Search for: "Clear Creek Consulting Incorporated"
Results 1 - 19
of 19
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Jan 2012, 11:15 am
See Spring Creek Holding Co. v. [read post]
1 Dec 2016, 7:27 am
To be clear on this point: both US and international law require that, prior to action being taking that could potentially impact Indigenous land, the government must consult with the relevant Indigenous group(s). [read post]
19 May 2017, 7:38 am
” These Forest Plan access amendments incorporate a 2011 Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement (ITS) for the threatened grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) that were developed in consultation with the U.S. [read post]
24 May 2010, 11:21 am
(Framingham, MA) Blue Creek Carpentry Inc. [read post]
15 Oct 2018, 7:05 am
Murphy, a member of the Creek Nation, was convicted of murdering another member of the Creek Nation within the reservation and sentences to death. [read post]
21 Jun 2021, 8:55 am
A significant contingency in the alternative evacuation scenarios involved the possible construction of a temporary emergency access route across South Fork Weber Creek just west and downstream from the proposed bridge, which would connect up again with Newtown Road just upstream (and east) from the project area. [read post]
Appellate Court Shuts Out Trial Court in CEQA/ESA Double Header under Deferential Standard of Review
3 Apr 2014, 11:08 am
The boundary of the resource management plan includes the 11,999 acre specific plan site, and the 1,517-acre Salt Creek conservation area in Ventura County which adjoins the specific plan area to the southeast. [read post]
December 29, 2009 – Environmental Law Settlements, Decisions, Regulatory Actions and Lawsuit Filings
29 Dec 2009, 5:50 pm
Click Here EPA settles with Clear Lam packaging on hazardous waste violations; penalty, environmental project ordered. [read post]
December 29, 2009 – Environmental Law Settlements, Decisions, Regulatory Actions and Lawsuit Filings
29 Dec 2009, 5:46 pm
Click Here EPA settles with Clear Lam packaging on hazardous waste violations; penalty, environmental project ordered. [read post]
22 Jun 2011, 6:07 pm
This is a long, tedious post. [read post]
22 Jun 2011, 6:07 pm
This is a long, tedious post. [read post]
3 Jan 2018, 5:28 pm
Petitioners raised several arguments: (1) unusual circumstances and the incorporation of “mitigation” undermined use of the exemptions; (2) a flawed project description; (3) a lack of evidence to support approval of the CUP; and (4) the CUP approval was in conflict with the City’s zoning code and general plan. [read post]
12 Apr 2010, 10:44 am
“It’s a clear statement by us of our commitment to enforce the Clean Water Act. [read post]
December 21, 2009 – Environmental Law Settlements, Decisions, Regulatory Actions and Lawsuit Filings
21 Dec 2009, 10:57 am
The issues are clear. [read post]
23 Dec 2009, 4:42 pm
The issues are clear. [read post]
11 Oct 2017, 1:01 am
The court then turned to petitioner’s argument that three provisions that did apply conferred additional discretion, namely provisions requiring: (1) a 50-foot setback from wetlands, “unless a wetlands biologist recommends a different setback”; (2) stormwater to be diverted “to the nearest practicable disposal location”; and (3) incorporation “of natural drainage features…whenever possible. [read post]
11 Oct 2017, 1:01 am
The court then turned to petitioner’s argument that three provisions that did apply conferred additional discretion, namely provisions requiring: (1) a 50-foot setback from wetlands, “unless a wetlands biologist recommends a different setback”; (2) stormwater to be diverted “to the nearest practicable disposal location”; and (3) incorporation “of natural drainage features…whenever possible. [read post]
15 Jan 2019, 7:41 pm
It reasoned that the County’s incorporation by reference of the Department of Water Resources’ “minimum standards of well construction” intended to protect water quality, coupled with language in the local ordinance stating that well permits “shall be issued” if state and County standards are met, precluded the kind of discretion necessary to require compliance with CEQA. [read post]
9 Oct 2018, 11:57 pm
It reasoned that the County’s incorporation by reference of the Department of Water Resources’ “minimum standards of well construction” intended to protect water quality, coupled with language in the local ordinance stating that well permits “shall be issued” if state and County standards are met, precluded the kind of discretion necessary to require compliance with CEQA. [read post]
