Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Spring Creek Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Spring Creek residents urge caution as rezoning, possible ski resort could bisect mule‑deer migration
Summary
Spring Creek Open Space Advocates told the Elko County advisory board that two rezoning applications — including a possible ski resort and subdivision of about 900 acres — could bisect a mule deer migration corridor and strain a closed water basin. The board agreed to gather more information and consider submitting comments to the Planning Commission.
Chair Owen Bake opened discussion of a proposed Spring Creek land development that the board was asked to comment on to the Elko County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. Angela Gamble, speaking for Spring Creek Open Space Advocates on behalf of Jim Connolly, said the two pending rezoning applications include one for a ski resort (referred to in the record as "application 20") and another for a ~900‑acre parcel proposed to be broken into smaller lots.
"I'm Angela Gamble, and I'm here, in Jim Connolly's place," Gamble said, and she outlined the concerns: the parcels lie within a closed Dixie Creek water basin, include small creeks and springs that wildlife rely on, and are on a prominent mule deer north–south migration route along the foot of the Ruby Mountains. She asked the board to support residents in attending the Planning Commission meeting on the 21st at 03:00 and to consider sending comments opposing rezoning.
Board members asked for clarification about current and proposed zoning and said they lacked adequate information to take immediate action. One member noted the master plan and whether the proposed changes would fall within master‑plan guidelines. Cody Byrne of the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) told the board the department had "had multiple discussions" internally but had "no official department stance on the situation yet," and said NDOW would provide input as plans are formalized.
Don Cleveland, a local landowner, urged the board to consider conservation easements or other mitigation and reported the developer has already built a road and spoken to media; he said the project could either seek rezoning for commercial ski use or be subdivided into large private parcels under existing rules. Members emphasized the need to watch Planning Commission proceedings and to collect more technical information — including any NDOW wildlife impact studies — before issuing a formal board position.
The board did not take a formal vote opposing rezoning at the meeting; members said they would monitor planning commission actions, gather additional information, and consider drafting comments or letters for the Planning Commission and County Commission.
