Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Habitat Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DWR presents Loper Mountain habitat plan, council asks for clearer access language
Summary
Joseph Stevens of DWR walked the Habitat Council through the 12,399‑acre Loper Mountain Wildlife Management Area habitat management plan, highlighting big‑game priorities, limited road access, post‑2018 fire impacts and proposed guzzlers and noxious‑weed control; members asked staff to clarify statements about motorized access and easements.
Joseph Stevens, an impact analysis habitat biologist in the DWR Central Region, presented the Loper Mountain Wildlife Management Area habitat management plan and explained the WMA’s purpose and management measures. Stevens said the WMA totals "12,399 acres" and described primary species (mule deer, elk and mountain goat) and secondary users including game birds, raptors and carnivores. He outlined strategies to control noxious weeds, restore and maintain sagebrush and shrub habitat in lower elevations and improve limited water availability by installing guzzlers where appropriate.
Stevens walked council members through the WMA’s physical character: elevation ranges from about 4,800 feet on the Salem side to near 11,000 feet at San Joaquin Peak, limited vehicle access and a history of wildfire damage from the 2018 Bull Creek fire. He said the plan includes an access‑management component intended to balance public use with species‑management objectives and noted that public access is seasonal in many places; in other words, some roads are closed during winter months.
Council members pressed Stevens to reconcile seemingly contradictory language in the draft plan that at times states there is "no motorized access" while elsewhere referring to recorded easements and seasonal closures. Stevens acknowledged the wording was confusing, noting that legal easements exist but practical, physical access to some easements is limited or blocked by terrain or private parcels. Multiple members asked staff to revise the plan to make access descriptions consistent and to identify clearly where easements exist but are not safely or practically usable by the public.
Stevens said DWR will refine the road and access sections of the draft and return with clearer text and, where possible, maps or annotated easement information for council review. The council encouraged outreach to adjacent land managers where easement language overlaps private property and recommended the plan describe any future access‑improvement scenarios.
