The discussion focused on a habitat mitigation plan for a proposed cluster development near Morgan Creek, a type-F fish-bearing stream with adjacent wetlands. Neighbors raised concerns about protecting local wildlife, such as salmon and deer, and emphasized the need to preserve adequate riparian buffers to accommodate the creek's winter flooding. In response, county biologists and the applicant detailed how the project complies with environmental ordinances by utilizing riparian and wetland buffer averaging to maintain a strict 100-foot development setback from the creek's ordinary high-water mark.
Wildlife_habitat
Clark County Land Use Hearings · May 14, 2026 · 1:01:49–1:02:41 · Watch on CVTV ↗
Keywords: wetlands wildlife riparian salmon stormwater habitat
What was said
1:00:25 OK, ordinary high water mark high water line. OK, anything else you want to respond to in particular? Let's see. There's one other little thing. You can see that we did map the creek. It was January 24th of 24 when we mapped the creek. All right, so it was winter time, winter stage when it was mapped.
1:01:15 So what year was at 24? Yeah, you can see it's labeled on the site plan OHWM of Morgan Creek as field located 012424. OK, in the right hand corner. And then OK, there's another couple other. OK, and what is the red line setback? Mr. Kinnerman asked if you could just tell us what if you recall with the buffer setback, the setback? The best thing to look at is the habitat wetland mitigation plan, but you can see there's one to the closest we're allowed to get to the creek with the development disturbance area is 100 feet. So in adjacent to lot two and we're on lots two and three there, we're going to be 100 feet setback from Morgan Creek up there in the northwest corner of lot two.
1:02:15 Then we've got that wetland buffer, that wetland that will transition to a 55 foot setback around wetland A and then again up on the north side of lot three, we will be 100 foot setback to the ordinary high water of Morgan Creek. OK. Is that better? I pulled up exhibit 62. OK, this and 62 is the revised mitigation plan that after a lot of back and forth and back and forth and back and forth with staff, this was the final product that staff signed off on, as I understand it. That is correct. So that's utilizing the county's buffer averaging, adding buffer back. We have to add an equivalent area to other parts of the site. So that's it. OK.
1:03:15 OK, that's very useful. Thank you. Anything else by way of final rebuttal? Understanding that we'll keep the record open, as I mentioned. It sounds like there's at least one new written submission. The record is supposed to close one week after tonight, but you still get final rebuttal and you'll we'll talk about the schedule before we're done tonight. But keep in mind, if anything comes in you want to respond to, you can you have that right to respond final rebuttal in writing after the record closes to everybody else.
Evidence (1 match)
direct keyword 1:01:49–1:02:41 wetlands, wildlife, riparian, salmon, stormwater, habitat
4. OK, in the right hand corner. And then OK, there's another couple other. OK, and what is the red line setback? Mr. Kinnerman asked if you could just tell us what if you recall with the buffer setback, the setback? The best thing to look at is the habitat wetland mitigation plan, but you can see there's one to the closest we're allowed to get to the creek with the development disturbance area is 100 feet. So in adjacent to lot two and we're on lots two and three there, we're going to be 100 fe