C. Riaht-of Way 



As described in Chapter III, the private landowners in Gladstone and 

 French Creeks currently control the motorized access. Gates and/or 

 close supervision are used to prevent motorized access by the 

 public. All private parties that expressed a preference, preferred 

 that one of the existing routes be used vs . construction of a new 

 route located fully on the state land. 



Under Alternative A, the state would conduct no timber harvest and 

 there would be no change to right-of-way status or use. 



The access arrangements being negotiated for Alternatives B & C are 

 for temporary right-of-way easements to be valid only for this one 

 proposed timber sale. Following our proposed use, control would 

 revert to the private landowners in Sections 24, 25 & 35. 



The only exception to this is the related proposal for an easement 

 exchange with Cindy Turk (and her father Dick Baldwin) in Sections 

 27, 28 £c 33 . This exchange would allow the state to acquire a 

 permanent management (not public use) right-of-way across the 

 private lands in the south half of Section 27 and on a few feet of 

 road in Section 33. In exchange, the state would grant a permanent 

 right-of-way across the proposed new road in Section 28, up to the 

 point where the new switch back would corner on the ridgeline a 

 couple of hundred feet west of the corners of Sections 27, 28, 33 & 

 34, T15N, R5W. This right-of-way exchange would be conducted under 

 77-5-115 M.C.A. which allows the trade of reciprocal easements on 

 classified forest lands. 



For Alternatives B & C, there would be a limited period of increased 

 use of these roads, but following the sale use levels and status 

 would revert to the current condition. No long term change would 

 occur to the public access situation in this drainage. The state 

 would need to renegotiate access through Sections 24, 25 & 35 for 

 any future activity. 



The access proposed for Alternative D is for a new connecting road 

 built fully on state owned land, through Sections 14 & 23, joining 

 with existing roads in Section 26 . To prevent unauthorized 

 motorized use, a series of strategically located locked steel road 

 closures would be planned. With these closures in place, and 

 appropriate signing, trespass motorized road use would be prevented. 

 Monitoring would be required annually. 



With this road, the state would have permanent use of a log truck 

 usable road providing access for future management needs in portions 

 of Section 14, and Sections 23 & 26, T15N, R5W. If permanent 

 access could be negotiated with the one landowner in the NWK of 

 Section 35, then the state would gain permanent road access to 

 Sections 34 & 28 also. (Assuming the easement exchange in Sections 

 27, 28 and 33 described above is also completed) . 



SFLMP road management guidance, dated 2/17/98, recommends that we 

 would only build roads necessary for current and near-term 

 management objectives. In general, guidance is that we would plan 



35 



