^- 



Other Constraints 



The Department, besides hoping to manage for a semblance of natural conditions, is also 

 constrained by the need to make profits for the school trust, to meet allowable cut levels, to 

 comply with other laws and rules, and to operate within the physical operating limits of today's 

 technology. 



When these factors are brought into the formula, the potential areas for treatment are reduced 

 from all forested lands in the analysis area, to mostly the NE'/4 of Section 26 and a few other 

 potential areas, depending upon the access route used. 



Table 4 



Forest Stands at Gladstone/French Creek that Both Need Treatment 



and Can Potentially be Treated Today with Other 



Constraints, All in 15N-5W 



Sec. 1 4, Stand 6 A narrow band along a new road, if that road is built. Uneven aged. 



Sec. 23, Stand 2 The full stand, adverse skid, even aged. 



Sec. 23, Stand 4 A portion of this stand, on ridgetop if new road is built. Uneven aged. 



Sec. 23, Stand 17 A small portion of this stand, above road on operable terrain, if road is 



built. Even aged. 

 Sec. 26, Stand 6 Most of this stand, except adverse skids from steeper draws, uneven aged, 



probably accessible with any of the 3 possible road options. 

 Sec. 26, Stand 10 Some selective removal from SMZ that can be done from existing road. 



Uneven aged. 

 Sec. 28, Stand 2 Only a small portion of this stand would be operable, probably requiring 



new road, also limited by SMZ concerns. Uneven aged. 

 Sec. 34, Stand 4 With a new road to south of creek, portions of this stand would be 



operable. Even aged. 



The initial proposal should include 3 or 4 potential road systems. 



a) Existing roads in Gladstone Creek and Section 26 



b) Existing roads in French Creek and Section 26 with new road in 23 to connect 



c) New road only on state land in 14 and 23, connecting to existing road in Section 26 and 

 Gladstone Creek 



d) Maybe also existing road in Gladstone Creek and Bear Gulch and Section 26 



The harvest proposals should include all of the areas identified in Table 4. 



D.J. Bakken 

 Forester, DNRC 

 3/3/97, Initial Report 

 10/16/98, Revised 



