer correctly found that frontage is not required and that all parcels have the required access. Section 17.22.020(A)(3) of the DCC requires that all partitions be accessed either by roads dedicated to the public or by way of USFS or BLM roads. Section 17.36.180 of the DCC requires each parcel in a partition to have 50 feet of frontage (30 feet for parcels on a cul-de-sac) on a public road but specifically exempts partitions off USFS and BLM roads from the frontage requirement. Reading these two code sections together, the Hearings Officer found that the present proposal met the applicable criteria because each parcel had access to the Sisters Mainline Road and proposal was exempt from the frontage requirement. Hearings Officer Decision, p. 5-6. Furthermore, the frontage issue is a distinction without substance. The Applicants have configured the parcels to account for the existing development and uses in the area and to accommodate a Forest Management Plan on the property. The two 80 acre parcels are located in the northeast area of the property closer to the existing smaller residential parcels to the east and adjacent to the developed access road. The larger 322 acre parcel is located on the western side of the parcel adjacent to the larger forestry tracts to the west. This configuration allows the Deschutes County Commissioners December 10, 2002 Page 4 Applicants to utilize the property most efficiently for forestry and residential purposes. However, the Applicants have sufficient frontage along the Sisters Mainline Road to configure the two 80 acre parcels into flag lots fronting along the Sisters Mainline Road. To do so is not a practical, efficient or economical use of the property because creating the flag lots requires the future owners of the two 80 acre parcels to maintain in excess of 5 acres each along a strip of property which is removed from the remainder of that property owner's holdings. As shown by the evidence previously in the record, the Applicants intend to manage all three parcels for forestry uses and to develop and record a Forest Management Plan for this purpose binding future owners to conduct forest management activities. The creation of the flag lots makes forest management on each distinct parcel more difficult and serves no legitimate purpose. The Hearings Officer correctly concluded that the proposal meets the access criteria and that frontage along the Sisters Mainline Road is not required. b. The Easements Satisfy DCC 17.22.020(A)(3). Attached as Exhibit C is the map and easements showing that the Applicants have permanent legal access to the Sisters Mainline Road via three recorded easements. The documents themselves show that they are broad grants of access without restriction as to the purpose. The language of the at sets forth the maintenance provisions and specifically provides that these easements run with the land and bind all future owners to their terms. Also attached as Exhibit F are Affidavits and correspondence from two different Forest Service officials recognizing and affirming the Applicants' right to use the Sisters Mainline Road for residential access to all three parcels. Finally, attached as Exhibit G is a letter from Western Title indicating that it will insure access to the subject property based on the Sisters Mainline easements alone and that, if asked, Western Title would not insure over or eliminate these easements in a policy of insurance for the Forest Service title. C. Other Issues The Applicants rely on the evidence and argument previously submitted to address the other appeal issues raised by SFPC. Based on the evidence in the record, the Applicants request that the Hearings Officer Decision be modified to eliminate Condition No. 4(a) and otherwise be upheld. ;S�i�ncy, TIA M. LEWIS tia@merrill-osullivan.com TML/kc Paul D. Dewey Attorney at Law 1539 NW Vicksburg Bend, Oregon 97701 November 27, 2002 (541) 317-1993 Deschutes County Commissioners c/o Cathy Tilton Deschutes County Planning Division 117 NW Lafayette Ave. Bend, OR 97701 Re: De Novo Hearing on Application MP -02-12; Order Nos. 2002-137 and 138 Dear County Commissioners: I want to take this opportunity before the hearing on December 10 to give you a brief summary of some of our arguments against the Thomas application for a partition of land into a parcel of 322 acres and two parcels of 80 acres. Context An understanding of the context of this application is critical to appreciate the important policy and Code interpretation questions raised by this application. The Applicant has acknowledged that a purpose of this partition is to build dwellings on the parcels. Though a separate application is required for such dwellings, the partition approval process calls for a finding that the resulting parcels would be suited for the intended use. These parcels are being created in the County's primary forest management lands, the F-1 Zone. There are serious implications in the conversion of this industrial timberland to residential use, including the increased danger and cost of fire, the loss of the County's private timberland base and the fragmentation of the Tumalo Deer Winter Range. Attached is a colored map and chronology of land transfers documenting the increasing pace of the conversion of the Crown Pacific timberland block into residential use. Access Requirements for Partitions The County Code at Section 17.22.020(A)(3) requires: The partition is accessed either by roads dedicated to the public or by way of United States Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management roads where the applicant has submitted a written agreement with the appropriate land management agency providing for permanent legal access to the parcels and any required maintenance. This provision shall not be subject to variance. . t MAP This is a map of approximate current ownerships within the industrial timberland block between Bend and Sisters. The underlying map is of the Deschutes National Forest. The black line delineates the timberland block boundary. There have been some recent changes primarily due to a land exchange with the Forest Service, but this block is essentially the same as it was for decades. The ownerships were determined by use of Deschutes County tax records. The map does not necessarily show the separate legal lots of record that may exist within any ownership. Colors Orange White Yellow Grey Light Blue Green Dark Blue Chartreuse Light Orange Purple Light Green Red Dark Purple Light Blue (north) Yellow (north) Purple, Light Green, Red (north) Crown Pacific SVE II, Inc. Tweedfam and Hap Taylor & Sons Tweedfam and Hap Taylor & Sons Hogensen Hogensen Thomas Thomas Thomas Mees Tweedfam and Hap Taylor & Sons Smith Tweedfam and Hap Taylor & Sons Helser Best Western (Reed) Reed PARTITION HISTORY An approximated recent history of this area includes the following events: 1988: Transfer of the land from Diamond Group, Inc. to Crown Pacific. 2. Late 1980s: A partition was approved at the north end of the block into several 240 - acre parcels which over the past 10 years have been further subdivided, mostly into 80 -acre parcels. There are at least a couple of homes in this area. These parcels are represented by the blue, yellow, purple, light green and red colors. 3. 1994: Much of the ownership was apparently transferred from Crown Pacific to a company called SVE II, Inc. It is not clear who owns or controls SVE II, Inc., except the tax mailing address is the same as for Crown Pacific. 4. Mid 1990s?: Sometime in the 1990s an approximately 240 -acre parcel was split off in the southeast corner of the property, shown as a purple area just north of Road 200. This area has recently sold and there is not yet a dwelling on the property. 5. 1998: In the far southeast corner represented by the red color, a 270 -acre parcel was split off. 6. 2000 — 2001: Approximately 1,500 acres were sold to Hogensen and Thomas. These parties then split that parcel into three smaller parcels of 482 acres, 320 acres, and 327 acres. 7. 2001: Some SVE II, Inc. lands were transferred back to Crown Pacific. 2002: Thomas is seeking to split the 482 -acre parcel into a 322 -acre parcel and two 80 -acre parcels. The partition has been approved but it is on appeal to the County Commissioners. 9. 2001 — 2002: Tweedfam and Hap Taylor & Sons acquired approximately 1,900 acres and achieved a partition into three parcels; one of 1,306 acres, one of 341 acres, and the other at 260 acres. An appeal to stop the partition was denied by a Deschutes County Hearings Officer. 10. 2002: Real estate ads for the 1,306 -acre parcel highlight the potential for five 240 - acre parcels. 11. 2002 — 2003: Applications for dwellings on the new parcels are expected soon. AS L, A N O �. Tl-� O M , TD f3'E Acc E. SS EQ C rco � a -4t o FOREST k b�akth ecGzc.,�e.et- s�e�F�a� E SER VICE ROAD o BULL SPRINGS RD y' � t� d a `°.* ,t�? 4 FI �c?�_ _y'�, Y `^j-•- Yt :'`J r f 20 'i re 4. M. e i A H. J HNSON RD a j} r`ay '?'� t��'�r� .r - .—�`N — 1 .�:":, } l:: � {� ,� z '. �,ya`"•-, .�`? f " f''' :l i'� (r rjf { � �'r 1� Z ice: �v 4 CLOSED �AIS� % 4 rl " fF tai Ji6./Y r u ----'• B '�i 'j�f�y ,.'x•' wFt,_ fi'. IFS f r• t s` err i _.,� 7 LL ♦ � l Ss.i F } i4 � , s �' i.. - . x � 1 r :j: A- 7 fie" �P 1 t 2000'-- r: t r` t -5 . t:' a'`s'-......e & 4..+e" 't l FOREST SER VICE RD _ FOREST SER VICE RD I _ , .� "mac• l fi ' , z� :A PREPARED B Y Nwook SUR & PLANNERSNEERS HICKIIAN• WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES, INC 805 SW INDUSTRIAL WAY, SUITE 10, BEND, OR 97702- 109J PHONE (541) 389-9351 FAX (541) 388-5416 A t "r 6 -'x`010610\DWG\EXHIBIT s. ✓ � g r �� j 't PRIVATE ROAD THOMAS PARTITION -SISTERS MAINLINE LOCA TION LOCATED IN. SECTIONS 15, 16, 21 & 22, T17S, R11E, W.M., DESCHU 7FS COUNTY, OREGON Ar�P L� CAN'T E TEN TA TIVE/LAYOU T4 • j pu -1 _ !le'di 'rA: .:a. _.:H `_. F J t, / IIC�^ ,rr "Z�'.. '• r4",.. -„.•T:: S, t 1 Vol +, 137 va 137 rAa143 — S�QE 130>DRQ�, Sade this tad Or at. October. ,LA. 1963, betwom DS00324Ci1=, eorporvtioa ieeu s�os aasC- In[ woder the Lms of the Mate of D.lanr., Qarm r, nod dhe � �, Or �whase post eftioe ad+hvsa L Ytaltiedt� Mut for aid is smmideration of the pant . of svaips meal si�ita•• of -07 sod the eros of $1.00, the reosipt of fah in s.sry aelmodaad.d, the Grantor does b:vtry peat and eamq mate the soGrantee and its as4i9ro, an eeseaant d 4t -of -mW far a ruM as loeatid, eaustrncted, "ooastruet*d, y PrOT04 ue*d, Vmmted, patrolled and agmtsined e►ar, wpan,, alum and ^cines the follaidmC desartbs ed prndA situated Im the Coaaties of Jefferson and Deschutes, ,tate of Oragca, to-dti • foJlad� described =value width travavlitt the �I i see attached Mdiibit t throwo Q Daps. / The said strip beiag 33 feet in width ea each nide of a .enter line as located and ooistroct*d an the posed, M with as mord additicoal width as roquired for •, P"teatioa of cute and f121m,1the said eentarline beim '. boated mod deseribed Y shomb on ldiibit 1 tkroath Q, which L attached beret* and mode a past bezvefo aw centerline is mere pa tioular2y deputbed as it eats= and Lane the Grantor's Said as WIsmis Q"C",”" Cou" �r a ARlTRAcr Co. we Wail. *rRELT . *..No. oREGOM SFPC Ex E ?.-Sr, y y 14Hn ! M• - LE= Road ar*a omt*d by We oaoualtt vm 137 w587 Road area aqt co"nd by tMa eama�aftt ram WS& 016 - Road Symbol Road Im Rmd W tubm T sista" MaInLum 239.3 Im Jack Pizw SpriVV 1722 SOMMOU m ���ee pi man mom 016 - Road Symbol Road Im Rmd W tubm T sista" MaInLum 239.3 Im Jack Pizw SpriVV 1722 oG oZ /(�e amtd, L�f•/LGC SGL /Lfi_Q� �Cyf C3 i� !G -dl C tL L L � .�1CZ/ate/ e���rz-,cd. kw� eLo�o� Clu /�,yc rd��GC LL'jjCL� a7L oc �cJ LLat �L c"CC ��//�Qd l _ I+Y�CJ I�� 'Ljc-1,(! L y1� LL -e.. /( G�j ��✓`Li Aote -�-�� G /,22o �� t s LL�p�, .�Gt, C�-J-,� � L lZ� j:�-•Zd ,� 2f2� O `�cE 2� �- �0''L_ ��I GZ-•`� � ✓C -:ii (�•LG C-C`JL•C2—C � [_6t4 _--tliC��,(�'ZI t�'q � O Y— s— E JL ee7nwu;zt7 9 January 1998 Department of Fish and Wildlife High Desert Regional Office 61374 Parrell Road Bend, OR 97702 (541)388-6363 FAX (541) 388-6281 E-mail: odfw.bend®bendnet.com Sally Collins oaeooN Forest Supervisor Deschutes National Forest 1645 Highway 20 East Bend, OR 97701 RE: USDA Forest Service/Crown Pacific Limited Partnership Land Exchange Project on the Deschutes, Fremont, and Winema National Forests Thank you for providing the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife the opportunity to review and comment on the USDA Forest Service(FS)/Crown Pacific Limited Partnership Land Exchange Proposal (DES). As the state agency responsible for the conservation, protection, and management of Oregon's fish and wildlife for the use and enjoyment by current and future generations, we offer the following comments. We are concemed about 1) Loss of Late and Old Structure (LOS) ponderosa pine habitat. The loss of both 14.8% of the remaining LOS ponderosa pine habitat on the Deschutes National Forest (DNF) and the connectivity of the Sellers and Toast subwatershed parcels is significant. The Department feels that the DEIS does not provide adequate analysis on impacts to the viability of LOS dependent wildlife species from the loss of LOS ponderosa pine habitat We recommend the FS modify the exchange plan to result in no net loss of LOS ponderosa pine habitat and connectivity function. 2) Loss of big game habitat values in the Bull and Dorrance subwatersheds through private timber practices or. residential development. FS parcels in the Bull subwatershed provide mule deer hiding and thermal cover and high quality forage, particularly during severe winters. FS parcels in the Dorrance subwatershed provide mule deer fawning, migration, summer range, elk calving and year round habitat Both areas provide key wildlife habitat values due to loss of similar habitat through past land use zoning and management practices. We recommend the FS modify the exchange plan to result in no loss of big game habitat values in the Bull and Dorrance subwatersheds. 3) Increase in road densities resulting in loss of mule deer habitat, loss of mule deer through poaching, reduced mule deer escapement and survival, reduced habitat effectiveness, increased forest fragmentation, and ultimately reduced recreational use. To mitigate impacts caused by high road densities we recommend Crown Pacific effectively reduce road densities to the Land Resource Management Plan (LRMP) target level of 2.5 Land Ukchar4,e --QDFW Comments Paye 2 miles per section before the trade or for the FS to increase their road reduction budget by the amount necessary to effectively reduce road densities to their LRMP standard immediately after acquisition of the property. 4) Loss of wildlife habitat in general due to less vegetative vertical structure, snags, and down woody material on Crown Pacific lands, along with more habitat fragmentation caused by roading. General wildlife habitat values - particularly a mix of tree sizes, snags, down wood, and less forest fragmentation - in the Bull, Dorrance, Toast, and Sellers subwatersheds appears to be of higher quality than on Crown Pacific parcels proposed for exchange. We recommend the FS reassess the wildlife habitat values (DEIS 3 -WL -5 p. 50 and 3 -WL -6 p 53) of the exchange lands particularly the large tree and snag components, and disclose the resultant tradeoffs. We agree with the FS and Crown Pacific that a land exchange to block up isolated parcels is a logical course of action to meet administrative and biological goals and objectives. However, in review of the DEIS, it appears that public land proposed to be traded - particularly parcels in the Bull, Dorrance, Toast, and Sellers subwatersheds provide key ecological functions for resident wildlife. Without these key parcels implementation of ecosystem management on the DNF will be lessened. Given past forest practices and land use decisions, key functional LOS and mule deer habitat has been significantly reduced. Due to marginalization of these key habitats, we question whether the FS proposed action is in the best interest of Oregon's wildlife resources. Following is our rationale. 1) Loss of Late and Old Structure. The Department is concerned with an additional reduction of LOS habitat in the ponderosa pine plant associations on the DNF. According to a 1993 report to Congress' the DNF retains 3 to 5 percent of ponderosa pine forest in a late successional condition. This situation is typical throughout most of the range of ponderosa pine in the intermountain west and was the impetus for FS Regional direction, enactment of the Eastside Screens, and proposed guidelines in the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan for retention of late seral ponderosa pine. If only 5% of the 453,000 acres of productive ponderosa pine on the DNF (LRMP Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-32) remains, then we estimate no more than 22,650 acres of LOS ponderosa pine habitat still exists (using Hopkins definition210-13 trees per acre (tpa) versus 7 tpa as used in the DEIS). Within the proposed exchange lands in the Sellers and Toast watershed there has been identified 3,357 acres of LOS habitat to be traded, or about 14.8% of the remaining LOS habitat on the DNF. This LOS habitat provides a connective corridor of ponderosa pine through stands of lodgepole pine. It links adjacent stands of late sera) ponderosa pine to the east and west of 1 Henjum, Mark et al. Interim Protection for Late-Successinal Forests, Fisheries, and Watershed - National Forest East of the Cascade Crest, Oregon and Washington - A Report to the United States Congress and the President - Executive Summary September 1993 - Eastside Forests Scientific Society Panel. 2 Hopkins, B. et al. Region 6 Interim Old Growth Definition for Ponderosa Pine Series June 1992 �Land Exchange - ODFW 4 Comments Page 3 1 the exchange area. We agree with the Land Exchange DEIS (page 51) that the loss of LOS habitat in these two subwatersheds is "expected to reduce habitat connectivity, reduce the 0 ability of LOS habitat species to move across the landscape, and provide fewer areas for young to disperse. LOS associated species are not expected to occupy these portions of the project areas.' We believe this to be an unacceptable consequence of this exchange. The loss of both 14.8% of the remaining LOS habitat and the connectivity of the Seller's and Toast parcels is significant. The Department feels that the DEIS. does not i provide adequate analysis on impacts to the viability of dependent wildlife species from the loss of LOS ponderosa pine habitat. We recommend the FS modify the exchange plan to result in no net loss of LOS habitat and connectivity function. 1 2) Loss of Mule Deer Habitat. WINTER RANGE: FS land in the Bull subwatershed is very important to wintering mule deer, particularly during severe winters since it is some of the lowest elevation land that remains 1 within the Tumalo Winter Range. It provides high quality hiding and thermal cover as well as forage. During periods of deep snow, deer are forced into these low elevation areas for survival. Through a seasonal road closure program entered into with the FS and Crown 1 Pacific this area minimizes harassment to wintering mule deer which is critical due to the areas proximity to Bend. Trading or selling this land to a private party could result in the loss of these habitat values. Private timber management practices and especially residential development would reduce the integrity of the area's high cluality mule deer habitat. The end result is likely a reduced deer population below the current management objective of 2,500 mule deer as recorded in the DNF Plan. This in tum would reduce recreational opportunity and County revenue. The State Forest Practices Act, which Crown Pacific operates under, does not provide standards for elk or mule deer habitat protection. MULE DEER FAWNINGJMIGRATION CORRIDOR & ELK CALVING: Through the interface of mature lodgepole pine, wetland, and water, Dorrance subwatershed provides high quality mule deer fawning habitat, summer -range, and a public lands corridor for mule deer migration. It also provides high quality habitat for elk calving and year round use. Due to subdivisions in the LaPine area and along the Little Deschutes River, much of these wildlife habitat values have been lost. Trading or selling this area could lead to management practices that may reduce mule deer and elk habitat values. Based on our concerns, we recommend the FS modify the exchange plan to result in no loss of big name habitat values in the Bull and Dorrance subwatersheds. 3) Increase in Road Densities. ODFW opposes increasing road densities on any of the three Forests. Increased road densities result in loss of mule deer habitat, loss of mule deer through poaching, reduced mule deer escapement and survival, reduced habitat effectiveness, increased forest fragmentation, and ultimately reduced recreational use. The DNF and Fremont Forest Plans call for open road densities of 2.5 miles or less per section, Land &chance - ODFW . Comments Page 4 while the Winema Plan calls for open road densities to be no greater than 1990 levels. The common theme behind these standards is to minimize harassment to mule deer and other wildlife. In the past, the DNF has struggled with their target of 2.5 miles per section. This is primarily due to wildfire response concerns, timber management objectives and recreational access demands. These road closure concerns seem to dominate even though reduced mileage is more cost effective with less roads to maintain, reduced chance for human caused fire ignitions and spread of invasive and noxious weeds, provides for more productive acres, is more hydrologically connected, and is much friendlier to wildlife. We support efforts that reduce Forest road densities to the target level of 2.5 miles or less per section on summer/transition range and 1 mile or less on winter range during the critical period from December 1st through March 31st. To mitigate impacts caused by high road densities, we recommend Crown Pacific effectively reduce road densities to the LRMP target level of 2.5 miles per section before the trade, or for the FS to increase their road reduction budget by the amount necessary to effectively reduce road densities to their LRMP standards immediately after acquisition of the property. 4) Loss -of Wildlife Habitat in General. We anticipate that wildlife habitat values will be reduced as a result of this land exchange. Our observations indicate there is less horizontal and vertical structure on Crown Pacific lands - in particular snags and down wood, increased road densities, more forest fragmentation, and less productive forest ecosystems due to past private timber management practices governed under the Forest Practices Act. As summarized in our September 1996 report, the issues identified included: * Sensitive, Threatened and Endangered species * Management Indicator species (MIS) and focal species including MIS for each Forest and at least the Great Gray Owl * No loss of riparian areas with emphasis to obtain new riparian habitat • Connectivity for Late Successional Old Growth (LSOG) related and dependent species. * Connectivity for big game species (travel corridors). * Include within connectivity stands both live and dead structural stages for different Plant Association Groups (PAGs) * Maintain interior habitats for LSOG related and dependent species for each PAG. • Retain or obtain Special and Unique Habitats. Focus on moist1wet lodgepote pine, aspen stands, talus slopes, lava ridges, caves, etc. * Review agreement with Tribes on the Winema for mule deer values. Use mule deer model for analysis. `Analyze open road densities. • Analyze big game winter range. Analyze eastside screens, eastside EIS ...arewe consistent? "Coordination with other agencies, i.e., ODFW, USFWS. * Retain public land access. General Observations FS lands proposed for trade have diverse horizontal and vertical structure (including snags and down logs) providing for a host of wildlife functions. Nesting, roosting, foraging, fawning, calving, wintering, connectivity, interior forest, and perceived lower road densities and lower soil compaction than on Crown land. Public lands provide for a greater range of generalist and specialist wildlife species. Much of this structural diversity is due to the environmental regulations passed through Congress over the past 30+ years. i� Land Exchange - ODFW a" Comments Page 5 Crown lands proposed for trade have had more manipulation, have more roads, probably more soil compaction, less vertical and horizontal structure (including lack of snags and down logs), have had overstory removed, have younger forest age classes, and more soil disturbance. Crown lands primarily provide for generalist wildlife species including those that use early sera) stages and habitat edge. Mule deer are an economically important species associated with Crown lands. Crown lands are governed under the Forest Practices Act which designates environmental protection on private forest lands." (ODFW letter to Ecological Services 9 September 1996 - cc: M. Gerdes, T. Young). As a result of our observations, we recommend the FS reassess the wildlife habitat values (DEIS 3 -WL 5 p 50 and 3 -WL -6 p 53) of the exchange lands, particularly the large tree and 1 snag components and disclose the resultant tradeoffs. 1 Overall, we acknowledge that the FS is in the unenviable position of making some tough ! decisions that will affect how they manage their forests in the future. These decisions will determine how effective they can be at maintaining species viability and how they can provide for future needs. However, ODFW has a number of concerns with these proposed decisions. The loss of remnant parcels of LOS ponderosa pine that also function as an LOS connectivity corridor is a key concern. Loss of critical mule deer winter range, loss of quality big game habitat along the Little Deschutes River, and increased road densities are additional concerns. While the loss of wildlife habitat integrity, in particular the large tree and snag components, is also a concern. Your staff has assured us that they have many of the same concerns we do. This makes us hopeful that adequate analysis and visioning takes place to insure that decisions made will not lessen existing ecological or social benefits now or into the future. We look forward to supporting a modified exchange plan that addresses these discussed wildlife resource concerns. Thank you for providing us the opportunity to comment. We would like an opportunity to discuss our concerns with you and your staff further. Sincerely, / Allan R. Polenz High Desert Regional Supervisor 1 1 1 1 1 cc: Ted Young - Crown Pacific 1 ' xp .. 3.a IVp\ry, �'3 xk 4u i3 a+" Lk • "v i � �4 �Y .Y zx* { . fl 3 � M 4 p yy ZA 4 :�a-�s..^.,r.�.eza�ar4o-.Pm:C�"EiC�Y�o"�a n'.mv,._.,,.,'ri::gF.:aY.'"c°:3'NrwFm`...,-<....�.._.i.:.,°'�n'm'�.v'+rz-�*',�.'_"�..^w"�5',..!�^n —rrr- _„ ., ... ., __... ._.. - ..,__. ,. ,. _. �r ... ... _ _ . f LI TUMALO WINTER RANGE STUDY INVENTORY AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LAND USE FOR DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE -PLAN UPDATE June 13, 1977 Deschutes County Planning Commission Courthouse Annex, Room 102 Bend, Oregon 97701 TUMALO DEER RANGE STUDY Dear Sirs: Attached please find copy of the report of the Citizen's Advisory Committee that you appointed to study and make management recommendations on the subject area. This committee, formed of some 15-20 interested citizens first met on November 30, 1976. Since that date it has investigated the area in considerable detail, with attention to the "Goals and Guidelines" adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). On the basis of its findings, the Committee has arrived at certain conclusions, which in turn have formed the basis for a number of recommendations related to updating the Deschutes County Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The findings are set forth in detail in the body of the report, while the conclusions and recommendations are summarized on pages 109 - 140. For reader convenience, a resume' of these is presented below. Early in the study.it became apparent that the study area divided itself naturally into three distinct sections. Section 1, which is the largest, comprises the area West of the Brooks -Scanlon haul road, and is woned, almost in its entirety by the U.S. Government (Forest Service) and Brooks -Scanlon. Section 2, located in the Northeast corner of the study area comprises a block of about six sections owned by Deschutes County. Section 3, comprises the balance of the study area East of the haul road, with ownership divided amongst a number of govern- ment agencies and private individuals. With respect to Section 1, the Committee concluded that it was composed of existing and potential forest lands suitable for commercial exploitation; that it provided excellent cover for wild game and pro- tection for surface waters; and that it possessed outstanding opportunities for outdoor recreation. At the same time it was unsuitable for residential development because of its relative inaccessibility and the resulting high cost of providing transportation and the required public services, with a resultant inefficient use of energy. With respect to Section 2, which is presently uninhabited and has no improved roads within its boundaries, the Committee concluded that it is not suited for development for the same reasons as cited in the preceding paragraph, and that in as much as it is used intensively by the Tumalo deer herd, both for migration and wintering, it should be managed to preserve its natural condition. 17 out" PNERGY SOURCES The energy source aspect of this area will be discussed in the following correspondence. It should be noted that the site referred to in the letter is aredominatly west of the wintering portion of the deer range and not critical from that stand point. It does however lie in the summer range and although the deer density is much less during that time of year it should require an environmental impact statement due to the type of use. FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITATS The area does possess several critical factors which make it valuable as a wildlife habitat. The topography consists of several ridges and valleys which provide cover, wind protection, and va.-yir_g vegetative types as was discussed in the Forest Lands goal. Generally the area is on the toe of the eastern slope of the Cascade range and the precipitation drops.off drastically from West to east. Most of the precipitation is in the form of snow which forces the mule deer down out of their summer range into an area which has the factors outlined in the "n.a*siologY of Mile Deer" report under the Forest _rands goal. This area supports a variety of wildlife which will be indicated under this sectionhoweverits value for mule deer is stressed. ,3'7 z� ,:.;Ll"en_ of and Vilo REGION 3 -CEN TP OREGO 61374 PARRELL ROAD; BEND, OREGON 97701 PiiONIE 3-&2-5113 June 3, 1977 Mr. Lorin Morgan Deschutes County Planning Department Courthouse Annex Bend, OR 97701 Dear Lorin: Authority to manage wildlife of the State of Oregon is contained in Oregon Revised Statutes 496.012. The stated goals of wildlife manage- ment are: 1. Maintain all species at optimum levels to prevent serious depletion of any indigenous species. 2. To develop and manage the lands and waters of this state in a. manner that will enhance the production and public enjoyment of wildlife. 3. To permit an orderly and equitable utilization of available wildlife. 4. Develop and maintain public access to lands and waters and the wildlife resources thereon. S. To regulate wildlife populations and the enjoyment of wildlife in a manner that is compatable with primary uses of the lands and waters of the state and provides optimum recreational benefits. The Department of Fish & Wildlife's Strategic Plan for deer contains the following goals: 1. Maintain maximum numbers of deer that are compatible with the habitat and other uses of the land. 2. Provide diversified hunting opportunities for deer surplus to to maintaining desired populations. 3. Encourage viewing and appreciation for the presence of deer. 4. Promote land use practices that willprotect and improve deer habitat. c Table 1 Fall -Spring herd Composition established a record low. It was believed that. constant harazzment by vehicles (including snowmobiles) during the winter stress -.cr;od was partially responsible . for the poor fawn survival. Harassment caused the deer to ex. -ozid valuable energy reserves. This affected all deer, but the greatest effect was felt b,, fawns of the year and pregnant does. ` Fawns normally need to reserve all the energy they can just to survive. rey usually don't have the reserves found in older animals. Pregnant does need their reserves to maintain physical condition. and to feed gro- inE,, fetazes. Doea in poor condition, can give birth to underweight fak-.;s which have a poorer chance for survival through their first year. R�.SUT,TS The best method for evaluating the effect the road closure had on the TLmalo mule deer herd would be to compare the differences of fawn loss from fall to spring prior to the closure and during the closure. Since fawns are the most vulnerable age group of animals in a deer herd, charZes in their numbers is a sitive indicator to factors effecting the whole herd. 4 L awns Der 100 Adults Herd Rama Season 71-72 70-71 69-70 1 a� alo Fall 3� t�. 43 Spring 24 42 40 Deschutes District Fall 40 52 Springy 30_ .e�. 3 20 42 The 1971 production data of 33 few_lr per 300 adults on the T'umalo range established a record low. It was believed that. constant harazzment by vehicles (including snowmobiles) during the winter stress -.cr;od was partially responsible . for the poor fawn survival. Harassment caused the deer to ex. -ozid valuable energy reserves. This affected all deer, but the greatest effect was felt b,, fawns of the year and pregnant does. ` Fawns normally need to reserve all the energy they can just to survive. rey usually don't have the reserves found in older animals. Pregnant does need their reserves to maintain physical condition. and to feed gro- inE,, fetazes. Doea in poor condition, can give birth to underweight fak-.;s which have a poorer chance for survival through their first year. R�.SUT,TS The best method for evaluating the effect the road closure had on the TLmalo mule deer herd would be to compare the differences of fawn loss from fall to spring prior to the closure and during the closure. Since fawns are the most vulnerable age group of animals in a deer herd, charZes in their numbers is a sitive indicator to factors effecting the whole herd. 4 L A The Tumalo cooperative road closare was started in December 1972, This unique closures primary purpose was top rotect wildlife Burin the winter stress period from vehicular harassment. Fawn mortality has been reduced at least 30 (depending on adult mortality) by the closure. The nu^ber of bucks/3_00 does re-- naired nearly the sc.me but the percentage of yearlinE bucks lkearly dotibled. Tris is a result of higher fawn survival. H coyote x°ezuge was not created ac zi�ny feared. Vehicle use dropped about 98% and poaching is rare. ■ e CENULU REGION ADNINISTiRATIV;?, REPORT No. 76 T'UKALO Ratty CLC): URu BY - JIM TCRLAND ASSISTANT WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST J'JLY, 1976 it r M 4 Mr. Lorin Morgan - 2 - 6/3/77 The Tumalo Mule Deer Winter Range is recognized as a sensitive area that merits protection to sustain the herd at optimum levels. The Tumalo Study Committee should be commended for the time and effort put forth on the study. The results should provide guidelines for future land use in the winter range. MPG: ah Sincerely, Mike Golden AssistqLa.t,egional Sup rvisor , _ L J .. 1 . I. Table 2 compares the percent loss of fawns, fall to spring from 1968 to the spring of 1976 for the Tumalo, north Paulina deer herds and the district. (ii�sre 1 -graphically describes Table 2). he Norte Paulina counts were used as comparison because they were similar to the Tumalo counts before the closure and because this range is also close to Bend and a. good deal of hi.man activity occurs Lthere. Prior to the vehicle closure on the Tumalo winter range (1967-72) the average percent loss of •fawns -from fall to spring in the Tuma:io and North Paulina r erds was 2Uof. /,after the winter road closure started on Tur:lalo, a dramatic dif- ference in the percent fawn loss was detected between the two >tudy areas. Tumalo averaged only 1451 loss for the four years of the closure. .The North Paulina av- erage percent loss actually increased during the sametime to 23Daring the clo- sure the difference in percentage of loss varied but in all yea-rs the -loss was less in Tumalo (Table 2). Prior to the closure Tumalo loss kr_�.s com�aonly 'righter than Porth Paulina. By comparing weather data for the four years of the closure, the dif- ference-- in the percentage of loss was greatest in the hard wiriters of 1972 and 1974- In those two winters Tumalo averaged 1a..5% loss amid Nc,rt.h Paulina 25..5%. Tais is logical. The road closure would be most beneficial during winters when energy reserves are most critical to young deer. Warren Aney, Systems Ecologist has reviewed the closure data. Attached are two preliminary reports of his finding. In summary he says that there is a 9361 chance that the changes in fawn survival are due to the road closure alone. He further calculated that the closure reduced fawn mortality by 38.5% if adult mortality was 10%. A y In comparison, the ,north Paulina counts for bucks per 100 does and iy -the percent yearling bucks has not shown the increases observed in Tumalo. A shot tern objective of better fawn survival appears to be producing a long-term objective of supplying more bucks {objective ;1 ). Actual hurter check infor- mation is lacking to support this. Predators Concern has been expressed that by c'.r sing the Tuna mac, whiter ra-Uge to vehicular traffic that this mould discourage predator removal a_nd a coyote refuge would be created. Coyote inventories using the Alcorn Siren "viethod have been run since the closure began and no increases in coyotes have been recorded. These routes are normally nun in September but additional routes by %ngram and myself were also run in the winter. Taappers and callers xe not totally excluded from Vie area. The clo- sure does not go into effect until December 1, acid the major -sty of the coyote tra:ping is normally done by this time. It is also possible to walk or ride a horse into the closure. Fawn survival. on the Tumalo range should, be poorer if coyote numbers are excessive. Aa already Shona fawn survival during the W-iDte: - period .-is_ higher on the Tumalo than in our adjacent range that is open to predator control. Violations No attempt to compute all the citations issued .for violating the road closure was made. Instead officers Luke Scarlets. and Gary Hayuen,OSP, were in- terviewed. They are the ones primarily involved in patrolling the closure. It their feeling that the closure is the best enforcement tool to cone along in 'a long time. Poachers don't have to be caught with an animal; just being in the 11 c j closure is a violation, so poaching is a1:iost nil in t:ae area. In their estimation the traffic on the.winter range has been reduced 98». The deer have responded to tris by being not as "wild".'t;ost of the violations on the closure are just prior to the Christmas holiday season. People are out cutting their C"n-ristmacs. trees and ;eel they can go anywhere to get one. 1ne USrS tree permits have caused problems in the past because they did not specify that this permit was not good in the road closures. Hopefully this has been changed. For the rest of the year violations -are. few.. Some individuals can't resist sneaking into the closure and out again. They generally don't penetratb the closure very far and don't bother the wildlife. Sign vandalism -is co„L-mon but not excessive. Some are stolen and others _ mutilated to the point that the; must be replaced. Posting It takes about 5,2 man days to post the closure in the fall. At; ).,east 3 man days are needed to depost the area in t'r-e spring. The complete boundary. is posted with vehicle closure signs. Large 2 feet by 4 feet c3.g;n^ are placed at main junctions with an explanation for the closure and a ra-ap shokr.ng the lo� cation of the sign. The -rest of the roads are cloaer, with 0 C. L49 ce rP^:1 CL"EDOS� _.� sbns using steel posts in the middle of the road or convenient trees to put the S4 9ns on. The man -power needed is not -excessive and at this time creates no strain on:tImes But if the number of Minter closures increases an easier method of closing roads would be desirable. The Ochoco National Forest is working on this problem now and i•aybe their solution can be applied in the Dcz;chutes National Forest. 12 The objectives established for the 'Pumalo Road closure program are being achieved. Spring fawn survival has improved and this shouid also indicate increased winter survival of deer in general. ne percentages of yearling bucks has increased and this should improve hunting opportunities. Brooks -Scanlon Inc., the major landowner in the Tumalo winter range has expressed their approval of the closure. Clordig the area to vehicle traffic as a means to benefit wildlife has meant additional benefits to them.- It has limited public use on their private land,. thereby r -educing road damage and vandalism to private property. A coyote refuge does not appear. to have been created by the closure. Violations of the closure are most ecfraron just prior to the Christmas season, but taper off to almost nothing after that. The original closure agreements expire in the sprin4 of 1977._ All the landowners involved will be contacted again And. hopefully signed up for another five year winter closure. More winter road closures are being started each year. Spccial efforts should be made to evaluate their effects on wintering deer for comparison to the 1,malo herds. 13 WDAL 7 - AREAS S'tT,..RIECT TO NATURAL DISASTERS AND F_:kZA.PDS There are only two types of natural hazards which could prove of any consequence to the study area. The first, and probably least likely to occur in'Ma.jor proportions, is the "tin foil effect". This occurs When there is a snow accumulation and the temperature changes from cold to warm fairly rapidly. The ground remains frozen and will not absorb the snow melt so it runs down the slope and causes flooding to draws or drainages. This does happen occasionally in the Sisters area but has not been a major factor in othern portio s of the study area. The second potential hazard is the ever mossibility of forest fires. Several portions of the study area exhibit the scars of past fires. A fire has about the same type of an influence on the area as clear cutting has in := that it opens up the canopy of the trees and can enhance foraggge potential for grazing of wildlife if the area is not o too large. If the burn is too Large, mule deer are reluctant to vinture into it where there is no cover. The hazard would have its most severe effects on subdivision development in the area. According to bill Smith of the State Forestry office in Sisters t there have been studies done which show an increase in fire hazard within a forested area which is developed for housing. This is a serious concern and any development which may occur in the area must have protective measures :. against such a devastating natural hazard. r-77 I t. INV�iTORY Pa P and tOpOj 3� ?iCal feati�? e� tG be fOiJ"_ On particular parcel together with the plu t of the G: _or for ZC at 1'Jc S and sty-uCtures a'i1 saving trees or otncr f-catures on the `hai• it is impC slb_ i.O ay what size parcel 1S a minimum l _lei .S] lie tGJup;:c%_ V a sep l l(` system . There are no existing or foreseeable DEQ reozslat_ o^ s ^_at r ould Change this picture. STATE POLICE: REGUL.LR On January 12, 1977 I spoke with Lt. L -.t kin of the Oregon State Police. His force is noir jus. adegzave to -set the present needs in the County. The State Police and the County De! -:ties try to cover for each other althoL'g_^i each agency is a full p -O ice agency and there is no for -,r -al division or organization of their res_ective duties. There is no sub- stantial likelihood of aAy new State PcLce zzing assio- ed into this area for at least three years and there defer_=tely D_ no nP.personnel this biennium. Lt. La , y;sin e[`p"l' siZ- the _ I - :_�iGe v Our Inquiry of the nature or the sociolo&; of the pop ulat on to be served as opposed to sheer . .:.T.cers: the ty�e Of p9rson zmak-es �.G_� di f= re �e than slrzple IIuluu rsI concentration-, Or isGlatlGn. Desc^ut::s River Woods is an area %Mich requires a Featly disproporionate a _o�.t o_ police time. It would be very difficult to estimatue the cost o' ;olice response tine since his men are COntirlually On --Datrol and it is a :_est=^,_i of who light hap -pe to be rear to a call or far a,. -.ay fron it at t le "A --a Of need. Todd H. Taylor,. State Police planning and research off_cer in Salem, wrote me on April 13, 1977 a letter which I attach. . + ;; ATP pili TrV --- . rrn a-- I spo-re itUh Oregon Sate Poi -ice mane r.C�crl P -j ., s on Jansa--tr 25, 1977. We are rapidly l.osi ng o-,,�. dee-_^ r?n-e . There sh ould be no further development in areas which affect the = e.'a__^ g deer ranges; there is no present need for any further develop In t_ieS� arEa�; .^v'^ ?t least Page / another twenty years. The only way ca -pr-,lice closed areas is by checking tracks of Males . Anyin or -. a - i= c loaer or __'arae area encourage other persons to enter into !^es2 areas and also :;�?;e it ir_p ossible to enforce a closure in t�---s -,icinity of any de•: elo-Ozient . he says there are three State Police oa-e officersworking o--�t of Bend -who patrol the whole of Deschutes County. :Now they spend abort twenty mn hours a week patroling the TurL to Winer Deer Range, Host people comply with and support the closure and its =moose and he sees tea Lr use of the closure area by persons with cameras, persons coming, to watch deer and other wildlife, hikers, horseback -rid:_,, and hunters. The Crooked River Ranch -was a lame deer ran _� —for i -e .y ' s, , l y 1 e _cn into s:. -all __ ,,�~a c �s mat the introduction Of trailer houses, s_L'_? houses, and the constant passage Of persons and vehicles th-Ou.Sn the ar-ea nave resulted in _:_e deer leaving the area. IThe Turzlo Deer Range has _e __ successfully es��blishe-, worts, and should be continued. Since the closure, there has be - a 0 percent increase in fawn production. In c-rit`_cal winters, the introduction of people, traffic and dogs not only causes stress but la-ings anizals 'which ran the deer and the combination of additional stresses th th e cold and the diet problems in the wirier are very daragi.n to the deer population. Any compron se on the cics•ire virtually dest_o;s the value of the closure. COLPNTY SHERIFF On January ?$, 10,77 I spoke wit'-, _ C . ,chOlpg. HiS __ _=rtna::t has significant problems in outlying areas In teras of corp, tomr;_c ,vends for -the limited police reso�Lces for roe -_ _e Patrol of l:±r e- _ -- e _ c and th gT� irpact of time loaf in travel to and from calls. =is force is ;.,.,. LI -I 4 r , I Page Sixteen uses with the nearby agricultural_ activities within the zone , and f or :) derly � economic provis ion for public facilities and services. The Committee did not have in its inventory any information as to the suitability of the Bend Urban Growth Boundary to meet the demonstrated need to accommodate long range population growth requirements consisten :it h-J'JCDC goals, but relied upon the information it received from the Bend Planning director and from the fact of the establishment of the Ur tan Grovith Boundary. The land within the Urban Growth Boundary -Which is adjacent to the agricultural zone is still in ar. urbanizable rather than in an urban state. )Bend's growth is expected to extend most intensely to the east and south ratn_er than toward the study area. None of the land within t -^e agricultural zone was urbanizable: that is, none of the _and .within the agricultural zone lies within the urban grog; bo-_.ndary and none has been identified as being necessary and s-_-tit--able for future urban uses, as being suitable for urban services and facilities, or as being needed for the expansion of the Bend urban area. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES The Committee finds that its recommendations for the agricultural zone closely follow the goal of planning and developing a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities ar_d services to serve as a framework for urban.and rural develooment as those terms are defined in the LCDC goals. The Cor�_mi t tee finds that its recommendations for rural development in the zone are guided and supported by types and levels of rural public facilities r 1 . The goals which deal with More densely populated areas were found not to apply as the facilities could not be furnished and buildable lards, as defined under the Housing Goal, were found not to exist and the urban areas are distant. Because of the distance from the urban centers, this area also was shown to be an energy inefficient area. Aggre:,at e r nov_.l from the area is suggested to be limited to the operation of a 5• acre parcel per site, which is to be reclaimed while a second 5 acre parcel is being mined. The distance suggested as a minimum to exist between active pits is one mile. Further, _'- is reco:ram-nded that use of aggregate pits be discouraged during the road closure period of December 1 through Ma -ch 31. This 4 mor:.tb peri cd will, in most years, produce s. a heavy snow cover: _r. the forest zone. Access =or aggregate removal would be detriment -a-- to t-Ine 1--ccid closure ?-or the area. LT-hroughout- the forest area it is strop;=y recomlended tet'h, ;neer ad c+o_�ure sho d r .�.a-Ln in of -Peet as it has . ro pro-; e n to red�c,:? deer harrassiler-t, --caching and other detrimental effects upon deer procreation. The forestr1 area was picked by selecting a line, the Brooks-Sca,_lon haul road, which very ,nearly approximated the vegetation_ line denoting the prime timber lands from the less vauable timber lands. Grazing is also an existing use in this area and does not conflict with the purposes of this recommendation. u ^lUMALO DEER WINTER RANGE PLANNI 'IC RECOD'MEIvDATILON NA -1-320 The largc- block of county lands lying in the Northeast portion of the study area has been identified as 2. unique area which has substantially retailed its natural chal:;cter and is important as habitat for deer and other'.wildlife. The area is virtually isolated in that there are no improved roads through the a --ea and no development whatsoever. The old growth juniper supplies necessary cover for the wintering deer herds and provides essential wind brea.'..cs .ah _c t are required particularly in sever - winters. The central part of the county lands is used as a main migration corridor to and from the Tumaio winter range to the Cline Butte area. Planned unit developments are not recommended for tiZe area as increased density would destroy the areas natural charact- eristics. The area does not contain anv buildable lands as defined under the sousing Goal. Because this zone does not have any improved roads, the requirement of safe,convenient and economic transportation system as stated under the Transportation Goal is not available. The dis'--ance from an urban center makes it impractical and expert.—ve to supply p-ablic facilities and services required under Goal Eleven. The greatest hazard to the area is fire. The danger of forest fires increases greatly with development and, because of the is not available. distance from an urban center, fire protection r - 1 - 1. Developi;ient in this zone is not recommended as appropriate safe- guards, as required under the Natural Disasters and Hazards Goal, cannot be developed as easily as in an urban area. As the area is located away from an urban center and transportation would be by automobile, the area would be energy inefficient. To install and maintain the development would also require greater expenditures of energy than would a development in an urban area. To insure the achieve-:ent of maximum energy efficiency, as required under the Energy Conservation Goal, development in this zone is discouraged. It is strongly recon -:ended by the st,dy committee that the county lands be retained in public ownership, and that their natural features be preserved so that the area may continue to provide wildlife habitat and a source of recreation for hikers and horseback ricers for generations to come. Should the cou-tj be unable or unwilling to retain ownership of the property, then it is strongly recommended that every effort be made to exchange the lands with some other public body thus retaining public owner- ship of the lands. If it proves impossible to retain these lands in public ownership, then a 320 acre parcel is recommended as the smallest unit which would enable the area to retain some of its natural characteristics and features as well as to continue to provide wildlife cover and serve as an important deer migration route. Th--, county lands are needed for open space and have been identified as wildlife habitat in addition to being an r:c ':— cally significant natural area. The county lands in the - 2 - Northeast corner adjoin Highway 20 which has been identified as a scenic corridor thus making the county lands important in the preservation of the esthetics of the area. Tourism is a major source of revenue, supplying some $30,000,000.00 of income .to the area per year. The Economy of the State Goal encourages development of long term human and renewable natural resources. The lands, because of their isolated nature, provide an area where the earth and its community of life are virtually untram- meled by man, and where man himself is a visitor and does not remain_. Preservation of such a defined area is in accordance with the Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and ;Natural Resourc Goal. Because of this zone's primevil character and being t.1-_-roughly without oernanent _improvements or human habita- tion, it should be managed and preserved in its natural condition so as to provide outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation. Possible mineral and aggregrate resources have been identified within the area, as required under the Open Spaces, Sce_.i•:: anC a iJ ^ric Areas, and Natural Resources Goal. Because of the value of mineral and aggregrate resources to the economy of the state and so as to produce a minimal amount of harm to the area, aggregrate and mineral removal from the area is to be allowed but should be limited to no more Shan a 5 acre parcel per site which is to be reclaimed while.a second 5 acre parcel is being mined. The recd :-r_;cnded to be established as a minimum to exist between active pits is one mile. The aggregrate pits should - 3 - not be operated during the period of December 1 through March 31 so as to minimize the effect upon the wintering deer herds during the most severe parts of the winter. It is also recommended that access roads be kept to a minimum. The committee recommends that the road closure be ex- tended to the county lands to protect the wintering deer herds from harrassment, poaching and other detrimental effects during the period of December 1 through March 31. This critical period and its effect upon the wintering deer herds is further explained in the study under Goal Four. This area has been and is currently utilized for the grazing of livestock and it is believed that this does not conflict with the purposes of the recommendations for this area.. - 4 - esters iviamane rcoau Subject: Sisters Mainline Road Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 10:49:52 -0800 From: "Dale Putman" <dputman@fs.fed.us> To: pdewey@bendcable.com Dale Putman To: pdewey@bendnet.com 12/09/02 cc: (bcc: Dale Putman/R6/USDAFS) 10:31 AM Subject: Sisters Mainline Road Paul, This e-mail is to confirm that the statements in your fax to me regarding the Sisters Mainline Road are correct. You stated that: 1. The Sisters Mainline Road, Road 4606, is maintained by the Forest Service at the Level 2 Maintenance Standard. Level 2 is next to the lowest of five maintenance level standards. 2. The Forest Service Standards define Level 2 as : "Assigned to roads open for use by high clearance vehicles. Passenger car traffic is not a consideration. Traffic is normally minor, usually consisting of one or a combination of administrative, permitted, dispersed recreation, or other specialized uses. Log haul may occur at this level. Appropriate traffic management strategies are either to (1) discourage or prohibit passenger cars or (2) accept or discourage high clearance vehicles ." Dale Putman Transportation Planner Deschutes National Forest 1645 Hwy 20 E. Bend, OR 97701 (541)383-5629 dputman@fs.fed.us S FP C 5:x . T—_ 1 of] 12/9/2002 11:33 AM Natural Resources Conservation Service Redmond Service Center 625 S.E. Salmon Ave., Suite 4 Redmond, Oregon 97756-8696 Fax Cover Sheet DATE: S5/ 2 o TO: Y,4 ca l ,Deco c y FROM: 4. A-e-,eiu RE: CC: TIME: PHONE: FAX: PHONE: (541) 923-4358 FAX: (541) 923-4713 USDA Number of pages including cover sheet: Message: c�G iL J melee- /S 7 C -7. l z d� s X - G q USDA EQUAL OPPORTUNrTYSTATEMENT The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination m all its programs and actisities on she basis of race. color, national origin, gender. rchgon. age. disabihsy. political beliefs, sexual orientation. and marital or family status. (Not a0 prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means .if communication of program information. (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.I should contact USDA's TARGET Center at 202.720.2600 (voice and TDD). To rtk a complaint of discrimination. write USDA. Director. Office of Civil Rights, Room 326W. Whitten Building, 14' and Independence Avenue, SW. Washington, DC 20250- 9410 of call (202) 720.5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer Table 8. --Woodland Productivity --Continued I II Potential productivity' I II Soil name and I Cc...�n trees II Site I Total yield ICHA1 1 Annual IaM1 II Site I Annual I0-mi2 map symbol I II index I bd. ft. /ac. I age I growth I age 11 index -.I growth I age I 11 100 -year I (Scribner) I Yrs I cu.ft./ac. I yrs II 50 -year I cu.ft./ac. I yrs I II I I I I II I I I II 155C, 155D, 155E--IPonderosa pine4----- 11 I 65 1 28,500 I i 190 1 I 50 I II 1 50 II I I ------ Wanoga IWestern juniper -----II --- I --- I --- I --- I --- II ------ I i I II 15603, 156D3: I II I I I I I I I 11 I 11 I I Wanoga----------- (Ponderosa pine4----- II 65 1 28,500 1 190 1 50 150 II ------ (Western juniper -----11 --- I ------ I I I II Fremkle---------- (Ponderosa pine4----- II I 61 1 25,300 I 1190 I 1 47 I II 150 II --- I --- I --- IWestern juniper -----II --- I ------ I I If Henkle ----------- IPonderosa pine4----- II I 64 1 27,100 I 1 190 I 1 50 I II 150--- I IWestern juniper -----11 --- I ------ I I I II 15703: I II 1 I I I I I I II I II I I Wanoga----------- (Ponderosa pine4----- 11 65 1 28,500 1 190 1 5o 150--- 1P7estcrn juni_„er----- 11 --- I --- --- I --- --- II --- --- --- 1 11 Fremkle---------- (Ponderosa pine4----- 11 1 61 1 25,300 1 190 1 47 II 150 --- (Western juniper -----11 I II --- I ------ I I I II I I stock outcrop. I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 II 158A-------------- ILodgepole pine4----- 11 I 74 1 --- I I --- I i 63 I II 1 90 II i i --- 1 --- I --- Wickiup 1 II I I I I it I I I II 159C --------------I Ponderosa pine4----- 11 I 60 1 24,500 I 1 190 I I 46 I II 1 50 I I --- Wilt IWestern juniper -----11 --- I --- I --- I ------ I II 160C3, 160D3: I II I I I I I I I II 1 11 I I 1 1 Windego---------- (Ponderosa pine4----- 11 66 1 29,300 1 190 1 51 1 50 II --- 1 --- I --- IDouglas £ir4-------- I1 --- I --- 1 --- I --- I --- II --- I --- I --- 1 11 Parreg----------- 1 Ponderosa pine4----- 11 1 66 1 29,300 1 1 190 1 1 51 1 II 1 50 11 1 1 --- I --- I Douglas fir4-------- 11 --- --- I --- --- --- II --- I --- --- I I 161E3: I II I I II I I Windego ---------- I Ponderosa pine4----- 11 66 1 29,300 1 190 1 51 1 50 11 --- I --- I --- IDouglas fir4-------- 11 --- I ------ 1 11 Smiling ---------- IPonderosa pine4----- II 1 79 I 35,000 I 1 160 I I 67 I II 150 II I I --- I --- I --- IDouglas fir4-------- II 115 I 50,700 1 130 1 --- I --' 11 88 1 99 1 91 I II 162E3: I II I I I I I I I II I II I I I I Windego ---------- IDouglas fir4........ 11 106 1 46,800 1 150 1 --- I --- II 78 1 77 1 98 IPonderosa pine4----- II 75 1 31,700 1 160 I 62 150--- I II Smiling ---------- IDouglas fir4........ II 1 --- I --- I I --- I I --- I it I --- II I I --- I --- I --- IPonderosa pine4..... II 905 1 38,000 1 130 1 85 150 I I II 163D3, 163E3: I II I I I 1 I I I it I II I I I Windego ---------- I Ponderosa pine4----- II 66 I 29,300 1190 I 51 150--- IDouglas fir4........ 11 --- I ------ I 11 Smiling ----------(Ponderosa pine4----- 11 I 79 1 35,000 I 1 160 I 1 67 I II 150--- i I IDouglas fir4-------- 11 115 1 50,700 1 130 1 --- I I --- II I II 88 1 99 I 91 I I I II !rock outcrop. I II I II I I I I I I I I I II I II I I I I See footnotes at end of table. SFpC Ex 6i P ' r I.aS F..ir.�l � .� e - . ,IG-CiI :307 Table 5. --Land Capability Classes and Yields per Acre of Crops and Pasture --Continued Soil name and I Land I Alfalfa hay I Pasture I Mint, I Grass, seed I Potatoes, (Wheat, winter map symbol I capability) I I distillate I I Irish I I N I I I N I I I N I I I N I I I N I I I N I I I N I I I I I Tons I Tons I AUM* I AUM* I Lbs I Lbs 1 Lbs I Lbs I Tons I Tons I Bu I Bu I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 143E**: I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I Suilotem-------I VIe I --- I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---1 ---I --- I Circle ---------I VIe I --- I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---i ---I ---I --- I I I I I I I I I I I f I I 144A ------------I VIc I --- I ---I ---I ---i ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I --- Sunriver I 1 I I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 145C, 146C ------I VIe I --- I ---I ---I ---I ---i ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I --- Suttle I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 147A, 148A ------I VIw I --- I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---i ---I ---i --- Swaler I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 149A ------------I VIw I --- I ---I ---1 ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---f ---I ---I --- Swalesilver I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 150A ------------I VIS I IVs I ---1 41 ---1 1.51 ---1 801 ---1 5001 ---i ---I ---1 80 Tetherow I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 150B ------------I Vie I IVe I ---1 41 --I 1.51 ---1 801 ---'I 6001 ---I ---I ---1 60 Tetherow I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 151D**: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Tetherow ------- I VIC I --- I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I --- I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I Clovkamp-------i 1Ve i --- I ---i ---I ---I ---I ---I ---i ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I --- I 152A ------------I VIs I111s I ---1 3.51 ---1 1.51 ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I --- Tumalo I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 152B ------------I VIe IIIIe I ---1 3.51 ---1 1.51 ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I --- Tumalo I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 153A------------ Vis I --- I ---i ---I ---I ---I ---i ---I --- ---I ---I ---I ---I --- Tutu I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 154A ------------I VIs I --- I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---1 ---I ---I ---I --- Vergas I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 155C, 155D, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 155E-----------1 VIe 1 --- I ---i ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---i ---I --- Wanoga I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I 1 I I I I I 1s6c**, 156D**: Wanoga---------I VIe I --- I ---i ---I ---I ---I -=-I ---1 ---I ---1 ---I ---I ---I --- I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I Fremkle--------I VIe I --- I ---I ---I ---I ---I `--I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I --- I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I Henkle--------- IVIIe I --- 1 -71 ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I --- I 1570**: I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I Wanoga---------I VIe I --- I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---1 ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I --- I Fremkle--------I Vie I --- I ---I ---1 '--I ---I ---1 ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I --- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Rock outcrop --- IVIIIsI --- I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I --- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 158A ------------I VIw I --- I ---I ---i ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I ---I --- Wickiup I I I I I I I I I I I I I I See footnotes at end of table. S e n C e (� p. 3 SFIPC Ex. f Deschutes County Code Section 17.22.020(A)(3) requires: The partition is accessed either by roads dedicated to the public or by way of United States Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management roads where the applicant has submitted a written agreement with the appropriate land management agency providing for permanent legal access to theap rcels and any required maintenance. This provision shall not be subject to variance. (Emphasis added) SF9�1- EX. V Paul A Dewey Attorney at Law 1539 NW Vicksburg DBend, Oregon 97701 December 10, 2002 (541) 317-1993 Deschutes County Commissioners Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Hearing Room 1130 Harriman St. Bend, OR 97701 Re: Supplemental Letter of the SFPC on De Novo Hearing on Application MP -02-12; Order Nos. 2002-137 and 138 Dear County Commissioners: This letter is to supplement my earlier letter on behalf of the Sisters Forest Planning Committee to the Board of County Commissioners on November 27, 2002. This letter is also in addition to materials already submitted by the SFPC in this file and in the file of MP -O1-16, MA -02-4, and AO -26 which we have incorporated into the record of this case. l This partition application seeks approval based on the following access, with mileage measured from the West Bend Fire Station, the nearest fire station to this property: 1. West on Skyliners Road — County — 4.5 miles (paved) 2. North on Sisters Mainline Road — Forest Service — 4.7 miles (poorly maintained unpaved road with 17 water runoff diversions) 3. East and north on private HTS road — .8 miles (narrow paved) 4. Northwest on private road —.3 miles (unpaved) 5. North on Sisters Mainline Road — Forest Service —.4 miles (unpaved) Total: 10.7 miles CONTEXT: To reiterate the important context of this appeal, which is the conversion of the Crown Pacific industrial timberland block into residential uses, I am providing you with a copy of the Oregon Department of Forestry's report, "Wildfire Prevention and Control in Areas of Residential Forest Land Development: An Analysis of Fire Data." (SFPC Ex. A) This report concluded: The results support the hypothesis that residential development in the urban/forest interface significantly increases the risk of wildfire. The results also show that large fires that threaten residential developments cost significantly more to extinguish than similar fires in unpopulated areas. 1 This includes, for examples, the Memorandum, Supplemental Memorandum, and Second and Third Supplemental Memorandum in AO -26. Deschutes County Commissioners December 10, 2002 Page 2 Attached as SFPC Exhibit B is a magazine article on the fire threat to communities in the West. It specifically mentions Bend as a threatened community because of the timberlands to the west. Also attached as SFPC Exhibit C are newspaper articles and real estate ads regarding other partitions in this timberland block. There are a number of provisions in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan which call for protection of these forest lands. Section 23.20.040(L) provides: Forest Land seeks to protect existing areas with timber capability, while permitting compatible development on non-productive lands that will foster other aspects of the local economy. Section 23.92.010 regarding "Forest Lands" states: One major problem is the increasing threat to local timber supplies created by scattered developments occurring in forested areas. This is particularly true if a development is located outside destination resorts or fire districts where fire protection is available. Access Requirements for Partitions. There are a number of reasons why this application does not satisfy the requirements of the Deschutes County Code regarding access to partitions. 1. All parcels to be created by a partition must be accessed by a public road or Forest Service road. As explained in our letter of November 27, 2002, DCC 17.22.020(A)(3) requires access "to the parcels" resulting from a partition. See the enlarged language of this section in SFPC Exhibit D. The Hearings Officer, in her October 2, 2002, Opinion, decided that the language in DCC Section 17.36.180 suggested that access is not necessary from a Forest Service road. Section 17.36.180 provides: Each lot or parcel shall abut upon a public road for at least 50 feet, except for lots or parcels fronting on the bulb of a cul-de-sac, then the minimum frontage shall be 30 feet, and except for partitions off U.S. Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management roads. R Deschutes County Commissioners December 10, 2002 Page 3 The lack of a reference to a certain number of feet of frontage by a Forest Service road does not mean that not all parcels in a partition need be accessed by a road. That is an illogical and unnecessary interpretation of the Code. The lack of mention of a certain width of frontage in Section 17.36.180 merely means that the width must be the minimum required for partitions by the County, which is 20 feet as specified in DCC Section 17.48.170(A). DCC Section 17.36.180 merely identifies exceptions to the 20 - foot minimum. 2. The three easements between the timber companies and the Forest Service do not constitute the written agreements required by DCC Section 17.22.020(A)(3). First of all, these three easements are not agreements between the Applicant and the Forest Service. The clear intention of Section 17.22.020(A)(3) is to require a written agreement between the applicant for a partition and the Forest Service. Second of all, these timber company easements clearly did not contemplate the kind of subdivision of lands for residential dwellings which is occurring now. The terms of the easements do not address residential development and instead address hauling costs and sharing of maintenance due to logging. There is no evidence in the record that residential developments were anticipated by these easements or that such residential developments were occurring at the time of these easements. Such new partitions for residential development were clearly not anticipated by these easements and fall outside of the terms of these easements. The general rule of easements is that an easement owner may not materially increase the burden or impose new burdens on the serviette estate. Principles of Oregon Real Estate Law, (1995, supp. 1999), p. 3-20, 21. In addition, this legal authority provides: When a dominant estate is subdivided, each grantee is given a right to all appurtenances. Therefore, an easement was appurtenant to the entire property will continue to be appurtenant to each of the subdivided parcels. If there would be an increase in the burden on the serviette estate that might unreasonably interfere with the serviette owner's rights, however, such transfers do not create easements identical to the underlying easement. Id., p. 3-26. In this case the additional subdivisions of land for residential development along the Sisters Mainline Road obviously increases the burden on the serviette estate because of the increased traffic and conflicts with logging, logging trucks, prescribed burning and fire fighting. Deschutes County Commissioners December 10, 2002 Page 4 Third, even if the easements constituted written agreements satisfying the Deschutes County Code, there are at least two breaks in the easements which disqualify the Sisters Mainline Road as an access road to the Thomas partition. a. Northwest comer of Section 21. The northwest comer of Section 21 as shown on page 5 of SFPC Exhibit E clearly shows that under this easement the northwest comer of Section 21 was: "Road area not covered by this easement." The Hearings Officer, in her Opinion, declared that this was a non - issue because the road did not pass through Section 21. It is unclear to what maps the Hearings Officer was referring, but every map in this file regarding these easements shows the Sisters Mainline Road as passing through the northwest corner of Section 21. In addition, there has also been a break in this road because it had been previously owned by the Forest Service. Recently, the Forest Service conveyed this land to Crown Pacific. The three easements in this file apply only to the lands owned or to be acquired by the easement signatories. The easements do not contemplate application to any successors in interest acquiring additional lands such as Section 21. b. The break at the Hap Taylor mining site. As clearly shown by a map prepared by Hickman, Williams and Associates, the Sisters Mainline Road no longer runs along its easement path. See SFPC Exhibit E, page 1, showing the closed part of the easement and a new private road which Hap Taylor and Sons have apparently built to the east to go around the mining pit. See also the photos in SFPC Exhibit E, page 2, showing this new private road. Page 3 of SFPC Exhibit E is actually an exhibit from the Applicant's Burden of Proof Statement showing Easement No. 3 in its old route through the mining zone. This section of Easement No. 3 has been broken, as contemplated bj the easement agreements which clearly provided for their own eventual termination. Access to parcels in a partition cannot be a private road. 3. There is no written agreement providing for the required maintenance. The Applicant has provided no written agreement with the Forest Service allowing a higher level of maintenance. The Sisters Mainline Road is only maintained at a Level 2 Standard by the Forest Service. As stated in SFPC Exhibit F, the Forest Service Level 2 is a low standard of maintenance which is not oriented to passenger vehicles: Assigned to roads open for use by high clearance vehicles. Passenger car traffic is not a consideration. Traffic is normally minor, usually consisting of one or a 2 This is yet another reason why these easements do not constitute the written agreements providing permanent legal access under the Deschutes County Code. Deschutes County Commissioners December 10, 2002 Page 5 combination of administrative, permitted, dispersed recreation, or other specialized uses. Log haul may occur at this level. Appropriate traffic management strategies are either to (1) discourage or prohibit passenger cars or (2) accept or discourage high clearance vehicles. Because this low standard of maintenance is not adequate to meet required road standards, the Hearings Officer in her decision conditioned approval of the partition with the requirement that the Applicant adequately maintain the road. Despite this requirement, there is no written agreement as required by the County Code providing for this required maintenance. Before the Forest Service could agree to a higher operation level to the road, it would have to conduct on an environmental impact analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1332 et seq. The Applicant is apparently threatening the County with Constitutional claims of denial of equal protection for this requirement that they maintain this road to acceptable standards. Since the SFPC has not yet seen these arguments, it's difficult to respond to them. However, to the extent that approval of an application requires the Applicant to maintain a road beyond what may be called for under Constitutional law, the County has no choice but to deny the application. If to make the access adequate means violating the Constitution, then the improvements should not be done, and the application for lack of adequate access should be denied. Suitability of the Parcels for the Use Intended The Applicant has failed to establish that each parcel is suited for the use intended. DCC Section 17.22.020(A)(5). The Applicant has acknowledged that an intended use of the 80 -acre parcels is as residential development. Such dwellings on the 80 -acre parcels would only be allowed as template dwellings under the DCC Section 18.36.050(D). There is no proof in the record that the Applicant can meet the requirements of Section 18.36.050(D). Because the soils in this area have a high productivity of between 21 and 50 cubic feet per acre (see SFPC Exhibit G from the National Resources Conservation Service), the Applicant could not get a dwelling these 80 -acre parcels unless it could be established that there were seven existing parcels and three existing dwellings as of the date of January 1, 1993. Such a number of parcels and dwellings was clearly not in existence at that date and the Applicant has not provided any evidence to sustain its burden of proof. i Deschutes County Commissioners December 10, 2002 Page 5 combination of administrative, permitted, dispersed recreation, or other specialized uses. Log haul may occur at this level. Appropriate traffic management strategies are either to (1) discourage or prohibit passenger cars or (2) accept or discourage high clearance vehicles. Because this low standard of maintenance is not adequate to meet required road standards, the Hearings Officer in her decision conditioned approval of the partition with the requirement that the Applicant adequately maintain the road. Despite this requirement, there is no written agreement as required by the County Code providing for this required maintenance. Before the Forest Service could agree to a higher operation level to the road, it would have to conduct on an environmental impact analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1332 et seq. The Applicant is apparently threatening the County with Constitutional claims of denial of equal protection for this requirement that they maintain this road to acceptable standards. Since the SFPC has not yet seen these arguments, it's difficult to respond to them. However, to the extent that approval of an application requires the Applicant to maintain a road beyond what may be called for under Constitutional law, the County has no choice but to deny the application. If to make the access adequate means violating the Constitution, then the improvements should not be done, and the application for lack of adequate access should be denied. Suitability of the Parcels for the Use Intended The Applicant has failed to establish that each parcel is suited for the use intended. DCC Section 17.22.020(A)(5). The Applicant has acknowledged that an intended use of the 80 -acre parcels is as residential development. Such dwellings on the 80 -acre parcels would only be allowed as template dwellings under the DCC Section 18.36.050(D). There is no proof in the record that the Applicant can meet the requirements of Section 18.36.050(D). Because the soils in this area have a high productivity of between 21 and 50 cubic feet per acre (see SFPC Exhibit G from the National Resources Conservation Service), the Applicant could not get a dwelling these 80 -acre parcels unless it could be established that there were seven existing parcels and three existing dwellings as of the date of January 1, 1993. Such a number of parcels and dwellings was clearly not in existence at that date and the Applicant has not provided any evidence to sustain its burden of proof. I Deschutes County Commissioners December 10, 2002 Page 6 CONCLUSION: For all of the above reasons, this application for a partition in the former Crown Pacific timberland block should be denied. Very truly yours, PAUL D. DEWEY PDD:ao Attachments cc: SFPC Oregon Department of Forestry V1EWAFW,WPry FoaEsmr TECHNICAL BULLETIN SF'P C- (--X A. PUBLISHED BY: THE OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICE 2600 STATE STREET SALEM, OREGON 97310 (503) 378-2562 3/93 1M WiId fire Prevention and Control in Areas of Residential Forest Land Development: An Analysis of Fire Data PREPARED BY THE OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE OREGON DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT FINAL REPORT, MARCH 1993 Homes burned by wildfire attract intense public and news media attention. Wildland fire protection agen- cies have long held that residential development on forest lands increases the risks of wildfire incidence and the hazards of wildfire suppression. Many have also suggested that the presence of residential dwellings can also restrict or redirect fire fighting efforts nor- mally used to extinguish wildland fires, which results in increased loss of forest resources and increased fire fighting costs. Despite these perceptidns, little effort has been made to document the risks and hazards of wildfire posed by residential development on forest lands (the urban/ forest interface) and to test these hypotheses. This study analyzes fire report and other data and provides a spatial analysis of digitized map informa- tion, such as the location and types of fires over a 5 -year period, dwelling densities and land use zones. The results support the hypothesis that residential development in the urban/forest interface significantly increases the risk of wildfire. The results also show that large fires that threaten residential developments cost significantly more to extinguish than similar fires in unpopulated areas. Findings related to fire hazard were not conclusive. The work in conducting the analysis and in preparing this report was partially funded by a Disaster Prepared- ness Improvement Grant through the Oregon Emergency Management Division and the Federal Emergency Man- agementAgency. Without this grant, this work could not have been done. Additionally, much of this effort was coordinated by Lee "Rusty" Lafferty, retired Oregon De- partment of Forestry Fire Prevention Director on tempo- rary detail with the department. Primary authors and analysts were Ted Lorensen, Kevin Birch and Gary Lettman of the department's Forest Resources Planning Program. Special assistance was pro- vided by Sharon Martin, Brian Ballou and Dave Stere. To more fully test the questions and perceptions described previously, additional analysis is needed to properly isolate factors that influence wildfire hazard. The development of databases and digitized map layers through this study will enhance further analysis efforts. WILDFIRE AND FIRE PROTECTION IN OREGON FORESTS Lightning caused many forest fires in Oregon before the arrival of European settlers. Native Americans also started many fires for various reasons — such as clear- ing land and driving game. Some of these fires burned for long periods, occasionally with furious intensity. Overall, forest fires occurred frequently. European settlers used fire for clearing agricultural land, and fires commonly escaped control. The large- scale logging of low -elevation old-growth timber in the late 1890s and early 1900s created large amounts of burnable woody debris — a precursor for later wildfire disasters. The Tillamook Burn Fires of 1933, 1939 and 1945 — all of which were caused by human activity — had a major effect on the development of Oregon's fire prevention program. In 1953, Oregon State Law (ORS Chapter 477) was strengthened to give the state for- ester authority to prevent forest fires and to recover suppression costs from those who caused the fires. The state forester also regulates public, landowner and forest operator activities that are perceived as wildfire risks and hazards. The Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) and USDA Forest Service (USFS) provide the majority of fire pro- tection to forest land in Oregon —15.9 million and 16 million acres, respectively. A third agency, the USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM), provides fire pro- tection to approximately 13.1 million acres of Wild - land, much of which is rangeland in eastern Oregon (Table 1). Two additional federal agencies, the USDI Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and USDI National Park Service (NPS), provide fire protection to relatively small areas of forest land in Oregon. However, these agencies are important cooperators in fire protection efforts. Table 1. Wildland Protection Base (Approximate Acres) Agency Forest Nonforest Total ODF 12,962,400 2,914,400 15,876,800 USFS 16,104,700 0 16,104,700 BLM 987,000 12,183,000 13,170,000 BIA 105,000 560,000 665,000 Totals 30,159,100 15,657,400 45,816,500 Wildland.bseB0.9 N For many years, the Oregon Department of Forestry and the USFS focused their fire prevention programs on preventing forest fires caused by lumber production, logging, slash burning and land clearing. Public fire prevention efforts included education programs such as Smokey Bear and Keep Oregon Green. In the 1960s, a growing number of human -caused wildfires unrelated to the logging industry resulted in an increase in wildfire suppression costs and resource losses. The Oregon Department of Forestry responded by developing more sophisticated fire prevention pro- grams that addressed specific causes. Each forest protection district developed targeted fire prevention programs, first implemented in 1972, that were largely successful. For example, . railroad - related activities caused more than 110 fires in 1970. Fire prevention efforts targeted railroad -related causes — improving engineering and maintenance of spark arresters, managing vegetation in rights-of-way, and adding suppression equipment and facilities — which, along with rail line abandonment and reduced use of railroads in forested areas, resulted in a reduction of railroad -caused fires to an average of around 13 annu- ally. Also in the early 1970s, the urban/forest interface first became an important issue in Oregon. Additional prevention efforts focused on children -caused fires, debris -burning fires and other specific problems unique to or associated with dwellings in the forest. Since many residential developments in the forest represent areas of joint fire protection responsibility or shared concern, fire protection agencies implemented a cooperative fire prevention strategy directed at the rural forest resident that proved both efficient and effective. This joint effort involved the Oregon Department of Forestry, USFS, BLM, rural fire protection districts, and fire protection agencies that shared fire protection responsibilities in the urban/ forest interface. Air quality regulations implemented in the 1970s also influenced the number of wildfires caused by open burning, including slash burning and agricultural field burning, particularly in western Oregon. Regulation of open burning drastically reduced the number of days that burning could take place, and had both positive and negative effects on fire prevention. Despite the absence of documentation of the role of rural development on fire ignition and suppression, the empirical evidence has been compelling enough for the Oregon legislature, the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) and the Oregon Board of Forestry each to take recent actions affecting the urban/forest interface. Following Oregon's disastrous 1987 fire season, the Wildfire Planning Task Force was formed to address the problem of fires in Oregon's urban/forest interface. The LCDC, following the recommendations of the task force, adopted a new Forest Land Goal and administra- tive rules on January 25, 1990. Among the provisions are wildfire safety considerations for the siting of struc- tures on forest land (Goal 4 lands). Similarly, the 1989 Legislature clarified the Depart- ment of Forestry's "mission" regarding forest fire pro- tection because of the increased number of priority decisions — homes versus natural resources — being made by fire control managers. The statute now affirms that "the need for a complete and coordinated forest protection system is acknowledged and the primary mission of the Department in such a system is protect- ing forest resources second only to saving lives. Struc- tural protection, though indirect, shall not inhibit protec- tion o f forestresources" (Oregon Revised Statutes 477.005, emphasis added). The Board of Forestry, as part of its 1990 Forestry Program for Oregon, also took an active stance on the wildfire problem in the urban/forest interface. The program calls upon the Department of Forestry to: • Create awareness in Oregonians of the possible consequences of wildfire to dwellings; • Promote adoption of land use and building codes to prevent and minimize fire -related effects; • Ensure that fire protection efforts in the interface are fully coordinated with other responsible agen- cies; and • Encourage development of improved rural fire defense, specifically fire protection for rural struc- tures. These actions prompted public questions regarding the scope of Oregon's urban/forest interface wildfire problem — its costs and the effects on neighboring forest resources — as well as the need for further wildfire safety measures. No comprehensive resource was available to answer these questions. Therefore, this analysis attempts to fill a portion of that information gap. The goal is to identify and quantify the impact, if any, that residential develop- ment may create for wildfire protection on forest lands. KETHODOLOGY The methodology for analyzing the data was de- signed to address four specific questions: 1. Does residential development on forest lands (the urban/forest interface) increase the risks (the probabil- ity of a fire starting) of wildfire? 2. Does residential development on forest lands increase the wildfire hazard (the difficulty of fire con- trol due to factors such as fuel, topography, level of Initial attack and detection, and weather)? 3. Does residential development result in greater loss to forest land and increased fire -fighting costs? 3 4. What, if any, are the other effects of residential development on fire protection? Information to analyze all four questions was gath- ered from state-wide Oregon Department of Forestry and USFS fire data. Oregon Department of Forestry, USFS and other agency fire report records contain data that were used to establish trends related to urban/forest fire causes, fire losses and fire suppression costs. Oregon Department of Forestry fire data were avail- able for the period from 1956-90. USFS fire data were available for the period of 1970-90. The accessibility and comprehensive nature of Oregon Department of Forestry fire data enabled a significantly more detailed analysis with the Oregon Department of Forestry data base. Fire data from the four Oregon Department of For- estry protection units were examined to see if a statis- tical correlation exists between the presence of dwell- ings and the occurrence of fires. Using digitized map data for the four Oregon Department of Forestry units over a five-year period, the location and types of fire starts were spatially correlated with dwelling densities and zoning. The locational data covered the period 1986-90. Changes in forest fuels were analyzed using histori- cal information from the BLM'USFS and state agencies. Some of the work was done by comparing historical photographs and historical drawings with current pho- tographs. This analysis was strictly subjective. One method used in analyzing the question of forest resource loss and increased fire fighting costs was to compare incidence of "escaped" fires — fires that escaped initial attack — for sites in the urban/forest interface and non -interface sites. Since 1971, the Fed- eral Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has ad- ministered a program offering disaster assistance to states for fifes that become or threaten to become a major disaster because of a large number of dwellings. Therefore, fires declared by FEMA to constitute a major disaster were compared with similar -sized non -FEMA - eligible fires to determine whether the costs for fight- ing large fires in areas of residential development were greater than the cost of fighting similar -size fires in unpopulated areas. The 1990 Awbrey Hall fire near Bend is an example of a FEMA fire. Other fire protection -related effects of residential development in forest lands were analyzed through review of state-wide Oregon Department of Forestry fire data and analysis of fire data from other agencies, mainly the Office of the Oregon State Fire Marshal. Additional information about the urban/forest inter- face fire problem was gathered through a survey con- ducted as part of the LCDC's Farm and Forest Land Study. One component of the study included a survey to explore the frequency and severity of conflict be - tween forest land operators and nearby residents, in- cluding direct and measurable effects of human -caused fire. Because of the prevention efforts and air quality programs implemented in the 1970s, the 20 -year pe- riod from 1971-90 was most commonly analyzed. Other factors considered when analyzing fire data were weather and climate variability, improved technology and improved forest access. Weather and climate are obviously significant factors in the number of fires and acres burned. Much of the variability observed in the fire data can be explained by variations in these factors. Less obvious are the effects of technology and access. In many ways, these two factors work together. Improved access has resulted in greater opportunity to apply improved fire -fighting technology, and thus have re- sulted in quicker initial attack response times and enhanced fire detection. GENERAL SUARUTARY OF FIRE REPORT DATA Wildfire is common on Oregon's forest lands. On land protected by the Oregon Department of forestry and USFS from 1970-90, a total of 50,504 forest fires burned 915,918 acres. An average of 2,405 forest rues and 43,615 acres burned per year. The annual number of fires ranged from a low of 1,461 fires (1983) to a high of 3,940 fires (1970). The annual acres burned ranged from a low of 4,212 acres (1975) to a high of 245,352 acres (1987) (See Fig. 1). From 1970-90, both number of fires and acres burned are larger on USFS-protected lands. During that period a total of 26,716 fires (1,272 fires per year) burned 625,015 acres (29,762 acres per year) on USFS-pro- tected land. In comparison, during the same period, a total of 23,788 fires (1,133 fires per year) burned 290,903 acres (13,852 acres per year) on Oregon Department of Forestry -protected land. However, on an annual basis comparison shows considerable variation on whether the Oregon Department of forestry or USFS lands had the larger number of fires and acres burned (Figs. 2 and 3). Looking longer-term, data available for Oregon De- partment of Forestry -protected lands show that a total of 36,483 fire burned 565,019 acres during the period 1956-90. The primary cause of wildfire differs between feder- ally and state -protected lands. On USFS-protected lands lightning caused most fires, with 17,318 fires (64 per- cent of the total) burning 526,982 acres (84 percent of the total) (Fig. 4). Humans caused most fires on Oregon Department of Forestry -protected lands, hav- ing started 16,661 fires (70 percent) burning 149,876 acres (52 percent) (Fig. 5). 4 The number of fires and acres burned varies widely from year to year. For example, on Oregon Department of Forestry -protected lands from 1956-90, the number of fires averaged 1,057, with a low of 582 fires in 1959 and a high of 1,678 in 1970 (Fig. 6). Acres burned averaged 16,143, with a low of 2,296 acres in 1984 and a high of 91,441 in 1987. The variation in acres burned is highly related to weather and climate, as measured by burning index (BI). The number of fires is inversely related to BI. The success of fire prevention programs directed at human -risk activities is apparent at high to extreme BIs. Average fire size increases in direct rela- tionship to increases in BI (Table 2). Due to drought and other weather factors, the most recent five-year period saw a substantial increase in the number of acres burned. TABLE 2: Acres Burned, Number of Fires, and Average Fire Size by Burning Index (BI) ODF Protection (1956 -1990) No BI# 0-29 30-59 60-79 80+ Acres 16,726 39,0461 15,706 180,566 212,973 Number of Fires 3,252 7,021 13,489 8,453 4,104 Avg. Size (Acres) 5.14 5.56 8.58 21.36 51.89 i`No B1 means fire occurred outside of fire season. Generally,these fires occur during periods of 'low" fire danager, i.e. 0-29 Bl. Large, disastrous fires are not infrequent in Oregon. During the 21 -year period of 1970-90 on USFS-pro- tected lands, there were six years during which more than 20,000 acres (over 30 square miles) were burned. Of these six years, the most recent five years, 1986-90, saw in excess of 50,000 acres burned in each year. During the 35 -year period of 1956-90, there were eight years (22.85 percent) during which more than 20,000 acres burned on Oregon Department of For- estry -protected lands. Among those years, three saw more than 50,000 acres burned. Historically, much larger fires, in terms of acres, have occurred both in areas east and west of the Cascade Range, but the most notorious were western Oregon fires, including the three Tillamook fires, The Bandon Fire of 1936 and the 700,000 -acre Yaquina Fire of the 1850s. QUESTION 1: DOES RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON FOREST LANDS INCREASE THE RISKS OF WILDFIRE? Note: "Risk," as used in this report, refers to the probability of wildfire occurring. An increased risk in areas of residential development on forest land would indicate that wildfire would be more likely to occur and would occur more frequently in areas of development than in unpopulated regions. 0 FIGURE 1: TOTAL NUMBER OF FIRES AND ACRES BURNED IN OREGON (1970-1990) member of flees Saes (thousands) 300 250 200 150 100 50 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 900 year + Aces Bused # Number of fins USFS ane oDF petecaci FIGURE 2: NUMBER OF FIRES (1970-90) USFS AND ODF PROTECTION 5000 number of fires 4000 — 3000 2000 1000 0 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 Yew • USFS + ODF * Total FIGURE 3: ACRES BURNED (1970-90) USFS AND ODF PROTECTION M�otnands 300 250 200 — 150 100 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 Yew • USFS + ODF * TOW 5 FIGURE 4: NUMBER OF FIRES (1970-90) USFS PROTECTION number of tiros 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 .. . ... ..................... _......... . . ...... ..... ........................................................ ........ ..... _ 0 . 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 Yew • Lighting + HumuHmmed * Tow FIGURE 5: NUMBER OF FIRES BY CAUSE ODF PROTECTION (1970-90) number of fres 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 Yew + Human -caused * Lightning ♦ Total FIGURE 6: ACRES BURNED AND NUMBER OF FIRES ODF PROTECTED LANDS (1956-90) 1 aces (thousendW number of fires 00 2000 80 - 1500 60 11000 40 V1 r A 20 500 0 0 1956 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 Yew • Acne Burned + Number of Fires FINDINGS People caused most of the fires on lands protected by the Oregon Department of Forestry. Of the 36,983 fires that occurred on Oregon Department of Forestry -pro- tected land during the 35 -year period starting in 1956, more than 67 percent were human -caused. During the most recent ten-year period (1981-90), human -caused fires accounted for 70 percent of the total number of fires. Lightning was the origin for 64 percent of all fires occurring on USFS-protected lands. During the 1970- 90 period studied, lightning caused 17,138 fires out of the total of 26,716. Data for Oregon Department of Forestry -protected lands from 1956-90 reveal an increasing trend in the number of human -caused fires overall (Fig. 7). How- ever, data appears to indicate the positive effects of the prevention program implemented in the early 1970s. when a temporary downward trend began. The down- ward trend in human -caused fires persisted until the early 1980s, when the trend appears to reverse itself. Lightning fires on Oregon Department of Forestry lands have been randomly distributed, showing no obvious trend. During the 1970-90 period, the number of human -caused fires on USFS-protected lands steadily decreased (Fig. 8). On Oregon Department of Forestry -protected lands, three general cause categories — logging, debris burn- ing and miscellaneous — showed increasing trends in the number of fires caused over the past 20 -year period (Fig. 9). During the same period, the remaining five general cause categories — railroad, camper, smoker, arson and children — showed decreasing trends (Fig. 10). For Oregon Department of Forestry -protected land, debris burning and miscellaneous categories also show an increasing trend between 1956-90. The debris -burn- ing fire problem is increasing despite a significant reduction in opportunity to burn. Both debris burning and miscellaneous categories are generally related to rural residents. Many of the human -caused fires on Oregon Depart- ment of Forestry -protected lands are related to rural forest dwellers (ruralists). In the 1956-90 period, rural- ists caused 17.3 percent of the total number of fires and 25.6 percent of the human -caused fires. During the most recent ten-year period, ruralists accounted for 18.7 percent of the total number of fires and 26.7 percent of the human -caused fires, indicating a moder- ately upward trend in ruralist -caused fires for the 1956- 90 period (Fig. 11). Structures and power lines associated with residen- tial development create risk to forest land. From 1956- 90 on Oregon Department of Forestry -protected land, there were 650 (an average of 18.6 per year.) fires caused by burning dwellings and 49 fires caused by T chimney sparks. During the same period, power lines caused 854 (an average of 24.4 per year) fires. Both burning building and power line fires show increasing trends on Oregon Department of Forestry -protected lands; the trend in power line fires is increasing sub- stantially (Fig. 12). On Oregon Department of Forestry -protected lands, the number of human -caused fires is strongly corre- lated with dwelling density in each of the four protec- tion units analyzed. A statistically significant relation- ship was found between the number of dwellings in a section (640 acres) and the number of fires that had occurred in that section during the period 1986-90. In each of the protection units examined, the number of human -caused fires within a section showed an ex- ceedingly strong correlation with the number of dwell- ings (significance level = .0000). Second, dwelling densities were plotted in six differ- ent density ranges: no dwellings,1 to 5 dwellings, 6 to 10 dwellings, 11 to 20 dwellings, 21 to 40 dwellings and 40 or more dwellings per section. The number of sections within each protection unit was compared by dwelling density range to the number of total fires occurring within these sections. This produced an average number of fires per section in each density range. For each protection unit, the average number of fires in a section increased in a direct proportion to the increase in dwelling density (Figs. 13-16). Due to the a high number of dwellings as well as a high number of fires on the Department of Forestry's Sisters Protection Unit, it was possible to use a Logistic Regression analysis to assess the change in the likeli- hood that a fire would start in a section with a given number of dwellings present. When compared to sec- tions without dwellings, the presence of 1 to 5 dwell- ings increased the odds of a section having a human - caused fire 2.6 times. Similarly, the odds of having a fire in sections with 6 to 10 dwellings increased 4.7 times, 21 to 40 dwellings increased the likelihood of a fire 21.3 times, and sections with more than 40 dwellings were 71.4 times more likely to have a human -caused fire when compared to sections without dwellings. (The change in odds of fire starts for the 11 to 20 dwelling category was not statistically significant due to a small sample size.) On Oregon Department of Forestry -protected lands, the combined fire prevention effort directed at human - caused fires appears to be effectively reducing some types of human -caused fires, especially railroad fires and children -caused fires. Similarly, but with some- what more success, USFS prevention efforts appear to be reducing human -caused fires on their lands. The specific reduction being made on USFS-protected lands could not be determined with the data. Identifying the affected causes would be useful. However, despite vig- orous coordinated prevention efforts and direct regula- tion of open burning, the total number of some hu- man -caused fires on Oregon Department of Forestry - FIGURE 7: NUMBER OF HUMAN -CAUSED FIRES ODF PROTECTION (1956-90) number of fires 1200 1000........................................................................................................................... ............................................ 800 ........ ._...... ... ......... ............................................................ ......... . 600 400 ...................................... ............. ........ .............. ...................... ............................................ .......... ..................... ........ 200 - -- ..................._.._.._.......... .......... ......... ............... _................... _.... _..... 0 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 Yew FIGURE 8: HUMAN -CAUSED FIRE TRENDS USFS (1970-90) number of fires 1000 070 M 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 year * USFS FIGURE 9: NUMBER OF FIRES BY CAUSE INCREASING TRENDS ODF PROTECTION number of sm 350 300 • 250 • • 200 • v _ 150 • • * v 100 50 0 7172 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 8182 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 Yew • Mbic * � ♦ Debris 7 FIGURE 10: NUMBER OF FIRES BY CAUSE DECREASING TRENDS, ODF PROTECTION number of fires 5 4 3 2 1 FIGURE 12: BURNING BLDG., CHIMNEY AND POWERLINE FIRES (1956-90) number of fires 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 Yew • Burning Bldg. + Chimney Spark * Powerline ODF Protection 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 FIGURE 14: AVE. FIRES/SECTION (Dallas Unit 1986.1990) umber of fires 0 1-5 6-10 11-20 21+ Dwelling Density / section M Average Fires/sec. FIGURE 15: AVE. FIRES/SECTION Medford Unit (1986-1990) number of fires 0 1-5 6-10 11-20 21-40 41• Dwelling Density / Section M Average Ftres/sec. FIGURE 16: AVE. FIRES/SECTION 41+ Dwelling Density / section M Average Firealsec. FIGURE 17: PERCENT OF FIRES BY CAUSE BY DWELLING DENSITY Percent of Total 0 1-5 6-10 11-20 21-40 41+ Dwelling Density M Ughtning ® Lumbeptogging 0 Camper ® Sections Percent of the total number of fires for each general cause and percent of total sections E I4 N 80 60 40 20 0 FIGURE 18: PERCENT OF FIRES BY CAUSE BY DWELLING DENSITY Percent of Total U 1-5 6-10 11-20 21-40 41+ Dwelling Density M Debris Burning ® Children Q Miscellaneous ® Sections Percent of the total number of fires for each general cause and Percent of total sections FIGURE 19: PERCENT OF FIRES BY CAUSE BY DWELLING DENSITY E1C .e 40 K11 1 Percent of Total 0 1-5 6-10 11-20 21-40 41+ Dwelling Density M RR ® Smoker Q incendiary ® Sections Percent of the total number of fines for each general cause MW percent of total sections E protected lands is increasing, particularly debris -burn- ing fires and miscellaneous -cause fires. Some general causes appear to be more strongly related to increased residential development than oth- ers. For the four Oregon Department of Forestry protec- tion units analyzed, the total number of fires were plotted by general cause and dwelling density. We then compared fire cause by section to dwelling density (Figs. 17-19). Based upon the total number of all fires occurring by density range, for sections with no dwellings, the leading fire cause was lightning (S 3 percent of the total number of all fires that occurred within this density level), followed by miscellaneous (12 percent), logging (10 percent), camper (9 percent) and smoker. For sec- tions with densities of 1 to 5 dwellings, the leading causes were miscellaneous (27 percent), lightning (26 percent), smoker (12 percent) and debris burning (12 percent). For sections with dwelling densities of 6 to 10 dwellings, the leading causes were miscellaneous (36 percent), lightning (20 percent), smoker (14 percent), debris burning (10 percent) and children (10 percent). For the 11 to 20 dwelling per section density, the leading causes were miscellaneous (46 percent), debris burning (18 percent) and lightning (1S percent). For sections with densities of 21 to 40 dwellings, the leading causes were miscellaneous (48 percent), debris burning (1S percent) and lightning (11 percent). For sections with more than 40 dwellings, the leading causes of fire were miscellaneous (30 percent), debris burning (24 percent), children (21 percent) and smoker (12 percent). For all sections within the four protection units, the causes by percent of total were lightning (29 percent), miscellaneous (28 percent), debris burning (11 percent), smoker (10 percent), children (7 percent), camper (6 percent), logging (S percent), arson (2 per- cent) and railroad (2 percent). A relationship between incendiary or arson fires and residential development appears to exist based upon Oregon Department of Forestry data (Fig. 19). The LCDC Farm and Forest Land Study survey found that forest operators who had conducted commercial harvest activities such as commercial thinning, salvage and especially clearcutting experienced a significantly higher level of fires caused by the general public (non- ruralists). CONCLUSIONS Residential development on forest land significantly increases the risk of wildfire. USFS lands generally are free of residential development, and lands protected by the USFS have many fewer human -caused fires than Oregon Department of Forestry -protected lands, even though the acreage protected by each agency is more or less the same. This is true despite the high level of recreational use that occurs on USFS lands. The Oregon Department of Forestry protects the lands in the urban/forest interface where the majority of residential development exists. Humans cause most of the fires on Oregon Department of Forestry -pro- tected lands, and rural residents contribute signifi- cantly to the number of human -caused fires. Statistical analysis of the available data confirms that an increased density of residential development will increase the number of human -caused fires. Fire prevention efforts can be effective in mitigating some of the increased risk posed by siting residential dwellings on forest land. Certain causes — in particu- lar, children, arson, debris burning and miscellaneous causes — appear to be strongly related to residential development. Continued prevention efforts in the urban/forest interface targeted at these causes may be very beneficial in preventing disastrous fires. Additional efforts, such as siting and road access standards or building codes directed at mitigating the added risks in areas zoned "rural -residential" and those areas within urban growth boundaries may be neces- sary. Administrative Rules do not currently require consideration of wildland fire risks when granting permits or when siting developments. Additionally, it appears that special attention should be directed at preventing the rapidly increasing num- ber of power line fires. The October, 1991, fires in eastern Washington, where strong winds produced many power line fires with severe consequences, should be especially worrisome when placed in the context of the growing trend in Oregon. One possible mitigation would be to locate power lines underground in forested subdivisions. QM77ON 2. DOES RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON FOREST LANDS INCREASE THE WILDFIRE HAZARD? Note: "Hazard," as used in this report, means the difficulty of fire control, once a fire has started, due to factors such as fuel, topography, level of initial attack, detection, and weather. If the established hypothesis related to wildfire haz- ard is correct, everything else being equal, increased fire hazard would result in: • More rapid rates of spread and higher fire intensi- ties, thus larger fire sizes, higher costs, and more fires that escape initial attack, and • Over time, a gradual overall increase in fire size. FINDINGS Interpretation of various photo pairs and other data from throughout Oregon shows that vegetation changes 10 are occurring on forest land. These changes may in- crease the forests' susceptibility to disastrous fire. The data do not suggest, however, that changes in vegeta- tion are occurring any differently on residential forest land than on general forest land, although many dwell- ings, especially in central Oregon, are being sited in areas that have experienced significant vegetation changes. Fire is a significant historical event in all of Oregon. BLM data show that the north Coast Range has been the location of several large stand -replacement fires since 1850; however, fire occurrence tends to be more frequent in other areas of the state. State-wide, on Oregon Department of Forestry -pro- tected lands from 1956-90, the overall trend in average fire size is decreasing. This decrease is due to a smaller average fire size in western Oregon. In eastern Oregon, the trend in average fire size has been constant. during the 35 -year period examined. From 1970-90, on both Oregon Department of For- estry and USFS lands, the trend in average fire size is increasing, with the trend on USFS land increasing at the highest rate (Fig. 20). Over this period, the average USFS fire was 21.89 acres, and the average Oregon Department of Forestry fire was 11.3 acres. The Oregon Department of Forestry, however, had the greatest average fire size in 11 of the 21 years. The high number of fires during the period 1986-90 is a major factor in the increasing trends. In each of the four Oregon Department of Forestry protection units analyzed, the majority of human - caused fires occurred on lands that are also within rural fire protection districts (RFPDs), while the large major- ity of lightning fires occurred outside of RFPDs (with the exception of the Dallas Unit, which experienced only two lightning fires during the analysis period, one inside RFPD boundaries and one outside). On the Sisters Unit, 82 percent of all human -caused fires oc- curred within an RFPD; Medford Unit, 55 percent; Dallas Unit, 61 percent; and The Dalles Unit, 52 per- cent. The percentage of lightning fires occurring out- side RFPDs were Sisters, 80 percent; Medford, 83 per- cent; Dallas, 50 percent; and The Dalles, 94 percent. Since 1971, when. the FEMA program began, only 8.5 percent of large fires (over 300 acres) in Oregon have threatened enough dwellings or other improve- ments to constitute a threat of adequate proportions to receive a FEMA disaster declaration. On Oregon Department of Forestry -protected lands over the 35 -year period analyzed, the trend for total acres burned by all causes is fairly constant (Fig. 21). The overall trend for acres burned by human -caused fires is down, while the trend for acres burned by lightning -caused fires is up. With the peak fire years of 1986 and 1987 removed, the trend in human -caused and total fires is down, while the trend in lightning fires remains fairly constant. In general, more acres are FIGURE 20: AVE. FIRE SIZE FOREST SERVICE AND ODF PROTECTION Acres/fire 100 • 80- 60- 40- 20— + 0 60 4020 + + + 0 M71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 W81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 year • Forest Service + OOF FIGURE 21: ACRES BURNED ODF PROTECTION (1956-90) Acres (Thousands) 100 40 20 04 1 1 1 41"1 I +T+ 141A+ I I If I 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 Years 11 FIGURE 23: HUMAN -CAUSED ACRES BURNED FOREST SERVICE AND ODF (1970.90) 30 Acres Burned (thousands) 25- 20- 15- 10--- 5 ❑ 20 _ ......_... 15 10._._�+ +...._. _ µ_._..._ _ _ . ®... .... ❑ 5 +13- ........................................... p.........._..._............ ............_..... .... .... ........ .............p......... ++ 0 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 Yew + Forest Service o ODF FIGURE 24: PERCENT OF TOTAL FIRES BY SIZE CLASS BY DWELLING DENSITY Percent 100 80 20 .._........ .........L40 ._......................so__._.-____......_.__._. __.. 1 L ... .................. ........ . ....... 40 .................................. ..................... .................. ................... 0 0 1-5 6-10 11-20 21-40 41+ TOTAL Dwel ina Daesft ® Size Class A ® Size Cbm B OStze Class C ® Size Class D ® Size Class E = Size Class F ® Size Class G FIGURE 25: FIRE DAMAGE PER ACRE TREND, ODF PROTECTION Dollars/Acre 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 Year + Damage On 1990 Dom burned annually by human -caused fires, than by light- ning -caused fires. Over the 1970-90 period for which data are available for both Oregon Department of Forestry and USFS protection, the trend in acres burned for all causes for both agencies is increasing, with the USFS acres burned trend increasing significantly (Fig. 22). Over the same period the trend for human -caused fires is increasing on both USFS and Oregon Department of Forestry - protected lands at about the same rate (Fig. 23). As measured by cumulative annual burning index (BI) for selected weather stations, the trend in fire danger was downward between 1956-90. Though no statistical analysis was done, the trends and variability of cumulative BI appear similar to those of human - caused fires. State-wide, on Oregon Department of Forestry -pro- tected lands, for the period of 1981-90, fires associated with residential development (including debris -burn- ing, children- and miscellaneous -caused fires) were slightly smaller than the average fire. For all fires, 93.6 percent were less than 10 acres, while 95.7 percent of debris burning fires were less than 10 acres, 97.1 per- cent of children -caused fires were less than 10 acres and 95.5 percent of miscellaneous cause fires were less than 10 acres. Lightning -caused fires were most likely to be larger than 5,000 acres and were generally the result of dry lightning igniting several areas at once. The major- ity (73.3 percent) of fires that exceed 5,000 acres were lightning fires; miscellaneous fires comprise 12.9 per- cent and smoker and logging each comprise 9 percent of all fires larger than 5,000 acres. Based upon analysis of fire data from the four Or- egon Department of .Forestry protection units, it ap- pears that larger fires may be slightly less likely to start in sections with higher dwelling densities than would be expected, based on the distribution of fires by size for the total sample of sections (Fig. 24). CONCLUSIONS Over the last 21 years, average fire size has been increasing substantially on both Oregon Department of Forestry and USFS-protected lands. Over the total 35 years studied, however, average fire size showed a decreasing trend on Oregon Department of Forestry lands. It is clear that improved levels of initial attack (including initial attack by RFPDs), increased fire pre- vention effort, improved access, early detection, im- proved fire fighting technology, weather and climate may all have served to affect the overall fire hazard. Apparently these and other factors have partially com- pensated for vegetative changes, if any, that may have occurred on general forest land, as well as forest lands with residential development. Any mitigation gained by these factors appears to be offset by other factors, 12 resulting in much higher average fire sizes and total acreage burned over the most recent period of time. Residential development does not appear to directly increase fire hazard — the difficulty of fire control. The evidence suggests that hazard associated with rural residential causes (debris burning, miscellaneous and children) is somewhat less than the hazard for other causes of fires. This appears to be more the nature of the fire type than any direct positive benefits of residential development. One would expect, for example, that logging -related fires would be more hazardous due to the circumstances under which they occur (abundant dead and down fuel on steep slopes) than debris - burning fires. Without additional analysis, it is impos- sible to separate the contribution each potential factor makes to the hazards associated with various human - caused fires. Without knowing the degree of contribu- tion for each factor, making predictions is unwise because changing the levels or types of fire prevention and protection resources would have unknown effects. Without a doubt, vegetation is changing on forest land as a result of forest fire prevention and suppres- sion efforts. The relationship of this change to wildfire hazard associated with dwellings is unclear. The pres- ence of RFPDs may be a major factor in mitigating any increases in fuel hazard occurring in residential areas. Therefore, planning residential development with RFPD fire protection would be sound policy. Additional analysis is needed to begin to properly model and separate the various factors, including resi- dential development, initial attack response level and time, weather, climate, slope and fuels that influence wildfire hazard. Now that data bases and digitized map layers have been developed, additional analysis may be greatly facilitated. QUESTION 3: DOES RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT RESULT IN GREATER LOSS TO FOREST LAND AND INCREASED FIRE -FIGHTING COSTS? FINDINGS Even in terms of constant dollars, on Oregon De- partment of Forestry -protected lands, cost per acre of fire suppression and damage per acre both show signifi- cant increases over time (Figs. 25 and 26). In addition to this overall trend, the rate at which fire costs rise annually is also increasing. It should be noted that the increase in fire suppression cost per acre is similar to the rate of increase in pre -suppression costs for Oregon Department of Forestry protection. On Oregon Depart- ment of Forestry -protected lands, average cost (in 1990 dollars) per fire has also been increasing (Fig. 27). The rate of increase in fire suppression costs is greater than the rate of rate of increase in acres burned. FIGURE 26: FIRE SUPPRESSION COST PER ACRE TREND, ODF PROTECTION DolWWAcre I-+ 12C 100 80 60 40 20 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 Year • FF Cost (In 1990 Dollars) FIGURE 27: AVERAGE COST PER FIRE ODF PROTECTION 1956-1990 25 Dollars (rhoaaa ds) 20 15 10 + + 5 + + + +++ + + + + ++ + ++ 0 +_jjtl+ 56 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 Yew + Average Cost 13 FIGURE 28: NON -STATISTICAL FIRES, ODF PROTECTION (1966.89) 1800 No. Responses 1600 x 1400 _ .._._......_ _..._........._......_ . _...._.................. x...........x..................................._........._._... x 1200 ............._............_............x................._...._....r �.._x....%._❑ ......_............. 1000L- ......... ....... ❑...o .._..... _..o._❑ __.....o...._.... ❑ 800 n._...._._ ............... 60D-x....x..._._......_......_.._ ❑.._._........................_._...._......_................... __ _p.........._._. 400— _............................................................................................... .............. 2 •......................+....+..............................+................................... IF t*4m2 0 01 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 Year • Bldg•. Vhd. Dumps + Mutual Aid * Non -patrol Inds, ❑ False A' -m Smoke x Total Includes fire actions not fte disMef, oes W or and non -Hee actions. FIGURE 29: NON -STAT FIRE COSTS ODF PROTECTION ($1990) Dollars (Thousands) 500 400 �• 300 _.__.._.__..._._..._._....__............... .... ......... ...... __._...... _.._................... _.......... ._.._..._.--- ..------------ ---- • 200 • --� • ••• •• 100 • • • 0 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 8E year • Non -stat. Fire Costs For fires that have escaped initial attack on Oregon Department of Forestry -protected lands (those fires larger than 300 acres), the comparison of fire size and suppression cost between FEMA fires and non -FEMA fires shows that FEMA fires are substantially larger than non -FEMA fires and that they are also significantly more costly per acre to suppress. This is significant, because cost per acre is usually inversely proportional to fire size; that is, as fire size increases, cost per acre decreases. Costs for suppressing these large fires were examined using regression analysis. After adjusting for fire size and whether the fire occurred in eastern or western Oregon, the model predicted FEMA fires to be 48.3 percent more expensive to suppress (Table 3). CONCLUSIONS Large fires that threaten residential development have significant effects on the cost of suppressing large fires (P=.0062). Overall, total fire fighting costs are going up on Oregon Department of Forestry -protected lands. Some of these increased costs may reflect addi- tional effort being applied to initial attack at the urban/ forest interface. While damage per acre has substantially increased, additional analysis is needed to determine whether this increase is statistically related to residential devel- opment. TABLE 3: Fire Size and Cost Comparisons (1990 Dollars), FEMA and Non -FEMA Fires Greater Than (>) 300 Acres, Eastern and Western Oregon (1971.90) EASTERN OREGON NO. FIRES ACRES AVG. F.F. COST AVG. AVG. > 300 AC. BURNED ACRES/FIRE 1990 DOLLARS COST/FIRE COST/ACRE FEMA 4 11,674 2,919 4,858,072 1,214,518 416 NON -FEMA 72 92,869 1,290 16,407,320 227,879 177 TOTAL 76 104,543 1,535 21,265,392 279,808 203 WESTERN OREGON NO. FIRES ACRES AVG. F.F. COST AVG. AVG. > 300 AC. BURNED ACRES/FIRE 1990 DOLLARS COST/FIRE COST/ACRE FEMA 8 46,487 5,811 18,270,649 2,283,831 393 NON -FEMA 58 66,993 1,155 19,198,944 331,016 .287 TOTAL 66 113,480 1,719 37,469,593 567,721 330 14 QUESTION 4: WHAT, IF ANY, ARE THE OTHER EFFECTS OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON FIRE PROTECTION? FINDINGS The number of RFPDs and the number of square miles protected by RFPDs has substantially increased in Oregon. In 1970, there were 209 RFPDs. By 1990, the number had increased by 26.3 percent to 264 districts. Area protected has also expanded, from 7,296 square miles in 1975 to 11,900 square miles in 1990, an increase of 63.1 percent. RFPDs probably enhance initial attack of many wildland fires in the urban/forest interface, as the majority of all fires on Oregon Department of Forestry - protected lands occur within RFPDs. The trend for Oregon Department of Forestry non - statistical fires — those for which the Oregon Depart- ment of Forestry does not have direct protection re- sponsibility or that do not require a control action — is increasing (Fig. 28). Non -statistical fires include false alarms and smoke chases; responses by the department to aid other fire control agencies; fire control actions on building, vehicle and dump fires that did not threaten to spread to forest land; and fire control actions on non-paying lands inside or outside forest fire protection districts which did not threaten forest land. Nearly all of the growth in this trend is due to an increase in the number of false alarms and smoke chases. There appears to be a very slight increase in mutual aid responses. Building, vehicle, and dump fires not threatening forest land are on a slightly downward trend. Of more significance, the trend in costs (in constant dollars) related to non -statistical fires is increasing substantially (Fig. 29). Non -statistical fire suppression costs over the 1980 to 1989 period averaged $170,058 annually. Most of these costs have been related to mutual assistance provided to RFPDs for wildland fires outside of forest protection districts, in particular in central Oregon. CONCLUSIONS Protection provided by RFPDs appears to be expand- ing with residential development on forest land. The Oregon Department of Forestry should continue to foster RFPDs as an essential part of its fire protection efforts. Given the increased need for department re- sources in suppressing wildland fires outside forest protection districts, the department should review its policy on wildland fires occurring outside district boundaries. 15 SUMV RY & RECOMMENDATIONS Residential development on forest land significantly increases the risk of wildfire and the cost of fire control. Additional analysis is needed to determine whether residential development is related to amount of dam- age or wildland fire hazard. The Oregon Department of Forestry's mission, as clarified by the 1989 Oregon Legislature, affirms both the need for a complete and coordinated forest protec- tion system and that the department's primary respon- sibility is protecting forest resources second only to saving lives. Given this directive, the finding that residential development on forest lands increases the risk of wildfire and suppression costs should further support fire prevention programs, and the develop- ment of fire prevention regulations in the urban/forest interface. Fire prevention programs have been effective in mitigating increased risks in the interface, and contin- ued efforts targeted at specific, high-risk causes may be beneficial in preventing future fires. Regulations for home siting, road access and building codes should be developed with the goal of reducing fire risk. Locating power lines underground could also provide valuable protection. Cooperation among fire prevention agencies, in- cluding the Oregon Department of Forestry and RFPDs, and a policy for protection of forest resources within the urban/forest interface, should be an essential part of the department's fire prevention strategy. Data are available to continue to develop methodol- ogy that would build on this work. Methodology and analysis to separate the efforts of residential develop- ment from other factors affecting fire risk and hazard — such as weather, topography and fuel type — are needed. I f , ��'_. r i _ice �^ t.: ✓ . 4'� INSIDE - The- oldest trees in the - � �� ��` : ;.'-' _--�;•,t -- :_ =�,. -- — . East Coloradof s - White River_. National Forest _ A -Why pure water is more precious than gold Nil X - r , The lessons of Los Alam I Al I" r The Inferno that hit los Alamos may be the start of a frightening EMN ON of Wildflres in the West DO deme groes 1WW that served as a scenic backdrop to Los Alamos is charred and blackened now, the once living trees transmogrified into scorched poles, the tangle of dead- . wood and brush that made up the cluttered understory reduced to a thick carpet of ash. It's a skeleton forest, a disfigured landscape, a vis- ible manifestation of death looming above the place that gave the world Pat Man and Little Boy. 14 forest Magazine That Los Alamos, of all places, should be hit by a firestorm is just one of a string of ironies generated by the Cerro Grande blaze, which burned 43,000 acres of northern New Mexico's jemez Mountains in May, forced 20,000 people to evacuate, did $1 billion in damage and rook more than four weeks to extinguish. Consider these twists! • A deliberately set fire that if suc- cessful would have reduced the fire hazard to U)s Alamos led to the destruction of more thwi 200 resi- dcnccs—,und grew into cht most destructive blaze in state history. • The federal agency, the National Park Service, chat had dome the most to thin out the dangerously overgrown forest near Los Alamos started the chain of events that led to the disaster, • Scientists at fAs Alamos National Laboratory, so confident of their SFPC EX -13, p?+ Ra Kafth Eas haasa - ----- ability to control nuclear fire, were forced to flee in panic along with everyone else in the face of some- thing as elemental as a forest fire. • Although widely reported as a controlled burn run amok, the ac- tual flames that got out of control in Loa Alamos sprang from a risky backfire set by firefighters. But perhaps the most profound irony of all, and one with frightening implications for the unn atuxylly thick i forests of the American West, is this: In trying for the past 100 years to re- move 4amcs from the landscape through aggressive fire suppression efforts, federal fire managers have cre- ated infernos. "We haven't got rid of fire. Wc'vc merely changed the way fire interacts with the forest," said James Agee, a fire ecologist with the University of Washington. Added Thomas $wetnam, director of the Labomtory of Tree -Ring Kescarch at the Univer- sity of Arizona, "There: were: frequent fires up to 1900 and then no firers for 100 years and now one fire comes through and the forest is toast." Toast is a good ward for the seared forest behind Los Alamos. Over an eighr-square -mile swath o canyons and ridges, virtually e%-ery tree has been killed. It kx)ks like a bomb went oft'—with the exception that tht rites are standing, not July/Avgvsr 2000 13 P 5F9C Ex. 4, p-3 Is It a forest NMI j ' come back atter a fire, then it isn't merely pl2of and anIM21 life, Me hadsespe that has been changed, It's the whole web of flattened. The fire burned so hot that air temperatures arc estimated to have reached as high as 20,000 de- grees Fahrenheit. In, places the soil was vitrified, or turned to glass. When topsoil is cooked to that de- gree, it is sterilized: all the microor- ganistris that would normally help a forest recover from a fire have been Wed. A forest burned to this extent is espcciaUy prone to a phenomenon called sheet erosion, where entire hillsides are washed away by rain. It is widely expected that when New Mexico's annual monsoon season kicks in around the Fourth of July, there will be massive erosion in burned areas—and massive flooding through the numerous fingcrlikc can- yons chat cross the town of Los Alamos and the weapons laboratory and feed into the Rio Grande. There have been numerous media reports about the fact that the lab has used those canyons as dumping grounds for decades—and that sig- nificant amounts of radioactive and chemical contaminants will almost certainly be carried this summer into the fabled waterway that is New Mexico's lifeblood and that provides irrigation and drinking water to the bulk of the state's population. Less attention has been paid to what cx- twWve flooding and erosion might do ro the burned forest west and north of I" Alamos in the Jemez range. According to $wetnam, even if large amounts of topsoil are not washed away, it will in all likelihood take 100 to 200 years, and perhaps even longer, for the forest to come back---tt least in the 14,500 acres that burned hottest. That's how &agile the ecosystem is in the and Southwest, 16 Forest Magazine where even healthy forest soils are unusually thin, requiring millennia to become established. If soil in the Cerro Grande burn area does wash off massively, "it might take thou- sands of years for these areas to come back as forest," Swegtaan said. Anyone who fiords that hard to be- bcvc should visit an almost -16,000 - acre area immediately southwest of the laboratory that was burned in 1977. The La Mesa fire, as it was known, was only a third the size of the Cerro Grande blaze, and it did nowhere near the property damage. But like Cerro Grande, it was an out - of -control crown fire and it burned just as hot. The evidence for lasting damage can be seen today in the bleak, sparsely vegetated landscape that has replaced what before the fire was a thick, green forest. In the jar- gon of fire ecologists, an arca that has been robbed of its tree cover is known as a "hole." "'There are still giant holes in La Mesa. And there's no sign of anything coming back," Swctriant said. Reseeding efforts, which arc al- ready under way in the Cerro Grande burn arca, could make a difference. But the La Mesa burn area was also reseeded—reputedly—and it pro- duced modest results, at best. Re- seeding often doesn't succeed in the Southwest because for the first few years after a blaze, the seeds, like the soil, get cubed away by the tormn- tial summer rains that hit the region after the spring fire season. The implications of fires like La ,Mesa and Cerro Grande are pro- found. If a forest doesn't come back after a fire, then it isn't merely the landscape that has been changed, it's the whole web of plant and animal life that took thousands, maybe mil - bons, of years to evolve in clear loca- tion. "You're talking about converting a forest to a grassland or a shrubland," Swcmam said. "If the kind of fires we're getting today are not historical, if there's no evidence they have occurred in recent centu- ries or millennia, then you're chang- ing ecosystems. That's what's beginning to happen out there." .••s because of the unnatural intensity of the Cerro Grande fire that one can make what would other- wise seem an absurd assertion: The blaze did more damage than the se- rics of fires that scorched about 750,000 acres of Yellowstone Na- tional Park in the long, hot summer of 1988. More lasting damage, that is. Although significant portions of the acreage burned by Cerro Grande are not likely to recover quickly—aid perhaps not at all—the land burned at Yellowstone twelve years ago has for the most part bounced back. The forests torched by the. Yellowstone fires were primarily made up of dense, almost impcn- etrable stands of lodgcpole pine— and in lodgepole pine forests, crown fires are a normal part of the ccosys- tern. A sign that lodgepole evolved with crown fires is that the tracs don't drop many of their cones to the ground. Instead, the cones remain in the canopy --for decades in some cases—waiting for a crown fire to come along. When one docs, the cones open up in response to the heat and, within days, seeds start to fall our. .After a crown fire strikes lodgepole, the burned forest floor is carpeted Sfpc Ex (?>, p --- with the seeds, and before long, lodgepole saplings have token root. A, ponderosa pine forest is com- pletely different. Where, cones typi- cally release their seeds upon reaching maturity. Thar strategy works well when the only fires thait burned through were low -intensity ground fires. While those foes did to some extent destroy the seeds that were scattered on the ground, they didn't destroy the source of the seeds—thc trees themselves, But when a crown fire roars through a ponderosa tor- estr- as happened in the: Cerro Grande blue—the seeds and the trees are killed, leaving no way for a new generation to establish itself. The forest is erased. Though fire suppression—thc legacy of Smokey $car --is rightly blamed for the ovcrstoc:ktd forests of the West, there is another, often c.)ver- looked factor that has also knocked nature out of balance: Lvestock graz- ing. In northern New Mexico, as in many other western areas 100 to 120 years ago, hordes of cattle and sheep brought by the railroads tanned out over the landscape, From roughly 1880 to 1920, wholly unregulated grazing by livestock denuded large areas. In places like eastern Oregon and Nevada, lush grasslands were re- placed by sagebrush and fire -tolerant species such as chcargrass. In north- ern New Mexico, the disapptarance of grass meant that there was no way for ground fires to travel into ponde- rosa forests. Without fire to clear out the undersrory, virtually every ponde- rosa sapling that got establishtd grew into a tree. ,As the twendeth century progressed, and as fire managers with agencies like the park service and the Top, firefighters at work. Center, smaller frees begin to crowd a pon- derosa pine forest. Bottom, New Mexico residents watch the Cerro Grande blaze burn near los Alamos. July/Au91ust 2000 17 SF'PC Ex S, 'P•5 Forest Service stamped out every fire that popped up, these forests grew thicker and thicker. The densest stands, the ones packed with small, stunted, nutrient -starved trees, carne to be called doghair thickets. In sormc areas of the Jemez Mountains, there arc as many as 27000 ponderosa pines per acre, compared to 25 to 80 trees per acre when fire was a frequent visi- tor to the landscape. "The basic story a that cvctything has gotten woodier," sald Craig Allen, a fim ecologist with the U.S. Geological Survey and a leading Southwest fire expert. "Meadows are filling in with trees, and forests that were once more open have become thicker and denser." While the timber industry often makes the claire that logging reduces the fire hazard, others say logging has exacerbated the situation by leav- ing behind flammable slash piles and by removing the biggest trees. Such trees have the greatest commercial value, bur they arc also the most rc- sistant to fire. Logging aside, no one disputes this: The forests of the west, particu- larly the ponderosa forests, which pose the greatest wildfire threat be- cause of their inherent dryness, have lost their natural fireproofing. They have become explosive on a scale no one has seen before. "'There's a po- rential for 100,000 -acre crown fires," Allen said. y What's to bW 110088 That question has taken on added urgency in the wake of the Cerro Grande fire— particularly for western communities that are just as much at risk from a forest fire as Los Alamos was. Santa Fe, forty miles southeast Of Los Alamos, is one such place, as is Flagstaff, Arizona, located amid the largest ponderosa forest on the planet. Other pawns that are standing dircL* in harm's way include Missoula, Montana, which has stern 1 a Forest Moyortne its population swell with former dry dwellers in recent years, and two Or- egon communities, Bend, which has built into the extensive ponderosa forests on the cast side of the Cascade R1nge, and Ashland, which like Santa Fe draws its drinking water from a municipally protected watershed that has become overgrown with trees. An emergency measure sponsored by New Medco Senator Jcff Bingaman following the Cerro Grande fire was working its way through Congress when Fortis Magaetne went to press. It would greatly increase, to $115 million from $65 million, the amount of money available to the govern- ment this year for efforts intended to prevent catastrophic wildfires. The money would increase both prescribed burning and manual cut- ting and thinning of dcnsc forest stands in the West. Meanwhile, a moratorium on pre- scribed burning imposed by Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt immediately after the Cerro Grande blaze got out of control has been partially lifted. Although the park service, which ig- nired the prescribed burn at Bandelier National Monument that eventually blew into Los ,Alamos, remains under the ban, all other federal agencies are now free to resume prescribed burns. The fact remains, however, that the Cerro Grande fire has given pre- scribed burning a bad name- -, ind has all but guaranteed that rural area residents will be more prone to pro. rest whenever a prescribed burn is planned near their communities. Conservative western senators such as Idaho's Larry Craig and New Mexico's Pete Domcntiei have added fuel to the fire, so to speak, by qucs- tioning whether prescribed burning should continue at all in the wake of the Cerro Grande bre. Timber indus- try representatives, sensing an oppor- tunity, have claimed that the fire is proof that burning is too risky and that increased lugging is the best way to reduce the fire hazard. Largely last in the media frenzy over the Los Alamos disaster is the fact that prescribed burning has been carried out with remarkably few aeci- dents. Since it began setting pre- scribed burns in the late 1960s, the National Park Service, for example, has set 3,746 burns covering almost 900,000 acres. The agency lost con• trol of only 38—just 1 percent—of those burns. And only one other pre- scribcd burn besides Cerro Grandc has wreaked substantial property damage in recent years, a 1999 fire that burned tw-cntythree homes in a remote part of Northern California. Still, anytime a fire is ignited, it is by definition a risky situarion—a 16,000 -acre prescribed burn con- ducted by the Santa R National For- tst in 1993, for cxample, blew up unexpectedly one day and killed a firefighter. Such tragedies arc likely to happen again. It is, of course, also possible that another Los Alamos could happen in the future. To whar extent will people he willing to ac- ccpt such mishaps? Only time will tell. But die virtu- ally unanimous consensus of fire sci- entists is that prescribed burning must not be abandcnucd. "Particu• larly with the drier forests of the West, lire is just roo important," said Agee of the University of Washing- ton. "It's essential to nutrient cy- cling, ycling, to creating good wildlif: habitat, to maintaining tic stability of the whole system." "The worst thing to do would be to stop burning altogether," he con- tinued.. "Somehow, we have to in- crease the scale [of burning] and at the same time be more precise and cautious in its application." Even Wallace Covington, director of the Ecological Restoration lnsd- tute at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaffand a strong advocate of sFPc Ex,�- a. f 41 i thinning, has said that the forests must also be burned -provided the burning follows extensive thinning to reduce the chances of a crown fire. "You need both (thinning and burn- ing]," Covington said. Agee said one possible approach would be to thin in areas that are dose to towns and cities and to burn in areas that arc more remote. And it is im- portant, Agee said, to tailor a treatment to the needs of each site. "What you basically want to do with thinning and burning is mimic natural processcs," and those processes can vary evert within a single mountain range, Ire said. Swemarn from the University of Arizona said the Jemez Mountains, where the Cerro Grande fire burned, Provides an example of such varia- tion. While the midelevation ponde- rosa forests in the range did not evolve with crown fires, htresrs higher up in those mountains did. No one is suggesting, however, that fire managers should start set- ting crown fires. The truth, of the matter—however humbling it might be to accept ---is that crown fires are impossible to control. What experts like Swemam and Agee are saying, though, is that the federal fire man- agers directing burning and thinning efforts need to know their region in detail --or else they might have an- other Los Alamos on their hands. in Swelnam's mind, a lack of such knowledge was at the root of the Cerro Grande disaster. It is not widely known—primarily because the media largely missed the story that it was a backfire set by firefighters, not a prtscribed bunt, that swept into Los Alamos. Three of the investigators who took part m the gw ernment investigation of the blaze told ,Forest Magasine in late May that the prescribed fire that the park s= - vice set in a relatively high -elevation, moist arca would have died out on its own had it been left to burn, They said the decision to treat the fire as a wildfire that needed to be c mn- guished—rarher than merely a pre- scribed, burn in need of guidance and monitoring—was a key error. That decision led Are managers in the field to undertake a risky maneuver, the ignition of a backfire in a much drier, lower -elevation arca. The intent was to tie together two fire lines. But the result was that fire, cathed by high winds, escaped into a nearby, thickly forested canyon. The rest is history. "Once the prescribed fire was de- clarcd a wildfire, additional lire (was) introduced that ultimately produced the source of spotting and escape when high winds developed," the in- vestigators wrote in the report. That a backfire was the immediate Cause of the blaze led some observers to attack the basic conclusion of the government's investigation that the Cerro Grande blaze was essentially a prescribed litre run amok. "It wasn't the planned prescribed fire, but the unplanned, reactive emergency fire - suppression backfire that blew out of the project area," said Tim Ingalsbee of the 'Western Fire Ecology Center in Eugene, Oregon. (Forest Magazine posted a news story on its Web site, www.forestmag.org, that raised sub- standal questions about whether the storm of controversy and criticism that was directed at prescribed burn- ing in the weeks after the Cerro Grande fire was justified.) To Swctnam, however, the critical error lay not in how the prescribed fire and the subsequent firefighting efforts were conducted, but is the decision to ignite the prescribed fire in the first place. The prescribed burn may very well have burned itself out if left alone, but that doesn't change the fact that it took place in a very small, relatively moist arca sur- rounded by a sea of tindu-dry, over- stocked forest, Swetnam said. Neither does it change the fact that the burn was conducted following an abnormally dry winter and in the midst of a Southwest -wide drought that began in 1996. "What was lacking was a rccogni- tion of what was going on in terms of larger time scales and larger land- scapc scales," Swemam, said. "The fact of the matter is [hat there was a very high hazard for a bad fire year this year, and that understanding just didn't filter down to the managers of a small national monument who were planning a burn." That message might have gotten through had anyone from the monu- ment attended a conference for fire officials that was held in Tucson in February. The main topic of the meeting was the unusual fire hazard facing the Southwest in 2000. Swcm= said that although regional park scr- vice officials were there, no one from Bandelier who %vis involved in the Cerro Grande burn was present. Swctnam mentioned something else that places the blame even more squarely on the shoulders of Bandelier fire officials. The Santa Fe National Forest, which borders Bandelier on three sides, issued a ban on prescribed burning roughly a week before the Ccrro Grande burn was ignited. "They did the right thing," Swetnamt said. In a larger sense, though, Bandelier officials aren't really to blame. They were, after all, trying to deal with a mess that had been a long time in the making. "Mistakes weren't just made on ,May 4 (the day the prescribed burn was ignited]," Swctnatn said. "They began a century ago. And they ex- tend all the way up to the people in Los Alamos who built their houses up against that forest." Keith EAutbouse it a sociate editor of Forest Magazine, July/August 2000 19 r 7 HapTa for &Sons buy's timberland y SY Lisa Rosetta 7-'a`I& The Bulletin I-ItI 1 I I -Hap Taylor & Sons; Inc., a Bend construction company, Former , and Tweedfam Investments, Crown Pacilic property LLC, purchased 1,865 -acres of [y �c marginal timberland- from Crown Pacific last month for $2.5 million. The property is located west of Bend, near Shevlin Park, but f� is outside the city's urban, Shevhn growth boundary, the. area des -j ignated for immediate develop Park ment. .:. Roger Krage; Crown Pacific,���ecsad senior vice president general;; .., . .� counsel, slid shareholders wilt profit mbre- from. the sale than if . l P Cr6_ .,. � , - .. Century0rive � t and Pa� r pper tohold, onto ons•there. { �� n e ratr �•.. .. - cq .. .pe 'We -'get more ee5nomic value — =--� selling than we -.did operating," ' Greg Cross! The Bulletin he said: "Part of the property, we - s did -retain timber rights." Crown Pacific, and as part of: . velop'the property. . Hap Taylor & Sons operates that lease, Crown Pacific agreed Hap Taylor & Sons, as part of one of its five Central Oregon to notify Hap Taylor & Sons If itthe company's purchasing surface mining operations, the were.ever put up for sale, Taylor agreement, will provide Crown Bull Springs pit, on the property,`%: said. - = Pacific with the access and utili- of which 80. acres is Zoned for- "'It made sense," he said. "Our ty easements necessary to serve such use; said the company's - intent was to buy the asset ver- the company's commercial log - president, Todd Taylor. sus leasing it." ging, timber harvest, timber For more than a decade, the Taylor said his company will management and related opera - construction company has been continue its surface mining op- tions on its surrounding land leasing' the property from erations, and has no plans to de- holdings. F- t z4*A4e(3 t%.,d ;3 * Sea. �01140...t.,9 ac-1�c1e d.cv0. -v 4L -s fIQLr.tt ,.Q} " %ct5.n%t -� ree\ cak6 adz. Also, .soak A o�� tort ��Sor "s �� r�5�1e11-sd tti HapTa for &Sons buy's timberland y SY Lisa Rosetta 7-'a`I& The Bulletin I-ItI 1 I I -Hap Taylor & Sons; Inc., a Bend construction company, Former , and Tweedfam Investments, Crown Pacilic property LLC, purchased 1,865 -acres of [y �c marginal timberland- from Crown Pacific last month for $2.5 million. The property is located west of Bend, near Shevlin Park, but f� is outside the city's urban, Shevhn growth boundary, the. area des -j ignated for immediate develop Park ment. .:. Roger Krage; Crown Pacific,���ecsad senior vice president general;; .., . .� counsel, slid shareholders wilt profit mbre- from. the sale than if . l P Cr6_ .,. � , - .. Century0rive � t and Pa� r pper tohold, onto ons•there. { �� n e ratr �•.. .. - cq .. .pe 'We -'get more ee5nomic value — =--� selling than we -.did operating," ' Greg Cross! The Bulletin he said: "Part of the property, we - s did -retain timber rights." Crown Pacific, and as part of: . velop'the property. . Hap Taylor & Sons operates that lease, Crown Pacific agreed Hap Taylor & Sons, as part of one of its five Central Oregon to notify Hap Taylor & Sons If itthe company's purchasing surface mining operations, the were.ever put up for sale, Taylor agreement, will provide Crown Bull Springs pit, on the property,`%: said. - = Pacific with the access and utili- of which 80. acres is Zoned for- "'It made sense," he said. "Our ty easements necessary to serve such use; said the company's - intent was to buy the asset ver- the company's commercial log - president, Todd Taylor. sus leasing it." ging, timber harvest, timber For more than a decade, the Taylor said his company will management and related opera - construction company has been continue its surface mining op- tions on its surrounding land leasing' the property from erations, and has no plans to de- holdings. F- t z4*A4e(3 t%.,d ;3 * Sea. �01140...t.,9 ac-1�c1e d.cv0. -v 4L -s fIQLr.tt ,.Q} " %ct5.n%t SFPC 'F—x, C tpdgF I -� ree\ cak6 adz. Also, .soak c�0l1' o�� tort ��Sor "s �� r�5�1e11-sd SFPC 'F—x, C tpdgF I i Timber land becoming residential y Anne Aurand — and the real estate is worth he Bulletin millions of dollars. . Kelly and Karen Smith live on "We never really thought that bout 100 acres roughly be- w land would be sold to private ween Tumalo Reservoir and .. parties," Kelly Smith said,'tiog- ;hevlin Park, where they have..ging.wa'expected. Selling was- een everything, from wild n't exp6c:Nd at:all:" .irkeys and bald eagles to bob- The Smiths acid,oihler Tumalo ats and cougars. area residents are concerned Since the mid-1980s, they've that new houses roads :and cars een watching the sun set be- will 'disturb the wildlife on the .ind the Cascades from their..."mule deer winter range " eck. Lately, horseback riders and The view has been unhin mountain bikers have been get- ered by lights or fences.— so:... ting funneled onto the Smiths' ir. property as two homes and_ a "It's the most amazing place,"..fence start to rise, they, said :aren Smith said' Some of the property near the ,K Now, they're getting neigh-:; 'Smiths was involved. in a land •ors.' swap. in .1998 when the -Forest Some of the former timber .._ Service traded about 300 acres roduction property adjacent'to= rsoutheAst of:Tumalo-Reservoir: he Smiths, near Bull Springs;:' to -Grown Pacific. to consolidate toad and Forest Service., Road forest service laird around eon - :606, is becoming residential=,.�=: tigu,ous blocks...'of•' .privately lbeit in huge parcels witty hun='' ...owned land. treds of acres between homes See Land/A5 t rgl�21D Tumalo Reservoir Rd. ; r . A Ri;iemoi t .r. Gd' Cooley Rd.., f t •�Flj��t i1' •�iJ r} ij' t � ., ti� Lx ., rI i 'f! I �lii� •'� ti�ife .syn ltil:rtrrll! t! tlilr BtlIF�SDUngs Rd i"l )i Nr) t t r , t E!lltP -'� $LrIi1: lfj,4K . r �t' it �h •1 i n .t pit ll7 y �m Crown ;, w,''sly lf�f, = - S :�,; . �i�Qf', i ,f i ,�� �, t• Pant, j �r� G• u��t r';tl). t' fi. �pr�j, tt jit�i, tit• •. Ianf7 i,�.._ 1.tf 1((1�j� s -7•t ,,,, lt�t , quo !•�`�i - �;y:•, � � at !. ,i p1•��°�; � �Ep� l,�"t),�t�tif�1��� `r i t{': :; 1K•IF tr ,'.'rl'•• t r'�, .3� �r;Fi.il,li.•..t.r'r 1i'. i;: y 'I t s,:�i,;:IrSt rt llt7e• 1 kn„-. . tt' ,. �i,t�i • • it• ,,!; ' r,•1'•i/,1i 7�V� �:.: . 11 iii iir ( ..... i .t,7�' :; :f;'s )! A7aj+: ;j {.iMF ,Iby _SKy\sift+: :1 ^,tiIl{I1TES tN �.. yr ::►. ;ii; .:Iti+ . .1:.:'e 11vi y."({ y ���` �'%!�- ;31. f•11j. !l�;f. '3j1Vry lfli` `Art. :i:, i,:• , • •:ipis�:::i• '�'tx:�x: 3�'sf(ll , ' Yi t �: �iiy{.. 7`ti:�:.l•::risy;; .t ;:iy ;t,,+., .,:1 s t if'v,1 i Greg Gross / i ne oweun tor -ETA- \12-114: bQ5`�n5 Ccnv �CIC�d �+a� always c�owr 4aa; kco�v\ S v 1E ,IE v1t 'fhFsE v Ic..,dz ?`e:v F c,cku.otl.l �eEn con�Q.t erla o rQ,reacid ra as *c): \0 J( wit G ro.,.�c� 40z'5a,Q 04 c.crE 3. Land Forest zone has a 240 -acre minimum for a single home Continued from Al The trade was a small part of a larger public -for -private land swap that included forest lands as far south as Gilchrist. Some of those lands now in private hands near Tumalo are up for sale. Nancy Lowas, who lives in the Tumalo area, would rather see the land stay in timber produc- tion than become expensive houses. At least the public had access to the timber lands, she said. "The people aren't. getting anything. The timber company and developers are making all the money," said Lowas, whose family has been recreating there for about 20 years. When her daughters were young, they rode horses from home .to the pine forests, the creeks and the natur- al Bull Spring. "I'm not against change," she said. "It just has to be responsi- ble." Lowas is mostly concerned that new homes and more traffic will destroy elk and deer habitat. In mid-March, with the snow still lingering in the canyon floors, deer are everywhere. Eight of them bounded across Bull Springs Road as trucks hauling aggregate from a nearby mining pit honk at them. Concern about what is hap- pening in the area is nothing new, In the late 1990s, newspaper readers opposed to the swap. wrote letters to the editor saying Crown Pacific would benefit at wildlife's expense, expensive homes would be built and the public would lose its treasured playground. The swap's 1998 environmen- tal impact statement didn't ex- plore the potential for develop- ment on the lands. Rather, it said, "Because these lands are in a commercial forest zone, they are not likely to be available for development." In 1998, a former Crown Pacif- ic forester said the public would still have access to the land, which would remain a tree farm. .Gary Cremer, vice president of resources with Crown Pacific, said last week that the additional 30,000 -plus acres of Crown Pa- cific property west and north of, the lands for sale willcontinue to, operate as a tree farm, consistent, with historical use. The fact the timber company cut some timber on land and then sold it comes as no surprise to Tim Lillebo of the Oregon Natural Resources Council. "That happens all the time," he said. Private companies can do anything they want within legal means and zoning restrictions, he said. Environmental attorney Paul Dewey said the question is whether the public got its mon- ey's worth in the swap. "When the land was swapped, was it given the value of devel- opment property or timber val- ue?" he asked. According to the land swap's environmental impact state- ment, the appraisal included land value and timber value un- der the current commercial for- est -use zone. The "Fl" forest use zone, how- ever, allows one home per 240 acres with a conditional -use per- mit, according to land -use and real estate officials. Walt Schloer, the Bend -Fort Rock District ranger, said the per -acre value for the former Forest Service land in the area cannot be calculated because the entire swap — 38,740 acres of Crown Pacific land for 32,940 acres of national forest lands — was considered as a whole. The two entities' properties were each appraised at about $41 mil- lion, Schloer said. Louie Hoffman, of Steve Scott & Co., said Tweedfam Invest- ments LLC bought about 1,560 acres from Crown Pacific, and the Taylors, of Hap Taylor and Sons, bought the 300 -acre aggre- gate pit at the end of Bull Springs Road that they were al- ready leasing from Crown Pacif- ic. Meanwhile, crews have built a road and buried conduits for phone lines and utilities to the first parcels that Tweedfam In- vestments will try to sell. One 260 -acre lot is for sale for $1.3 million, or about $5,000 an acre. The remaining 1,300 acres, if sold as one parcel, is up for for $4.2 million, about $3,300 per acre. Coldwell Banker is listing a 320 -acre parcel for $1.3 million and a 640 -acre parcel for $2.2 million, with per -acre prices ranging between $4,000 and $3,400 in the same area. Some of the land for sale was previously owned by Crown Pa- cific and not part of the land swap. -e is V Ak, Land -use attorney Tia Lewis said all in all, much development along Forest Service Road 4606 is unlikely, and area residents shouldn't be concerned. The forest zone has a 240 -acre minimum fora single home, and. under some circumstances, an 80 -acre minimum. The smaller parcels may only be created un- der strict criteria — the parcel has to be adjacent to existing de- velopment, and within a 160 - acre grid of at least three differ- ent parcels that have been there since 1993. Subdivisions won't stretch to Sisters, she said, and the public playground will remain. Inten- sive development would require changes in both the state and lo- cal land -use laws, according to the environmental impact state- ment. But, 240 -acre parcels could, hypothetically, inch down .the 4606 road, Lewis said. However, Lewis said, there's other things that could hinder development. For example, builders have to acquire road access and get fire protection to houses. -c-1 'The development potential is very little," she said. Anne Aurand can be reached at 541-383-0323 or aaurand@bendbulle tin. corn. i! YGcd :1�ons end homes h.C.JE re V_ 7 occurred on 4�16 S�Skac= c►�d o� -FIn,r e C ro...,n �cc:�t c 1.._G..d o-lo.n� 'rinrce C tek� ovd 1r.�s r�lec!<�h- dEvtile�pe�-s :nhec:k Cro..�..«.:ca r�51nt SE�v4ZCE roaci5 � �r►d C ro..e+t rOocA3. �0J'1' �bv4lo t�J ar¢�� �c�e osts:d� 2u.ccl F:r* do-4-sc 41 .'c -K' i_1ncsE cr,�-1 seEk c..�nex�a� tc.� or cnr�-�Q .sp w:LN .nd�pe..cjls•t'�- �'��` P" Plans 4 � tic � . R.� a�ornc,� �o� eek e.•^o a1ne� dcv�lopec ACLV"4td SF9C Ex C, p•3 Y 306**Ac*res m-�La.N 260. Acres Tqw V, AW 11-mv -vi tj,. • .Af At UMCW. L$UU-tjv6v Uly Ul 6 f 4 Al Steve Scott & Co, Realtors Bull Springs Tree Farm (Parcel #2) Offering Summary Listing status: Active Property ID: 13188293 Property Type: Land Subtype: Residential (Single -Family) Property: Bull Springs Tree Farm (Parcel #2) Address: Bull Springs Tree Farm Road Factors: Bend, OR 97701. United States Price: $1,315,000 Down Pmt: N/A Sq. Feet 11,325,600 Lot size: 260.00 acr. Use Type: Vacant/Owner-User Investment Proform Factors: Proform Price/ Acre : $5,057.69 Currency: USD Property Description Gorgeous reforested Tree Farm property in Forest def errar with your choice of Mtn. Views awaiting your very private residential estate.Minor partition completion late 2001. Single family dwelling permitted with conditional use on 240 acre minimum. Contiguous 1,306 acres available for $3,300.00 dollars per acre with the, capacity for (5) 240 acre parcels. Location Description N.W. Bend location, approximately (5) minutes from Westside Bend amenities, including the new Summit High School and High Lakes Elmentary school. Quick access to Mt. Bachelor! "n.•.t�i-t Tnfn�m�i�i LOUIE HOFFMAN Phone: 541-480-8130 Steve Scott & Co, Realtors u iU191 9/111t The Information above has been obtained from sources believed reliable. While we do not doubt Its accuracy we have not verified it and make no guarantee, warranty or representation about it. It is your responsibility to independently confirm Its accuracy and completeness. Any projections, opinions, assumptions, or estimates used are for example only and do not represent the current or future performance of the property. The value of this transaction to you depends an tax and other factors which should be evaluated by your tax, financial and legal advisors. You and your advisors should conduct a careful, independent investigation of the property to determine to your satistactic the suitability of the property for your needs. a + J } t7 M A'S L. A tit � '� r ' ' W Td t3E Acc E SS ED C hor}� c a! SER V/ CE un i �•.': ROAD s �� �, 4tr. X11 ''f J x ,!i .{ t F: BULL SPRINGS f J , gw'* ;ti{. r. e lei-f } fSS'F t `l s'r Pt .;-j rf f ,}rt�}� �• 4 S -:' , A. H. J HNSON RD rr, u .ra[rtr tx•.,,, � � ���'r� ✓` _ - `t — f _Ji �}� - _ �- fl` a s 11 t �rJ t � t ! f d W, � "S.{ ! � �. 'f't, 2 {� :ti wt. r •�'�`- �. S�' f i X t }t •'' '' �, VW CLOSED 'PART r 1 rf t`S t EASEMENT -4:-R-'f -j - {' £,j Y U ° � z�,. r ! t � #•'" ' r y.,� S _ _ P r'Ai 1pQ IV PtTF . 1 N o t I'' �-�` s,- ` U fix• ST ' t y� ^a .�'I` �q j �Y k M� `''�' �wr � 'w -•T1 � ' ('. � ,; 5 � � .� 2000' f j f f: ir 1 F ORES T SERVICE RD F�D� fl,., � ,rr•• ,�,."'_- -,.' o } yu�r�• it �'��`z1 �r1 � .:' i•. I r � f.n_`` • ;� _ �. FORES T SER VICE RD IT f se PREPARED B Y. [ t f N.� SURVEYORS, ENGINEERS & PLANNERS,P r , HICKMAN, WIL UAMS & ASSOCIATES, INC 805 SW INDUSTRIAL WAY, SUITE 10, BEND, OR 97702-1093 PHONE (541) 389-9351 FAX (541) 388-5416 --,, 5 {---'7010610\DWG\EXHI8IT 6WL.Al PRIVATE ROAD . . . . . . . . . . PRIVATE ROAD THOMAS PARTITION - SISTERS MAINLINE LOCATION LOCATED IN. SEC77ONS 15, 16, 21 & 22, T17S, R11E, W.M., DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON APPLICANTS Ex E 7ENTA RVEIL F_'xhi hi+ YOU T4 q. 3 .. :, l ii. vi 137 va 13? rxa143 - J RASCHOT Em • ampolArnos l v 7 N43 Tm I, T m Iry ssda tbia 2nd day of. October. .1.D. Ci 1963, between D800154MON, l saaporsMoaM WCaUlSed an aaat,- Inc ender the hews of the !tate of Dan"", Qrantse, and the MMM STuPB Of AP=CL, wove Dost afflee addrMa is Wmdjastoes 16Q.0 ALM, VIi>MTNtt That for ama is eensideratios of the grout. or rocipreeal rldts- af-mq sod the am of =1.00, the reooipt of shish is Der tr aebw 4odg@4 the Orator does hereby gnat and aonrq vote the Oraatoa, sed its sae19oe, an 0" al mod riiht•af■ my foe a road as located, eaostmetod, seoanatrUCteda ispecrd, usd, operated, patro]ld and maIntalmd ever wP�t. alan� and same the fella+dag described praaisos sitva.ted is Us Coaatiq of Jefferson and Dssebut", Mate of Qregme, tsd4itt � 1 strip of land 66 feat la si,dth trtrossisd the v' fa lauios des ribed seal propos?p't bee attaohd N5fiiiit t throw* a NIPS. the Bald strip being 33 feet in vidta oa esch side of a sector line as 2acated and eaosttacted as the VMNW6 with. as crus additional id dth as required for adequaU Droteatian of eats mod fillsAthe Baia eoator]ine belft '. located mad described as ssbbom& as N ddbLt 1 through Q, which is attaabod berets and trade a pert Nrseof. The ONStOrUner Is awe 1 and ]&arse arantor'� f It deputhed as it meters MSCWv C0 j" "r LV & AnSTRRCr c0. 80e WA(.(„ STREW . a.:HO. OREGON •1- SFPC Ex E ?L5F y O -W. 9K Road Symbol T RR ILA"—Or b.6 -I SM& Redd Kam 3letwo Noinlim Jack ?I= 3prineo Rodd V 139J 1722 0 WWI Rim 0 Ir O -W. 9K Road Symbol T RR ILA"—Or b.6 -I SM& Redd Kam 3letwo Noinlim Jack ?I= 3prineo Rodd V 139J 1722 O O N N MAI o I c cWn v W C -i CD CD a x T 3 C v � o N 3 W n c N Q (D O = fD C a 0 J RD y 4� 4� PP� J RD --I =r c (D p 0 0 MERRILL O'SULLIVAN, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW MAX MERRILL TERRENCE B. O'SULLIVAN BRIAN J. WcRITCHIE DAVID E. PETERSEN STEPHEN D. DIXON PATRICIA L. HEATHERMAN BRIAN L. GINGERICH DAVID W. SMILEY lawfirm@merrill-osullivan.com December 10, 2002 1070 NW BOND STREET, SUITE 303 BEND, OREGON 97701 PHONE (541) 389-1770 FAX (541) 389-1777 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1130 NW Harriman Avenue Bend OR 97701 Re: Applicants' Memorandum in Support of Appeal MP -02-12 (A -02-10/A-02-11) Dear Commissioners: TIA M. LEWIS OF COUNSEL: JOHN M. COPENHAVER The Applicants/Appellants, Matthew and Rachel Thomas, submit the following Memorandum in support of their appeal of the Decision of the Deschutes County Hearings Officer, dated October 2, 2002. The Applicants' appeal is related solely to Condition No. 4(a) in the Hearings Officer Decision requiring the Applicants to make road improvements to Forest Service Road 4606 (Sisters Mainline Road). Set forth below is the Applicants' evidence and argument in support of eliminating Condition 4(a) from the Decision. The Applicants rely on the evidence and legal analysis in the record to address the appeal issues raised by the Sisters Forest Planning Committee (SFPC). Set forth below is a summary of that evidence and argument. 1. Road Improvements to Forest Service Road 4606 Are Not Warranted. The sole issue on appeal by the Applicants is the imposition of Condition No. 4(a) in the Hearings Officer's Decision requiring that Forest Service Road 4606 be improved "to a minimum width of 20 feet of all weather surface adequate to support a 50,000 pound fire truck". Decision of Deschutes County Hearings Officer, p. 21. There is evidence in the record that this road is approximately 20 feet wide, surfaced with gravel and suitable for passenger vehicles. There is evidence in the record that the Forest Service and Crown Pacific have used this road regularly for forest operations for the past 20 years. Conversely, there is no evidence in the record that the road is not adequate to provide physical access to the property. Unlike the Hearings Officer, officials from both the Deschutes County Road Department and the City of Bend Fire Department have traveled the Sisters Mainline Road from Skyliners Road to the subject property to assess its suitability for access. Significantly, neither department requested the road improvements imposed by the Hearings Officer when submitting comments on the partition application. Deschutes County Commissioners December 10, 2002 Page 2 The traffic impacts associated with the partition do not warrant the required improvements. The Applicants have three points of access to the subject property. First, the Applicants have permanent legal access via a recorded easement running along the eastern property boundary south to Bull Springs Road and then to Johnson Road. A copy of the map and access easement is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Second, the Applicants have permanent legal access via a recorded easement running along the southern property boundary to Bull Springs Road and then to Johnson Road. A copy of the map and access easements are attached hereto as Exhibit B. Finally, the Applicants have permanent legal access via recorded easements along the Sisters Mainline Road from the southern property boundary to Skyliners Road. A copy of the map and access easements are attached hereto as Exhibit C. All of these roads exist on the ground and all are improved to County standards except the section of the Sisters Mainline Road from Skyliners Road north to the southern property boundary of the Tweedfam parcels approved under MP-01-16/MA-02/4 (A-0206). See Map attached as Exhibit D. The present proposal is for a three -lot partition with each of the parcels to be used for forestry and residential purposes. The minimal traffic impacts associated with the proposal do not justify the improvements required under Condition No. 4(a). In fact, the Hearings Officer specifically found that "the minimal amount of traffic that would be generated by the development of three dwellings on the subject property would not be sufficient to justify requiring the applicants to construct improvements to these public roads." Hearings Officer Decision, p. 15. Instead, her decision requiring the improvements to the Sisters Mainline Road is specifically tied to the existence of physical access (Hearings Officer Decision, p. 6) and to emergency vehicle access (Hearings Officer Decision, p. 14, 21 requiring a "minimum of 20 feet all weather surface adequate to support a 50,000 pound fire truck"). There is evidence in the record that the Sisters Mainline Road from Skyliners Road north to the southern boundary of the subject property is approximately 20 feet wide and surfaced with gravel. Gary Judd of the Deschutes County Road Department will testify that both he and Tom Bloost traveled the road with the Applicants' engineer to assess its suitability for access. While the road does not meet County standards in all sections, Mr. Judd will confirm that it is accessible by passenger vehicles. To address the Hearings Officer's concerns about emergency vehicle access, the Applicants asked Don Jenson, Deputy Chief of Operations with the City of Bend Fire Department, to evaluate the subject property and its access points. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a letter from Mr. Jenson to Chief Langston specifically addressing emergency vehicle access to the subject property. Mr. Jenson specifically indicates that the existing access roads are sufficient for emergency vehicle access and that improvements to the Sisters Mainline Road are not necessary. Mr. Jenson further indicates that the subject property is located less than 5 miles from the Tumalo fire station and meets all guidelines for annexation into the Rural Fire Protection District. In fact, Mr. Jenson concludes that the fire protection and forest management measures undertaken by the Applicants are a positive example of how to create defensible space ' - Deschutes County Commissioners December 10, 2002 Page 3 and that the subject property should be used as a model for other urban interface properties being considered for annexation into the district. Because the traffic impacts from the proposal do not justify road improvements and the evidence in the record shows that the existing access is adequate for emergency vehicles, the Applicants request that the Hearings Officer Decision be modified to eliminate Condition No. 4(a). 2. Appeal by SFPC. The Hearings Officer correctly found that the proposal meets all relevant criteria. Except for the modification of Condition No. 4(a) discussed above, the Hearings Officer Decision should be upheld. The Applicants rely on the evidence and legal analysis in the record to support upholding the Hearings Officer Decision. A summary of that evidence and argument as it relates to the points of appeal by SFPC is set forth below. a. Frontage One issue raised on appeal by SFPC is that not all parcels have frontage along the Sisters Mainline Road. On appeal, SFPC argues that the proposal does not meet the criterion related to access at DCC 17.22.020(A)(3) because parcels B and C must use an easement to get to the Sisters Mainline Road. This issue was not raised below by SFPC and is therefore waived. Pursuant to state law, the Hearings Officer specifically advised all parties at the public hearing that any issue not raised with sufficient specificity below would be precluded from further appeal. See, Transcript of July 2, 2002 Hearing Before Deschutes County Hearings Officer, p. 2, Ins. 16-21. Despite SFPC's failure to raise this issue below, the Hearings Officer correctly found that frontage is not required and that all parcels have the required access. Section 17.22.020(A)(3) of the DCC requires that all partitions be accessed either by roads dedicated to the public or by way of USFS or BLM roads. Section 17.36.180 of the DCC requires each parcel in a partition to have 50 feet of frontage (30 feet for parcels on a cul-de-sac) on a public road but specifically exempts partitions off USFS and BLM roads from the frontage requirement. Reading these two code sections together, the Hearings Officer found that the present proposal met the applicable criteria because each parcel had access to the Sisters Mainline Road and proposal was exempt from the frontage requirement. Hearings Officer Decision, p. 5-6. Furthermore, the frontage issue is a distinction without substance. The Applicants have configured the parcels to account for the existing development and uses in the area and to accommodate a Forest Management Plan on the property. The two 80 acre parcels are located in the northeast area of the property closer to the existing smaller residential parcels to the east and adjacent to the developed access road. The larger 322 acre parcel is located on the western side of the parcel adjacent to the larger forestry tracts to the west. This configuration allows the { Deschutes County Commissioners December 10, 2002 Page 4 Applicants to utilize the property most efficiently for forestry and residential purposes. However, the Applicants have sufficient frontage along the Sisters Mainline Road to configure the two 80 acre parcels into flag lots fronting along the Sisters Mainline Road. To do so is not a practical, efficient or economical use of the property because creating the flag lots requires the future owners of the two 80 acre parcels to maintain in excess of 5 acres each along a strip of property which is removed from the remainder of that property owner's holdings. As shown by the evidence previously in the record, the Applicants intend to manage all three parcels for forestry uses and to develop and record a Forest Management Plan for this purpose binding future owners to conduct forest management activities. The creation of the flag lots makes forest management on each distinct parcel more difficult and serves no legitimate purpose. The Hearings Officer correctly concluded that the proposal meets the access criteria and that frontage along the Sisters Mainline Road is not required. b. The Easements Satisfy DCC 17.22.020(A)(3). Attached as Exhibit C is the map and easements showing that the Applicants have permanent legal access to the Sisters Mainline Road via three recorded easements. The documents themselves show that they are broad grants of access without restriction as to the purpose. The language of the documents sets forth the maintenance provisions and specifically provides that these easements run with the land and bind all future owners to their terms. Also attached as Exhibit F are Affidavits and correspondence from two different Forest Service officials recognizing and affirming the Applicants' right to use the Sisters Mainline Road for residential access to all three parcels. Finally, attached as Exhibit G is a letter from Western Title indicating that it will insure access to the subject property based on the Sisters Mainline easements alone and that, if asked, Western Title would not insure over or eliminate these easements in a policy of insurance for the Forest Service title. C. Other Issues The Applicants rely on the evidence and argument previously submitted to address the other appeal issues raised by SFPC. Based on the evidence in the record, the Applicants request that the Hearings Officer Decision be modified to eliminate Condition No. 4(a) and otherwise be upheld. Sinc , TIA M. LEWIS tia@merrill-osuilivan.com TML/kc EXHIBIT A Page 1 of 31 TEN TA 71VE/LA YOU T2 ROAD ACCESS DRAWING MP-02-12 LOCATED IN. SECTIONS 15, 16, 21 & 22, T17S, R11E, W.M., DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON q I R X 2719 KELLY L 56TH TL IJOO 63570 JOHNSON ROAD STATE OF OREGON BEND, OREGON 97701 9 f0 r0 rl I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IC 13 13 r4 _ - TL 2709 KELLY L SMITH 1 " JO00 FOOT WIDE OM70 JOHNSON ROAD ' ROAD E 45E WMVT -_ BEND, QRECpV 97701 PER ML 360 PG 561 R 1 END Jaw FOOT IWDE ROAD a U77UTY EA MWENT lx 00 FEET EACH SDE CENTERIJNE PER WL G 29710, 1 0001, 22789 WIC 2001. Pc 2789 M 1710 - DONALD PEEK 1 18686 BULL SPRINGS RC 4D - PARCEL 8 BEND, OREGON 9770► ' 80* ACRES - TL 2720 PARCEL A NANCY NKsr 1 322.* ACRES 1 - R _ 18790 HACKAMORE - - BEND, OREGON 97701 = 7L 27IJ GIRL W HOPP, Jt .p' 63421 SADDLEBACK DR BEND, OREGON 97701 1 PARCEL C q = 80t ACRES 1 I I _ 1 Im61 1 111 1 _ JO00 FOOT WDE TL 2715 ROAD EASSWENT BEGIN JO00 FOOT WDE CARL W HOPP, Jt 1 63421 SADDUFACK PER WV. 360 PG 562 ROAD X UTILITY EASEUENT OR 1500 FEET EACH 9DE7 OF CMME BEND, OREGON 97701 PER WL 2001, A 297 0, W1L 2001, JAMES E BUSSARO PG 2971z PC 29713- MARY SUZANNE BUSSARD WIL 2001, PG 29789 - 20 PG PO BOX 166 1 BEND, OREGON 97709 q R 4 T - �r m i5 rJ rs r n �—n u SSANS MA/NUNE ROAD 1 66' WDE ROAD EASSWENT 1I 66' nIIue ROAD EAS WENT PER V TOOT, PO 19789 - PER r '' 297 PREPARED EY �' 1 PARCEL 3, PP 2001-56 - I 327E ACRES a 1 SURVEYOR i milk 1" = 1000, A 2712MCM(AN,, WLUZiW & ASVOCIA= INC TMEEDFAAI INKS7MENT5 I M5 SW INDUSTRIAL WAY, S FTE 10, BEND, OR 9770T-109J 3 StiNS INC HAP TMD I PHONE (541) J89-9.751 FAX (541) J66-5416 8 65573 TN® RD BEND. OREGON 9770f I ----------- p I ------------}--- --j--- 9SIERS MA/NUNE ROAD 66' WIDE ROAD EASEMENT BULL SPRINGS ROAD LEGOO PER Y. 2001, PG 19789 66' WDE ROAD EASEWENT PER Y. 1001, PG 19789 PRO,ECT BOUNDARY A.H. JOHNSON ROAD PROPOSED PARCEL NE ROAD EAS]IENT AS N07ED SECTION UNE EXHIBIT A Page 1 of 31 TEN TA 71VE/LA YOU T2 VOL: 2001 PAGE: 29789 RECORDED DOCUMENT STATE OF OREGON COUNTY OF DESCHUTES *2001-29789 * Vol -Page Pfinted: 06/22/2001 11:43:39 DO NOT REMOVE THIS CERTIFICATE (This certificate constitutes a part of the original instrument in accordance with ORS 205.180(2). Removal of this certificate may invalidate this certificate and affect the admissibility of the original instrument into evidence in any legal proceeding.) I hereby certify that the attached instrument was received and duly recorded in Deschutes County records: DATE AND TIME: RECEIPT NO: DOCUMENT TYPE: FEE PAID: Jun. 22,2001; 11:41 a.m. 37340 Easement $171.00 NUMBER OF PAGES: 29 MARY SUE PENHOLLOW DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK EXHIBIT A Page 2of31 _�,00I - A5 -7g q -I After recording return to: RECORDED C'' Myles Conway °' AE8�4HOWCo. Ball Janik, LLP 15 SW Colorado, Suite K Bend, OR 97702 ,'EASEMENT RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREEMENT THIS RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREEMENT (the "Agreement') is made and entered into as of June,, 2001 by and between CROWN PACIFIC LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Delaware limited partnership ("Crown Pacific"), and Matthew J. and Rachel Thomas ("Thomas"). Recitals A. Contemporaneously with the execution of this Agreement, Crown Pacific has conveyed to Thomas that real property in Deschutes, County, Oregon that is described in Exhibit 1 attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (hereafter the "Property"). The parties enter this Agreement to provide Thomas with the access and utility easements needed to serve the Property and to provide Crown Pacific with the access and utility easements necessary to serve its surrounding land holdings. B. Crown Pacific and its affiliated companies, own or control large parcels of real property in Deschutes County, Oregon (hereafter referred to as the Bull Springs Block). A legal description of the lands currently within the Bull Springs Block is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. The easements reserved by Crown Pacific in Section 2 of this Agreement are intended to benefit and are appurtenant to all of the land now owned or hereafter acquired by Crown Pacific in Deschutes County, Oregon, including, but not limited to, the Bull Springs Block. C. The parties intend the easements defined in this agreement to be perpetual in duration and to run with the land, binding the parties and any successors in interest to either the Property, the Bull Springs Block or other land now owned or hereafter acquired by Thomas or Crown Pacific in Deschutes County, Oregon. Agreement In consideration of the mutual covenants of the parties set forth herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, and intending to be legally bound, the parties agree as follows: 1. Grant of Access and Utility Easements from Crown Pacific to Thomas. Crown Pacific hereby grants to Thomas, their heirs, successors and assigns the non-exclusive, peipetus.l access and utility easements described below. #258337 A - RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREEM EXHIBIT A Page 3 of 31 01001 -ACI I <39 -01'; 1.1 Crown Pacific grants Thomas an access and utility easement running from Johnson County Road along what is called the Bull Springs Road and the Sisters Mainline Road through Section 22 to its intersection with the Property boundary. A more precise description of the location of this easement is attached as Exhibit 3. This easement shall be 66 feet in width, measured 33 feet from each side of the centerline of the existing roadway. Thomas shall have the right of ingress and egress on this easement together with a right to place underground utilities within the easement. Crown Pacific or its successors shall have the right to re -locate this easement, at their expense, provided that the new location provides equivalent access, including dedication consideration, to the Property. Pursuant to Section 5 of this Agreement, Crown Pacific covenants that it shall, on the demand of Thomas use reasonable efforts to dedicate fee title underlying this easement to Deschutes County (or other governmental body) as a public roadway. This easement shall be appurtenant to the Property and shall serve the future partition, subdivision or development of the Property. 1.2 Crown Pacific grants Thomas an access easement running in a northerly direction off of the Bull Springs Road in Section 22 along the boundary of neighboring property owner Jim Bussard to its intersection with the property boundary in Section 15. A more precise description of the location of this easement is attached as Exhibit 4. This easement shall be 30 feet in width, measured 15 feet from each side of the centerline of the existing roadway. This access easement shall be appurtenant to the Property and shall serve the future partition, subdivision or development of the Property. 2. Access and Utility Easements Retained by Crown Pacific. Thomas hereby grants to Crown Pacific and Crown Pacific hereby retains and reserves the following assignable and transferable access and utility easements from its conveyance of the Property to Thomas. The easements identified below shall benefit Crown Pacific and its successors and assigns, and shall be binding on Thomas, their heirs, successors and assigns. The easements created in this Section 2 are appurtenant to the Property, the Bull Springs Block and any land now owned or hereafter acquired by Crown Pacific in Deschutes County, Oregon. 2.1 Thomas grants to Crown Pacific a 66 -foot wide roadway and utility easement along the route of the Sisters Mainline Road as it crosses Sections 22, 21 and 16 of the Property. The easement shall serve the commercial logging, timber harvest, timber management and related operations of Crown Pacific, including any future partition or subdivision of lands now or hereafter owned or controlled by Crown Pacific. This easement shall be measured 33 - feet on each side of the centerline of the existing roadway. A more precise description of the easement to be reserved by Crown Pacific is attached hereto as Exhibit 5. Pursuant to Section 5 of this Agreement, Thomas covenants that it shall, on the demand of Crown Pacific, use reasonable efforts to dedicate fee title underlying this easement to the County (or other governmental body) as a public roadway. 2.2 Thomas grants to Crown Pacific a 66 -foot wide roadway and utility easement in Sections 22 and 21 of the property. The easement shall serve the commercial logging, timber harvest, timber management and related operations of Crown Pacific, including any future partition or subdivision of lands now or hereafter owned or controlled by Crown Pacific. This easement shall be measured 33 -feet on each side of the centerline of the existing <58337 v - RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREEME EXHIBIT A Page 4 of 31 roadway. A precise description of the easement to be reserved by Crown Pacific is attached hereto as Exhibit 6. Pursuant to Section 5 of this Agreement, Thomas covenants that it shall, on the demand of Crown Pacific, use reasonable efforts to dedicate fee title underlying this easement to the County (or other governmental body) as a public roadway 2.3 Thomas grants to Crown Pacific a 66 -foot wide roadway and utility easement in the west half of Section 16 of the Property. The easement shall serve the commercial logging, timber harvest, timber management and related operations of Crown Pacific, including any future partition or subdivision of lands now or hereafter owned or controlled by Crown Pacific. This easement shall be measured 33 -feet on each side of the centerline of the existing roadway. A precise description of the easement to be reserved by Crown Pacific is attached hereto as Exhibit 7. Pursuant to Section 5 of this Agreement, Thomas covenants that it shall, on the demand of Crown Pacific, use reasonable efforts to dedicate fee title underlying this easement to the County (or other governmental body) as a public roadway 2.4 Thomas grants to Crown Pacific a 66 -foot wide roadway and utility easement in the northwest corner of Section 16 of the Property. The easement shall serve the commercial logging, timber harvest, timber management and related operations of Crown Pacific, including any future partition or subdivision of lands now or hereafter owned or controlled by Crown Pacific. This easement shall be measured 33 -feet on each side of the centerline of the existing roadway. A precise description of the easement to be reserved by Crown Pacific is attached hereto as Exhibit 8. Pursuant to Section 5 of this Agreement, Thomas covenants that it shall, on the demand of Crown Pacific, use reasonable efforts to dedicate fee title underlying this easement to the County (or other governmental body) as a public roadway 2.5 Thomas grants to Crown Pacific a 66 -foot wide roadway and utility easement that shall begin at the Property's southeast property line in Section 15 and runs roughly along the Property boundary in the location depicted in the attached Exhibit 9. The parties anticipate that Crown Pacific will assign the rights to utilize this easement to neighboring property owners in exchange for their relinquishment of existing access rights across the Property. This easement shall be sufficient to allow the future partition, subdivision or development of surrounding properties. This easement shall be measured 33 -feet on each side of the centerline of the existing roadway to the extent it has been constructed. A precise description of the easement to be reserved by Crown Pacific is attached hereto as Exhibit 9. 3. Use by Permitees. The parties to this agreement may allow their invitees, agents, contractors, subcontractors, and licensees and purchasers of timber to utilize the access easements created by this Agreement (hereafter "Permitted Users"). 4. Compliance with Laws. In connection with use of the easements identified in this agreement, the parties agree that they shall, at all times, and shall cause all Permitted Users at all times to, comply with all applicable laws, statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, and other governmental requirements. 5. Public Dedication. The parties to this Agreement create the following covenants that shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties, their respective heirs, successors and assigns #258337 -A - RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREEME EXHIBIT A Page 5 of 31 air -agq •y and shall run with the land for a perpetual duration. All costs associated with the public dedications described below shall be borne by the party seeking to dedicate the roadway. The covenants described below are appurtenant to the Property, the Bull Springs Block and any property now owned or hereafter acquired by Thomas or Crown Pacific in Deschutes County, Oregon. 5.1 On the written request of Thomas, Crown Pacific shall use reasonable efforts to promptly dedicate fee title (or such rights, title and interests held by Crown Pacific) to the real property burdened by the easement identified in Section 1.1 above (and described in Exhibit 3) as a public roadway to Deschutes County (or such other governmental body designated by Thomas). Crown Pacific acknowledges and agrees that any breach of this covenant will cause irreparable injury to Thomas for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Accordingly, Crown Pacific expressly agrees that, in the event of any breach, Thomas shall be entitled, in addition to any and all other available remedies, to seek and obtain injunctive and/or equitable relief to require specific performance of this covenant. The parties further agree to use their reasonable efforts to do, or cause to be done, all things necessary, proper or advisable under the applicable laws and regulations to consummate the public dedication of the roadways contemplated in this covenant as expeditiously as possible, including, without limitation, the performance of such further acts or the execution and delivery of any additional instruments or documents as any parry may reasonably request in order to carry out the purposes of this covenant and the dedication of the public roadway contemplated herein. 5.2 On the written request of Crown Pacific, Thomas shall use reasonable efforts to promptly dedicate fee title (or such rights, title and interests held by Thomas) to the real property burdened by the easements identified in Section 2 above (and described in Exhibits 5, 6, 7 and 8) as a public roadway to Deschutes County (or such other governmental body designated by Crown Pacific). Thomas acknowledges and agrees that any breach of this covenant will cause irreparable injury to the Crown Pacific for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Accordingly, Thomas expressly agrees that, in the event of any breach, Crown Pacific shall be entitled, in addition to any and all other available remedies, to seek and obtain injunctive and/or equitable relief to require specific performance of this covenant. The parties further agree to use their reasonable efforts to do, or cause to be done, all things necessary, proper or advisable under the applicable laws and regulations to consummate the public dedication of the roadways contemplated in this covenant as expeditiously as possible, including, without limitation, the performance of such further acts or the execution and delivery of any additional instruments or documents as any party may reasonably request in order to carry out the purposes of this covenant and the dedication of the public roadway contemplated herein. 6. Allocation of Maintenance and Repair Costs. 6.1 Subject to the provisions of this Section 6, the costs of maintaining and repairing the easements created by this Reciprocal Easement Agreement shall be allocated between Crown Pacific and Thomas based upon the respective use of such easements by Crown Pacific and its agents, contractors, subcontractors, and licensees (the "Crown Pacific Users"), on 4 9258337 vi - RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREEiv EXHIBIT A Page 6 of 31 0300)1a917$9 .s the one hand, and Thomas and its Permitted Users, on the other hand. Unless otherwise agreed from time to time by the parties, Crown Pacific shall generally be responsible for undertaking such maintenance and repair, subject to Thomas's obligation hereunder to reimburse Crown Pacific for its share of the costs thereof-, provided that at any time when an easement is being used exclusively by Thomas or one or more of its Permitted Users, Thomas shall be responsible for undertaking the maintenance and repair of such road. Each party agrees to maintain records showing its use of roads within the Reciprocal Easement Agreement in reasonable detail, and to make such records available to the other party upon request. 6.2 In the event that any road within the Reciprocal Easement Agreement is damaged as a result of use in excess of normal and prudent usage for ingress and egress, timber harvest, management, and related activities, the party responsible for such damage shall be responsible for the repair of such damage and the payment of all costs associated with such repair. 6.3 Any amount owing from one party to the other pursuant to this Section 6 shall be paid within five business days after written demand accompanied by reasonable supporting documentation for the costs incurred. Any such amount not paid when due shall bear interest from the due date until paid in full at the rate of 12% per annum (such interest being in addition to any interest owing pursuant to Section 4.2). 7. Indemnification. 7.1 Crown Pacific hereby indemnifies, protects, defends and saves Thomas harmless from any and all liability, damage, expense, causes of action, suits, claims, or judgments arising from personal injury, death, or property damage and occurring on or from the use of the easements created in Section 2 of this Agreement by Crown Pacific or its Permitted Users, except if caused by the act or neglect of Thomas, or its agents, employees or contractors. 7.2 Thomas hereby indemnifies, protects, defends and saves Crown Pacific harmless from any and all liability, damage, expense, causes of action, suits, claims, or judgments arising from personal injury, death, or property damage and occurring on or from the use of the easements created in Section 1 of this Agreement by Thomas or its Permitted Users, except if caused by the act or neglect of Crown Pacific, or its agents, employees or contractors. 8. Miscellaneous Provisions. 8.1 Binding Effect. The provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective successors and assigns with respect to the Property and, in the Case of Crown Pacific, the Bull Springs Block and any other property now owned or hereafter acquired in Deschutes County, Oregon.. 8.2 Authority to Enter Agreement. Each party to this Agreement warrants that it is the owner of the real property described herein and is authorized to enter into this Agreement encumbering the real property as set forth herein. 5 9258337 vl - RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREEMM EXHIBIT A Page 7 of 31 a�� aq�$9•� 8.3 Notices. All notices under this Agreement shall be in writing. Notices may be (i) delivered personally, (ii) transmitted by facsimile, (iii) delivered by a recognized national overnight delivery service, or (iv) mailed by certified United States mail, postage prepaid and return receipt requested. Notices to any party shall be directed to the address set forth below, or to such other or additional address as any party may specify by notice to the other ply. If to Thomas: Matthew J. Thomas and Rachel Thomas PO Box 5519 Bend, OR 97708 Facsimile No: (541) 389-7077 If to Crown Pacific: Crown Pacific Limited Partnership 121 S.W. Morrison Street, Suite 1500 Portland, Oregon 97204 Facsimile No: (503) 228-4875 Attn: Roger L. Krage 8.4 Waiver. Any party's failure to exercise any right or remedy under this Agreement, delay in exercising any such right or remedy, or partial exercise of any such right or remedy, shall not constitute a waiver of that or any other right or remedy hereunder. A waiver of any breach of any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any succeeding breach of such provision or a waiver of such provision itself. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be binding on a party unless it is set forth in writing and signed by such party. 8.5 Amendment. This Agreement may not be modified or amended except by the written agreement of the parties. 8.6 Attorneys' Fees. If a suit, action, or other proceeding of any nature whatsoever (including any proceeding under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code) is instituted in connection with this Agreement, or to interpret or enforce any rights or remedies hereunder or thereunder, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its attorneys' fees and all other fees, costs, and expenses actually incurred and reasonably necessary in connection therewith, as 6 #258137 v - RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREEMf EXHIBIT A Page 8 of 31 J determined by the court at trial or on any appeal or review, in addition to all other amounts provided by law. 8.7 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, then (i) such provision shall be enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, and (ii) the validity and enforceability of the other provisions of this Agreement shall not be affected and all such provisions shall remain in full force and effect. 8.8 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon (without regard to the principles thereof relating to conflicts of laws). 8.9 Construction and Interpretation. The headings or titles of the sections of this Agreement are intended for ease of reference only and shall have no effect whatsoever on the construction or interpretation of any provision of this Agreement; references herein to sections are to sections of this Agreement unless otherwise specified. Meanings of defined terms used in this Agreement are equally applicable to singular and plural forms of the defined terms. As used herein, (i) the term "party" refers to a party to this Agreement, unless otherwise specified, (ii) the terms "hereof," "herein," "hereunder," and similar terms refer to this Agreement as a whole and not to any particular provision of this Agreement, and (iii) the term "including" is not limiting and means "including without limitation." In the event any period of time specified in this Agreement ends on a day other than a business day, such period shall be extended to the next following business day. All provisions of this Agreement have been negotiated at arm's length and this Agreement shall not be construed for or against any party by reason of the authorship or alleged authorship of any provision hereof. IN WI'T'NESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first set forth above. Crown Pacific: CROWN PACIFIC LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Delaware limited partnership, By: Crown Pacific Management Limited Partnership, ' General Partner. By: Roger L. Jtragel,ni&sVice President Thomas: By. Matthew J. Thomas #258337 vl - RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREE? EXHIBIT A Page 9of31 'determined by the court at trial or on any appeal or review, in addition to all other amounts provided by law. 8.7 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, then (i) such provision shall be enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, and (ii) the validity and enforceability of the other provisions of this Agreement shall not be affected and all such provisions shall remain in full force and effect. 8.8 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon (without regard to the principles thereof relating to conflicts of laws). 8.9 Construction and Interpretation. The headings or titles of the sections of this Agreement are intended for ease of reference only and shall have no effect whatsoever on the construction or interpretation of any provision of this Agreement; references herein to sections are to sections of this Agreement unless otherwise specified. Meanings of defined terms used in this Agreement are equally applicable to singular and plural forms of the defined terms. As used herein, (i) the term "party" refers to a party to this Agreement, unless otherwise specified, (ii) the terms "hereof," "herein," "hereunder," and similar terms refer to this Agreement as a whole and not to any particular provision of this Agreement, and (iii) the term "including" is not limiting and means "including without limitation." In the event any period of time specified in this Agreement ends on a day other than a business day, such period shall be extended to the next following business day. All provisions of this Agreement have been negotiated at arm's length and this Agreement shall not be construed for or against any party by reason of the authorship or alleged authorship of any provision hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first set forth above. Crown Pacific: CROWN PACIFIC LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Delaware limited partnership, By: Crown Pacific Management Limited Partnership, its General Partner. By: Roger L. Krage, Senior Vice President Thomas: By: Matthew J. 7 #256337 vl - RECIPROCAL. EASEMENT AGREEMFr` EXHIBIT A Page 10 of 31 -17 By: q6dhel Thomas STATE OF OREGON ) ss. County of 0 ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2001, by Roger L. Krage, as Senior Vice President of Crown Pacific Management Limited Partnership, General Partner of Crown Pacific Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership. Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: STATE OF OREGON ) ) ss. County of tS ) T1je foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on 2001, by Matthew Thomas. OFFICIAL SEAL KARIANDERSON NOTARY PUBLIC -OREGON COMMISSION NO.335661 Notary Public for Oregon _ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY 11, 2004 My Commission Expires: r] -" b The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on d' , 2001, by Rachel Thomas. =PUBLIC-OREGON AL SON OREGON. 335661MY COMULY 11, 2004 No Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: 42583)7 v - RECIPROCAL EASEMENTAGREEM'' EXHIBIT A Page 11 of 31 4;001-A791- 10 STATE OF OREGONAL ) Ss. County of . The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on -?-Q , 2001, by Roger L. Krage, as Senior Vice President of Crown Pacific Management Limited Partnership, General Partner of Crown Pacific Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership. , OFFICIAL SEAL KAKI L SKYLES NOTARY PUBLIC -OREGON COMMISSION NO. 311884 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES APR. 22, 2002 STATE OF OREGON County of ) ss. Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires - The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2001, by Matthew Thomas. Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on 2001, by Rachel Thomas. Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: #258337 v! • RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREE EXHIBIT A Page 12 of 31 Jun 19 01 11:04a Hickman, Williams & Rssac EXHIBIT ADJUSTED TAX LOT 4300 541-388-5416 p.7 deo oq�l$ q • i l 1 Section 21, Township 17 South, Range 11 East, Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon. EXCEPTING THEREFROM: The South One -Half of the North One -Half (S1/2 N1/2) and the South One -Half (S1/2) of Section 21, Township 17 South, Range 11 East, Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon. TOGETHER WITH: That portion of Parcel 2, Partition Plat 1999-54, located in Township 17 South, Range 11 East, Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon being more particularly described as follows: Section 15: The Northwest One -Quarter (NWl/4), the Northwest One -Quarter of the Southeast One -Quarter (NW1/4 SE1/4), the North One -Half of the Southwest One -Quarter (N1/2 SW1/4), the West One -Half of the Southwest One -Quarter of the Southwest One - Quarter (W1/2 SW1/4 SW1/4). Section 16: All Section 22: The West One -Half of the Northwest One -Quarter of the Northwest One - Quarter (W 1/2 NW 1 /4 NW 1/4). Subject to: All easements, restrictions and rights-of-way of record and those cummon and apparrnt on the land. REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOH OR JULY 19. 1994 1, DAVID R.XILUAMS 2 EXPIRES: JUNE 30, 2002 S:\Land Projects\01040MdocsWD1USTED TAX LOT 4300.doc EXHIBIT A Page 13 of 31 a01 -9A,729-12% EXHIBIT 2 Deschutes County Deschute 16S loE 7 S1/2N1/2 i S1/2 Lot 1, Lots 2-4, S1/2N1/2NEl/4NW1/4, Sl/2NE3./4NW1/4, Deschute 16S l0E SEI/4NW1/4, S1/2N1/2N1/2NE1/4, S1/2N1/2NE1/4, Sl/2NE1/4, Deschute 16S l0E E1/2SW1/4, SEI/4 Deschute 16S l0E 8 E1/2, SWI/4 4 SE1/2NW1/4 Lot 3. Lot, 4. SW1/2NW1/4NW1/4SE1/4, Deschute 16S 108 S1/2NW1/4SE1/4, SWI/4SE1/4, Sl/2N1/2N1/2NW1/4, Sl/2N1/2NW1/4, Deschute 16S 10E S1/2NW1/4, SW1/4 Deschute 16S l0E 15 SWI/4 Deschute 16S l0E 16 lots 3-4, W1/2SE1/4, SWI/4 Deschute 26S 10E 17 Lots 1-2, Wl/2N91/4, NW1/4 Deschute 16S 30E 17 Lots 3-4, W1/2SE1/4, SWI/4 Deschute 16S 109 18 Lots 1-2, El/2NW1/4, NE1/4 Deschute 16S l0E 18 Lots 3-4, E1/2SW1/4, SEI/4 Deschute 16S 10E 19 Lots 1-4, El/2W1/2, El/2 Deschute 16S 10E 20 Lots 1-4, Wl/2E1/2, W1/2 Deschute 16S l0E 21 All Deschute 16S l0E 22 NW1/4, S1/2 Deschute 16S 109 26 NW1/4, Sl/2 Deschute 16S l0E 27 All Deachute 16S 109 28 All Deschute 16S 309 29 Lots 1-4, W1/2E1/2, W1/2 Deschute 16S l0E 30 Locs 1-4, 91/2W1/2, E1/2 Deschute 16S l0E 31 Lots 1-4, E1/2W1/2, E1/2 Deschute 16S 10E 32 All Deachute 16S l0E 33 All Deschute 16S 10E 34 All Deschute 16S l0E 3s All Deschute 16S 10E 36 All Deschute 17S l0E 1 Lots 1-4. S1/2N1/2. SI/2 EXHIBIT A Page 14 of 31 l/72/aa o� � • aq''?$q • 13 '3 Deschut :7S, l0E 2 Lots 1-4, S1/2N1/2, S1/2 Deschut IIS 10E 3 Lots 1-4, SI/2N1/2, S1/2 Dcschut 17S l0E 4 Lots 1-4, S1/2N1/2, S1/2 Deschut 17S IOE 5 Lots 1-4, SI/2N1/2, S1/2 Deschut 17S 10E 6 Lots 1-7, S1/2NE1/4, SEI/4NWI,4, El/2SW1/4, SE1/4 Deschut 17S JOE 8 N1/2 Deschut 17S JOE 9 N1/2, SE1/4 Deschut 17S 10E 30 All Deschut 17S JOE ll All Deschut 17S JOE 12 All Deschut 17S JOE 13 All Deschut 11S JOE 14 All Deschut 17S JOE 15 All Deschut 11S JOE 16 E1/2 Deschut 17S JOE 22 All Deschut 11S 10E 23 All Deschut 17S 10E 24 All Deschut 17S 10E 25 All Deschut 17S 10E 26 All Deschut 17S JOE 27 E1/2 Deschut 17S 10E 35 All Deschut 17S 10E 36 All Deschut 11S 11E 6 Lot 7, SE1/4SW1/4, S1/2SE1/4 Deschut 17S Ile 7 Lots 1-4, E1/2W1/2, E1/2 Deschut 17S lie 8 All Deschut 17S 11E 9 All Deschut 17S 11E 15 NW1/4, N1/2SW1/4, NW1/4SE1/4, W1/2SW1/4SW1/4 Deschut 17S lie 16 All Deschut 17S 11E 17 All Deschut 17S 13E -_IW- Lots 1 L 2, E1/2NW1/4, NE1/4 Deschut 17S lie 18 Lots 3-4, E1/2SW1/4, SEI/4 Deschut 17S 11E 19 Lots 1-4, E1/2W1/2, E1/2 Deschut 17S 11E 20 All Deschut 17S lie 21 All Deschut 17S 11E 22 Portion SW1/4SE1/4NE3./4 south of logging/mining road, S1/2SWI/4NE1/4, W1/2NW1/4NW1/4, W1/4SWl/4NWl/4,/S1/2Sl/2NW1/4, SW1/4, WI/2W1/2SE1/4, W1/2E1/2W1/2SE1/4, E1/2NE1/4NW1/4SE1/4, N1/2NE1/4SE1/4 . 343.56 ' Deschut 17S 11E 23 Portion N1/2N1/2SW1/4 West of Shevlin Park and Johnson Road and South 66' of SE14NW1/4 West of Johnson Road 23.61 ' Deschut 17S 11E 27 W1/2W1/2NE1/4, W1/2E1/2W1/2NE1/4, W1/2, W1/2W1/2NW1/4SE1/4, Wl/2E1/2W1/2NW1/4SE1/4, Portion SWI/4SE1/4 northwest of Park 421.96 Deschut 17S 11E 28 All Deschut 17S 11E 29 All Deschut 17S 13E 30 Lots 1-4, El/2W1/2, E1/2 Deschut 17S 11E 31 Lots 1-4, E1/2W1/2, El/2 Deschut 17S lie 32 N1/2, N1/2S1/2 Deschut 17S 11E 33 N1/2NW1/4, SW1/4NW1/4, NW1/4SW1/4 EXHIBIT A Page 15 of 31 EXHIBIT 3 ROAD DESCRIPTION A strip of land, 66.00 feet in width, following the centerline of an existing roadway, located in the West One -Half (W1/2) of Section 23, the North One -Half of the South One -Half (N1/2 S1/2) and the South One -Half of the North One -Half (S1/2 N1/2) of Section 22, all in Township 17 South, Range 11 East, Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon more particularly described as lying 33.00 feet each side of the following described centerline: Beginning at a point on the centerline of Johnson Road which bears North 880 21' 30" East a distance of 1561.53 feet from the One -Quarter Corner common to said Sections 22 and 23; thence North 70°05'26" West a distance of 26.68 feet; thence South 78°50'32" West a distance of 59.71 feet; thence South 64°54'33" West a distance of 65.02 feet; thence South 43°27'52" West a distance of 190.85 feet; thence South 45°49'04" West a distance of 114.10 feet; thence South 73°30'03" West a distance of 121.05 feet; thence North 87°15'24" West a distance of 433.80 feet; thence North 83°20'15" West a distance of 208.02 feet; thence North 86°54'17" West a distance of 215.80 feet; thence North 84151'02" West a distance of 146.12 feet; thence North 76132'14" West a distance of 152.52 feet; thence North 67°20' 14" West a distance of 166.26 feet; thence North 67137'48" West a distance of 104.78 feet; thence North 77°59'49" West a distance of 134.74 feet; thence North 83'12'03" West a distance of 122.42 feet; thence North 79021145" West a distance of 117.26 feet; thence North 66°40'37" West a distance of 112.04 feet; thence North 61°55'03" West a distance of 197.37 feet; thence North 61021'33" West a distance of 104.29 feet; thence North 69°42'35" West a distance of 105.40 feet; thence North 80°38'15" West a distance of 76.18 feet; thence North 84°29'25" West a distance of 75.45 feet; thence South 87001'53" West a distance of 54.36 feet to the "Point of Beginning" of EXHIBIT 4, which bears North 780 27' 31" West a distance of 1377.21 feet from said One -Quarter Comer common to said Sections 22 and 23; thence continuing South 87001'53" West a distance of 15.22 feet; thence South 71°16'13" West a distance of 69.34 feet; thence South 6803534" West a distance of 180.32 feet; thence South 69012'37" West a distance of 130.01 feet; thence South 59°25'13" West a distance of 141.68 feet; thence South 65152'38" West a distance of 100.04 feet; thence South 74°37'51" West a distance of 108.66 feet; thence South 70°04'19" West a distance of 85.77 feet; thence South 63042'50" West a distance of 234.15 feet; thence South 72°28'08" West a distance of 24.84 feet; thence South 86047'05" West a distance of 130.70 feet; thence North 89°56'22" West a distance of 115.26 feet; thence South 86°04'58" West a distance of 234.39 feet; thence South 85°19'45" West a distance of 59.98 feet; thence South 77°17'12" West a distance of 193.43 feet; thence South 79021'53" West a distance of 197.63 feet; thence South 87048'57" West a distance of 178.57 feet; thence North 84°03'04" West a distance of 149.68 feet; thence North 49°01'01" West a distance of 222.69 feet; thence North SALand Projects\010404\DOCS\EXHIBIT3.doc EXHIBIT A Page 16 of 31 ��'�i'?Sq • t5 55°10'58" West a distance of 261.39 feet; thence North 55009'09" West a distance of 172.72 feet; thence North 52°07'38" West a distance of 114.96 feet; thence North 28025'53" West a distance of 87.30 feet; thence North 33027'46" West a distance of 291.27 feet; thence North 35°34'40" West a distance of 404.38 feet; thence 493.28 feet along the arc of a tangent curve right with a radius of 1850.00 feet, the chord of which bears North 27°56'21" West for a distance of 491.82 feet to the terminus of this centerline and the "Point of Beginning" of EXMIT 5, bears South 160 26' 31" East a distance of 1371.63 feet from the Northwest Corner of said Section 22. Subject to: All easements, restrictions and rights-of-way of record and those common and apparent on the land. See drawing attached hereto and hereby incorporated by reference. REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR OREGON JULY 19, 1994 d DAVID R. WILLIAMS e� 2686 EXPIRES: 30 JUNE, 2002 Shand Projects101040CDOMEXHIBM.doc EXHIBIT A Page 17 of 31 �m BULL SPR/NGS ROAD DESCR/P7701V ''�9?$9 EXHIBIT DRA W/NG LOCATED IN: SECTIONS 9, 15, 16, 21, 22 do 23, T17S, R11E, W.M., DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON ,iEG+* �k> r.?• , r '�• ! f . rr ,�'`. 1 �r �`. 4 Es 1,���. �+�'�ii s . + �E `P � *��!+� 'E�'•' . . -f -, ,� r a � 1r• Y r � E . j{� "-}' 1i rs i°i �` �': '" � "r d � � ; rr" �'' f 7sVc s� y 1� ••t rt r +" F7 { ,r • " �%3'�' ` . F - •� i 1 � � �It�«LI�� ` lr�� � 4 ys, �,ET �t.; > '� � i� � -�' � ��/r. �� - •�J7 .. p•1`i �° �T x ' �4J� �'h �I�+IcI f�• 'i � ` ` i< *.� t r � � F r �r . � y /.A � �r �f � •r{k E {'� t�<�M�>rr i� �` t l � raj, 's . i �' `'a,�Y# _.y .�'!..v� 1 of i' a 1�` r ` ,3+ t •°, 41 50 l D its rv''�? • 'i S�`a, Ik �j �aMi S,. •'<< Y. !: 1 M 11 E-' f 19J •y.''y �i .1•tl Y � � r"r h., tr � .s +.% � �� a/ �t ` � �� 1 \ f�,dy�, + ✓'`F, x � r ' 7i �a - r r � t 1..,' � - ..y Sk. ;j z r r '�R ti,', is ,y Ayj. � - *�•,.e `�'ak'., a'. � y*; ,..... •. .. _. �.r.-.. r,. ` j' r \ 51�r�rit r.,., +r� _ ''.{9i 6i6}a _,`� } 1f 4� tr`.+• ..riii�'.�.. ....•l. r• ,y r-� mss-`. ��� PREPAR.E'D BY H : M OW SUR & PLANNERS NEERS HICKMAN, WWAMS & ASSOCIATES, INC 605 SW INDUSTRIAL WAY, SUITE 10. BEND, OR 97702-109J PHONE (541) J89 -9J51 FAX (541) 388-5416 16 r •. {;QIT F REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SUR,Y,E Y R OREGON JULY 19, 1994 DAVID R. WILLIAMS 2686 EXPIRES: 30 JUNE, 2002 EXHIBIT A Page 18 of 31 EXHIBIT 4 ROAD DESCRIPTION A strip of land, 30.00 feet in width, following the centerline of an existing roadway, located in a portion of the Southwest One -Quarter of the Southeast One -Quarter (SWI/4 SE 1/4) of Section 15 and the West One -Half of the Northeast One -Quarter (W1/2 NE1/4) of Section 22, all in Township 17 South, Range I I East, Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, being more particularly described as lying 15.00 feet on each side of the following described centerline: Beginning at a point on EXHIBIT 3, which bears North 780 27' 31" West a distance of 1377.21 feet from the East One -Quarter Corner of said Section 22; thence North 00°09'49" East a distance of 3677.76 feet to a point on the north line of said Southwest One -Quarter of the Southeast One -Quarter (SWI/4 SEI/4) of said Section 15, the terminus of this centerline, which bears North 180 43'42" West a distance of 4174.99 feet from said East One -Quarter Corner of said Section 22. Subject to: All easements, restrictions and rights-of-way of record and those common and apparent on the land. See drawing attached hereto and hereby incorporated by reference. S:\Land Projects\010404\D0CS\EXHIBIT4.doc REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEY Y � � OREGON JULY 19. 1994 DAVID R. WILLIAMS 2686 EXPIRES: 30 JUNE, 2002 EXHIBIT A _ Page 19 of 31 C►`d E BULL SPRINGS ROAD DESORIPMN "o1q?$9 ' EXHIBIT DRA WING LOCATED IN. SECTIONS 9, 15, 16, 21, 22 & 23, 717S, R11E, W.M., DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON ✓ v .. .. rf..+ iZ r r+ � .• Sa .. . y .. � '"' S ryr,r '` l` 5 +'a %'k• +�'.� � .� � �+i4f��✓5`t { 4�Ti � � Y^ft'e „i, �! 't1� r+;:�a �T I '1 ' 4'J� 3��� �, p� �� �, � t.%�= 4 + � `—•.• i .+'y{�v f � r.Fi�`•'r. -e ..f ,+ r ' S f; t'f'F .. yi;��[[ ��f of 2 r��F.:. ...:•f�-. ys i},# �i v ii17''eF •f.`;,, r7 �:� +{ �'h .. �.p, Vit. -fS�� � { ...i C � tt i1{� o r fir, ;,{� f r-; t ,.--� .. �,!rt�,ry��,/iQ y.. '� . si.x � ��' a .Y � ? . .�„� r ��x •, '�c'H« — ,� ` '_ OL F,'L, a C c 's •r'+: wI� �I�sf'�.' 'c!t I i.�' . p 1.+ �� ` t y'prsf 7' ,r 'r�✓�'/ a,`, _ i4 .�?� :. ad � i�•;r.'i'a�':�1 t'_'••--. ��!�R a _ ..,>:rr:,�� _ se�.�.; y!r "t';.++'' 1 Lq !f • tY I PREPARED E Y SURVEYORS, ENGINEERS N wok & PLANNERS HICKMAN, WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES, INC 805 SW INDUSTRIAL WAY, SUITE 10, BEND, OR 97701-1093 PHONE (541) 389-9351 FAX (541) 388-5416 f REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SUR YOR 0 1r Z OREGON JULY 19, 1994 DAVID R. WILLIAMS 2686 EXPIRES: 30 JUNE, 2002 EXHIBIT A Page 20 of 31 C�ml . Aq'?sl • 19 EXHIBIT 5 ROAD DESCRIPTION A strip of land, 66.00 feet in width, following the centerline of the Sisters Mainline Road, located in a portion of the West One -Half of the Northwest One -Quarter of the Northwest One -Quarter (WI/2 NWI/4 NW1/4) of Section 22, the Northeast One -Quarter of the Northeast One -Quarter (NE1/4 NEI/4) of Section 21, the South One -Half (S1/2) and the West One-half of the Northwest One-Quarter(W1/2 NW1/4) of Section 16 and the Southwest One -Quarter of the Southwest One -Quarter (SWI/4 SWI/4) of Section 9, all in Township 17 South, Range 11 East, Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, being more particularly described as lying 33.00 feet on each side of the following described centerline: Beginning at the terminus of EXHIBIT 3, on the intersection of the centerline of the Sisters Mainline Road and the south line of said Northwest One -Quarter of the Northwest One -Quarter of said Section 22, which bears South 16° 26' 31" East a distance of 1371.63 feet from the Northwest Corner of said Section 22; thence 119.95 feet along a curve to the right with a radius of 1850.00 feet, the chord of which bears North 18°26'35" West a distance of 119.93 feet; thence North 16°35'08" West a distance of 552.98 feet to the "Point of Beginning" of EXHIBIT 6, which bears South 15° 59' 05" East a distance of 698.81 feet; thence continuing North 16°35'08" West a distance of 257.08 feet; thence 400.98 feet along the arc of a tangent curve to the left with a radius of 450.00 feet, the chord of which bears North 42°06'47" West for a distance of 387.85 feet; thence North 67138'25" West a distance of 1716.45 feet; thence 373.45 feet along the arc of a tangent curve to the right with a radius of 1200.00 feet, the chord of which bears North 58°43'29" West for a distance of 371.95 feet; thence North 49°48'34" West a distance of 529.92 feet; thence 1017.51 feet along the arc of a tangent curve to the left with a radius of 1000.00 feet, the chord of which bears North 78°57'32" West for a distance of 974.18 feet; thence South 71'53'30" West a distance of 650.77 feet; thence 451.13 feet along the arc of a tangent curve to the right with a radius of 250.00 feet, the chord of which bears North 56°24'47" West for a distance of 392.36 feet; thence North 04°43'05" West a distance of 1332.46 feet to the "Point of Beginning" of EXHIBIT 7, which bears South 170 30' 30" East a distance of 2852.84 feet from the Westerly Corner common to said Sections 9 and 16; thence continuing North 04°43'05" West a distance of 2180.47 feet; SALand Projects\010404\1)OCS\EXHIBIT5.doc EXHIBIT A Page 21 of 31 420011A1$9 •ao thence 479.28 feet along the arc of a tangent curve to the right with a radius of 1451.31 feet, the chord of which bears North 04044'34" East for a distance of 477.11 feet; thence North 14°12'13" East a distance of 626.15 feet to the terminus of this centerline and the "Point of Beginning" of EXHIBIT 8, which bears North 58° 28' 30" East a distance of 1022.96 feet from the most Westerly Corner common to said Sections 9 and 16,. Subject to: All easements, restrictions and rights-of-way of record and those common and apparent on the land. See drawing attached hereto and hereby incorporated by reference. S:\l."nd Projects\010404\DOCS\EXHIBIT5.doc REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ---BLAND SURVEYOR OREGON JULY 19, 1994 DAVID R. WILLIAMSa 2686 EXPIRES: 30 JUNE, 2002 EXHIBIT A Page 22 of 31 BULL SPRINGS ROAD DESCRIP77O �1 a 1� EXHIBIT DRA WING LOCATED IN: SECTIONS 9, 15, 16, 21, 22 & 23, 777S, R1 fE, W.M., DESCHUTFS COUNTY, OREGON f • ^ Os .Z `•`.:. _✓ 1 a tf. v t "..r j / i "t"':: 't _ ' -.meati. `])-71 K,J. ♦TT ,� � Y ^ � Y -i, 41`f t.4 tis � 1 � ; 1 � + ry. �1{�/, p, . Vii,. 1; �• `*� � .[.Sn. 1 `fs t;, 'Ka' s, �. �led^'t .�+i7. ^tl fir. 4 :? '�•'j'h .rrt .r '� _ ,�?:� y,�4 '{✓"M1�• � �i: � 1-.�.��f � ��L-, � k} Lf — �ij tMt Q, 1�;tJ Y! � Atli. � c- ' ;r✓, N �. .. �, �, i. •r �*�. . t('.t4P'` � :1 a,. '� . �}. E ° ay r, • Yl t :i 4 a ', I � T;r•c •'1•, :t!.. , r. f 14;• i � , � .t. � - t rf to .b '�� 'ti if "•,y s. 7 +,. � t �T `• GliDp�r 7.fri 1 � Z �t 1 ,( t�i � {�.'+3i f .� '.. % ,r t .., {"{..k•,FrS� �p MAN I . 1 i L'� , i i �.r11L.. M1•t > ^�} - N t.. r •.f /�' J �(7' r �y a (+ti. rn, w + to :'1� �Y v +r`I^' ' r '1 %/'. C f3'«r'�, r• ,. -D k�Fn , `.. : � � rri• *` _ L,Ay.�,. X•+� r r ..�.'..� ..�. ? C ' L` 1 ���4 � +- P Fr. ,ji" IB '� 'r•,•..e r.— } 4. .1." F �,:.yr `, L r �✓*'r y ... �a �� y ,- �• 'i Y } °4 4. • �_X `�..�tX, , y ._�Y ;+• •t'• .s E .F. .r i „y�. ',�.��'?•'1•I�v t � f. •�' s ti[ .,�•r f5' cr,4r� rtr+`Y' 4.�. a ' K +5 i• q:,•I' "�' ., �t '���� ''� a.;l� �.n+�• '+r�ksr4.. ii xi�I� „�d7-�t�r f /qq��T r �:�: E �I t Al <, :. Y�,om.} { .� ' I n e?r Tx ,;': r �, r ✓ : PREPAR.E'D BY SUR & PGA%VNERSNEERS N MAk HICKMAN, WILLIAMS do ASSOCIATES, INC 805 SW INOUSIRIAL WAY, SUITE 10, BEND, OR 97702-1093 PHONE (541) J89 -9J51 FAX (541) 388-5416 z � }TMJ ti r 1 f k REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SUR YAR e OREGON JULY 19, 1994 DAVID R. WILLIAMS 201915 2686 EXPIRES: 30 JUNE, 2002 f::Y IIRIT A Page 23 of 31 901- 01a179.0121 EXHIBIT 6 ROAD DESCRIPTION A strip of land, 66.00 feet in width, following the centerline of an existing roadway, located in a portion of the North One -Half of the North One -Half (N1/2 N1/2) of Section 21, in Township 17 South, Range 11 East, Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, being more particularly described as lying 33.00 feet on each side of the following described centerline: Beginning at a point on the centerline of the Sisters Mainline Road which bears South 15° 59' 05" East a distance of 698.81 feet from the Northeast Corner of said Section 21; thence leaving said Sisters Mainline Road, North 39°18'41" West a distance of 195.46 feet; thence North 45°01'20" West a distance of 102.48 feet; thence North 53026'54" West a distance of 199.81 feet; thence North 64°48'57" West a distance of 194.54 feet; thence North 73°18'47" West a distance of 216.22 feet; thence South 84°1738" West a distance of 156.11 feet; thence South 67°53'21" West a distance of 508.58 feet; thence South 56°3131" West a distance of 422.11 feet; thence South 62°56'46" West a distance of 261.63 feet; thence South 51001'51" West a distance of 279.71 feet; thence South 35109'19" West a distance of 170.86 feet; thence South 24°38'25" West a distance of 273.22 feet to a point on the south line of said North One -Half of the North One -Half (N1/2 N1/2) of Section 21, which bears South 590 09' 32" West a distance of 2549.43 feet from said Northeast Corner of said Section 21, the terminus of this description. Subject to: All easements, restrictions and rights-of-way of record and those common and apparent on the land. See drawing attached hereto and hereby incorporated by reference. REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR OREGON JULY 19. 1994 DAVID R. WILLIAMS 2686 EXPIRES: 30 JUNE, 2002 S:\Land Projects\010404\DOCS\EXHIBII'6.doc EXHIBIT A Page 24 of 31 BULL BPR/NGS ROAD DESCRIPMNel -';�qq$q A0'3 EXHIBIT DRA WING LOCATED W. SEC77ONS 9, 15, 16, 21, 22 do 23, TY 7S, R11E, W.M., DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON NVP s ..•.,,,tom } ♦ ,$.��� ;:o- l S t "Yy!< '� � :6 � i � 'r t ,.,,;;� .•. � .. .: J l d 1 .. tj ( +.SAT 3 4Y 1. A f; �:'.'�TI -.,i.: *? b� _`. �f <4 r �.}�; YS\i'�'Nr 7S 1. � it 1►'r.. �� a --4s4 �r}r s n s� `1 .• �i �.�� �a � .� 'rrrt b�' \ ,�,�! _ s. ,: .y '' -' t �,j1b .• +t' :. +Lt��,�+ Fj •'�„�"- R.G a � `�..5 t, tiy7'e�"r.1� _ .+', __q a '+r. ,..� 1t�.t�r%„rr ^Jj.L ;.:, :3 f�Y i �cy+ -,:.. ..,., .< i1+'�.�r ... -.c S` sw. kir�C� ,ns•'I:'1`�4.'W�. .. ..w+ti`.. Sir.. `- v t.,i ':'�, J/�r''�. Y ._ r,�,. PRE'PARE'D B Y SUR & YP ANNERS ENGINEERS N UK HICKMAN, WILLIAMS do ASSOCIATES, INC 805 SW INDUSTRIAL WAY, SUITE 10, BEND, OR 97702-109J PHONE (541) J89-9351 FAX (541) J88-5416 REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SUR YOR ; OREGON JULY 19, 1994 DAVID R. WILLIAMS t���9c/ 2686 EXPIRES 30 JUNE, 2002 FXHIRIT A Page 25 of 31 v C � �L� � t .1 J• T AAi \ PRE'PARE'D B Y SUR & YP ANNERS ENGINEERS N UK HICKMAN, WILLIAMS do ASSOCIATES, INC 805 SW INDUSTRIAL WAY, SUITE 10, BEND, OR 97702-109J PHONE (541) J89-9351 FAX (541) J88-5416 REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SUR YOR ; OREGON JULY 19, 1994 DAVID R. WILLIAMS t���9c/ 2686 EXPIRES 30 JUNE, 2002 FXHIRIT A Page 25 of 31 ------------------------ n I�-- l -;-- EXHIBIT 7 ROAD DESCRIPTION A strip of land, 66.00 feet in width, following the centerline of an existing roadway, located in a portion of the West One -Half of the West One -Half (WI/2 W1/2) of Section 16, in Township 17 South, Range 11 East, Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, being more particularly described as lying 33.00 feet on each side of the following described centerline: Beginning at a point on the centerline of the Sisters Mainline Road which bears South 1711 30'30" East a distance of 2852.84 feet from the Northwest Corner of said Section 16; thence leaving said Sisters Mainline Road, South 75°01'49" West a distance of 622.60 feet; thence South 85°20'21" West a distance of 268.71 feet to a point on the west line of said Section 16, which bears South 00° 13'04" West a distance of 2903.36 feet from said Northwest Corner of said Section 16, the terminus of this centerline. Subject to: All easements, restrictions and rights-of-way of record and those common and apparent on the land. See drawing attached hereto and hereby incorporated by reference. REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYO i . OREGON JULY 19, 1994 , C/DAVID R. WILLIAMS 2686 EXPIRES: 30 JUNE, 2002 S:\Land Projccts\010404\DOCS\CXHIB1T7.doc EXHIBIT A Page 26 of 31 BULL SPRINGS ROAD DESCR/P770Ne ' ' aq'" -as EXHIBIT DRA WING LOCA 7ED IN: SEC77ONS 9, 15, 16, 21, 22 do 2.3, TI 7S, R11E, W.M., DESCHU TES COUNTY. OREGON +� -0Ji r r ;�� Y✓j t W pr r b f ry f. r• 1'�#� l'`r�K+ i I� .., }*'r'K F S a► � 1 '� .,;i � y p,, li t ,�,rr�y ���.t • * a, a 1 Y v r - ti r {� �,' yl. f.�`Sl,�''b'y SS `• 1, f„r ' S. '� :t 'U { � ,'� .i ... v � 7r> . 3 Y�, v�� r , , i �.. X111 � � -},. 11 4: • •a • '9s s1 r'1% 1 Sl e. a �� i + ,y .G zl a � 2.t }. ZI •2? - , tX `r� ='�'• '� _.f� v'r'� t t.",1^f;, 1a¢ 1, '!,t`lr f "4.t .... � 7 `�' vl .... • y! !r vL ti. • � r r`4 'F�rY" ` 1 . , v,,ia� ' ; �. .. ' �' �+.:+:a ♦WFC 1'. � ! pr : t'� � ri � Jt t . $.,."""S'".. �.�L ''. j -4- - �t7: '"r �� 'r; �'ni ' � ,1�• 1k'9�ict3. f .h ti c,t. � _r 4h: �skr � "` !Y' 49Al . \!�f A�i� � t ; air �,t: •�' •� Y' WAY• •f '" • i ',.f � �' 2 4 ^f.� .� ! v,� -f• _ e�•1!'��+ ���+;. ��T'�o: € .] i r�r�'•1- , A 6 1 ��nv : �,y.ri. i /.r�•Y � �t� ,�' .;Y. •�¢!' i , . , ik; :. y' • f • a y tr S ••p` ��iW , �• � t>' . � *� . • i ; •, a � t � if 'j1f `w:n -+� { , F r • ' r ,i.. r,' •y r ♦ : � -:774 ,2} %�� t i. ! �'J' .. <"'�; im"'7h lot � �'\ " � 7 • �Y� ' r i � , 1r � �,�[Sre k� wi'Y'� fi �%4. t ��:, r11,7 `v •: , M `e,� .�'. �F � � i 7 f �.�',jf �. ` :• u ♦: (' ,,� Ili ! «>•�, + , �% REGISTERED PRE'PARJ�'D B 1 . PROFESSIONAL LAND SUR YOR ; NIW,66%k SURVEYORS, ENGINEERS & PLANNERS OREGON JULY 19, 1994 HICKWAN, WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES, INC DAVID R. 6I L L I A M S 805 SW INDUSTRIAL WAY, SUITE 10, BEND, OR 97702-1093 EXPIRES: 30 JUNE, 2002 PHONE (541) J89 -9J51 FAX (541) J88-5416 EXHIBIT A Page 27 of 31 a001•4�qIS9 -Ab EXHIBIT 8 ROAD DESCRIPTION A strip of land, 66.00 feet in width, following the centerline of an existing roadway, located in a portion of the Southwest One -Quarter of the Southwest One -Quarter (SWI/4 SWI/4) of Section 9 and the Northwest One -Quarter of the Northwest One -Quarter (NW 1 /4 NW 1 /4) Section 16, all in Township 17 South, Range 11 East, Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, being more particularly described as lying 33.00 feet on each side of the following described centerline: Beginning at a point on the centerline of the Sisters Mainline Road which bears North 580 28' 30" East a distance of 1022.98 feet from the most westerly corner common to said Sections 9 and 16; thence leaving Sisters Mainline Road, North 79013150" West a distance of 149.94 feet; thence 135.38 feet along the are of a tangent curve to the right with a radius of 750.00 feet, the chord of which bears North 74003'34" West for a distance of 135.19 feet; thence North 68°53'18" West a distance of 48.84 feet; thence 227.17 feet along the arc of a tangent curve to the left with a radius of 150.00 feet, the chord of which bears South 67°4332" West for a distance of 206.07 feet; thence South 24°20'22" West a distance of 82.39 feet; thence 214.10 feet along the arc of a tangent curve to the left with a radius of 1142.44 feet, the chord of which bears South 18°58'15" West for a distance of 213.78 feet; thence South 13°36'08" West a distance of 215.57 feet; thence 311.06 feet along the arc of a tangent curve to the right with a radius of 296.87 feet, the chord of which bears South 43°37'10" West for a distance of 297.03 feet to a point on the west line of said Section 16, which bears South 001 0' 04" West a distance of 102.27 feet from said Northwest Comer of said Section 16, the terminus of this centerline. Subject to: All easements, restrictions and rights-of-way of record and those common and apparent on the land. See drawing attached hereto and hereby incorporated by reference SALand I'rojects\010404\1)OCS\EX141BIT8.doc REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR c OREGON JULY 19, 1994 F)IWID R. WILLIAMS > Xr"1HES: JUNE-- e�� EXHIBIT A Page 28 of 31 ---------- - BULL SPRINGS ROAD DESCRIP770ME EXHIBIT DRA WING LOCATED ft SEC77ONS 9, 15, 16, 21, 22 & 23, T17S, R11E, W.M., DESCHUMS COUNTY, OREGON TA N u 4 x k PREPARED B Y- NUOIL SURVEYORS, ENGINEERS PLANNERS HICKMAN, WILLIAMS do ASSOCIATES, INC 805 SW INOUSFRIAL WAY, SUIT 10, BEND, OR 97702-1093 PHONE (541) 389-9351 FAX (541) 388-5416 401. x arm. e. LANDPROFESSIONAL AND SURVEYOR JULY19, 1994 DAVID R. WILLIAMS 2686 EXPIRES; 30 JUNE, 2002 EXHIBIT A Page 29 of 31 01z1-;qq'3q .0a,00 EXHIBIT 9 ROAD EASEMENT DESCRIPTION HE-uis'rERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR ,1 OREGON JULY 19, 1984 DAVID R. WILUAMS 886 EXPIRES: JUNE 30, 200'P A strip of land, 30.00 in width, following the centerline of an existing roadway, located in the West One -Half of the Southeast One -Quarter (W1/2 SEI/4) of Section 15 and the East One-half of the West One -Half (E1/2 W1/2) of Section 15, all in Township 17 South, Range 1 l East, Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon more particularly described as lying 15.00 feet each side of the following described centerline: Beginning at a point which bears North 18° 43'42" West a distance of 4174.99 feet from the One Quarter Corner common to Section 22 and 23, said Township and Range; thence North 00°09'49" East a distance of 911.25 feet; thence 532.63 feet along the arc of a tangent curve to the left with a radius of 330.00 feet, the chord of which bears North 46104'29" West for a distance of 476.67 feet; thence South 87'41'13" West a distance of 203.00 feet; thence 86.22 feet along the arc of a tangent curve to the right with a radius of 700.00 feet, the chord of which bears North 88°47'04" West for a distance of 86.17 feet; thence continuing 89.87 feet along a curve to the right with a radius of 700.00 feet, the chord of which bears North 81°3439" West a distance of 89.81 feet; thence North 77°53'58" West a distance of 91.74 feet; thence 142.72 feet along the arc of a tangent curve to the left with a radius of 700.00 feet, the chord of which bears North 83°44'25" West for a distance of 142.47 feet; thence North 89034'52" West a distance of 324.26 feet; thence 210.41 feet along the arc of a tangent curve to the right with a radius of 200.00 feet, the chord of which bears North 59°26'34" West for a distance of 200.84 feet; thence North 29°18'15" West a distance of 106.25 feet; thence North 08°48'08" West a distance of 107.26 feet; thence North 21°50'39" East a distance of 301.04 feet; thence 168.60 feet along the are of a tangent curve to the left with a radius of 500.00 feet, the chord of which bears North 12°11'03" East for a distance of 167.80 feet; thence North 02°31'28" East a distance of 27.87 feet; thence 61.89 feet along the arc of a tangent curve to the right with a radius of 500.00 feet, the chord of which bears North 06°04'13" East for a distance of 61.85 feet; thence North 099658" East a distance of 333.01 feet; thence 126.19 feet along the are of a tangent curve to the left with a radius of 200.00 feet, the chord of which bears North 08°27'35" West for a distance of 124.11 feet; thence North 26°32'08" West a distance of 29.70 feet; thence 38.41 feet along the arc of a tangent curve to the right with a radius of 40.00 feet, the chord of which bears North 00°58'21" West for a distance of 36.95 feet, the terminus of this centerline, which bears North 22006'26" West a distance of 7110.69 feet from said One -Quarter Corner common to said Sections 22 and 23. Subject to: All easements, restrictions and rights-of-way of record and those common and apparent on the land. See drawing attached hereto and hereby incorporated by reference. SALand Projects\010404\DOCS\EXHIBIT9.doc EXHIBIT A Page 30 of 31 BULL SPRINGS ROAD DESCRIP77ONS c?m1-4Q9?r-x EXHIBIT DRA WING LOCATED IN: SEC77ONS 9, 15, 16, 21, 22 do 23, T17S, R11& W.M., DESCHUMS COUNTY, OREGON 1t d, !'. � '. :� +c r V It �"M 4 a � 2t`:' , �i r � t r.•.r' � . � '-` j "`v .: r v ; < � tJ'� r:t '' ,�•i,+. y,, ? � � t iri r � w ;� t 'h .•,•. t 1" F ..-.+ � :t y. t ,:Y t tt �l 4f�S t. _ �;: t' � ` - �r } Lr� P �r.t : J � _ y. _{ r>T rF%R� a�. f. a a� t„✓';sY'� tt ��1 � . 3.�s' R� .� *Y' .a 7Mf ,, - jN• k .A� �T' r, 1 3�. f 1�Y r ti`w '4' �_• �id`tiF ° `rr1�" ^.i� L J•, yti' { '�.4� ir'i. ,;, .� F .K."�iS` �' tS.s � �'vyiv ,' ..t'. OF t' Jir' •'`3.7� { ./ �� :. JJ'F "a) „�� Y�,,„L � !ff i rW � t ) r St' •: + . 's?. 4 - . c ,— + i5 Y "" • t a - .! y , moi+ Arw �• 191 1 y ' !'-, . i p,1, r " r.: - .: - � � „ i a Sri: ��� 1A '.,yr � Zr► Y'M . r . �-�•' D 'z�jr r1sT/ ��;qt a }�� � • 1 dti. fy{b .� ��r��y.nM k `• ry, a !►�T • ■ 1 ` �x��a ,t.r- r � '.�', ; . ?�, }-Rx•.? Sot i � r }.!. � � •I'� ''^ .Sa f„d.. { �.•j` 1. ,.'� R' 1 �l�T yf;M � a k :�•-.` �` ��'-x r�>' its• - : , �',� � t' � � t �' . r._ � ° f.l _ T jot .i is �x '•i' .Y A '� - y :.w.L ,/'�t�:'y�f 1"�: �iri:. +�5tx ,. ! � 3 kik; yti �' w1�'t1 Y}�ltl + ./� � / .i M % ?'J♦i. •� ,// - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SUR YOR PflEPARED E mu6shk SURVEYORS, ENGINEERS & PLANNERS OREGON JULY 19, 1994 DAVID R. WILLIAMS t/�yc7 HICKMAN, WILLIAMS do ASSOCIATES, INC 2686 805 SW INDUSTRIAL WAY. SUITE 10, BEND, OR 97702-1093 EXPIRES: 30 JUNE, 2002 PHONE (541) J89-9351 FAX (541) JBS-5416 ExHibi I H Page 31 of 31 ROAD ACCESS DRAWING MP -02-12 LOCATED IN. SECTIONS 15, 16, 21 & 22, T17S, R11E, W.M., DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON 1 1 1 1 1 1 R - 1 1 1 1 S/S7ERS MAINLINE ROAD 66' INDE ROAD EASEMENT PER V. 2001, PG: 29789 PARCEL 3, PP 2001-56 3271 ACRES INEEDFAA 2722 --� M lNYE57MENTS h HAP TAYLOR 8' SONS; INC 65575 Ti1EED RD BEND, OREGON 97701 PT I R 7L 2719 KELLY L SM/IH TL 1300 65570 "NSON ROAD STATE OF OREGON - BEND, OREGON 97701 9 f0 3800 FOOT INDE ROAD EASE7UENT PER KX 360, PO 562 PARCEL A 3221 ACRES 7L 2709 - KELLY L SM/7H 1 6J570 JOHNSON ROAD - BEND, OREGON 97701 1 R END JODO FOOT 1410E ROAD d U77UTY EA ZMENT &=15 00 FEET EACH SIDE Q°_N7ERL/NE PER VOL 2001, PG 19710, VVL 2001, PO 2P789 PER 2001, PG. 29789 PREPARED BY = I 1 I N 116K SURVEYORS, ENGROMW & PLANNERS 1 " = 1000, I McAm , K91AW & AMOCUTM,, nW 803 SW /NDUS710AL WAY, SUITE 10. BEND, OR 97702-1093 PHONE (541) W-953/ FAX (541) JB8-5416 ------------ SISTERS MAINLINE ROAD 66'INDE ROAD EASEMENT lE4EIM PER V. 2001, PG: 29789 PRO,ECT BOUNDARY PROPOSED PARCEL NE ROAD EASEWENT AS N07ED SEC77ON LINE - BULL SPRINGS ROAD 66' N10£ ROAD EASEMENT _ PER V. 2001, P& 29789 EXHIBIT B Page 1 of 31 A.H. JOHNSON ROAD TEN TA 77VE/LAYOU T2 R 2710 = 50.00 FOOT NIDE DONALD PEEK ROAD EASEMENT 1 BEGIN 5 FOOT INDE F8686 BULL SPRINGS RC 4D PARCEL 9 - LEND, OREGON 97701 = 801 ACRES ' 1 JAMES PER KX 2001, PG 29710, KX 2001, _ R 2720 PO 29772 VOL 2001, PG 29713 & NANCY OWKST VOL 2001, PC 29789 1 CHERK PE7ERSEN A_ 18790 HAOKAMORE A - BEND, OREGON 97701 F3 13 14 = X 271J 66' *10 ""1I47 _- ROAD EASEMENT CARL W HOPP, oR TPARC%L OJ421 SADDLEBACK DR BEND, OREGON 97701 CES PER 2001, PG. 29789 PREPARED BY = I 1 I N 116K SURVEYORS, ENGROMW & PLANNERS 1 " = 1000, I McAm , K91AW & AMOCUTM,, nW 803 SW /NDUS710AL WAY, SUITE 10. BEND, OR 97702-1093 PHONE (541) W-953/ FAX (541) JB8-5416 ------------ SISTERS MAINLINE ROAD 66'INDE ROAD EASEMENT lE4EIM PER V. 2001, PG: 29789 PRO,ECT BOUNDARY PROPOSED PARCEL NE ROAD EASEWENT AS N07ED SEC77ON LINE - BULL SPRINGS ROAD 66' N10£ ROAD EASEMENT _ PER V. 2001, P& 29789 EXHIBIT B Page 1 of 31 A.H. JOHNSON ROAD TEN TA 77VE/LAYOU T2 = 50.00 FOOT NIDE X 2275 ROAD EASEMENT 1 BEGIN 5 FOOT INDE CARL W HOPP, „R 63421 SADDLEBACK PER VM560, PC 562 ROAD 77U EASEMENT DR = 1500 FEET EACH E SDE DE OF (E1J7ERUN£ BEND, OREGON 97701 1 JAMES PER KX 2001, PG 29710, KX 2001, E BUSSARD PO 29772 VOL 2001, PG 29713 & - MARY SUZANNE BUSSARD - VOL 2001, PC 29789 PO BOX 268 1 BEND, OREGON 97709 A _ F3 13 14 1 - 66' *10 ""1I47 _- ROAD EASEMENT PER 2001, PG. 29789 PREPARED BY = I 1 I N 116K SURVEYORS, ENGROMW & PLANNERS 1 " = 1000, I McAm , K91AW & AMOCUTM,, nW 803 SW /NDUS710AL WAY, SUITE 10. BEND, OR 97702-1093 PHONE (541) W-953/ FAX (541) JB8-5416 ------------ SISTERS MAINLINE ROAD 66'INDE ROAD EASEMENT lE4EIM PER V. 2001, PG: 29789 PRO,ECT BOUNDARY PROPOSED PARCEL NE ROAD EASEWENT AS N07ED SEC77ON LINE - BULL SPRINGS ROAD 66' N10£ ROAD EASEMENT _ PER V. 2001, P& 29789 EXHIBIT B Page 1 of 31 A.H. JOHNSON ROAD TEN TA 77VE/LAYOU T2 VOL: 2001 PAGE: 29789 RECORDED DOCU [ENT STATE OF OREGON COUNTY OF DESCHUTES *2001-29789 * Vol -Page Printed: 06/22/2001 11:43:39 DO NOT REMOVE THIS CERTIFICATE (This certificate constitutes a part of the original instrument in accordance with ORS 205.180(2). Removal of this certificate may invalidate this certificate and affect the admissibility of the original instrument into evidence in any legal proceeding.) I hereby certify that the attached instrument was received and duly recorded in Deschutes County records: DATE AND TIME: RECEIPT NO: DOCUMENT TYPE: FEE PAID: NUMBER OF PAGES: Jun. 22, 2001; 11:41 a.m. 37340 Easement $171.00 29 Lv�)4,, P,-� MARY SUE PENHOLLOW DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK EXHIBIT B Page 2of31 After recording return to: RECORDED 7! Myles Conway f MR a F.84HO V Go. Ball Janik, LLP e�� %k4- 15 SW Colorado, Suite K Bend, OR 97702 2C -,'EASEMENT RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREEMENT THIS RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made and entered into as of JuneZ 2001 by and between CROWN PACIFIC LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Delaware limited partnership ("Crown Pacific"), and Matthew J. and Rachel Thomas ("Thomas"). Recitals A. Contemporaneously with the execution of this Agreement, Crown Pacific has \ conveyed to Thomas that real property in Deschutes, County, Oregon that is described in Exhibit 1 attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (hereafter the "Property"). The parties enter this Agreement to provide Thomas with the access and utility easements needed to serve the Property and to provide Crown Pacific with the access and utility easements necessary to serve its surrounding land holdings. B. Crown Pacific and its affiliated companies, own or control large parcels of real property in Deschutes County, Oregon (hereafter referred to as the Bull Springs Block). A legal description of the lands currently within the Bull Springs Block is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. The easements reserved by Crown Pacific in Section 2 of this Agreement are intended to benefit and are appurtenant to all of the land now owned or hereafter acquired by Crown Pacific in Deschutes County, Oregon, including, but not limited to, the Bull Springs Block. C. The parties intend the easements defined in this agreement to be perpetual in duration and to run with the land, binding the parties and any successors in interest to either the Property, the Bull Springs Block or other land now owned or hereafter acquired by Thomas or Crown Pacific in Deschutes County, Oregon. Agreement In consideration of the mutual covenants of the parties set forth herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, and intending to be legally bound, the parties agree as follows: 1. Grant of Access and Utility Easements from Crown Pacific to Thomas. Crown Pacific hereby grants to Thomas, their heirs, successors and assigns the non-exclusive, perpetual access and utility easements described below. #258337 A - RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREE] EXHIBIT B Page 3 of 31 01001- A9 1199 1 alk 1.1 Crown Pacific grants Thomas an access and utility easement running from Johnson County Road along what is called the Bull Springs Road and the Sisters Mainline Road through Section 22 to its intersection with the Property boundary. A more precise description of the location of this easement is attached as Exhibit 3. This easement shall be 66 feet in width, measured 33 feet from each side of the centerline of the existing roadway. Thomas shall have the right of ingress and egress on this easement together with a right to place underground utilities within the easement. Crown Pacific or its successors shall have the right to re -locate this easement, at their expense, provided that the new location provides equivalent access, including dedication consideration, to the Property. Pursuant to Section 5 of this Agreement, Crown Pacific covenants that it shall, on the demand of Thomas use reasonable efforts to dedicate fee title underlying this easement to Deschutes County (or other governmental body) as a public roadway. This easement shall be appurtenant to the Property and shall serve the future partition, subdivision or development of the Property. 1.2 Crown Pacific grants Thomas an access easement running in a northerly direction off of the Bull Springs Road in Section 22 along the boundary of neighboring property owner Jim Bussard to its intersection with the property boundary in Section 15. A more precise description of the location of this easement is attached as Exhibit 4. This easement shall be 30 feet in width, measured 15 feet from each side of the centerline of the existing roadway. This access easement shall be appurtenant to the Property and shall serve the future partition, subdivision or development of the Property. 2. Access and Utility Easements Retained by Crown Pacific. Thomas hereby grants to Crown Pacific and Crown Pacific hereby retains and reserves the following assignable and transferable access and utility easements from its conveyance of the Property to Thomas. The easements identified below shall benefit Crown Pacific and its successors and assigns, and shall be binding on Thomas, their heirs, successors and assigns. The easements created in this Section 2 are appurtenant to the Property, the Bull Springs Block and any land now owned or hereafter acquired by Crown Pacific in Deschutes County, Oregon. 2.1 Thomas grants to Crown Pacific a 66 -foot wide roadway and utility easement along the route of the Sisters Mainline Road as it crosses Sections 22, 21 and 16 of the Property. The easement shall serve the commercial logging, timber harvest, timber management and related operations of Crown Pacific, including any future partition or subdivision of lands now or hereafter owned or controlled by Crown Pacific. This easement shall be measured 33 - feet on each side of the centerline of the existing roadway. A more precise description of the easement to be reserved by Crown Pacific is attached hereto as Exhibit 5. Pursuant to Section 5 of this Agreement, Thomas covenants that it shall, on the demand of Crown Pacific, use reasonable efforts to dedicate fee title underlying this easement to the County (or other governmental body) as a public roadway. 2.2 Thomas grants to Crown Pacific a 66 -foot wide roadway and utility easement in Sections 22 and 21 of the property. The easement shall serve the commercial logging, timber harvest, timber management and related operations of Crown Pacific, including any future partition or subdivision of lands now or hereafter owned or controlled by Crown Pacific. This easement shall be measured 33 -feet on each side of the centerline of the existing 9258337 vt - RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREEME EXHIBIT B Page 4 of 31 roadway. A precise description of the easement to be reserved by Crown Pacific is attached hereto as Exhibit 6. Pursuant to Section 5 of this Agreement, Thomas covenants that it shall, on the demand of Crown Pacific, use reasonable efforts to dedicate fee title underlying this easement to the County (or other governmental body) as a public roadway 2.3 Thomas grants to Crown Pacific a 66 -foot wide roadway and utility easement in the west half of Section 16 of the Property. The easement shall serve the commercial logging, timber harvest, timber management and related operations of Crown Pacific, including any future partition or subdivision of lands now or hereafter owned or controlled by Crown Pacific. This easement shall be measured 33 -feet on each side of the centerline of the existing roadway. A precise description of the easement to be reserved by Crown Pacific is attached hereto as Exhibit 7. Pursuant to Section 5 of this Agreement, Thomas covenants that it shall, on the demand of Crown Pacific, use reasonable efforts to dedicate fee title underlying this easement to the County (or other governmental body) as a public roadway 2.4 Thomas grants to Crown Pacific a 66 -foot wide roadway and utility easement in the northwest corner of Section 16 of the Property. The easement shall serve the commercial logging, timber harvest, timber management and related operations of Crown Pacific, including any future partition or subdivision of lands now or hereafter owned or controlled by Crown Pacific. This easement shall be measured 33 -feet on each side of the centerline of the existing roadway. A precise description of the easement to be reserved by Crown Pacific is attached hereto as Exhibit 8. Pursuant to Section 5 of this Agreement, Thomas covenants that it shall, on the demand of Crown Pacific, use reasonable efforts to dedicate fee title underlying this easement to the County (or other governmental body) as a public roadway 2.5 Thomas grants to Crown Pacific a 66 -foot wide roadway and utility easement that shall begin at the Property's southeast property line in Section 15 and runs roughly along the Property boundary in the location depicted in the attached Exhibit 9. The parties anticipate that Crown Pacific will assign the rights to utilize this easement to neighboring property owners in exchange for their relinquishment of existing access rights across the Property. This easement shall be -sufficient to allow the future partition, subdivision or development of surrounding properties. This easement shall be measured 33 -feet on each side of the centerline of the existing roadway to the extent it has been constructed. A precise description of the easement to be reserved by Crown Pacific is attached hereto as Exhibit 9. 3. Use by Permitees. The parties to this agreement may allow their invitees, agents, contractors, subcontractors, and licensees and purchasers of timber to utilize the access easements created by this Agreement (hereafter "Permitted Users"). 4. Compliance with Laws. In connection with use of the easements identified in this agreement, the parties agree that they shall, at all times, and shall cause all Permitted Users at all times to, comply with all applicable laws, statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, and other governmental requirements. 5. Public Dedication. The parties to this Agreement create the following covenants that shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties, their respective heirs, successors and assigns 3 #258337 vl - RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREEMI EXHIBIT B Page 5 of 31 �r -aq�q �y and shall run with the land for a perpetual duration. All costs associated with the public dedications described below shall be borne by the party seeking to dedicate the roadway. The covenants described below are appurtenant to the Property, the Bull Springs Block and any property now owned or hereafter acquired by Thomas or Crown Pacific in Deschutes County, Oregon. 5.1 On the written request of Thomas, Crown Pacific shall use reasonable efforts to promptly dedicate fee title (or such rights, title and interests held by Crown Pacific) to the real property burdened by the easement identified in Section 1.1 above (and described in Exhibit 3) as a public roadway to Deschutes County (or such other governmental body designated by Thomas). Crown Pacific acknowledges and agrees that any breach of this covenant will cause irreparable injury to Thomas for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Accordingly, Crown Pacific expressly agrees that, in the event of any breach, Thomas shall be entitled, in addition to any and all other available remedies, to seek and obtain injunctive and/or equitable relief to require specific performance of this covenant. The parties further agree to use their reasonable efforts to do, or cause to be done, all things necessary, proper or advisable under the applicable laws and regulations to consummate the public dedication of the roadways contemplated in this covenant as expeditiously as possible, including, without limitation, the performance of such further acts or the execution and delivery of any additional instruments or documents as any party may reasonably request in order to carry out the purposes of this covenant and the dedication of the public roadway contemplated herein. 5.2 On the written request of Crown Pacific, Thomas shall use reasonable efforts to promptly dedicate fee title (or such rights, title and interests held by Thomas) to the real property burdened by the easements identified in Section 2 above (and described in Exhibits 5, 6, 7 and 8) as a public roadway to Deschutes County (or such other governmental body designated by Crown Pacific). Thomas acknowledges and agrees that any breach of this covenant will cause irreparable injury to the Crown Pacific for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Accordingly, Thomas expressly agrees that, in the event of any breach, Crown Pacific shall be entitled, in addition to any and all other available remedies, to seek and obtain injunctive and/or equitable relief to require specific performance of this covenant. The parties further agree to use their reasonable efforts to do, or cause to be done, all things necessary, proper or advisable under the applicable laws and regulations to consummate the public dedication of the roadways contemplated in this covenant as expeditiously as possible, including, without limitation, the performance of such further acts or the execution and delivery of any additional instruments or documents as any party may reasonably request in order to carry out the purposes of this covenant and the dedication of the public roadway contemplated herein. 6. Allocation of Maintenance and Repair Costs. 6.1 Subject to the provisions of this Section 6, the costs of maintaining and repairing the easements created by this Reciprocal Easement Agreement shall be allocated between Crown Pacific and Thomas based upon the respective use of such easements by Crown Pacific and its agents, contractors, subcontractors, and licensees (the "Crown Pacific Users"), on 4 #258337 v -RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREFN EXHIBIT B Page 6 of 31 the one hand, and Thomas and its Permitted Users, on the other hand. Unless otherwise agreed from time to time by the parties, Crown Pacific shall generally be responsible for undertaking such maintenance and repair, subject to Thomas's obligation hereunder to reimburse Crown Pacific for its share of the costs thereof; provided that at any time when an easement is being used exclusively by Thomas or one or more of its Permitted Users, Thomas shall be responsible for undertaking the maintenance and repair of such road. Each party agrees to maintain records showing its use of roads within the Reciprocal Easement Agreement in reasonable detail, and to make such records available to the other party upon request. 6.2 In the event that any road within the Reciprocal Easement Agreement is damaged as a result of use in excess of normal and prudent usage for ingress and egress, timber harvest, management, and related activities, the party responsible for such damage shall be responsible for the repair of such damage and the payment of all costs associated with such repair. 6.3 Any amount owing from one party to the other pursuant to this Section 6 shall be paid within five business days after written demand accompanied by reasonable supporting documentation for the costs incurred. Any such amount not paid when due shall bear interest from the due date until paid in full at the rate of 12% per annum (such interest being in addition to any interest owing pursuant to Section 4.2). 7. Indemnification. 7.1 Crown Pacific hereby indemnifies, protects, defends and saves Thomas harmless from any and all liability, damage, expense, causes of action, suits, claims, or judgments arising from personal injury, death, or property damage and occurring on or from the use of the easements created in Section 2 of this Agreement by Crown Pacific or its Permitted Users, except if caused by the act or neglect of Thomas, or its agents, employees or contractors. 7.2 Thomas hereby indemnifies, protects, defends and saves Crown Pacific harmless from any and all liability, damage, expense, causes of action, suits, claims, or judgments arising from personal injury, death, or property damage and occurring on or from the use of the easements created in Section 1 of this Agreement by Thomas or its Permitted Users, except if caused by the act or neglect of Crown Pacific, or its agents, employees or contractors. 8. Miscellaneous Provisions. 8.1 Binding Effect. The provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective successors and assigns with respect to the Property and, in the Case of Crown Pacific, the Bull Springs Block and any other property now owned or hereafter acquired in Deschutes County, Oregon.. 8.2 Authority to Enter Agreement. Each party to this Agreement warrants that it is the owner of the real property described herein and is authorized to enter into this Agreement encumbering the real property as set forth herein. #258337 vI - RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREEN EXHIBIT B Page 7 of 31 C9001 ' A*179 • b 8.3 Notices. All notices under this Agreement shall be in writing. Notices may be (i) delivered personally, (ii) transmitted by facsimile, (iii) delivered by a recognized national overnight delivery service, or (iv) mailed by certified United States mail, postage prepaid and return receipt requested. Notices to any party shall be directed to the address set forth below, or to such other or additional address as any party may specify by notice to the other Ply If to Thomas: Matthew J. Thomas and Rachel Thomas PO Box 5519 Bend, OR 97708 Facsimile No: (541) 389-7077 If to Crown Pacific: Crown Pacific Limited Partnership 121 S.W. Morrison Street, Suite 1500 Portland, Oregon 97204 Facsimile No: (503) 228-4875 Attn: Roger L. Krage 8.4 Waiver. Any party's failure to exercise any right or remedy under this Agreement, delay in exercising any such right or remedy, or partial exercise of any such right or remedy, shall not constitute a waiver of that or any other right or remedy hereunder. A waiver of any breach of any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any succeeding breach of such provision or a waiver of such provision itself. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be binding on a party unless it is set forth in writing and signed by such party. 8.5 Amendment. This Agreement may not be modified or amended except by the written agreement of the parties. 8.6 Attorneys' Fees. If a suit, action, or other proceeding of any nature whatsoever (including any proceeding under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code) is instituted in connection with this Agreement, or to interpret or enforce any rights or remedies hereunder or thereunder, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its attorneys' fees and all other fees, costs, and expenses actually incurred and reasonably necessary in connection therewith, as 6 #258337 v - RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREB EXHIBIT B Page 8 of 31 determined by the court at trial or on any appeal or review, in addition to all other amounts provided by law. 8.7 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, then (i) such provision shall be enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, and (ii) the validity and enforceability of the other provisions of this Agreement shall not be affected and all such provisions shall remain in full force and effect. 8.8 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon (without regard to the principles thereof relating to conflicts of laws). 8.9 Construction and Interpretation. The headings or titles of the sections of this Agreement are intended for ease of reference only and shall have no effect whatsoever on the construction or interpretation of any provision of this Agreement; references herein to sections are to sections of this Agreement unless otherwise specified. Meanings of defined terms used in this Agreement are equally applicable to singular and plural forms of the defined terms. As used herein, (i) the term "party" refers to a party to this Agreement, unless otherwise specified, (ii) the terms "hereof," "herein," "hereunder," and similar terms refer to this Agreement as a whole and not to any particular provision of this Agreement, and (iii) the term "including" is not limiting and means "including without limitation." In the event any period of time specified in this Agreement ends on a day other than a business day, such period shall be extended to the next following business day. All provisions of this Agreement have been negotiated at arm's length and this Agreement shall not be construed for or against any party by reason of the authorship or alleged authorship of any provision hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first set forth above. Crown Pacific: CROWN PACIFIC LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Delaware limited partnership, By: Crown Pacific Management Limited Partnership, ' General Partner. By: Roger L. krag4-S60bVice President Thomas: By: Matthew J. Thomas #258337 A - RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREEN EXHIBIT B Page 9 of 31 'determined by the court at trial or on any appeal or review, in addition to all other amounts provided by law. 8.7 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, then (i) such provision shall be enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, and (ii) the validity and enforceability of the other provisions of this Agreement shall not be affected and all such provisions shall remain in full force and effect. 8.8 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon (without regard to the principles thereof relating to conflicts of laws). 8.9 Construction and Interpretation. The headings or titles of the sections of this Agreement are intended for ease of reference only and shall have no effect whatsoever on the construction or interpretation of any provision of this Agreement; references herein to sections are to sections of this Agreement unless otherwise specified. Meanings of defined terms used in this Agreement are equally applicable to singular and plural forms of the defined terms. As used herein, (i) the term "party" refers to a party to this Agreement, unless otherwise specified, (ii) the terms "hereof," "herein," "hereunder," and similar terms refer to this Agreement as a whole and not to any particular provision of this Agreement, and (iii) the term "including" is not limiting and means "including without limitation." In the event any period of time specified in this Agreement ends on a day other than a business day, such period shall be extended to the next following business day. All provisions of this Agreement have been negotiated at arm's length and this Agreement shall not be construed for or against any party by reason of the authorship or alleged authorship of any provision hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first set forth above. Crown Pacific: CROWN PACIFIC LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Delaware limited partnership, By: Crown Pacific Management Limited Partnership, its General Partner. By: _ Roger L. Krage, Senior Vice President Thomas: By: Matthew J. s #258337 vl - RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREE' EXHIBIT B Page 10 of 31 By: LfCac&el Thomas STATE OF OREGON ) ss. County of _ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2001, by Roger L. Krage, as Senior Vice President of Crown Pacific Management Limited Partnership, General Partner of Crown Pacific Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership. Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: STATE OF OREGON ) ) ss. County of tis ) T1je foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on �� , 2001, by Matthew Thomas. OFFICIAL SEAL KARIANDERSON NOTARY PUBLIC -OREGON COMMISSION NO.335661 Notary Public for Oregon MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY 11, 2004 My Commission Expires: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on 2001, by Rachel Thomas. =PUEBUC-OREGON AL SON OREGON. 335661MY COMLY 11, 2004 cam---� Notary Public for Oregon t _O My Commission Expires: #256337 v I - RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREEN EXHIBIT B Page 11 of 31 avol-A7990 STATE OF OREGON ss. County ofA&AA-AZA The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on o�ij� pQ , 2001, by Roger L. Krage, as Senior Vice President of Crown Pacific Management Limited Partnership, General Partner of Crown Pacific Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership. OFFICIAL SEAL KAKI L SKYLES NOTARY PUBLIC -OREGON COMMISSION NO. 311884 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES APR. 22, 2002 STATE OF OREGON County of ) ss. Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expiresi The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on 2001, by Matthew Thomas. Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2001, by Rachel Thomas. Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: #258337 vi - RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREE EXHIBIT B Page 12 of 31 Jun is 01 11:04a _'Hickman, Williams & Assoc ADJUSTED TAX LOT 4300 541-388-5416 p.7 omII �1$9•lt EXHIBIT'- Section 21, Township 17 South, Range 11 East, Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon. EXCEPTING THEREFROM: The South One -Half of the North One -Half (S1/2 N1/2) and the South One -Half (S1/2) of Section 21, Township 17 South, Range 11 East, Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, TOGETHER WITH: That portion of Parcel 2, Partition Plat 1999-54, located in Township 17 South, Range 11 East, Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon being more particularly described as follows: Section 15: The Northwest One -Quarter (NWl/4), the Northwest One -Quarter of the Southeast One -Quarter (NW1/4 SEI/4), the North One -Half of the Southwest One -Quarter (N1/2 SWI/4), the West One -Half of the Southwest One -Quarter of the Southwest One - Quarter (WI/2 S W 1 /4 SWI /4). Section 16: All Section 22: The West One -Half of the Northwest One -Quarter of the Northwest One - Quarter (W 1 /2 NW 1 A NW 1/4). Subject to: All easements, restrictions and rights-of-way of record and those curnmon and apparent on the land. REGISTERI=D PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR OREGON JULY 19. 1994 [ DAVID R. WILUAMS 2s86 EXPIRES: JUNE 30, 2002 SALand Projects10104081docsWD1USTED TAX LOT 4300.doc EXHIBIT B Page 13 of 31 a01. a `7%q - I % EXHIBIT Z DeaChUtea County Deschute 16S JOE 7 S1/2N1/2 L S1/2 Lot 1, Lota 2-4, S1/2N1/2NE1/4NW1/4, S1/2NE3./4NW1/4, Deschute 16S JOE SEI/4NW1/4, S1/2N1/2N1/2NE1/4, Sl/2N1/2NE1/4, Sl/2NE1/4, Deschute 16S JOE E1/2SW1/4, SEI/4 Deschute 165 10E 8 E1/2, SWI/4 i SE1/2NW1/4 Lot 3, Lot, 4, SW1/2NW1/4NW1/4SE1/4, Deschute 26S JOE S1/2NW1/4SE1/4, SWI/4SE1/4, S1/2N1/2N1/2NW1/4, S1/2N1/2NW1/4. Deschute 16S 10E Sl/2NW1/4, SWI/4 Deschute 16S JOE 15 SWI/4 Deschute 16S 10E 16 Lots 3-4, W1/2SE1/4, SWI/4 Deschute 16S JOE 17 Lots 1-2, Wl/2NE1/4, NW1/4 Deschute 16S 10E 17 Lots 3-4, Wl/2SE1/4, SWI/4 Deschute 16S 10E is Lots 1-2, El/2NW1/4, NE1/4 Deschute 16S 10E 18 Lots 3-4, El/2SW1/4, SE1/4 Deschute 16S 10E 19 Lots 1-4, E1/2W1/2. El/2 Deschute 16S JOE 20 Lots 1-4, W1/2E1/2, W1/2 Deschute 16S 10E 21 All Deschute 16S JOE 22 NW1/4, S1/2 Deschute 16S l0E 26 NWI/4, S1/2 Deachute 16S 10E 27 All Deschute 16S JOE 28 All Deschute 16S LOE 29 Lots 1-4, W1/2E1/2, W1/2 Deschute L6S 10E 30 Lots 1-4, EI/2W1/2, E1/2 Deschute 16S JOE 31 Lots 1-4, E1/2W1/2, E1/2 Deschute 16S l0E 32 All Deschute 16S JOE 33 All Deschute 16S 30E 34 All Deschute 16S l0E 35 All Deschute 16S 10E 36 All Deschute ISS t0E 1 Lots 1.4, Sl/2N1/2, S1/2 EXHIBIT B Page 14 of 31 1/17./00 17S 11E 6 Lot 7, SE1/4SW1/4, S1/2SE1/4 Deschut 17S 11E 7 Lots 1-4, E1/2W1/2, E1/2 Deschut 17S 11E B All Deschut :7S, l0E 2 hots 1-4, S1/2N1/2, S1/2 Deschut 175 10C 3 lots 1-4, S1/2N1/2, S1/2 ticschut 17S l0E 4 lots 1-4, S1/2N1/2, S1/2 Deschut 17S l0E 5 Lots 1-4, S1/2N1/2, S1/2 Deschut 17S l0E 6 lots 1-7, S1/2NE1/4, SE1/4NW1/4, E1/2SW1/4, SE1/4 Deschut 17S 10E 8 N1/2 Deschut 17S 11E Deschut 17S l0E 9 N1/2, SEI/4 W1/2NW1/4NW1/4, kWl/4SW1/4NW1/4,/S1/2S1/2NW1/4, SWI/4, W1/2W1/2SE1/4, Deschut 17S l0E 30 All Deschut 17S 11E Deschut 17S l0E 11 All South 66' of SE14NW1/4 West of Johnson Road Deschut Deschut 17S 10E 12 All Deschut 17S l0E 13 All All Deschut 17S Deschut 17S 10E 14 All 11E 30 Lots 1-4, E1/2W1/2, E1/2 Deschut 17S 10E 15 All Deschut 17S 11E Deschut 17S l0E 16 E1/2 33 N1/2NW1/4, SWI/4NW1/4, NW1/4SW1/4 Deschut 17S l0E 22 All Deschut 17S l0E 23 All Deschut 17S l0E 24 All Deschut 17S 10E 25 All Deschut 17S l0E 26 All Deschut 17S l0E 27 E1/2 Deschut 17S l0E 35 All Deschut 17S l0E 36 All a�►•�q��•13 Deschut 17S 11E 6 Lot 7, SE1/4SW1/4, S1/2SE1/4 Deschut 17S 11E 7 Lots 1-4, E1/2W1/2, E1/2 Deschut 17S 11E B All Deschut 17S 11E 9 All Deschut 17S 11E 15 NW1/4, N1/2SW1/4, NW1i4SE1/4, W1/2SW1/4SW1/4 Deschut 17S 11E 16 All Deschut 17S 11E 17 All Deschut 17S 11E --U'- Lots 1 i 2, El/2NW1/4, NEI/4 Deschut 17S 11E 18 Lots 3-4, El/2SW1/4, SEI/4 Deschut 17S 11E 19 Lots 1-4, E1/2W1/2, E1/2 Deschut 17S 11E 20 All Deschut 17S 11E 21 All Deschut 17S 11E 22 Portion SWI/4SE1/4NEI/4 south of logging/mining road, S1/2SW1/4NE1/4, W1/2NW1/4NW1/4, kWl/4SW1/4NW1/4,/S1/2S1/2NW1/4, SWI/4, W1/2W1/2SE1/4, W1/2E1/2W1/2SE1/4, El/2NE1/4NW1/4SE1/4, N1/2NE1/4SE1/4 . Deschut 17S 11E 23 Portion Nl/2N1/2SW1/4 West of Shevlin Park and Johnson Road and South 66' of SE14NW1/4 West of Johnson Road Deschut 17S 11E 27 WI/2Wl/2NEl/4, W1/2E1/2W1/2NE1/4, W1/2, W1/2W1/2NW1/4SEl/4, W1/2E1/2W1/2NW1/4SE1/4, Portion SWI/4SE1/4 northwest of Park Deschut 17S 13E 28 All Deschut 17S 11E 29 All Deschut 17S 11E 30 Lots 1-4, E1/2W1/2, E1/2 Deschut 17S 11E 31 Lots 1-4, E1/2W1/2, El/2 Deschut 17S 11E 32 N1/2, N1/2S1/2 Deschut 17S 11E 33 N1/2NW1/4, SWI/4NW1/4, NW1/4SW1/4 343.56 ' 23.61 421.96 -" EXHIBIT B Page 15 of 31 EXHIBIT 3 ROAD DESCRIPTION A strip of land, 66.00 feet in width, following the centerline of an existing roadway, located in the West One -Half (W1/2) of Section 23, the North One -Half of the South One -Half (N1/2 S1/2) and the South One -Half of the North One -Half (Sl/2 N1/2) of Section 22, all in Township 17 South, Range 11 East, Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon more particularly described as lying 33.00 feet each side of the following described centerline: Beginning at a point on the centerline of Johnson Road which bears North 880 21' 30" East a distance of 1561.53 feet from the One -Quarter Corner common to said Sections 22 and 23; thence North 70°05'26" West a distance of 26.68 feet; thence South 78050'32" West a distance of 59.71 feet; thence South 64154'33" West a distance of 65.02 feet; thence South 43027'52" West a distance of 190.85 feet; thence South 45°49'04" West a distance of 114.10 feet; thence South 73°30'03" West a distance of 121.05 feet; thence North 87°15'24" West a distance of 433.80 feet; thence North 83020'15" West a distance of 208.02 feet; thence North 86°54'17" West a distance of 215.80 feet; thence North 84151'02" West a distance of 146.12 feet; thence North 76°32'14" West a distance of 152.52 feet; thence North 67'20'14" West a distance of 166.26 feet; thence North 67137'48" West a distance of 104.78 feet; thence North 77°59'49" West a distance of 134.74 feet; thence North 83°12'03" West a distance of 122.42 feet; thence North 79°21'45" West a distance of 117.26 feet; thence North 66140'37" West a distance of 112.04 feet; thence North 61°55'03" West a distance of 197.37 feet; thence North 61°21'33" West a distance of 104.29 feet; thence North 69°4235" West a distance of 105.40 feet; thence North 80038'15" West a distance of 76.18 feet; thence North 84°29'25" West a distance of 75.45 feet; thence South 87°01'53" West a distance of 54.36 feet to the "Point of Beginning" of EXHIBIT 4, which bears North 78° 27' 31" West a distance of 1377.21 feet from said One -Quarter Corner common to said Sections 22 and 23; thence continuing South 87°01'53" West a distance of 15.22 feet; thence South 71°16'13" West a distance of 69.34 feet; thence South 68°35'34" West a distance of 180.32 feet; thence South 69°12'37" West a distance of 130.01 feet; thence South 59°25'13" West a distance of 141.68 feet; thence South 65°5238" West a distance of 100.04 feet; thence South 7403751" West a distance of 108.66 feet; thence South 70°04'19" West a distance of 85.77 feet; thence South 63°42'50" West a distance of 234.15 feet; thence South 72°28'08" West a distance of 24.84 feet; thence South 86°47'05" West a distance of 130.70 feet; thence North 89°56'22" West a distance of 115.26 feet; thence South 86°04'58" West a distance of 234.39 feet; thence South 85019'45" West a distance of 59.98 feet; thence South 77°17'12" West a distance of 193.43 feet; thence South 79021'53" West a distance of 197.63 feet; thence South 87°48'57" West a distance of 178.57 feet; thence North 84°03'04" West a distance of 149.68 feet; thence North 49°01'01" West a distance of 222.69 feet; thence North SALand Projects\010404\DOCS\EXHIBI D.doc EXHIBIT B Page 16 of 31 55010158" West a distance of 261.39 feet; thence North 55°09'09" West a distance of 172.72 feet; thence North 52°07'38" West a distance of 114.96 feet; thence North 28°25'53" West a distance of 87.30 feet; thence North 33027146" West a distance of 291.27 feet; thence North 35°34'40" West a distance of 404.38 feet; thence 493.28 feet along the arc of a tangent curve right with a radius of 1850.00 feet, the chord of which bears North 27°56'21" West for a distance of 491.82 feet to the terminus of this centerline and the "Point of Beginning" of OCRIBIT 5, bears South 16° 26' 31" East a distance of 1371.63 feet from the Northwest Corner of said Section 22. Subject to: All easements, restrictions and rights-of-way of record and those common and apparent on the land. See drawing attached hereto and hereby incorporated by reference. REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR El OREGON JULY 19, 1994 DAVID R. WILLIAMS 2686 EXPIRES: 30 JUNE, 2002 S:\Land Projects\010404\D0CS\EXRMrr3.doc EXHIBIT B Page 17 of 31 BULL SPRINGS ROAD DESCRIP77ONSP� EXHIBIT DRA WING LOCATED IN: SECTIONS 9, 15, 16, 21, 22 do 2.3, T17S, R11E, W.M., DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON 4 e kiE � _xl��, lA s f " h r . ff t 1Lf'. �i ��\ =,+ -.7v ai. < � ii� 'F.*4`�7 i `r ia •t -;�� •� 7.a. �/ ��~ I)_� 9.;�� Aj V. �• .r Ya r ''•y� , tiny � x .�, 1� t �"3 ::�•. nr ... _��.�...:..,t."' � ."� ram :.:<.._ '.�.•riJ.k. .. .L .. 5a JGy1Ca�7� h r. h r j I rte, 06 st r + � PREPARED B Y &Fm :� SUR & P ANNERSNEERS HICKMAN, WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES, INC 805 SW INDUSTRIAL WAY, SUITE 10. BEND. OR 97707-109J PHONE (541) 389-9351 FAX (541) J88-5416 :1. 15.1 A. t 4.+ ! ,}';p, T. Ju.,. r .<�: Irl . �,;�,.v.I^•_ . ' : aid ; t•�r q�� , �,`,1 tJz f�- s r1 LREGISTERED PROFESSIONAL AND SURV-EYQR ; OREGON JULY l9, 1994 DAVID R. WILLIAMS 2686 EXPIRES: 30 JUNE, 2002 FXHIRIT B Page 18 of 31 EXHIBIT 4 ROAD DESCRIPTION A strip of land, 30.00 feet in width, following the centerline of an existing roadway, located in a portion of the Southwest One -Quarter of the Southeast One -Quarter (SWI/4 SE 1/4) of Section 15 and the West One -Half of the Northeast One -Quarter (WI/2 NEI/4) of Section 22, all in Township 17 South, Range 11 East, Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, being more particularly described as lying 15.00 feet on each side of the following described centerline: Beginning at a point on EXHIBIT 3, which bears North 78° 27' 31" West a distance of 1377.21 feet from the East One -Quarter Comer of said Section 22; thence North 00°09'49" East a distance of 3677.76 feet to a point on the north line of said Southwest One -Quarter of the Southeast One -Quarter (SWI/4 SEI/4) of said Section 15, the terminus of this centerline, which bears North 18° 43'42" West a distance of 4174.99 feet from said East One -Quarter Corner of said Section 22. Subject to: All easements, restrictions and rights-of-way of record and those common and apparent on the land. See drawing attached hereto and hereby incorporated by reference. S:\Land Projects\010404\DOCS\EXHIBIT4.doc REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR OREGON JULY 19, 1994 DAVID R. WILLIAMS 2686 EXPIRES: 30 JUNE, 2002 EXHIBIT B Page 19 of 31 ------------ BULL SPRINGS ROAD DESDRIP77ONe" """ • EXHIBIT DRA WING LOCA TED IN. SECTIONS 9, 15, 16, 21, 22 & 23, T17S, R 11 E, W.M., DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON '� P i '^ ' � � '�(' � 1:' 1 ~f1 �• + t l '� ./1 T♦-� �+ ._ tr I r , \tea ar i � � sa 1 � 4 t s,t,.,;• j )�.: ; 'mm's.•. � �f �F� a � � s ;• � � � , 4 f •'� � . �� . r n -T. �� ? l�., � 1 ' �S FFG, , ,� s ' s �•� ' JJ .. v' � r _ %4�L�•.�, r it {,,. 1 i � ye•x`e t,t. 5� ( �!"iW,/�pi ,1 s . ,� ' ,r t ,r�+4'S .+�'� •, "stt�i to ; �+. �1� � � } ` � '� J � ♦ A j i I�i . ,,��tt r � 5s � r �� } � r. �. 'St.y♦.y1��� � !- ..►+i•� _ �N >+.' / trt . .[,. +;., •2R v `arz ' �.. �i ?-� Wry' } J • i `" kK ' �.! 4t iY} •, t '� k1� , �,r.i1 �: �' �sY y j i i` • p =. �} 1 � c rFys�� i �t r, ♦{ , <�`�o _.� t' zs+ t� �� , L :%y^' F�.t',� � , ' r{ *y � ii'i }.torr , j r' 1:: r- �',,, .t t t4 r 4 •-�, t. r•;ts"iF rki �,,y xe 'r,t jr "i+.J. 71 .`s�t``,',F'�. °tr ,'jai 4�♦'ii y .:+1 �r, 'OD' .yA':1., •e C: rN. c •r y"" fi ..4 4 `t ' � t �'. .'iE~i"w:7.'! iW.,.�..�i./ Y - aw.+c. , l .01 • + � f ♦, t�r +.. •'1Y� xt a.r. '7i� � �. rI �� ,fit �ir �' � .1,. �41. �• i4. Y�J1' a4�. � � t; Y3"fy.r t � g!•.y�( l7Ae 4 .� +F� '5ci . it b'.♦ry 1'R L• d t .� � 1 rte•. � , t7. ... a .3 'itedtt . IVY �~'; y. 1 . v �, ♦ x `S 4 '',,`t♦`` �. .• tit jy �", '"''' �' l Uf t l ..!ci•r� �.r r.�`�r�' lY��l'ttia:kt�r ,.. ,i .�-'�s C" � ry� � f i K f `• •� , • � N ' . � Fred `�' • • � /. I ,i. ��K' ft d ril �+�_L•'♦ It ! � ,t• fit' 'r ty, '•• �, file � 'Sr. �,L�y-S +�- ' r� $�' 1�!'..��1: Y.'' ti'/ j.:. t Ott♦iCs. r �s rr ��' _. �.: •� :�•� Yom.` • , ,.�, _ _. _ .� . :a• .: ..� PREPA REED B .Y NIW,60%k SURVEYORS, ENGINEERS do PLANNERS HICKMAN, WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES, INC 805 SW INDUVRIAL WAY, SUIT 10, BEND, OR 97702-1093 PHONE (541) J89 -9J51 FAX (541) 388-5416 � F• a. F,,..iw M�k? «• .t Y �i �r yf v(, v y �•.-.a 4 sib^ z j 1 F.. °.: REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL -LAND SUR�YOR OREGON JULY 19, 1994 DAVID R. WILLIAMS 2686 EXPIRES: 30 JUNE, 2002 EXHIBIT B Page 20 of 31 EXHIBIT 5 ROAD DESCRIPTION A strip of land, 66.00 feet in width, following the centerline of the Sisters Mainline Road, located in a portion of the West One -Half of the Northwest One -Quarter of the Northwest One -Quarter (WI/2 NW1/4 NWl/4) of Section 22, the Northeast One -Quarter of the Northeast One -Quarter (NE1/4 NEI/4) of Section 21, the South One -Half (S1/2) and the West One-half of the Northwest One-Quarter(W 1 /2 N W I /4) of Section 16 and the Southwest One -Quarter of the Southwest One -Quarter (SWI/4 SWI/4) of Section 9, all in Township 17 South, Range 11 East, Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, being more particularly described as lying 33.00 feet on each side of the following described centerline: Beginning at the terminus of EXHIBIT 3, on the intersection of the centerline of the Sisters Mainline Road and the south line of said Northwest One -Quarter of the Northwest One -Quarter of said Section 22, which bears South 16° 26' 31" East a distance of 1371.63 feet from the Northwest Comer of said Section 22; thence 119.95 feet along a curve to the right with a radius of 1850.00 feet, the chord of which bears North 18°26'35" West a distance of 119.93 feet; thence North 16°35'08" West a distance of 552.98 feet to the "Point of Beginning" of EXHIBIT 6, which bears South 15° 59' 05" East a distance of 698.81 feet; thence continuing North 16°35'08" West a distance of 257.08 feet; thence 400.98 feet along the arc of a tangent curve to the left with a radius of 450.00 feet, the chord of which bears North 42°06'47" West for a distance of 387.85 feet; thence North 67038'25" West a distance of 1716.45 feet; thence 373.45 feet along the arc of a tangent curve to the right with a radius of 1200.00 feet, the chord of which bears North 58°43'29" West for a distance of 371.95 feet; thence North 49°48'34" West a distance of 529.92 feet; thence 1017.51 feet along the arc of a tangent curve to the left with a radius of 1000.00 feet, the chord of which bears North 78°57'32" West for a distance of 974.18 feet; thence South 71153'30" West a distance of 650.77 feet; thence 451.13 feet along the arc of a tangent curve to the right with a radius of 250.00 feet, the chord of which bears North 56°24'47" West for a distance of 392.36 feet; thence North 04°43'05" West a distance of 1332.46 feet to the "Point of Beginning" of EXHIBIT 7, which bears South 170 30' 30" East a distance of 2852.84 feet from the Westerly Corner common to said Sections 9 and 16; thence continuing North 04°43'05" West a distance of 2180.47 feet; SA and Projects\010404\DOCS\EXHIBITS .doc EXHIBIT B Page 21 of 31 ;�00I • Aq'779 -a 0 thence 479.28 feet along the are of a tangent curve to the right with a radius of 1451.31 feet, the chord of which bears North 04°4434" East for a distance of 477.11 feet; thence North 14012'13" East a distance of 626.15 feet to the terminus of this centerline and the "Point of Beginning" of EXHIBIT 8, which bears North 58° 28' 30" East a distance of 1022.96 feet from the most Westerly Corner common to said Sections 9 and 16,. Subject to: All easements, restrictions and rights-of-way of record and those common and apparent on the land. See drawing attached hereto and hereby incorporated by reference. REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL AND SURVEYOR f ..tir OR GON JULY 19, 1994 DAVID R. WILLIAMS� 2686 EXPIRES: 30 JUNE. 2002 S:\Lend Projects\010404\DOCS\EXHIBIT5.doc EXHIBIT B Page 22 of 31 • �9�gq � 1 BULL SPRINGS ROAD DESCRIP770N aol EXHIBIT DRA WING LOCATED IN: SECTIONS 9, 15, 16, 21, 22 & 23, 777S, R11E, W.M., DESCNUMS COUNTY, OREGON �, �s i `w.:: ✓ - lti i t +tw v f � �.,I i -. � 1 "t":, '� t � -.` -� .} h �/f. .. h � ;. ,. 1f t ' 4� z Yet � '. ..L ,� 1 ... �, '�•y ., t e. j ✓ fJ � ' � :: 'ti �, • � t � rte. :\ ', � ) �.. _ ♦"'s. � . Y . u . r S i y: h' r ..r� .�; � /ti,,� : +Iy L "d � iY...'I" f 1A �I �' (t �•� � fi4. R `ty.i.��wi 0• �f d14 r '7'fh'� � 1 t- � .- ly y i �! tea•. i+i `�• :�ify �"r� 'L �� '��4 � �,✓}.. L .. �i , + •'..Yf' . `,�. T�L x,t •, * � - ail •,'t� � 1►�►�7�ft+t.. , t .. �, i�t } � r.r'. c. , ` r 3 1� II .:7t •' f � �{r .y. + i - � ; �{,�/i' . f �� i ,} 74 1 ,?� t' }� %h,...r+ .+ ,it�t- •' t `��yr `if Pri- .! f o ••ems i� • f L `� HIT M M01. tE�NDp� ��~"' ' •' � f C r' DWIHI.T.'•�� ly +� "�� + . � M1nY ^ t�,ylkt•'i� Ii! / ear ' � y-`�!• �`, �•. F � ! •� f'• .<f t.� � J.�Y •j aJ • . f -0 i.. �+. A fi V 1 N,t~L y�r •��, t •U '' f�✓ r � PREPARED B Y NN-Ak SUR & PLANNERSNEERS HICKMAN, WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES, INC 805 SW INOUSTRIAL WAY. SUITE 10. 6EN0, OR 97702-109J PHONE (541) J89-9351 FAX (541) J88-5416 RVtM � -•z' «,..t-' �.f..: r rte• ��'f. `I., •t `r t SS�.•7^ is�. �-i REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURYPOR a 1 OREGON JULY 19, 1994 DAVID R. WILLIAMS 2686 EXPIRES: 30 JUNE, 2002 EXHIBIT Page 23 of 31 Saar. aq�$q •ate EXHIBIT 6 ROAD DESCRIPTION A strip of land, 66.00 feet in width, following the centerline of an existing roadway, located in a portion of the North One -Half of the North One -Half (N1/2 N1/2) of Section 21, in Township 17 South, Range 11 East, Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, being more particularly described as lying 33.00 feet on each side of the following described centerline: Beginning at a point on the centerline of the Sisters Mainline Road which bears South 151 59' 05" East a distance of 698.81 feet from the Northeast Corner of said Section 21; thence Ieaving said Sisters Mainline Road, North- 39°18'41" West a distance of 195.46 feet; thence North 45°01'20" West a distance of 102.48 feet; thence North 53126'54" West a distance of 199.81 feet; thence North 64°48'57" West a distance of 194.54 feet; thence North 73°18'47" West a distance of 216.22 feet; thence South 84°17'38" West a distance of 156.11 feet; thence South 67°53'21" West a distance of 508.58 feet; thence South 56°31'31" West a distance of 422.11 feet; thence South 62°56'46" West a distance of 261.63 feet; thence South 51°0151" West a distance of 279.71 feet; thence South 35109'19" West a distance of 170.86 feet; thence South 24°38'25" West a distance of 273.22 feet to a point on the south line of said North One -Half of the North One -Half (N1/2 N1/2) of Section 21, which bears South 59° 09' 32" West a distance of 2549.43 feet from said Northeast Corner of said Section 21, the terminus of this description. Subject to: All easements, restrictions and rights-of-way of record and those common and apparent on the land. See drawing attached hereto and hereby incorporated by reference. SM.and Projccts\0I0404\D0CS\EXHIBiI'6.doc REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR OREGON JULY 19. 1994 DAVID R. WILLIAMS 26,86 EXPIRES: 30 JUNE, 2002 EXHIBIT B Page 24 of 31 BULL SPRINGS ROAD DESCRIPTIONe" "1 '0'3 EXHIBIT DRA WING LOCATED iN: SEC77ONS 9, 15, 16, 21, 22 do 23, T17S, R11E, W.M., DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON . f' F ... � - �►� n -r -� ,t+3 ;,.. � � w!tti: �a,' ; i �. ..t) rr , � �� `��< })ff.- . r yr \ t r�yR" K T !,� sl :�P#�J } t li ''J � !h f t� +*t y _ �i� � ny�T • r i �� !1 '7 t r A ft tJ '1 zti{ry `t 4 At+}tea 7r�tps t �s� FAR— tzy !4' � RIP N, v 11" A �- PRE'PARE'D E Y SUR � PLAN N RS NEERS N U661L HICKMAN. WILLIAMS do ASSOCIATES, INC 805 SW INDUSTRIAL WAY, SUITE 10, BEND, OR 97702-1093 PHONE (541) J89-9351 FAX (541) 368-5416 V! M ' � rf• t a, 'rVt' -tan, h > .� P' t � r i ,tri: ' �'.5 r 2• .Iq'. •fit„r. ` `t L REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL AND SURVEYOR 1 - OREGON JULY 19, 1994 DAVID R. WILLIAMS 2686 EXPIRES: 30 JUNE, 2002 FX"!PIT Page 25 of 31 s •s ' • . ,u] � •fit PRE'PARE'D E Y SUR � PLAN N RS NEERS N U661L HICKMAN. WILLIAMS do ASSOCIATES, INC 805 SW INDUSTRIAL WAY, SUITE 10, BEND, OR 97702-1093 PHONE (541) J89-9351 FAX (541) 368-5416 V! M ' � rf• t a, 'rVt' -tan, h > .� P' t � r i ,tri: ' �'.5 r 2• .Iq'. •fit„r. ` `t L REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL AND SURVEYOR 1 - OREGON JULY 19, 1994 DAVID R. WILLIAMS 2686 EXPIRES: 30 JUNE, 2002 FX"!PIT Page 25 of 31 «wI-ag9BR.aq EXHIBIT 7 ROAD DESCRIPTION A strip of land, 66.00 feet in width, following the centerline of an existing roadway, located in a portion of the West One -Half of the West One -Half (WI/2 W1/2) of Section 16, in Township 17 South, Range 11 East, Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, being more particularly described as lying 33.00 feet on each side of the following described centerline: Beginning at a point on the centerline of the Sisters Mainline Road which bears South 170 30' 30" East a distance of 2852.84 feet from the Northwest Corner of said Section 16; thence leaving said Sisters Mainline Road, South 75°01'49" West a distance of 622.60 feet; thence South 85°20'21" West a distance of 268.71 feet to a point on the west line of said Section 16, which bears South 00° 13'04" West a distance of 2903.36 feet from said Northwest Corner of said Section 16, the terminus of this centerline. Subject to: All easements, restrictions and rights-of-way of record and those common and apparent on the land. See drawing attached hereto and hereby incorporated by reference. S:11.and Projects\010404\DOCS\GXHIB1T7.doc REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR OREGON JULY 19, 19 DAVID R. WILLIAMSI 2686 EXPIRES: 30 JUNE, 2002 EXHIBIT B Page 26 of 31 BULL SPRINGS ROAD DESCRIP770N EXHIBIT DRA WING LOCATED IN: SECTIONS 9, 15, 16, 21, 22 do 23, T17S, R11E, W.M., DESCHUMS COUNTY, OREGON +t .� „�,{.:. �1�f.el , •,.gyp t +(Y '4CaT t�1 t'v Y {a d ry�t... \ 1 t `,• ' 4. '' �p 1.3.. ` �� t.. r � ..a.� � t a �� a z �k r s. T.r "'^•u-•.�+, / Y} i i + 1 . ♦ J 4 J ttJf ,,4 r ♦tel I LF4r� i' t �4 1•L x '� ��k'� y4j / F` i, 00. �e 4 .a''+#w,y� �.. � e; r�p �7 ,tri _ ,yp. t �,i„ t�'S- A• tt�j�, ,ate #` fi � � x ._f ��i'tT .,.�: � ,• ptF s �' � jy. �f0 t fij �,A; • ` ry 'Yis'4+�,� 14, y .., 4�. � ,�,"" . �� = �. iso �' ,,rt .; .:ti,• � , • Y.. Z`F •Yb y j'ff� .;�ti,...1 `-, '•r�� t' ro� { �r 3'h • 4t 4 ..4, Tv'k',• � Y rli. � /•►�•Y r [ a �' ,;M. _ .�. •K +�,'� t:j 1• l '., •� �+t ♦ Y. 14+ :.. f , ti ire St yj-1J13L•TtI '1, t•Lti.. •• T,1� • t Z. •iti t\ "W9 { . a'q`[ a � ., l::.s .tR, .� a*'��J 5`+n.. .'k � }+yr �'�•p7 . ` > •z r` t �•✓ • ' �.i I va i rrt : - .L 1 f �{ rF';Z. •`�''-ry y; �; i _�r ;�: �'�trwy<^k � .X'.iti�'l... ,!`L.� �_ rt4W � .•5, - 'l±?w. k4[ �\ "'�'� F �,5 � ! � ♦� F �t 'i �'t''A ft 'rr!V�r `t <,•} -' , A + ,� i t i ,t �' of : u q, ` .k -; tli.- r ` C ,_ .. � . REGISTERED PRE'PARE'D EY PROFESSIONAL LAND SUR Y 0 R 4q 7 N UK SURVEYORS, ENGINEERS & PLANNERS OREGON JULY 19, 1994 [DAVID R. WILLIAMS HICKMAN, WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES, INC 2686 805 SW /NOUSMIAL WAY, SUITE 10, BEND. OR 97702-109J EXPIRES: 30 JUNE, 2002 PHONE (541) 389-9351 FAX (541) J88-5.116 FXNIRIT B Page 27 of 31 Gaol -A 01%9 . Ab EXHIBIT 8 ROAD DESCRIPTION A strip of land, 66.00 feet in width, following the centerline of an existing roadway, located in a portion of the Southwest One -Quarter of the Southwest One -Quarter (SWI/4 SWI/4) of Section 9 and the Northwest One -Quarter of the Northwest One -Quarter (NW 1 /4 NW 1/4) Section 16, all in Township 17 South, Range 11 East, Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, being more particularly described as lying 33.00 feet on each side of the following described centerline: Beginning at a point on the centerline of the Sisters Mainline Road which bears North 580 28' 30" East a distance of 1022.98 feet from the most westerly corner common to said Sections 9 and 16; thence leaving Sisters Mainline Road, North 79°13'50" West a distance of 149.94 feet; thence 135.38 feet along the arc of a tangent curve to the right with a radius of 750.00 feet, the chord of which bears North 74°03'34" West for a distance of 135.19 feet; thence North 68°53'18" West a distance of 48.84 feet; thence 227.17 feet along the arc of a tangent curve to the left with a radius of 150.00 feet, the chord of which bears South 67°43'32" West for a distance of 206.07 feet; thence South 24°20'22" West a distance of 82.39 feet; thence 214.10 feet along the arc of a tangent curve to the left with a radius of 1142.44 feet, the chord of which bears South 18158'15" West for a distance of 213.78 feet; thence South 13°36'08" West a distance of 215.57 feet; thence 311.06 feet along the arc of a tangent curve to the right with a radius of 296.87 feet, the chord of which bears South 43°37'10" West for a distance of 297.03 feet to a point on the west line of said Section 16, which bears South 000 13' 04" West a distance of 102.27 feet from said Northwest Comer of said Section 16, the terminus of this centerline. Subject to: All easements, restrictions and rights-of-way of record and those common and apparent on the land. See drawing attached hereto and hereby incorporated by reference. PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR SALand Projects\010404\DOCS\EXMBIT8.doc OREGON JULY 19, 1994 FAVID R. WILUAMS 1^nr &-XP qES: ,LUNE 3C e/-/ EXHIBIT B Page 28 of 31 BULL SPRINGS ROAD DESCRIP`770N15�� EXHIBIT DRA WING L OCA 7ED A- SEC 77ONS 9, 15, 16, 21, 22 & 23, T17S, R11E, WA4., DESCHUMS COUNTY, OREGON lef ata0711'.� lv I Z!. PREPARED -H Y Nu& MW 69 M & SURVEPLANNERS RS, ENCINEERS . HICKMAN, WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES, INC 805 SW INDUSTRIAL WAY, SUITE 10. BEND, OR 97702-109J PHONE (541) J89 -9J51 FAX (541) J88-5416 REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL [----,LAND SURV-7YOR OREGON II JULY19, 1994 DAVID R. WILLIAMS 2686 EXPIRES; 30 JUNE, 2002 EXHIBIT Page 29 of 31 EXHIBIT 9 ROAD EASEMENT DESCRIPTION HE -G FERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR � 1 OREGON JULY 19, 1994 DAVID R. WILLIAMS 13M -i EXPIRES: JUNE 30,200;1 A strip of land, 30.00 in width, following the centerline of an existing roadway, located in 6� Y---/ the West One -Half of the Southeast One -Quarter (WI/2 SEI/4) of Section 15 and the East One-half of the West One -Half (E1/2 W1/2) of Section 15, all in Township 17 South, Range 11 East, Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon more particularly described as lying 15.00 feet each side of the following described centerline: Beginning at a point which bears North 18° 43'42" West a distance of 4174.99 feet from the One Quarter Corner common to Section 22 and 23, said Township and Range; thence North 00009149" East a distance of 911.25 feet; thence 532.63 feet along the arc of a tangent curve to the left with a radius of 330.00 feet, the chord of which bears North 46104'29" West for a distance of 476.67 feet; thence South 87'41'13" West a distance of 203.00 feet; thence 86.22 feet along the arc of a tangent curve to the right with a radius of 700.00 feet, the chord of which bears North 88°47'04" West for a distance of 86.17 feet; thence continuing 89.87 feet along a curve to the right with a radius of 700.00 feet, the chord of which bears North 81°34'39" West a distance of 89.81 feet; thence North 77153'58" West a distance of 91.74 feet; thence 142.72 feet along the arc of a tangent curve to the left with a radius of 700.00 feet, the chord of which bears North 83°44'25" West for a distance of 142.47 feet; thence North 89°34'52" West a distance of 324.26 feet; thence 210.41 feet along the arc of a tangent curve to the right with a radius of 200.00 feet, the chord of which bears North 59°26'34" West for a distance of 200.84 feet; thence North 29°18'15" West a distance of 106.25 feet; thence North 08°48'08" West a distance of 107.26 feet; thence North 21150'39" East a distance of 301.04 feet; thence 168.60 feet along the arc of a tangent curve to the left with a radius of 500.00 feet, the chord of which bears North 12°11'03" East for a distance of 167.80 feet; thence North 02131'28" East a distance of 27.87 feet; thence 61.89 feet along the arc of a tangent curve to the right with a radius of 500.00 feet, the chord of which bears North 06°04'13" East for a distance of 61.85 feet; thence North 09°36'58" East a distance of 333.01 feet; thence 126.19 feet along the arc of a tangent curve to the left with a radius of 200.00 feet, the chord of which bears North 08°27'35" West for a distance of 124.11 feet; thence North 26032'08" West a distance of 29.70 feet; thence 38.41 feet along the are of a tangent curve to the right with a radius of 40.00 feet, the chord of which bears North 00°58'21" West for a distance of 36.95 feet, the terminus of this centerline, which bears North 22°06'26" West a distance of 7110.69 feet from said One -Quarter Corner common to said Sections 22 and 23. Subject to: All easements, restrictions and rights-of-way of record and those common and apparent on the land. See drawing attached hereto and hereby incorporated by reference. SALand Projects\010404\DOCS\EXHIBIT9.doc EXHIBIT B Page 30 of 31 BULL SPRINGS ROAD DESCRIP77ONS � EXHIBIT DRAWING LOCATED IN: SECTIONS 9, 15, 16, 21, 22 & 23, T17S, R11E, W.M., DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON j. *jL L'R�:,y ?r r'r `�. 7���,Y 1� .s � ;i � t•tr a ,"'r'� � ! .( . =moi.. z 11••i � r x a , �:y r , ��`�`3.e:s � t �,;� �. 4� � -i. �° �� y ' S-`'�`..F i �+ ' {-tt7 �i� �j �� `rac• 1 x,.. �, � � �j �.f.�# , I�., ) p µf�:.�P}�. Cd xpz lite a ,� a • �% ,.�� t + ,, \` fj , � ' � 1' { h� .rl' r r 1 r R yr 4 U.�` } s `€ �A,1: '� ' s.. ad .•�+•✓• ^�.� , � ii 4 !t3 .i :f,'r5�1 ,s • xr»a?. _ t. .f•�^ b ` � :••tib � e A� � b >� •:"'L � also,, ,.>~ � #-,� c 3,.•.- ${ �� �� 'Ad >• r 2 'S4�- f't ��Gly�l uY. #y �'�rnt� Lrs''x N.f� � � � •I �. i� , f t �;K;,•��� ��: r��:'S{- i',%ti '` ,�; tit •.k, ,,,, Ott. /' J , �' j /' '- •;;�''" ../ ��/' `� ��,: ^1dJ (tr rs iy� � � �• ' .. Y, `M,.%^ �ryr ! . r • ,-.Jr'y r �,;,r F,; . 11 F s • � m...�r p�� r ft Y t , i ' t� `eti0 i 4; i FI , ••�• f if 1 1 ' ,/y�� / s i 78 'V1 J t•. ei� y r rav ..� ` : t •� �� .r l.T �� w' •. l� / .': tom.. ,r. PREPARED BY NW�w SUR & PLANNERS NEERS HICKMAN, WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES, INC 805 SW INOUSIRIAL WAY, .SUITE 10. BEND. OR 97702-109J PHONE (541) J89-9351 FAX (541) JBB-5416 ti ri.•T �• . ■ nAF.. O L •'+-' AT Y ter✓ -•-.j4. ..J• ,,.�1.' ..:J' � 1Bl•T,•.. J � , i - • f,l i •>� .—. .� tib. •� ��.� . F REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SUR Y R ; 0 OREGON JULY 19, 1994 DAVID R. WILLIAMS 2686 EXPIRES: 30 JUNE, 2002 EXHIBIT B Page 31 of 31 MP -02-12 ROAD ACCESS DRAWING LOCATED IN.• SEC77ONS 15, 16, 21 & 22, T17S, R11E, WM., DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON FOREST SERVICE ROAD ,-46MI EA SEMEN T PER BK 366, PG 219 FOREST SER 46066 EASEMENT PER BK 137, PG 588 ROAD SISEMORE ROAD A SPRINGS RD F11: .,,yfO mw 020104rd—xb t1" YOU T31 A. H. JOHNSON' RD RD , F11: .,,yfO mw 020104rd—xb t1" YOU T31 ,ti yx 104�'` ♦y 7� EASEMENT THIS EASE`IE\T, dated this /? day of from the United States of America, acting by and through the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, hereinafter called Grantor, to Diamond International, Corporation, a corporation of the State of Deleware hereinafter called "Grantee," WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Grantee has applied for a grant of an easement under the Act of October 13, 1964 (78 Stat. 1089; 16 U.S.C. 532-538), for a road over certain lands or assignable easements owned by the United States in the Counties of Deschutes, Jefferson, and Klamath, State of Oregon and administered by the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. NOW THEREFORE, Grantor, for and in consideration of reciprocal easements received by Grantor, does hereby grant to Grantee, its successors and assigns, and to successors in interest to any lands now owned or hereafter acquired by Grantee hereinafter collectively referred to as Grantee, subject to existing easements and valid rights, a perpetual easement for a road along and across a strip of land, hereinafter defined as the premises, over and across the follow- ing described lands in the Counties of Deschutes, Jefferson, and Klamath, State of Oregon as described on Exhibit A attached hereto. The word "premises" when used herein means said strip of land whether or not there is an existing road located thereon. Except where it is defined more specifically, the word "road" shall mean roads now existing or hereafter con- structed on the premises or any segment of such roads. The location of said premises is shown approximately on Exhibit B attached hereto. Said premises shall be 33 feet on each side of the centerline with such additional width as required for accommodation and protection of cuts and fills. If the road is located substantially as described herein, the centerline of said road as constructed is hereby deemed accepted by Grantor and Grantee as the true centerline of the premises granted. If any subsequent survey of the road shows that any portion of the road, although located substantially as described, crosses lands of the Grantor not described herein, the easement shall be amended to include the additional lands traversed; if any land described herein is not traversed by the road as constructed, the easement traversing the same shall be terminated in the manner hereinafter provided. This grant is made subject to the following terms, provisions, and condi- tions applicable to Grantee, its permittees, contractors, assignees, and succes- sors in interest: A. Except as hereinafter limited, Grantee shall have the right to use the road on the premises without cost for all purposes deemed necessary or desirable by Grantee in connection with the protection, administra- tion, management, and utilization of Grantees lands or resources, now Y or hereafter owned or controlled, subject to such traffic -control regulations and rules as Grantor may reasonably impose upon or require of other users of the road without reducing the rights herein granted: Provided, however, That any timber or other materials hauled by the Grantee from lands now owned by third par.Lies in the agreement area as shown on Exhibit C attached hereto shall be treated as though hauled by someone else. Grantee shall have the right to construct, recon- struct, and maintain roads within the premises. Grantees right to use the road shall include, but shall not be limited to, use for the purpose of operating and moving specialized logging vehicles and other equipment subject to the following limita- tions: Subject to compliance with legal maximum dimensions and weights of motor vehicles imposed by State law on comparable public roads or highways: Provided, That gross weights of equipment or vehicles shall not exceed the capacity of bridges and other structures, and Provided further, That cleated equipment shall not be used on paved roads. B. Grantee shall comply with all applicable State and Federal laws, Executive orders, and Federal rules and regulations, except that no present or future administrative rules or regulations shall reduce the rights herein expressly granted. C. Grantee shall have the right to charge and to enforce collections from purchasers of timber or other materials when removed from Grantor's lands over the road at such rate per unit of material hauled, or at such higher rate as may be approved by the Regional Forester, as set forth in Deschutes Road Right -of -Way Construction and Use Agreement dated March 18, 1975, until such time as the amounts paid by such means or by credits received from Grantor shall total the amount set forth in said agreement. Timber or other materials hauled by Grantee from lands of the Grantor shall be regarded as though hauled by some- one else. D. Grantee shall have the right to cut timber upon the premises to the extent necessary for constructing, reconstructing, and maintaining the road. Timber so cut shall, unless otherwise agreed to, be cut into logs of lengths specified by the timber owner and decked along the road for disposal by the owner of such timber. E. The costs of road maintenance shall be allocated on the basis of respective uses of the road. During the periods when either party uses the road or Grantor permits use of the road by others for hauling of timber or other materials, the party so using or permitting such use will perform or cause to be performed, or contribute or cause to be contributed that share of maintenance occasioned by such use of the road. On any road maintained by Grantee, Grantee shall have the right to charge purchasers of National Forest timber and other commercial haulers, or to recover from available deposits held by the Grantor for such purchasers or haulers, reasonable maintenance charges based on the ratio that said hauling bears to the total hauling on such road. Grantor shall prohibit noncommercial use unless provision is made by Grantor or by the noncommercial users to bear proportionate main- tenance costs. F. Grantee shall have the right to require any user of the road for commercial or heavy hauling purposes to post security guaranteeing performance of such user's obligations with respect to maintenance of the road and with respect to payments of any charges hereinabove stated as payable to Grantee for use of the road: Provided, the amount of such security shall be limited to the amount reasonably necessary to secure such payment as approved by the Regional Forester. G. If it is customary in the industry in this locality to require lia- bility insurance at the time commercial users are allowed to use the road, the Grantee shall have the right to require any user of the road for commercial hauling to procure, to maintain, and to furnish satis- factory evidence of liability insurance in a form generally acceptable in the trade and customary in this area, insuring said party against liability arising out of its operation on the premises with limits of $100,000 for injury or death to one person, $300,000 for injury or death to two or more persons and $100,000 for damage to property. H. The Grantee shall maintain the right-of-way clearing by means of chemicals only after specific written approval has been given by the Regional Forester. Application for such approval must be in writing and specify the time, method, chemicals, and the exact portion of the right-of-way to be chemically treated. This easement is granted subject to the following reservations by Grantor, for itself, its permittees, contractors and assignees: 1. The right to use the road for all purposes deemed necessary or desirable by Grantor in connection with the protection, administration, management, and utilization of Grantor's lands or re- sources, now or hereafter owned or controlled, subject to the limitations herein contained, and subject to such traffic -control regulations and rules as Grantor may reasonably impose upon or require of other users of the road without reducing the rights herein granted to Grantee: Provided, That all use by the public for purposes of access to or from Grantor's lands shall be controlled by Grantor so as not unreasonably to interfere with use of the road by Grantee or to cause the Grantee to bear a share of the cost of maintenance greater than Grantee's use bears to all use of the road. 2. The right alone to extend rights and privileges for use of the premises to other Government departments and agencies, States, and local subdivisions thereof, and to other users including members of the public except users of land or resources owned or controlled by Grantee or its successors: Provided, That such additional use also shall be controlled by Grantor so as to not unreasonably to interfere with use of the road by Grantee or to cause Grantee to bear a share of the cost of maintenance greater than Grantee's use bears to all use of the road. 3. The right to cross and recross the premises and road at any place by any reasonable means and for any purpose in such manner as will not unreasonably interfere with use of the road. 4. The right to all timber now or hereafter growing on the premises, subject to Grantee's right to cut such timber as hereinbefore provided. Provided that so long as the Deschutes Road Right-of-way Construction and Use Agreement dated March 18, 1975 remains in full force and effect, the terms and conditions thereof shall govern all aspects of use of the premises, includ- ing, but not limited to construction, reconstruction and maintenance of the road and the allocation and payment of costs thereof. The Chief, Forest Service, may terminate this easement, or any segment thereof, (1) by consent of the Grantee, (2) by condemnation, or (3) after a five (5) year period of nonuse, by a determination to cancel after notification and opportunity for hearing as prescribed by law; provided the easement, or segment thereof, shall not be terminated for nonuse so long as the road, or segment thereof, is being preserved for prospective future use. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The Grantor, by its Regional Forester, has executed this easement pursuant to the delegation of.authority to the Chief, Forest Service, 7 CFR 2.60, and the delegation of authority by the Chief, Forest Service, dated December 14, 1979 (44 FR 75690), on the day and year first above written. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1' Jeff M. Sirmon Regional Forester Forest Service Department of Agriculture STATE OF SS COUNTY Or�!&&9V-17r4,,'e ) / p, On the day of (� 190 before me, a Notary Public within and for said State, personally appeared -XW-e-e 9%J. ' awn Q,y the same person who executed the within and foregoing instrument, who being by me duly sworn according to law, did say that he executed said instrument for Jeff M. Sirmon, Regional Forester, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, and that said instrument was signed in behalf of the United States of America by its authority duly given and by him delivered as and for its act and deed. And he did further acknowledge that he executed said instrument as the free act and deed of the United States of America, for the purposes and consideration herein mentioned and set forth, and I do hereby so certify. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year above written. Notary Public in and for the State of Residing at My commission expires M U C° 4- 0 m Co a� X E` HIBIT A NATIONAL FOREST LANDS JEFFERSON COUNTY Squawback Block (1) Section 7 Spur (1130540 and 1100280) T. 13 S., R. 10 E., W.M., sec. 7, E2SE4 (2) Spur No. 2 (2050400) T. 13 S., R. 10 E., W.M., sec. 34, SW4SW; _ Santiam Block r� �(1) Spur (1028910 and 1028900) T. 13 S., R. 8 E., W.M., sec. 34, N2SW4,SW14NW4 S<Kfrf"1 em- Block 60 (1) DESCHUTES COUNTY,; `1d Sisters Mainline 1139 (1012500) \'1,�ti �, T. 14 S., R. 9 E., W.M., sec. 36, NE4NE4 fU ,; 6 00.1 c� i 7J/ (2) Half Ration No. 1375 (1012300) T. 14 S., R. 9 E., W.M., sec. 22, NW4SW4,SZSW4,N2SE4,SW4SE4 (3) Spur 1028220 v T. 14 S., R. 9 E., W.M., sec. 18, SE4SW4 9 (4) 1315A Spur (2061270) T. 14 S., R. 9 E., W.M., sec. 8. WZNW4 a Co U� 4- o mti X m )r(5) Road No. 1528F (1510600) T. 15 S., R. 9 E., W.M., sec. 10, NW4Nk; (6) Road No. (1014000) T. 14 S., R. 8 E., W.M. Sec. 14, SE4SE; v 0/2— (7) Road No. 1492 (1028260) T. 14 S., R. 9 E., W.M. Sec. 18, S2S2 Bull Springs Block (1) Sisters Mainline No. 1139 (4606000) T. 18 S., R. 11 E., W.M., sec. 3, NW4NW4,S2NW4,SW14NE4,N2SE4 sec. 4, EINE; / �i(2) Spur A (4606400) T. 17 S., R. 11 E., W.M., sec. 6,S21NEp,NE4SWq,NW4SE14 sec. 7, W2NW4 �S (3) Spur C (4607100) T. 17 S., R. 11 E., W.M., sec. 8, NW14NE14,NE14NW4,S2NW4 sec. 7, SEQSEQ /(4) Spur D (4606280) T. 17 S., R. 11 E., W.M., sec. 17, NEQSEQ,SZSEQ,SEQSWQ (5) 600 Line (4607000) T. 17 S., R. 11 E., W.M., sec. 7, NZNEQ,NZNW4,SWJNW4 sec. 8, NWiNE4,N2NW4 (6) 700 .Line (4605000) J T. 17 S., R. 11 E., W.M., sec. 21, SWaSW4 (7) Columbia Southern Spur J T. 18 S., R. 10 E., W.M., sec. 1, NW14SW4 sec. 2. NE4SEI (Y) UC.D o CO °`0 2 N X m wn C') (8) Tumalo Lake Spur (4601430) N T. 18 S., R. 10 E., W.M., sec. 10, SE14N7WI4, NE;SW; �J } (9) Tumalo Creek Spur (4606060) T. 18 S., R. 11 E., W.M., sec. 4, SZNEi sec. 5, NE4SEi 2 y (10) Bear Wallow No. 1750 (4601000) T. 18 S., R. 10 E., W.M., sec. 10, NE;NW;, SZNW; That certain easement, 44 feet in width, acquired from Don 0. Schuman, K rilynn R. Schuman, Larry M. Keown, Louise R. Keown, and Helen S. Peak, by deed dated June 6, 1966, recorded June 20, 1966, in Volume 149, page 149, records of Deschutes County, Oregon, over and across the following described lands: T. 18 S. , R. 10 E. , W.M. , sec. 10, WMINWaNEa That certain easement, 44 feet in width, acquired from Harry D. Schermerhorn, Juanita Jean Schermerhorn, Larry M. Keown, Louise R. Keown, and Helen Peak, by deed dated May 20, 1966, recorded June 20, 1966, in Volume 149, page 154, records of Deschutes County, Oregon, over and across the following described lands: T. 18 S., R. 10 E., W.M. sec. 10, E2W2NW14NE; That certain easement, 44 feet in width, acquired from W.C. Coyner and Ruth C. Coyner, by deed dated June 20, 1966, recorded June 20, 1966, in Volume 149, page 146, records of Deschutes County, Oregon, over and across the following described lands: T. 18 S., R. 10 E., W.M., sec. 2, SW;SWj sec. 10, EJNW;NE-4 KLAMATH COUNTY Spring Butte Block (1) Road No. 2217 (2220900) T. 24 S., R. 11 E., W.M. sec. 17, WZSWj sec. 18, SE;SE; „ (2) Road No. 233 (2430000) T. 24 S. , R. 11 E. , W. M. , sec. 6, Lots 10 and 13 T•.' �v^ (3) Road No. 2210 (2220000) T. 24 S. , R. 11 E. , W. M. sec. 17, SzS2 page 1 of 9 2730 R/W GRANTS EXHIBIT B RIGHT-OF-WAY PLATS U.S. FOREST SERVICE DEPT. of AGRICULTURE DESCHUTES NATIONAL FOREST DESCHUTES, JEFFERSON & KLAMATH COUNTIES ROAD EASEMENTS TO DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION LEGEND R/W 33 ft RIGHT-OF-WAY GRANTED Each Side Of Center Line R/W OWNERSHIP NATIONAL FOREST US DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION D OTHER P SCALE 3/81 K ch U 0 0 CD `- 2 a) X ca LU a- T 13 S T 13 S SOUAWBACK BLOCK R 10 E R 10 E 4 page 2 of 9 Q N c� U o i- N _ cn X W page 3 of 9 SANTIAM BLOCK Q N R 8 E l us us '.0P \,\� - 27 u s _ T 13 S00 1.01 Ir /W — 1028900 r 33� r �N —34 us —p --I— us us' r Mow,[ L,f,; L Oka us us r 14 S -4L US US I T 15 S; r a. D SANTIAM BLOCK Iq page 3 of 9 R 9 E 26 s N us Go R/W us US— —7 36 R 11 E pave o OT V ,'II N. BULL SPRINGS BLOCK us d s S- 1 us p J / - i us us I us I 41507000 ,1 u s I — us us us R/ W O� = u S RLW L) S f A Q— u S,' D R 17 S_ dJ + r - us 4 us us us ID Ink /4 _ 0 1 9 o • _ _— . , .r ` / j • A"' ilii I J I 29-1 — ;28 It `v Sou \ — I h I I I/ .� ch ~'^- y CD 1 x BULL SPRINGS BLOCK Q N R 10 E page T of 9 u5us i—=---% i/~'li { � \,�• �, / poi D -- - --T==3 /.P D D/U'S `--- `�✓ I�� t1 53 _.us — use i 3� n f yt us us us us U� tem°_r-°irUs IUs- �� 9 10/1 — -.. tt t2 0 0 is S M9 ^ us us .� —" -us QIP u us us u u ' ¢ US• -'SUS � US I US US /US 1826 us --uSuS� /'us US`s;. — M U p m X BULL SPRINGS BLOCK R 11 E T18 S- page 8 of 9 m CID U61.- 0 �00 m r' _C X iii 2 c N N i c N I o . � I — Go—— I 2220900 i N i — N N I ,�l al i w n X U o �o) X co 1 c a EXHIBIT C CIE page 1 of 2 '` : _ .-.... � _._. .• f �-_ _ ., _--.._; — .._ - •- i-- -- --- yr ��—`\�� i R O A D R --l. G H .T i0 F- W A Y _C 0', N S T -R U C T1 ON' ` A_N -USE .AGR,EE.M.F.NT 3/1.8/-7S-AA $-_MED UED_J980• --- -� !B �T'4Y- E E N' C A. N L 0 .N, I N C, A N D ._USA --i_-.- - (SHA.R'E C O S T) _--. •'. N a t --i. on a I .-.F . or -e- s �-- t., -._ _ _-� . ,�_T ._ --•.• .i Diamond Int ernatjona) Corporation=�--�- her Ownership - y. ::Am'ended7Agreement-.. Area.: 7. .. -9 PA_ I J -1,G B U TT E -S LD.0 _K t JS $ 8) • - - - - �' ,; -. . up 12 ._.. _ . —. ' - � _"--,� .- �}- ,— � \•. ups ir M O iii n .if7 j\ I - �a� .� I _ -• •..- Pa9e .2 of 2' . 1:.... - •. -. _ - .. _ .� c.._ �..- ;�:._.;. �-.1..:f.-- E[i - _ '._-✓ice•— �• . i,/_�-::%�_ :��� :_ �� :,>� � ,�--� ,�- ! •- _ - ,� --. � �—��r �:-• r.__ � p, rte- � rr IRE E - 5 E R S. _4T •; r• �. �.' I �� -.. .' � f r1 � - •.•:.:- 1 / '.pry I-•_� �''�""'�^� � \ � \ � ��:..-_ Anew 71 :• .. .. �: "' . �' - - - _;. /',- ' j=am. -= •_ :r-_-� � _ -�\� ,: =r--- --. .�: ! m �` +• I. —---r_..�„ --�. �_.—' - ',ter—..�.-►':!�....:.:.—. �" r N I I 1 VOL 151 FACE 485 EASEMENT THIS EASEMENT, dated this day of ��C�'/l7�CI" , 19 from BROOKS-SCANLON, INC., a corporation of the State of Delaware, hereinafter called "Grantor," to the United States of America, hereinafter called "Grantee," WITNESSETH: Grantor, for and in consideration of the grant of reciprocal rights-of- way and the sum of $1.00 received by Grantor, does hereby grant to Grantee and its assigns, subject to existing -easements and valid rights, a perpetual easement for a road along and across a strip of land, hereinafter defined as the "premises," over and across the lands in the County of Deschutes, State of Oregon, as described on Exhibit A attached hereto. The word "premises" when used herein means said strip of land, whether IPA or not there is an existing road located thereon. Except where it is defined \"constructed more specifically, the word "road" shall mean roads now existing or hereafter on the premises or any segment of such roads. C The location of said premises is shown approximately on Exhibit B attached hereto. �= Said premises shall be 33 feet on each side of the centerline with such a; additional width as required for accommodation and protection of cuts and fills. If the road is located substantially as described herein, the center- line of said road as constructed is hereby deemed accepted by Grantor and Grantee as the true centerline of the premises granted. If any subsequent survey of the road shows that any portion of the road, although located sub- stantially as described, crosses lands of the Grantor not described herein, the easement shall be amended to include the additional lands traversed; if any lands described herein are not traversed by the road as constructed, the easement traversing the same shall be terminated in the manner hereinafter rovided . The acquiring Agency is the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. This grant is made subject to the following terms, provisions, and conditions applicable to Grantee, its permittees, contractors, and assigns: A. Except as hereinafter limited, Grantee shall have the right to use the road on the premises without cost for all purposes deemed necessary or desirable by Grantee in connection with the protection, administration, management, and utilization of Grantee's lands or resources, now or hereafter owned or controlled, subject to such traffic -control regulations and rules as Grantee may reasonably impose upon or require of other users of the road. Grantee shall have the right to construct, reconstruct, and maintain roads within the premises. f— s4 i= vin 1V T_ Z_ VEL 151 FAa -t86 2 Grantee alone may extend rights and privileges for use o the premises to other Government Departments and Agencies, States, and local subdivisions thereof and to other users including members of the public except users of lands or resources owned or controlled by Grantor or its successors: Provided, That such additional use also scall be controlled by Gran;;ee so that it will not unreasonably interfere with use of the road by Grantor or cause the Grantor to bear a share of the cost of maintenance greater than Grantor's use bears to all use of the road. B. Grantee shall have the right to cut timber upon the premises to the extent necessary for constructing, reconstructing, and main- taining the road. Timber so cut shall, unless otherwise agreed to, be cut into logs of lengths specified by the timber owner and decked along the road for disposal by the owner of such timber. C. ire costs of road maintenance shall be allocated on the basis of respective uses of the road. During the periods when either party uses the road or Grantee permits use of the road by others for hauling of timber or other materials, the party so using or permitting such use will perform or cause to be performed, or contribute or cause to be contributed that share of maintenance occasioned by such use of the road. On any road maintained"by Grantor, Grantor shall have the rigIat to charge purchasers of national Forest timber and other cor.unercial haulers, or to recover from available deposits held by Grantee for such purchasers or haulers, reasonable maintenance charges based on the ratio that said hauling bears to the total hauling on such road. Grantee shall prohibit noncommercial use unless provision is made by Grantee or by the noncommercial users to bear proportionate maintenance costs. This easement is granted subject to the following reservations by Grantor, for itself, its permittees, contractors, assigns, and successors in interest: 1. The right to use the road for all purposes deemed necessary or desirable by Grantor in connection with the protection, adminis- tration, management, and utilization. of Grantor's lands or resources, now or hereafter owned or controlled, subject to the limitations herein contained, and subject to such traffic -control regulations and rules as Grantee may reasonably immose upon or renulre of other users of the road wit' -out reduc_n,7 the ri�7h-s hereby reserved: Provided, however, Tnat any ti, -ter or other materials hauled by the Grantor from lands now owned by thira parties in the agreement area a,; shown on ix:.ibit C attached hereto shall be treated as thong: hauled by soMeone else and: Provided, further, That the right to use the road for the purpose of operating and moving specialized logging vehicles and other equipment shall not be restricted, except as follows: (Y) U%#.- 0 M CO N = 0 X W d VOL 15, FAGE 487 2. The right to cross and recross the premises and road at any place —� by any reasonable means and for any purpose in such manner as will not interfere unreasonably with use of the road. _ 3. The right -to all timber now or hereafter growing on the premises, subject to Grantee's right to cut such timber as hereinbefore provided. 4. The right to require any user of the road for commercial or heavy hauling purposes to post security guaranteeing; performance of such user's obligations with respect to maintenance of the road and with respect to payment of any charges hereinbefore stated as payable to Grantor for use of the road: Provided, the amount of such security shall be limited to the amount reasonably necessary to secure such payment, as approved by the Regional Forester. Provided, That so long as the Road Right -of -Way Construction and Use Agreement dated October 2, 1963, remains in full force and effect, the terms and conditions thereof shall govern all aspects of use of the premises , including, but not limited to, construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of the road and the allocation and payment of costs thereof. If for a period of five (5) years the Grantee shall cease to use, or preserve for prospective future use, the road, or any segment thereof, for the purposes. granted, or if at any time the Regional Forester determines that the road, or any segment thereof, is no longer needed for the purposes granted, the easement traversed thereby shall terminate. In the event of such nonuse or of such determination by the Regional Forester, the Regional Forester shall furnish to the Grantor, its successors, or assigns a state- ment in recordable form evidencing termination. vcL 151 °AGt� k IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has caused this instrument to be executed by its duly authorized officers and its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed on the_.day- and year first above written. In the Presen e of: State of Oregon ) ) ss. County of Deschutes ) BROOKS -S C,ANLON, INC. r c _ - B ar es dem-T� Y e gr. By / chael P. Ho ern Attest: Assistant Secretary On this day personally appeared before me Charles M. Kreider and Michael P. Hollern to me known to be the Vice President �. General Manager and Assistant Secretary respectively, of the corporation that executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same as its free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and that they were authorized to execute said instrument on behalf of the cor- poration by authority of its board of directors, and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. Before me this 14th day of December 1966. 1otarf Pu lic in and for the State } _ of Oregon residing at Bend, Oregon. Icy commission expires 7 i Squawback Ridge Road 41139.4 Beginning at a point of junction with the Jack Pine Springs road 411722 in section 33 T.17 S., R.11 E. W.M. approximately 2376 feet west and '- 1584 feet south of the northeast corner of said section thence south- .• easterly over and across said section a distance of approximately 5808 feet to a point on the south section line of section 33 which is approx- imately 2244 feet west of the southeast section corner of said section. Thence, beginning at a point on the north boundary of section 4 T.18 S., R.11 E. W.M. approximately 2244 feet west of the northeast corner of section 4, thence easterly over and across the NW1/4NE1/4 of said section •a distance of 915 feet to a point on the north section line of section 4 which is approximately 1716 feet west of the northeast corner of said section. Thence, beginning at a point on the south boundary of section 33 T.17 S., R.11 E. W.M.- approximately 1716 feet west of the southeast corner of said section thence easterly over and across the S1/2SE1/4 of section 33 and SW1/4SW1/4 section 34 a distance of approximately 3696 feet to a point on the south boundary of section 34 T.17 S., R.11 E. W.M. approximately 896 feet east of the southwest corner of said section. r Exhibit A M U I- 0 m N 2 0 X W Q_ VOL 151 PACE 489 -------------------- kl/ lz-1 ----------- '1I1a. 5100. 18 (2/60) 6cs s.—Oue luck = i wile. EX ,4 i 6 i' / 6 M U p Hti m N XM wn G ------- ----- ---------------- 5 - ---------- T --- � 3 ----- -- �( --- ---- -- --- ---------- - - -- - ---------- __ -- 7 -- - -- ----- 8 --- --- 9 -- -- - --- - 10 --- - 1 12 t - t - --- -- - - ---- ---- - I -- - -- - -- -- - - - - --- -- -- --- - -- - -- --- --- ------ - ---- -- -- --- - ---- -- --- - ---- --- 1 --- --- -- --- - -- -- - --------------- -------------------- 14 --- L-- -- - - ---- - 1 --- - - -1 ! - -' - 19 - - - - - - 20 -- -- - - - --- 21 ----- - 2I --- '- -�- -- -23 -- ---- - -` --- --- --24-- ---- -- - -- - - - -- --- -- -- -- -- - --- 0 - - 29 -- ---- ----- 26 - - - --- -- 27—' -- - 1- - 26- 6 - -- - -- -- --------�-- ---- -- —31— .......... -- 32 --_ --:-33 I - - 35- -------------------- — ` - - ---r--3� - 5100. 18 (2/60) 6cs s.—Oue luck = i wile. EX ,4 i 6 i' / 6 M U p Hti m N XM wn VOL 151 FACE 490 --- ----------------------------- AA - 6--wi 5400-18 (2/60) 6o,&Ls.—Oue luch = i wile. 1/.39 /10-1 43 image 2 co U"- 0 H 00 En N _ ai X m ui n .. .F. ------------ -. -. -----,..- .�.. - -�. -------- 7 - •..t--. ----- -. - -.-1..-- - --6 ----- -------- - - _ ---- - ----- ----fi----- - -- ; -- --- ---' - ---=;1 --- - --- - ---85----- - - ------- -9 ---a 10 ------ --- - .-�----- - -.- ---i------ - -a 2 . ---�---- -- ;--- 18 1716 1 14 l - - i -- --- -- - - - — ----- --- -- --- --- ---- -- ----- - - - ----- --- - -- - - -; - 1 ------- -------------- '- - 19 - - 21- 20 -- - - 1 --- -- 2'L -- -- 23 -- -1---- ; -- - - -- --- - ----- -- -- 24 - -- • -- - --- 0 - - 29 --- -- -- - - -- - - - --- - - -- - - ' •- - - --- --- ------- - -• - - - ---�-- - -- - ---------- ------ ---------- ----- 35 ----- -- - --3G- -- 6--wi 5400-18 (2/60) 6o,&Ls.—Oue luch = i wile. 1/.39 /10-1 43 image 2 co U"- 0 H 00 En N _ ai X m ui n Agreement area same as 10/263 agreement, Brooks -Scanlon Inc. 41823 .`+J' ---------- -- ---- -------- ..-- s f.ere7 __:tic? ;a4::a^ C., w rg --_dui -==' ccam, X� \ ? 0 - 3xhib it C X Ei -- -D.00 `{ ._ slimy` -les-•' a. _ - o�elcel r, p� � _ _� r 1-4 Vol va 137 ;58.Sir va 13714i 3 q �O°.1 f463 MCMWMRSs suds this 2nddof October. 1963, between ZM 3.SCA IAI, �& eodayporstica ergudsod and ssiis- in; under the Ia sm of the stats of Dalaraae, Grantw, and the STATIM Ot APIMC4 dross boat eff].as address L ifasiiisstoa, D„C., Greort, s, WMMS=s That for and in omaidsration of the Ront.of reaipsocal lidda- of-sq and the ems of $1.00, the receipt of wdtieh is herabf ackwaudgak the Grantor does ker+bT Rent and .cavy into the 0rantes, and its aaaigs, an sas.aent and right -of -sq far a road as located, eaestrdotad, rwaoatructed, improved, need, .pasted, patrolled and maintained over, upm,p. and across the following described prstses situated in the Counties of Jefferrm and Desehntes, Stat.e, of creg e, teeth, L strip of land 66 feet in Id dth traressitK thr fnllokdnt described real jappertp, • Sea attached s>Sibit l throw v lips. /me said strip being 33 feet in width as each stale at a canter line as located and constructed as the greed, with as mach additional width as required for adequata protection of cats and filL.lthe salt eeatsrl1w being located and described as shosh on Add bit 1 titongh v, wdsich is attached berate and sods a pest bgree. MW (� oeaterliw is acre particalarij described ar it setas, w and Laves the Granter's lead as follows _ Q"C"UY" COUNTY n"'le ! AftTMACT CCI. "a W." STREET . &&No. OR[GCM (y) CD U 0 E- o m_co 2 0 aW c h -t c AV j X • va - !6 r 582 .137 %M4 vix 137 ,,E= Meadow, �Zwk goes IL39R Beginning at a point on the wast bamdarT of Section 22, T. 12 S., 1. 20 Z., W.M.., approximately 700 feet south of the northwest corner of said Soctlon, thence southeasterly crar and across said Section a distance of apptoximst47 5,280 feet to a point of rection with the Squawback Ridge Road #3.M approxiaatel7 2,100 feet north mad 1,000 feet vest of the east k Corner of said Section 22. Syuswback Ride Read 17139 Beginning at a point on the north line of Section 23, T. 22 S., I. 20 Z., W.M., approximately 940 feet vest of the north } canner of said Section, thence southwesterly over and across Sections 23, 22, 27, and 34, T. 22 S., R. 20 B., Y.M., a distance of Approximately 20,592 feet to a point of section with the Sundt Springs Road #22060 in Z945di, Section 34, T. 2Z S., R. 10 Z., approximately 2,059 feet north and 1,060 feet west of the south corner of said Section 34. Bear Scrims Cutoff Read /2206CV Beginning at a point on the north boundary of Section 5, T. 23 S., I. 10 Z., W.M., approximately 88 feet west of the northeast corner of said Section, thence southerly over and across the XZk of said Section a distance of approximately 3,170 feet to a point in said Section approxiastav 466 feet west of the east } corner of said Section 5. Summit Scrim Read %12060 Be inning at a point of Junction with the Squarback Ridge Boad /1139 is I&M. Section 34, T. 12 S., R. 10 Z., Y.M., approximately 2,059 feet north and 1,060 feet west of the south 4 corder of said Section, thaws southwesterly over and across Sections 34 and 33, T. 12 S., R. 10 Z., WJL, and Section 4, T. 23 S., R. 10 Z., Y.M., a distance of approximately 9,500 feet to a point on the west boundary of said Section 4 approximately 61 feet south of the west corner �f said Section 4. Thence beginning at a point in Section 5, T. 13 S., I. 20 Z.,'W.X., 10266 feet south and 971 feet west of the east } corner of said Section, thence southerly over and across SE458i, Section 5, a distance of approximata4. 1,500 feet to a point on the south boundary of said Section appnoxiaately 47 feet west of the southeast corner of said Section 5. Thence begirming at a point on the west boundar7 of Section 9, T. 23 S., H. 10 Z., W.M., aPpaoximately 212 toot south of the northwest oorner of said Section, the --o southerly over and across the W/im} of said Section, a distance of aPProxiatel7 223 feet to a point on the west boundary of said Section approximately 435 feet south of the northwest corner of said Section 9. Thence begirming at a Point cc the west boundary of Section 9, T. 13 S., R. 10 Z., W.M., approximately 1,196 feet south of the northwest ootasr, Of said Section, thanoo soathweatery over and across Sections 9, a, 17, M2- . ; V% �nQ58 - xx 137 AQ 560 vox 137 v145 2.8, 19, and 30, a distance of approximately 22,440 foot to a pout of pmction with the Cinder Pit Road O.W6M in Section 30 approxiataly 2,138 feet south and 1,306 feet east of the northwest earner of said Section 30, T. 23 S., R. 10 Z., Y.Y. Thence beginning at a point cc the east bomdarf of Section 259 T. 23 S., L 9 E., YJL, approximately 2,134 feet south of the northeast oornor of said Section, thence westerly over and across Section 25, a distance of approndately 3,010 foot to a point of 5amction with a1? 4n6ha= cteff Seed 1139.1 in Section 25 apprvndmataly 1,634 feet south and 561 feet west of the north i corner of said Section 25• Whiskey Strings Road /120600 - Beginning at a point in Section 3, T. 23 S., L 20 Z., Y.lf., apRoslmataly 1,320 feet north and 487 feet east of the soathwoot corner of said 30ation, thence southerly over and across the MOMt of said Seetim4 a distance of approximately 1.320 feet to a point on the south boaodart of said Section approodatelT 220 feet wast of the southwest earner of said Section 5. Thence being at a point in Section f, T. 23 S., L 10 Z., W.JL, approxi- mately 1,930 foot west of the east } corner of said Section, thence south- easterly over and across Sections t mad 9 a distance of approximately 2,640 feet to a point in Section 9, approximately 1,088 foot north and 274 foot east of the southwest corner of said Section 9. Cutoff Road 111390 Beginning at a point on the oast bomdarT of Section 27, T. 23 S., L 20 Z., W.M., approximately 1,320 feet south of the northeast oorner of said Section, thence southwesterly over and across Sections 27 and 28 a distance of appr=1mately 11,615 feet to a point in Section 28, approximately 1,320 feet east and 2.,340 feet north of the soathwest corner of said Saation 28. Thence beginning at a point on the east boundary of Section 29, T. 23 S., X. 10 B., W.X., approximately 1,584 feet north of the southeast corner of said Section, thence northwesterly over and aorosm c:.ation 29 a distance of approximately 3,680 fort to a point of jimation with Cinder Pit Road E120WA in Section 29 approximately 1,329 foot east and 1,900 foot north of the southwest corner of said Section 29. Beginning at a point in Section 28, T. 23 S., L 30 Z., WJL, app•aximtely 1 850 foot west of the east } soman, theme southerly ever and maroes 4;4 a distaaae of appnandsately 1,580 feet to a point of jimatlno with the Cutoff Road "9C appeaximately 1,050 feet north and 690 feet east of the south } corner of said Section 28. • 3 . 0 H N fb Ch = C X m sin • - v:i 137 W 146 vat 13 7 na G31 Beginning at a point an the Gast line of 'Section 33, T. 13 S., R. 10 B., '"', approximately 370 feet north of the southeast corner of said Section, thence northwesterly over and across said Section a distance of a 7,392 feet to a point on the north boundary of saSeotlon apprOxit� id 690 feet east of the northwest corner of said Section 33. Spurmad n Beginning at.a point in Section 24, T. 23 S., R. 10 X., Y.X., apprwdj at:sl, 2,323 feet north of the south } corner of said Section, the southwesterly over and across Sections 24 and 25 a distance of approximately 4,490 fto A point on the west boundary of Section 25 approoisatrnel, t 897 feset the northwest comer of said Section 25. et :Doth Thence beginning at a point on the north boundary of Section 35, T. 23 S., R. 10 B., Y.M., approxlsate7 1,030 feet east of the northwest corner of said Section, thence southwesterly over and across the li}li�, Section 35, aand go�iirith gtion 34 a distance of approximtely 2,230 feet to a point of JlmPm' mad i4 in Section 34, T. 13 S., R. 10 E., Y.M., apprwd— aately 1,954 feet north and 422 feet west of the east j corner of said Section 34. Spar Road /4 , 1 Beginning at a point on the .east boundary of Section 35, T 23 S., R. . 10 E., approximately 210 feet south of the northeast corner of said Section, thence DOuthwe6terl7 over and across Section 35, and of Section 34 AL distance of appro imatelr 7,390 feet to a point in Section 34 aPPao�aLely 1,320 feet west and 158 feet north of the east k corner of said Section 34. Thence beginning at a point on the south boundary of Section 27, T. 13 S., R. 10 lis., Y.M., approximatelX 580 feet east of the southwest corner of said Section, thence northwesterly over and across SY}SYi of said Section a distance of approximatel, 740 feet to a point of j motion with Cutoff Road s1139C on the west boundary of said Section appraxdaately 265 feet myth of _..--- the southwest corner of said Section 27. Cinder Pit Road 0120601 Beginning at a point on the south boundary of Section 29, T. 23 S., K. 10 8., Y.M., approximately 1,320 feet west of the southeast cower of said Section, thence northwesterly over gad across Sections 29 and 30 a distance of aPProziastely 8,980 feet to a point of j�mction with the SuaDit Springs Road in Section 30 approximation 2,138 feet south and 1,306 feet east of thelnorthwest hwest corner of said Section 30. -h- va 36 rc. a85 va 137 =147 Beginning at a point in Section 19, T. 23 S., R. 9 Z., V.X-• apFroximmitaI7 690 feat south of the north j corner of said Section, theocs soathsastarly aver and across WJ)Mk of said Section a distance of approadata2y 1,900 fast to a point in Section 19, approximately 10900 foot vast of the Gast corner of said Section 19. Theme beginning at a point in Section 19, T. 23 s., L 9 Z., WAL, apQaysir aatsl7 1,320 foot west and 640 feet.north of the southeast aorntr of said Section, thence over and across SS}S4, Section 19, a distance of 4ppaaximateI7 790 feet to a point an the south boundary of said Section apa.-WdMtoly M. feet most of the amthaast corner of said Section 19. Gravel Ht Road #13M Begiming at a point an the east boundary of Section 320 T. 23 S., R. 9 Z., Y.M., approximtely 1,160 foot north of the southeast corner of said Section thence southwesterly aver and across SEbMj of said Section a distance of approximately 740 feet to a point of junction with Half Ration Road /1375 in Section 31 approximately 686 feet west and 330 feet north of the southeast corner of said Section 31. Suttle Sherman Road /2317 Bagiaaing at a point on the north boundary of Section 17, T. 23 S., R. 9 Z., Y.M., approximately 1,160 feet west of the northeast corner of said Section, thence southwesterly o►ar and across the H} of said Section, a distance of apprc=Saatoly 4,750 fart to a point on the most line of said Section approod- astely 370 foot north of the west k corner of said section 17. Cha Lin head 1138 Bagiaaing at a point on the mouth boundary of Section 33, T. 23 S., R. 8 Z., Y.M., approximately 1,056 fest east of the southwest Section corner of said Section, thence northeasterly over and across said section a distance of approxdatelz 5,280 fact to a point on the east Section line 1,050 foot south of the east corner. Thema beginning at a point approximately 11320 foot west and approximately 1,460'north fro& the month } corner of Section 35, T. 13 S., s. 8 Z., Y.It., thence northeasterly over and across the XKJ!Wj of said Scotian 35 a distsnw of approximately 1,600 foot to a point approximately 1,860 feat north fYoa the south } oorasr of said ssatlon. Thenen beginning at a point on the south bomdar7 of Section 25, T. 13 S., R. 8 K., WAL, approximately 2,460 feet west of the southeast eorasr of said Section 259 theme* northeasterly over and across the Mt of said Section a distance of apfsoadat.aly 3,000 feat to a point on the nut boundary of said Section apFvxinately 1,960 fast northerly frog the southeast corner of said Section. _S. ch m M 2� X ca W d r 137 ma-148 ra 137 ¢ache Cutoff Head #138 - Beginning at a point on the east bomdar7 of Section 33, T. 13 S-, R- 6 &r Y.M., approximately 1,050 feet south of the east } corner, thence curring southerly into the bjMt of said Section a distance of ap¢ mdstel7 37'0 feet to a point on the east boundary of said Section appzwd uotely 1,350 feet south of the east t comer of said Section 33• Toll Station Head fim C Beginning at a point oa the south boundary of Section 35, T. 13 S., R. 8 1-9 Y.M., approxiately 1,050 feet us" of the south 4 corner, thence northeasterly over and across the SE},Wj Section 35 a distance of a ximateIr 1,060 feet to a point approximately 342 feet north of the south *comer, of the said section. Thence beginning at a point on the west boundary of Section 31, T. 13 S., R. 9 S., Y.M., approximately 1,946 feet south of the northwest corner of said Section, thence northeasterly over and across the !Nt of said Section a distance of approximately 3,0OO fest to a point on the north boundar7 of said Section approximtely 1,902 feet east of the northwest corer of said Section 31 - Clear Cut Road !131St Beginning at a point on the west boundary of Sect - a approximately 2,120 feet south of the corner of said Section, thence southeasterly aver and across said Section a distance of appyOXi—t63.7 5,800 feet to a point on the east boundary of said Section appraodmata4 850 feet north of the southeast corner of said Section 1. Half Ration Hoed 11325 Beginning at a point of Sunetioa with the Cache Lake Road 1138 in the sw4a4, Section 25, T. 13 S., R. 8 1., Y.ri., thence southeasterly co or across the Sjaj of said Section a distance of approximately 1, fest to a point on the east bouaxtarT of said Section approxim Cooly 265 feet north of the southeast corner of said Section. Thence beginning at a point on the north boundary of Section 31, T. 13 S., R. 9 R., U.M., approximately 263 feet east of the northwest comer of said Section, thence southeasterly over and across said Section a distance of approximately 8,450 feet to a point on the south boundary of said Section apgroximtely 250 feet rest of the southeast corner of said Section 31. Thence beginning at a point an the west boundary of Section 5, T. U S., R. 9 L., Y.M., approxdmataly 250 feet south of the northwest corer of said Section, thence southeasterly over and across said Section a distance of approxlaately 69340 feet to a point on the south boundary of said Section MA 471 feet most of the southeast corner of said Section 5. -16- iit�y�'S�:+��►�' _ ���iia�+�►���xa�.yrs+i.rr�o�.Y.•�..�,�_���..�-:..a.� M C) 0 C0 m XCO Lu n .jo r.Q587 vra 137 ma 564 va 137 f=143 f Old Santiaa Bead /1315 i Beginning at a point on the south boundary of Section 1, T. 14 S., R+ 8 Y., Y.Y , approximately 793 feet vest of the southeast corner of said Section, thence northeasterly over and across the SEjMj of said Section a distance of approximately 900 feet to a point an the east bowmdar7 of Section 2* approximately 857 feet north of the southeast earner of said Section 1. Thence beginning at a point on the north boaodarf of Section 7, T. 24 S., R. 9 E•, approxiatel,T 1,624 feet east of the norUnnat earner of said Section, thence southeasterly over and .cross said Section a distance of approximately 1,580 feet to a point on the east boraWary of said Section approxiatelrT 1,067 feet south of the northeast corner of said Section 7. Thence beginning at a point on the vest boundary of Section 99 T. 24 S., R. 9 E., rf.M., Approximately 1,166 feet north of the southrest corner of said Section, thence southeasterly over and across the 31,Wj of said Section a distance of approxiaate4 10280 feet to a point on the south boundary of said Section approxirntely 3 feet vast of the south } corner of said Section 9. Thence beginning at a point in Section 16, T. 14 S., R. 9 E., Y.11., appVoXd— natelY 1020 feet vest and 150 feet north of the east } corner of said Section, ! thence eoutheaster17 over and across the SE�14 of said Section and the I Section 15, T. 14 S., R. 9 S., Y.lL, a distance of approxiXAteV 3,960 feet to a point -in Section 15 approxiaataiy 1,320 feet north of the south j corner of said Section. Thence beginning at a point on the north boundary of Section 23, T. 14 S., R. 9 E., Y.M., approximatel,T 40 feet east of the northwest corner of said Section, thence southeasterly over and across said Section a distance of approximately 5,990 feet to a point on the south boundary of said Section approximat@4 40 feet vest of the southeast tosser of said Section 23. Thence beginning at a point an the vest boundary of Section 31, T. 24 S., R. 10 E., Y.]L, apprord.aate2y 1,040 feet north of the vest } corner of said Section, thence southeasterly over and across said Section a distance of approximately 6,500 feet to a point on the east boundary of said Section approximately 107 feet north of the southeast corner of said Section 31. Thence beginning at a point on the north boundary of Section 5, T. 15 S•, R. 10 E., Y.M., apprvsiately 210 feet east of the northwest corner of said Section, thence southeasterly over and across the Y} Iot 4 a distance of approximately 924 feet to a point appeosdsatalT 660 feet ,oath and 660 feet east of the nortiaest corner of said Section 5. .unction Road /13151 Beginning at a point on the south boundary of Section 5. T. 14 S., R. 9 E., Y.M., approximately 845 feet east of the sonthrest corner of said Section, thence northeasterly over and across the MIJ, Mi}SH} of said Section a distance of approxdstely 3,080 feet to a point of Junction with the Half Ration Road #1375 approxiaately 2112 feet north and 2,884 feet east of the southwest corner of said Section 5• -7- M U I+- 0 (D mM 2 al X m w .._.._ .137ma150 Iiriat Icon Road #131.58 ,roe 137 n 565 Beginning at a point on the north bouasdary of Section 17, T. 2.4 S., x. 9 x., Y.x., approximately 530 feet rest of the north et corner of said Seetioat thence southeasterly over and across said Section a distance of approslatQ7 3,700 feet to a point on the east boundary of said Section, 690 feet north of the east } corner of said Section 17. Old Railroad Grade Beginning at a point of Junction rith the Dugout IaYe Road #11.44 in Section 17, T. 24 S., R. 9 E., W.Y.., approximate.17 500 feet rest and 600 test north of the south } corner of said Section, thence southeasterly over and across the SEj;Sd}. SIWZj, a distance of apprwdaately 1,050 fest to a point on the south boundary of said Section approximately 475 feet east of the south k corner of said Section 17. Thence beginning at a point on the rest boundary of Section 21, T. 24 S., H. 9 i., W.M., approximately 160 feet north of the most j corner of said Section, thence easterly over and across the SJNJ of said Section a -distance of approxim►tel, 3,500 feet to a point on the east boundary of said Section approximately 900 feet north of the east j corner of said Section 21. Thence beginning at a point on the west boundary Section 23, T. 14 S., M. 9 E., I.M., approximately 1,160 feet north of the vast j corner of said Section, thence northeasterly over and across the WiRwi of said Section a distance of approximately 1,050 feet to a point of junction with the Old Santiam Road #1315 approximately 800 feet south and 780 feet east of the northwest corner of said Section 23• Graham Butte Road !11.711 Beginning at a point in Section 13, T. 14 S., R. 8 S., Y.M., appro3d.nats2y 124 feet most of the east } corner of said section, thence southeasterly over and across the HE}SEk of said Section a distance of approximately 576 feet to a point on the east boundary of said section approxi=Uly 565 feet south of the east j corner of said Section 23. Thence beginning at a point on the west boundary of Section 17, T. 24 S., R. Y E., W.M., approairately 1,379 feet north of the southwest corner of said Section, thence southerly over and across the SdiSdt of said Section a distance of apprax telt' 1,479 feet, to a point on the south boundary of said Section approximately 686 feet east of the southwest corner of said Section 17. Thence beginning at a point on the east boundary of Sestina 19, T. 14 S., a. Y E., Y.M., approximately 1,993 feet south of the northeast cornier of said Section, thence southerly over and across the 3"L SJSEL a distance of approximately 2,259 feat to a point on the east boundary of said section approximately 1,0(o8 feat north of the southeast corner of said Section 19. -j- A -- • vcY 35 rr..589 vm .137 Mai 5M vm 137 wi51 Thence beginni:wg at a point on the north boundary of Section 33, T. 24 S-, R. 9 t•, Y.}►., apprnzimately 39 feet east of the northwest c= nsrof said Section, thence southwesterly over and across the L-dthVk of said Section a distance of approximately 67 feet to a point on the rest baMdary of said Section approximately 55 feet south of the northwest coma of said. Section 33• Granite Batte Road /1423 - - Begioning at a point on the north•boundar7 of Section 25, T. 24 S., R- Q B., Y.M., approximate2J 1,278 feet rest of the northeast oorrm-of said Section, thence southeasterly over and acrois the XEbE} of said Section a distance of approximately 1,400 feet to a point an the east boundary of said Section approximately 737 foot south of the northeast corner of said Section 25• Little Butte Road /1471 Beginning at a, point on the east boundary of Section 35, T. 24 3., R- 9 a-, K.M., approximately 800 foot north of the east j comer of said Section, thence westerly over and across the SJNEJ, 9d}, of said Section a distance of approximately 6,860 feet to a point on the rest bamdarT of said Section approximately 1,320 feet north of the west } corner of said Section 35- Thenee beginning at a point in Section 33, T- 14 S., R. 9 R•, W.M., appro=i- aate4 1,580 feet west of the east } corner of said Section, thence nortb- westerly over and across the 3404, Z A. Wilu}, a distance of approxi- ately 5,000 feet to a point on the west boundarT of said Section approxi- ately 630 foot south of the northwest corner of said Section 33 - Thence beginning at a point on the east boundary of Section 32, T. 14 S., R. 9 E., Y.M-, approximately 933 foot south of the northeast corner of said Section, thence westerly over and across the N}N} of said Section a distance of approxinate27 5,805 feet to a point on the west boundart of said Section approximately 652 feet south of the northwest corner of said Section 31 - Pour Nile Spri_mR.oad_f"3. Beginning at a point on the west boundary of Section 23, T. 24 S., R. 9 1-, Y.M., approximately 528 feet north of the west } corner. theme southerly over and across the 9dit i, !3i},SY} of said Section a distance of apprcxl- ately 1,372 feet to a point on the west boundary of said Section approxi- mately 160 foot south of the wast j oorasr of said Section 23• Cold Springs Cutoff Road /1i24 Beginning at a point on the rest boondar7 of Section 25, T. 24 S.. R. 9 E., W.M., approxisrtely 50 feet south of the northwest comer of said Section, thence northeasterly over and across the NW�I* of said Section a distance of approximately 55 feet to a point on the north boundary of said Section approximately 87 feet east of the northwest corner of said Section 25. -9- j � +� M CD O 00 M O O) t0 n r� 137 =152 vm 137 ma 567 Thence beginning at a point on the north boundary of Section 35, T. U S., B. 9 S., W,X., approximately 14130 feet rest of the northeast corner of said Section, thence southwesterly over and across the 199}, S.MbN} of said _ Section a distance of appro�telt 3,300 feet to a point in said Section approzimtely 1,868 feet east and 2,640 feet south of the nortbwast corner of said Section 35• Section One Road /1 MO Beginning at a point on the north boandm7 of Section 7, T. 15 S., R. 9 b, Y.m., approzimtely 475 feet east of the northwest corner of said Section, thence southerly aver and across this Yj of said Section a distance of apprmd- natelT 7,400 feet to a point on the south boundary of said Section apprmdmtel7 2,110 feet east of the southwest corner of said Section 7. Pond San Road /15022 Begirming at a point on the south boundary of Section 7, T. 15 S., R. 9 L, Y.M., approximately 1,000 feet east of the south } corner of said Section, thence northeasterly over and across the Tj of said Section a distance of approximtely 5,300 feet to a point on the east boundary of said Section approximately 100 feet north of the east } corner of said Section 7. Trout Creek Butte Road (1535 Beginning at a point m the south boumdar7 of Section 17, T. 15 S., Y. 9 E., Y.M., approzlmtsjy 542 feet east of the southwest earner of said Section, tnance northerly over and across said Section a distance of apprnzisatelr 5,638 feet to a point on the north boundary of said Section approxdmtaly 1,760 feet east of the northwest corner of said Section 17. Section Line Road 015027A Beginning at a point of junction with Trout Creek Butte Road M35 in Section 179 Y. 15 S., B. 9 Y., Y.X., approximately 320 feet east and 50 feet north of the southweet corner of said Section, thence northwesterly over and across SW}Si4 of said Section a distance of appioximtely 530 feet to a point on the west boundar7 of said Section apprwxdmtely 475 feet north of the southwest corner of said Section 17. Thence beginning at a point on the west bouadar7 of 3eatice 17, T. 15 S., R. 9 B., Y.X., approxi=tely 1,050 feet north of the southwest corner of said Section, thence northerly over and across the Ts;. -W} of said Section a distance of approzimtely 10320 feet to a point on the west boundary of said Section approxdately 740 feet south of the west 4 corner of said Section 17. I'e Thence beginning at a point on the south boundary of Section 7, T. 15 S., �^ 9 R., Y.X., approximately 210 feet west of �} }ut�sy�rner of said Section, thence northerly over and across the o141 etion a dlstaaee�y({/ of approximately 2,850 feet to a point of junction with the Food Spar Sed x15022 in said Section approxdately 50 feet west and 100 feet north of the east, } corner of said Section 7. -19- •�, '.Ma vt 137 aa568 vm 137 na153 Parallel Road /15x2 ` aegirming at a point on the east boaadary of seetioa 19 T. 15 S., R. appros3aatal7 1.050 feet north of the aoath.ast sooner of aid.3ection► thence westerly aver and across Si of said Section a distance of approcdsatel7 5.1.50 feet to a point on the vest bouada:7 of said 34etion appeos3att47 1 '0 740 feet north of the soathwaat earner of said Section L Thence beginning at a point on the east boundary Of Seetlion 39. T. 15 S., R. 9 B., w.M., approximately 1,OOQ feet north of the southeast earner of Section, thence raster>J agog across the S} of Bald Section a the west boundary distance of appseximately 5,800 feet to a point as said Section approsisstely 1,75 feet south of the wast }sooner of said Section 3• west soar Road Bsgiruing at a point an the wast boundary of Seetloo 3. T. 15 S., R. 9 Z., Y.M., approxdaately 630 feet south of the west i oorner of said 3ecticn, thence northeasterly over and across the WiSVj of said Section a distance telt' 1,050 feet to a point of junction rich Parallel Road /LRM of appiosiaa approximately 943 feet east and 530 feet south of the vast } corn,s of said section 3• East SvSoad geginnins at a point on the vast bounda97 of Section 9, T. 15 3., R. 9 S., Y.K., approximately 1,600 feet north of the math corner of said Seatioa, thence northeasterly over and across said Section a distance Of apPoodmIstely 6,340 lest to a point on the north baundarl of said seat'= appe'ox'astsl7 630 feet west of the northeast corner of said Section 9• Thence beginning at a point on the vest boundar7 of Section 3, T. 15 S., R. 9 E., Y.M., approziaately 530 feet north of the soathrrst aoxwer of said Section, thence northeasterly over and across the 54 of said Section a distance of appr-daately 10900 feet to a point of jmatim with Parallel Road 11582 in said Section &;Wasimatel7 1,370 feet east and 1,900 feet north of the southwest earner of said sestina 3• China Hat itoad 11.E Beginning at a point of junction with Federal Hi*mm7 197 in 3eation 19. T. 18 S., R. 12 8., Y.M., appre3lart4l7 85 feet south and 90 fest wast of the northeast corner of said section, thence southeasterly ova' and across Sections 19, 20, 29, and 28 a distance &ppraximetely 9�,640 feat to a point on the south bo®dary of the Sfj* otSection2 120 feet east of the vest } corner of said Section 38. -U- v '137 na1M ya 137 ra 569 1"a L�lsnd Boad i1D31 ' Beginning at a point of junction with the rankti- Road #UW in Seetlea 28, T. 18 S., R. 11 E., Y.M., apprmciately 4,750 feat south and 216 feet east of the northwest corner of said Section, thaacs southerly over and across Sections 28 and 33,. T. 28 S., It. 11 K., and Sections 4, 5, 8, and 9, T. 19 S., R. 11 E., a distance of approsimatal? 24,816 fest to a point in Seetloa 9, T. 19 S., R. 11 E., Y.M., aPPrGXizlat44 1,360 fed north of the south �. corner of said Section. Thence beginning at a point on the north bowery of S6ctlon 16, T. 19 S., R. 11 E., Y.M., appmx mately 1,485 feet.wast of the northeast corner of said Section, thence southwesterly over and across said Sectloo a distance of approximately 6,204 feet to a point on the south boundary of said Section... approximately 510 feet east of the southwest corner of said Section 16. Conklin Road i1" Beginning at a point as the north boundary of Section 22, T. 18 S., R. 11 B., Y.M., approxl=tely 829 feet west of the northea'corner of said Section, thence southwesterly over and across Sections 22 28 a distance of ap- proxLmtaly 13,295 feet to a point in Section 28 approximately 4,750 feet r' south and 216 feet east of the northwest corner of said Section 28.71(1. Jack Pine Springs Road 11722 `r Beginning at a point of junction with the County Band at 9howlin park in Section 23, T. 17 S., S. 11 Y., approxiaatelt 1,980 feet east and 1,035 feet north of the southwest corner of said Section, thence southwesterly, - over and across Sections 23, 26, 27, 34, 33, and 32 of said Township and Sections 5 and 6 of T. IS S., R. 11 8., Y.M., and Sections 1, 2, and 3 of T. 18 S., R. 10 E., Y.M., and Section 34 of T. 17 S., R. 10 B., Y.M., distance of aPpra3d ate4 42,240 feet to a point. Sa 3ectlon 34, T. 17 S., R. 10 h., Y.M., approxinate4 1,320 fast west mod 2,000 feet north of the southwest corner of said Section 34. Your Mile $prion toad #1445 lefisminf at a Point on the east boundary of fectioa 21. S. 14 !., !. 1 f., H.M., approximately 990 feat south of the east ote-hurter tosser of said Section, theses sootbwestarly over and across: the fit of said faction a distance of approximately 2768 fact to a point on the south boundary of said Section appraximstely 40 feet wt of the south one-quarter corner of said Section. C7 U o Fn X c� - rx 137 rug 570vfx 36 rvi 593 vcL 137 ra 155 illir4than Cutoff !139.1 and 2-'8_'.sters Mainline /139.3 / Beginning at a point on the north boundary of Section 25, T. 13 S., R1 9 E. Y.h., approxiaately 900 feet waft of the north k oornar of said Section, theme southerly over and across the EJIJit of said SectIm a distance of approximately 2600 feet to a point in &aid Section apprmdsately 2400 feet east of the vest j corner of said Section 25. Thence beginning at a point on the north boundary of Seectian 23, T. 14 S., R. 9 X., 1.h. approximately 260 feet wast of the northeast corner of said Section, thence southerly over and across said Section a distance of apprwd- atelT 5280 feet to a point on the south boundary of said Section approximately 10 feet vest of the southeast corner of said Section 23. Thence beginning at a point on the wast boundary of Section 25, T. 14 S., R. 9 E., Y.M. approximately 10 feet south of the northwast corner of said section, thence southeasterly, over and across said Section a distance of approximately 7390 feet to a point on the east boundary of said Section approximately 70 feet north of the southeast corner of said Section 25• Thence beginning at a point on the north boundary of Section 31, T. 14 S., R. 10 B., X.M., approximately 50 feet east of the northwest corner of amid Section, thence southerly aver and across said Section a distance of approxi- mately 5280 feet to a point on the south boundary of said Section, approximately 10 feet east of the southwest earner of said Section 31.. Thence. beginning at a point on the north boundary of Section 18, T. 15 S., R. 10 E., Y.M., approximately 475 feet wast of the northeast corner of said Section, thence easterly over and spross the M*174 of said Section a distance of approximately 500 feet to a point on the eazt Domsdary of said Section approximately 30 feet south of the northeast corner of said Section 18. Thence beginnint at a point in Section 26, T. 15 S., R. 10 E., Y.M., approxdmately 1320 feet east and 1020 feet math of the northwest corner of said section, thence southeasterly over and &erose the ZW4 of said Section a distance of approximately 1400 feet to a point In Section 26, approximately 1950 feet east of the wast j corner of said Section 26. Thence beginning at a point in Lot 2 of Section 3, T. 16 S., R.•10 E., Y.M., approximately 1340 feet wast of the east closing corner of said Section, thence southerly aver and across Lot 2 of said Section a distance of approximately 790 feet to a point in Section 3, 1580 feet west of the east 4 corner of said Section. Thence beginning at a point on the wast bo=%L&ry of Section 2, T. 16 S., H. 10 E., Y.M., approximately 320 feet north of the southwest corner of said Section, thence southeasterly over and across SYj5Wj Section 2, NYJ Section 11, a distance of approxdaataly 4860 feet to a point in Section 11 approximately 2530 feet east :f the most } oornar of Section 3.1.. t ri Uv~ 0 X ca u1 d vK :3fi" r-:. 594 v.m 137 n a156 vm 137 ra 571 Thence begirmirg at a point In Sbetion 11, T. 16 S., S. 10 E. Y.M., app¢roxlmate4 1320 feet south and 1900 feet east of the West corner of said Section, theme southwesterl7 over and across the SjM} Section 21, SISE} Section 10, a distance of apprazisatel7 4700 feet to a point an the south boundary of Section 10 approsiaat4T 1530 feet rest of the southeast corner of said Sectlan 20. Thence beglrsn at a point in Section 15, T. 16 S., 2. 20 E., Y.M., approxi— Section. 1320 feet south And 1580 feet most of the northeast corner a! said Section, thence Township, oras and across Sections 15, 22,- 23, 24, 26, and 25 of said 2ormahip, and Section 30 And 1k Section 31. T. 16 S., R. 11 E., H.R. a distance of appraodmstal,T 5} mass to point is Section 31, T. 16 s., 3 11 S., approximte4 1290 feat east of the rest k corner of said Section 31. Thence begirasing at a point In section 9, T. 17 S., L 21 E., Y. M., appraximately 1380 feet east of the'rest } corner of said Section, thence soutbeasterly over and across the Sit of Section 9, and Section 16 a di��e of apgroxim telt' 100000 feet to a point on the south bOWx%r7 of Section 16 1000 feet wast of the southeast corner of said Section 16. Thence beginning at a point on the Wast bocodU7 of Seetlon 22, T. 17 S., R- 11 $-, approziaatei, 530 feet south of the northwest corner of said Section, thence southerly over and Across Sections 22 and 27 a distance of appir-dmte17 10;600 feet to a point of Junction with the Jack Pine Springs Road 11722 in Section 27 ap;u.=dsat47 700 feet east and 990 feet • north of the soutbrsst corner of said Section 27. - A- V:L D7 572 137 rAu 15'! If the road is located substantially as ds*=Wmd herein, the centerline of the road as constructed is hereby deemed accepted by the grantor sn the true canterllne of the unseat granted. Together with such reasonable rigbL of taoporarf was of the Grantor's lands immadiatalr adjacent to said right-uf-wV as mar be necesaarr for the reconstruction, Improvement and aaintsnaace of said road. This oonverance Is made subject to the following rss vstio s, I. The Grantor reser+m to itself, its mwtemsore and assigpa, the right to Cross and recross the land ootered by said right-cf+tT and any road tharson at sol point for.agy and All purposes, and further remerres In accordance with a share -east agreement entered tato bstwom the Greater and Graatse the right to share in the reccnstzvotion and improve- ment of the road and the right to rase the road so rreaastruetod and improved, without cost eneept for maintansaee and rssar� facing rhea used for 000eraial ha-1Ing purposes, in such manner as not sarsasonably to interfere with the ase of said road by the Grantee, or its authorised were, or cause sub- stantial injury therstoj provided, that daring periods when the Grantor, its successors or assigns, uses said road, its use will be subject to mach t."afMc control regulations as the i3nited States say impose upon or require of haulers of forma or other products, and provided farther that Grantor MmU per- form its share of road mminteasaes and resurfacing on the portions so used, or contribute to the cost of said maintenance and rosur• facing, so that its proportionate share (based on the ratio that its hauling bears to the total banling during said period of ase) Of the cost of maintaining and resurfacing the road, to the extant necessary to restore the rod to the condition existing at the start of the ase, will be paid or performed. 2. The Grantor reserves to itself, its s,,ceasor, and assigms, all timber an said right-cf—sy, provided that the Grantee, or its timber purchasers, shall have the right to out timber, upon the right-cf-OAT to the axtent neeessa.ry for the better- ment of said road. Sark timber shall be cut into logs of standard length with proper trim allowance and shall be decked harisontal1y along said rust -of -mW and shall be free of stump*, limbs, axed other debris. Grantor expressly reserves the right to eater upon sonh strip of lead to remove said decked timber anc.to remove standing timber in the usual and customary manner without cost except for his prorsta share of maintenance. The Grantor further reserves the right to grow and harvest future forest Crops on that portion of said rust -of -mW not actually used for rod purposes. -16- 0-0 v-. p X c� W0- y.i 137 FQ158 va. 137 na 573 3. The Grantor seeerves to itself, its aaaeessors and assigns, the right an aW portim of the road maiutaiaed and resur- faced b7 the Oraater to charge parohasers of Rational Feast -timber, haulers at private timber, hanlars of mineral pre- dacts and all other heavy Mmlars, a maintanmmoo charge and a resurfacing charge, the charges to be proportlow" to The healers! ase of the road: If ark hauler should also% to pau- form saintenaaoe or resurfactn; work is lieu of p@71" the charge, the worft performed shall be proportionate to to haalar's we of the road. h. This easement replaces sod supersedes the follaming imstremsizU recorded in Records of Jeffarem Cout', Oregon, to -wits Data of Instrument Date imoorded FolasPw Fsbraa:7 2, 1950 Feb nary 15, 1950 21 569 ims 8, 1950 Jme 20L950 22 A October 1956 Oetober'25, 1956 28 262 August 2957 29 215 Jose 1X,1958 7 Dooember Catober 1, 1958 30 307 Jus lh, 196o Jags 27, 1960 32 182 Jane 31, 1960 Jmoe 21, 1960 32 187 September 7, 1961 Oatober 1% 3961 33 610 The following instrmmeete recorded in boords of Deschutes County, QnKm, to -sits Date of Instrument Dete Recorded Iola m !a Febrear7 2 19% February 7, 3950 92 310 November 1A, 1.953 January 21, 1951 106 215 November 18, 1953 January 21. 1954 1.06 218 &r ch 24. 1955 April 5, 1955 1.10 35 Marro 24 1955April 5,• 1955 no 19 October A, 1957 Oetober.23, 2,957 117 425 Jus 29, 1959 July 16, 1959 3?2 570 April 4, 1962 April 13, 1962 130 523 April 4, 1962 April 13, 1962 130 527 April h. 1962 April 13, 1962 1X0 530 -1a6 - M U 0 X wn 507 v_i 137 ru: 5 71 rl 137 153 Subject to the foregoing reservations, the rights, privileges and authorities bersim granted are for fall use sad enjoyment by the Grantee for any and all purposes deemed necessary or desirable in connection, dth the aenage at and administration of the National Forest and the utilisatim of the resources thereof, mad the Grantee aq extend aach rights and privileges to other Government departments and agenda and to others including members of the public, provided such additional w shall be controlled ao it will ant unreasonably interfere with ase of the roads by the Grantor. The rights, privileges and authorities beraln granted shall continue as long as used for the purposes Ranted, but if for a period Of five years the Grantee *shall cease to use the road, or parts thereof, for the purposes Ranted, or shall abandon the same, than is n,7 mach events, the premises traversed thereby shall be freed from said easement, or parts thereof, as fully and completely as if this indenture had aft been made. In, the event of such amuse for the period stated, the Bagional Forester shall furnish to the Grantor a stateneat is recordable fora evidencing Each Amon*. I1 fdTEM YFMF3fl, the Grantor hes caused these presents to be sealed with its corporate seal and signed by its the day and year first above written. the Pregame@ off r• r'Ik,rQ__ issistapt Genal.Ya�agOr �tteatn State of Oregon ) q. County of Deschutes ) Oct this day personally appeared before as Yrsemon Schultz and to M kowu to the Sr. Vise- , ;� ^• - and salt r ne 1- rstrsponective]J, o t eorporat m tba amen the oregc sat And acknovlodged to m that such corporation executed the was as its free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and parpoees therein mentioned, and that they were authorised to execute said instnsast on, behalf of the corporation by authority of its board of directors, and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said coxporstiea. Before me this 2nd day of October 1 1961. _ PablIc in and Sar Qt"ats : of Gregor sssidi ng at ,. Ota PV condsai,m 43411res , -1T- cY) U o �- c0 m� 2 � X ca. 111 d Rand *Ubw ymdm onek U39i 3qsm Swk MAP 1w 3molL 3priso 1=60 muumuu No= me -on Rand *Ubw ymdm onek U39i 3qsm Swk MAP 1w 3molL 3priso 1=60 va .137'w 576 =m Road area coverod by this oamemnt vim t" 5a39 VOL 1 61 ....... Rcmd &M4 "Ot oowz*d by this e4aammt ✓. 333: Wumette 0-= � rr, Ro.d la" 1a PANd MXdMW F coam Uhn Im milt R&tLm 2375 00 Caabe OK&4C 238A pr Un SWIM 13150 0 X w0- M god area ee"r" by td, eanewmt 26" ar" tot Ow"r" by tms ease 137 577 vinam"u 6-4 jr Road Symbol W&&-40.0 bbA � I *Wb6 Bond Now E Sm dt Sp -Ina L AI&Outaff IMOMMOURUNINEIN pu%13ml WHal.[Ratim 0 Ga.. 1 Pit LL SuttU Sbasum pp Ton Statim NS ='Monaco= E-Im oru, =maim ME I 6-4 jr Road Symbol W&&-40.0 bbA � I *Wb6 Bond Now E Sm dt Sp -Ina L AI&Outaff H pu%13ml WHal.[Ratim 0 Ga.. 1 Pit LL SuttU Sbasum pp Ton Statim Read *amber 12060 139.1 W8A 1375 13753 2317 133-5Z va 137.w578 601 Road area cc r" by . this, 9"mnt 790163 "**"* ROM area not Covered * this *Mmommut vw" Cyr- U. 31 -map 20 2. -- -------------- C Dow Sprimcm owtow D *i@MW sprifts z 220600 &mKit ap-lx" 12060 T Wader pm 2206K octan uhc SPW spw 3ow 13 3pw A Wag C Dow Sprimcm owtow D *i@MW sprifts z 220600 &mKit ap-lx" 12060 T Wader pm 2206K octan uhc SPW spw 3ow 13 3pw A VCL i pow" LEGM fted aria oo"r" by this essomorm vm 137 579 ...... Itood area sot co"red by tMo eassumt Read 3ydml T W 00 Pp 6.4"—o— b".1 NAL Read Isms Clow Cat MA SOOLLSIN Grablaft Batts Grodto ba" Latle Sufte cache Tell Stattom Road V016" 23M uu lkT3A 2W Un 4% _rTy. I R -A OEM Ro MEE moommm Read 3ydml T W 00 Pp 6.4"—o— b".1 NAL Read Isms Clow Cat MA SOOLLSIN Grablaft Batts Grodto ba" Latle Sufte cache Tell Stattom Road V016" 23M uu lkT3A 2W Un 4% _rTy. I R -A j JZMD 663 Ro" ar" wmr" by Mis *"smmt vm 137 w165 Rod area rat emr" by Wx oammomt ad No" *mWb4 r Im— un 2hTU 2.U5 1375 xnsk 231SA 239.1:3 239o2 239 OR Gr=dU Dwfto = imlommmi MA 3=AlAm N aw MUM T J*MWLIM ti.m.rulk ldriA id" IL . OU 11&41re" fly &I-140chm oatAff 1 6 Sidor., FAMIAlim Irommus ftring COU ox -Ir h Fb L MF I Ppmr-xp.r-- mom ad No" *mWb4 r Im— un 2hTU 2.U5 1375 xnsk 231SA 239.1:3 239o2 239 OR Gr=dU Dwfto Grab= Bit" MA 3=AlAm N aw MUM T J*MWLIM w ldriA id" IL . OU 11&41re" fly &I-140chm oatAff 1 6 Sidor., FAMIAlim Irommus ftring COU ox -Ir ad No" *mWb4 r Im— un 2hTU 2.U5 1375 xnsk 231SA 239.1:3 239o2 239 OR R 61A 166 Zmd ar" owwr*dty this easoment vm 137 r 531 - 6-1 Seed sjs�al =ash saw Nm*W ou 311SLIME 23U asks" %dollso 1903 11 =on MIN ME an am EMSEWWWHOW - 6-1 Seed sjs�al =ash saw Nm*W ou 311SLIME 23U asks" %dollso 1903 11 va -M-'ew 582 Road &"49 cwmr"'by Ws samsasnt vix 137 ...... Road 4r" not *"or" by this *aomwut F L No" *=box z BiXt=* FW -14— 239J ptra2ul T"" CTSA Dame 25ft 20!%L O cc Pad ftw =1W sestim am X%am vw* 4! nasi firs! POU ere* 196 ft* spw W n F L No" *=box z BiXt=* FW -14— 239J ptra2ul T"" CTSA Dame 25ft 20!%L O cc Pad ftw 25M sestim am X%am vw* 4! nasi firs! POU ere* 196 ft* spw W n lexxIoIr X Road &"a covered by this eassamrat vm 137ww Road area not covered by this oassawrat Read 9—p6el Read saw MA 30mum Sistwe NsiaUm rwSlLa -6n load Nobw 1315 13VJ 25ft CY) CO 0 Ln X W0- mzmm Read 9—p6el Read saw MA 30mum Sistwe NsiaUm rwSlLa -6n load Nobw 1315 13VJ 25ft CY) CO 0 Ln X W0- C) 0 Lo (1) X0) ca w0- INN= olm 0 M Old - M Emml min NONE C) 0 Lo (1) X0) ca w0- an HIM IMIN co CD C) 14- 0 cy) LO X m Lu o ver i317� LEGM Er.risir 14 wa Road area covered tl this easement vm 137 Ma587 ...... Road area not covered by Uds easement 279, 9.--. W123Amotte Deschutes comty Mrormol Road Symbol load mom Rcmid N wd>w Slaters moinijim 139.3 IR Jack Mw SprivV 1722 co CD C) 14- 0 cy) LO X m Lu o wa m��x co CD C) 14- 0 cy) LO X m Lu o 20" ArG4 cOvOred by va Yr-,:� ra 137 na173 Juk ti. Serum lm !R 41 (Y) CD U0 0 �o m C° X W a. 137 M LZG= x1rAlf'O"r 0 vet - food ar" covered b, this oessmout vm 137 ..... Road aroma not camr" 1W We easawat Rod &"a vtthin fee title railroad right-of-way cover" tT this eassmat 111,411,11111 em win�t" K19 &-IZ-.o— WA - I MAW. Imeld VIEW 1"a Uum C=e r EW—MUCHURE �m m K19 &-IZ-.o— WA - I MAW. Imeld VIEW 1"a Uum C=e r vat,137� 76Road `t..... era net —r ad by this aasassnt a 137 r=591 20" &—.Witbia fay title railroad right-ol-rey ooserad by this easaaent -� - - - - -.- J -P 5 �x ' . -- - - Is 0.4 j land ►-c: k.aa—Or lr►.f �. �� —mal i/sd 1.i! _ SK Iowa taLat Zan 3d0A STATE OF OREGON #(.30993 Inc.. County at Jeffeffesl J to *0 line othin brtrrennl �•IT .;I_5 (�F .1'�.�nl,A 21..... s,1o0rr PKOfd on f!M .. .. . \oy_cmhtr—._, AM 19 ha.- M...-1:.�_.._ o'clock ... P...A, and rseorded in book an �� – !i �._ _ Rsmrd of Ueeda of said Co,wnlr. Wtness my hard and seal of County affm& _..._.._--_VzLLIE .L•ATtS County Com• Deputy. (Y) (9 U p F– ch m � 2 � X ca W(I- I: MP -02-12 ROAD ACCESS DRAWING LOCATED IN.• SECTIONS 15, 16, 21 & 22, T17S, R11E, WA4., DESCHWES COUNT/, OREGON (0 SISEVORE ROAD FOREST 1 ROAD \.--4606 Z! BULL SPRINGS �'V EA SEMEN T PER BK 366 PG 219 PARCEe J.* A. H. JOHNSON ji '-R FOREST SERWCE RD F 4606 EA SEMEN T •PER BK 151 PG 485 EASEMENT PER BK 137, P 0 G 588 14 5K --T 020104rd—xbtl?-A YOU TJ I 77- SISEMORE ROAD Z! BULL SPRINGS �'V EA SEMEN T PER BK 366 PG 219 PARCEe J.* A. H. JOHNSON ji '-R FOREST SERWCE RD F 4606 EA SEMEN T •PER BK 151 PG 485 EASEMENT PER BK 137, P 0 G 588 14 5K --T 020104rd—xbtl?-A YOU TJ I From:BEND FIRE DEPT - 541 322 6320 12/05/2002 10:35 #020 P.001 F A C S I M I L E 710 WALL gin TO: Teia Lewis PO Dox 431 REND, OR 97709 FAX NUMBER:' 389-1777 154113884W5 T!L 154113W3519 FROM: Don Jenson FAX v "•cLbeztcLor•ux PHONE Nub=R: 322-6315 RE: MATT THOM S DATE: 12/5/02 PAGES: 3 EXHIBIT E Page 1 of 3 From:BEND FIRE DEPT ,- 541 322 6320 12/05/2002 10:36 #020 P.002 1212 S.W. Simpson Ave, Rend, Oregon 97102 (541)322.6300 FAX (541) =4320 December 4, 2002 Larry Langston Fire Chief Bend Fire & Rescue Chief Langston, FM DEPARTMENT GARRY J. LANCiJTON Fire Chief Recently, Tom Fay was contacted by Mr. Matt Thomas a property owner that is contiguous to the DRFPD #2 off Johnson road near the Saddle Back subdivision. He asked us to visit his property located off the Bull Springs tree farm road to evaluate the access points as well as the property itself. In our discussion with Mr. Thomas he pointed out that his application process to Deschutes County was being reviewed, and questions regarding road access had been discussed as an issue. Tom Fay and I drove out with Mr. Thomas together to survey the property and determine if proper access existed. There has been discussion about the old "Sisters Mainline" road being a secondary road or access to the property in question. After close study of the map road system and actual driving of the area I've concluded that the "Sisters Mainline" road is not needed for the fire department for good access to the Thomas property. The road leading into the property that is currently being utilized is sufficient for our needs. Mr. Thomas advised us that Hap Taylor & Sons were going to be doing some improvements to the Bull Springs road. This road is a paved road and only needs to be widened in a few places along its route to make it a more functional roadway. As for the Thomas property I advised Tom Fay (DRFPD#2 business manager) that we should use this as a model for other Urban Interface properties being considered for annexation into the Rural Fire District. Mr. Thomas has not yet had a chance to complete all of the work that he outlined to Tom and I. However, he has developed defensible spaces that would most likely protect the Saddle Back subdivision from fire that would approach from that direction. EXHIBIT E Page 2of3 From:BEND FIRE DEPT -- 541 322 6320 12/05/2002 10:36 #020 P.003 If more property owners took the approach that Mr. Thomas has done with this forested area, our department would respond to smaller more controllable fires when they do occur. It also creates safety zones for our personnel in the case of large fast moving fires. The Fire District could incorporate this into the annexation prerequisite process by using this as a positive example on how to create defensible spaces. This will allow property owners to take on the responsibility of providing their own defensible space so the fire department has something to work with in case of conflagration type fires. If Mr. Thomas decides to petition to come into the DRFPD#2, I would have no problems from Operational consideration to approve that request. This property is approximately four miles from our Tumalo fire station and is also contiguous to the existing fire district boundaries. The property meets annexation guidelines established through joint county/city recommendations we follow for approval. Resp y Submitted: Don I enson Deputy Chief, Operations C 1Ce: Larry Langston Fire Chief cc: Tom Fay, DRFPD 02 Matt Thomas Mauer« T%ow"Q* AN - EXHIBIT E Page 3 of 3 IN A MATTER BEFORE THE DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPTMENT DEPARTMENT Walt Schloer, ) AFFIDAVIT Affiant. ) State of Oregon ) ) ss. County of Deschutes ) 1. I, Walt Schloer, am the District Ranger for the Bend and Fort Rock Ranger Districts of the Deschutes National Forest. I am over the age of 18 and competent to testify to the matters set forth herein. I make this Affidavit based on my own personal knowledge. 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a Tentative Partition Map showing the applicants' intent to partition their property into three parcels. The attached Tentative Partition Map depicts the Sisters Mainline Road which is a U.S. Forest Service road providing access to the real property described as follows: Parcel 1 of PP 2001-56, containing approximately 482 acres 3. Pursuant to 36 C.F.R. 212.6 and 251.50, the legal owners of the above- described real property have a permanent right to use the Sisters Mainline Road located on National Forest as depicted on Exhibit 1 for access to the real property described herein, subject to the regulatory authority of the U.S. Forest Service. The use of the Sisters Mainline Road shown on Exhibit 1 for access by the legal owners of the property described herein does not require a permit or a special use AFFIDAVIT OF WALT SCHLOER EXHIBIT F � Page 1 of 9 authorization unless such access would involve commercial activities or those activities described in 36 C.F.R. 251.50(c)(1) through (3). Dated this � day of May, 2002. Walt Schloer Subscribed and sworn to by the above named affiant this 29-�4) day of May, 2002. c�FFICIAL SEAL KATE CHAMOLEA �IOT.4RY �t18LfC-0fiEGON 'OMfM ISS ON NO.341260 MY s:?�? > xt' RES REC. t7 2004 AFFIDAVIT OF WALT SCHLOER /), Vh' Cp Not46 Public for Oregon EXHIBIT F Page 2 of 9 ]■■] '^,� i-r1'� y, k. _ � � } Z � `� R •r �: � � Vim y 2_ _ JL NX � 11 f zz��' 1 �a I � f f 1 i I -- ---- 4--- --------- I l a I I a � i i a 3.. 1` a EXHIBIT F Page 3 of 9 IN A MATTER BEFORE THE DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPTMENT DEPARTMENT Walt Schloer, ) AFFIDAVIT Affiant ) State of Oregon ) ) ss. County of Deschutes ) 1. I, Wait Schloer, am the District Ranger -for the Bend and Fort Rock Ranger Districts of the Deschutes National Forest I am over the age of 18 and competent to testify to the matters set forth herein. I make this Affidavit based on my own personal knowledge. 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a map of Townships 17 and 18 located in Desc!,utes County depicting several forest service roads providing access to the rea! property described as foliows: 17 S=t, R=ge U Es, W�'. =.= "_...P'I _NL G3'...r.'3.�'3flDL- 'II= Scot cz 'T -c of t'e ',.Tcrt!z Car- 3if Mir- *iL-.) '41a Suter --r,;f (SLa) of Secdcui Z, To°I? Se =4, P.rge COM 7, o"g= TO G c,'* It'+' iI= gortj= cf?=cd :, P=tidoa ,* :999-541 Soo. , �:1Z5C 1I :�Sti ?�icdz�, Camrl, n be!=4 =a.. do=recd as �IIcws: See on L: Me ,Nwkw= Orr.Qm = (NW is a), the Dkrdm t Cme.rvttc of � Sc=rr= ^re .ec aMU4 WJA), :e Nardi 0=.EWf of :he Sante ooe�Zaw= One -Quatro of tie Sam Orn - t (TTU: - WU4 SWV4). Secdon 16. Aa Secioa a Wed' 0=4=-1X of dma Nordrx= 0=—(Z1== of the NM*N= %r_1 Qua= CW=.. Rr�J4NWL�4i- S All ^=3 3, macicd= sad a*cf-way of tote=d affi flue s�a:cxt as $te t.,+a AFFIDAVIT OF WALT SCHLOER EXHIBIT F Page 4 of 9 3. Pursuant to 36 C.F.R. 251.50, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 2, the legal owners of the above-described real property are entitled to use the forest service roads depicted on Exhibit 1 for access to the real property described herein. The use of the roads shown on Exhibit 1 for access by the legal owners of the property described herein does not require a permit or a special use authorization unless such access would involve commercial activities or those activities described in 36 C.F.R. 251.50(c)(1) through (3). Dated this — 7 ---.day of August, 2001. . Zubscribed and sworn to by -the -above named affiant this _ day of August. 2001. LIOFFlCIAL SEAL KATE CHN#IXER NOTARY PUSUGQREC,ON COMMISSION NO.341Z8p N D(P1RE0 0l.K'. 17 AFFIDAVIT OF WALT SCHLOER ry Public for Oregon EXHIBIT F Page 5of9 K -Z. `Z7, 1� jQ i 'a a I 1 tt l������9 ■r� 111•. �� all _ 10 II ii II. L -4—.7`I Inj I to illi [Code of Federal Regulations] [Title 36, Volume 2, Parts 200 to 299] [Revised as of July 1, 20001 From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access [CITE: 36CFR251.501 [Page 304] TITLE 36 --PARKS, FORESTS, AND PUBLIC PROPERTY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE PART 251 --LAND USES --Table of Contents Subpart B --Special Uses Sec. 251.50 Scope. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 472, 497b, 551, 1134, 3210; 30 U.S.C. 185; 43 U.S.C. 1740, 1761-1771. Source: 45 FR 38327, June 6, 1980, unless otherwise noted. (a) All uses of National Forest System lands, improvements, and resources, except those provided for in the regulations governing the disposal of timber (part 223) and minerals (part 228) and the grazing of livestock (part 222), are designated "special uses.'' Before engaging in a special use, persons or entities must submit an application to an authorized officer and must obtain a special use authorization from the authorized officer unless that requirement is waived by paragraph (c) of this section. (b) Nothing in this section prohibits the temporary occupancy of National Forest System land for the protection of life or property in emergencies, if a special use authorization for such use is obtained at the earliest opportunity. (c) A special use authorization is not required for noncommercial recreational activities such as camping, picnicking, hiking, fishing, hunting, horseback riding, and boating, as well as noncommercial activities involving the expression of views such as assemblies, meetings, demonstrations, and parades, except for: (1) Authorization of such use is required by an order issued pursuant to 36 CFR 261.50; (2) Authorization of such use is required by a regulation issued pursuant to 36 CFR 261.70; (3) Noncommercial group uses as defined in Sec. 251.51 of this subpart. (d) Unless otherwise required by order issued under Sec. 261.50 or by regulation issued under Sec. 261.70 of this chapter, the use of existing forest development roads and trails does not require a special - use authorization; however, any such use is subject to compliance with all Federal and State laws governing the roads or trails to be used. [45 FR 38327, June 6, 1980, as amended at 49 FR 25449, June 21, 1984; 53 FR 16549, May 10, 1988; 60 FR 45293, Aug. 30, 1995] EXHIBIT F Page 7 of 9 http://squid.law.comell.eduicgi-binlget-cfr.cgi'MTLE=')6&PART=251&SECTION=50&' � 08/01/2001 From: "Dale Putman/R6/USDAFS" <dputman@fs.fed.us> To: "Tia Lewis" <Tia@merrill-osullivan.com>, <Tia@merrill-osullivan.com> Date: 6/26/02 5:33PM Subject: Re: Road 4606 Tia, The following four points/statements are correct. Dale Putman Planning Engineer (541)383-5629 dputman@fs.fed.us "Tia Lewis" <Tia@merrill-osul To: <dputman@fs.fed.us> livan.com> cc: Subject: Road 4606 06/25/02 10:09 AM Dale: The following is a summary of the points I would like you to confirm. This is the same info as was in the previous email from Myles with the exception that in item number 1, 1 have substituted the reference to the 482 acre Thomas property adjacent to the north (17-11, Sections 21, 22, 15 &16). 1. Road 4606 is a "classified" U.S. Forest System Road. The owners of private property located on County Asssessor's Map 17-11-00, Tax Lot 4300 have rights to use this road under both the terms of written easement agreements with the USFS and under federal law. Federal law (16 USC 3210 (a)) provides a right of acess to private property within the boundaries of the National Forest. USFS regulations provide that persons residing on private land within the boundaries of the National Forest shall be permitted access over existing USFS roads to reach their homes and utilize their property. (36 CFR 212.6 (b)). A private property owner does not need to currently live in or reside in the National Forest to have this right of access --this right also extends to future residences. 2. Recorded easements between the USFS and private property owners provide for the sharing of maintnenace on Road 4606. If a private property owner needs the road to be maintinaed to a higher level, that owner can obtain a speical road permit from the USFS authorizing additional maintenance. With this permit, USFS will specify how road maintenance must be performed. USFS will permit a level of elevated maintenance necessary EXHIBIT F Page 8 of 9 t is Lewis - Ke: Koaa 4bue aye i to provide access to residential dwellings. 3. USFS does not currently plow the road during the winter months. As the owner of property within the forest boundary, the individual owners can obtain a permit to plow the road. This permit will specify how plowing must be conducted to protect and maintan the road surface. Currently USFS recognizes a winter deer closure on the road. This is a "public use" closure and does not prohibit access by private property owners. 4. USFS roads are frequently established across private parcels to maintain access to federal lands. 23 USC 101 defines a "Forest System Road" broadly to include roads on land outside of the National Forest System. 36 CFR 212.1 provides that a "classified road" is a road "wholly or partially within or adjacent to National Forest System lands that are determined to be needed for long-term motor vehicle access, including State roads, county roads, privately held roads, National Forest System roads and other roads authorized by the USFS." Some specific examples of Forest System Roads that cross private lands include: 1) Road 16 --Three Creeks Lake Road, 2) Road 1018 off the McKenzie Hwy, 3) Road 62 --Ringo Road that connects Hwy 97 to the Cascade Lakes Hwy, 4) Roads 5825 and 5830 from Hwy 58 to the Two Rivers subdivision in Klamath county. In this case, Road 4606 was created through reciprocal easements and provides a valuable connection between large blocks of forest land on either end of the road. Thanks for your help Dale. Please call me at 389-1770 if you have any questions. Tia Lewis Merrill O'Sullivan, L.L.P 1070 N.W. Bond St., Ste 303 Bend, OR 97701 (541)389 -1770 --ph (541)389-1777--fx EXHIBIT F Page 9of9 Cal Applebee Western Title & Escrow Co. 1345 NW Wall Street Bend OR 97701 Ph: 541-389-5751/Direct: 330-1225 Cell: 419-5368/Faz: 541-383-2975 E-mail: cavolebee(&westerntitle.com June 27, 2002 Re: Thomas Property 17-11 #4300 Ms. Tia Lewis Merrill O'Sullivan, LLP 1070 NW Bond St., Suite 303 Bend OR 97701 Dear Ms. Lewis, I am writing in response to your questions regarding: 1) access insurability via three easements (366-219, 151485 & 137-558) particularly appurtenant to Section 21, Township 17 Range 11, and 2) merger of the dominant/servient tenements for easements rights created under easement 366-219. As to 91, although we have existing title insurance coverage extended to the subject property which includes access (although via a different route), after review of the three easement documents, but subject to a thorough examination of the full chain of title to all of the servient tenements, we would still be able provide access coverage based on those easements. In addition, as to your concern about the appurtenance to Section 21, as long as the ownership of 21 is common to adjacent properties that are served by the easements, 21 would have sufficient access, as those property owners would have the appurtenant easement access to the adjacent properties, and access across their own adjacent properties to Section 21. As to 42, although a portion of the property affected by easement 366-219 theoretically merged into the holder of the easement, the 1999 deed from the USA to Crown did not contain any specific language that any rights under that easement were to be terminated. In fact, it specifically recited the conveyance as `subject to' the easement. In addition, the easement was reciprocal in nature and affected multiple properties, for which we would not be willing to insure over on any of the parcels. This letter is not to be construed in any way as a policy of title insurance, but merely a statement of our willingness to so insure. Sin ly al Apple Assistant VP Special Projects EXHIBIT G