15 C.F.R. § 930.34

Federal and State agency coordination

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)(1) Federal agencies shall provide State agencies with consistency determinations for all Federal agency activities affecting any coastal use or resource. To facilitate State agency review, Federal agencies should coordinate with the State agency prior to providing the determination.

(2) Use of existing procedures. Federal agencies are encouraged to coordinate and consult with State agencies through use of existing procedures in order to avoid waste, duplication of effort, and to reduce Federal and State agency administrative burdens. Where necessary, these existing procedures should be modified to facilitate coordination and consultation under the Act.

(b) Listed activities. State agencies are strongly encouraged to list in their management programs Federal agency activities which, in the opinion of the State agency, will have reasonably foreseeable coastal effects and therefore, may require a Federal agency consistency determination. Listed Federal agency activities shall be described in terms of the specific type of activity involved (e.g., federal reclamation projects). In the event the State agency chooses to describe Federal agency activities that occur outside of the coastal zone, which the State agency believes will have reasonably foreseeable coastal effects, it shall also describe the geographic location of such activities (e.g., reclamation projects in coastal floodplains).

(c) Unlisted activities. State agencies should monitor unlisted Federal agency activities (e.g., by use of intergovernmental review process established pursuant to E.O. 12372, review of NEPA documents, and the Federal Register) and should notify Federal agencies of unlisted Federal agency activities which Federal agencies have not subjected to a consistency review but which, in the opinion of the State agency, will have reasonably foreseeable coastal effects and therefore, may require a Federal agency consistency determination. The provisions in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section are recommended rather than mandatory procedures for facilitating federal-State coordination of Federal agency activities which affect any coastal use or resource. State agency notification to the Federal agency (by listed or unlisted notification) is neither a substitute for nor does it eliminate Federal agency responsibility to comply with the consistency requirement, and to provide State agencies with consistency determinations for all development projects in the coastal zone and for all other Federal agency activities which the Federal agency finds affect any coastal use or resource, regardless of whether the State agency has listed the activity or notified the Federal agency through case-by-case monitoring.

(d) State guidance and assistance to Federal agencies. As a preliminary matter, a decision that a Federal agency activity affects any coastal use or resource should lead to early consultation with the State agency (i.e., before the required 90-day period). Federal agencies should obtain the views and assistance of the State agency regarding the means for determining that the proposed activity will be conducted in a manner consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of a management program. As part of its assistance efforts, the State agency shall make available for public inspection copies of the management program document. Upon request by the Federal agency, the State agency shall identify any enforceable policies applicable to the proposed activity based upon the information provided to the State agency at the time of the request.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases, 1981–2010 · leading case: Sec'y of the Interior v. California, 464 U.S. 312 (1984).
Sec'y of the Interior v. California, 464 U.S. 312 (1984). · cites it 4× “15 CFR §§ 930.34 , 930.39 (1983). II OCS lease sales are conducted by the Department of the Interior (Interior).”
State of Cal. by & Through Brown v. Watt, 520 F. Supp. 1359 (C.D. Cal. 1981). · cites it 3× “; 15 C.F.R. §§ 930.34 — .35. The threshold test for the application of § 307(c)(1) is whether the activity in question will have a “direct effect” on the coastal zone.”
Cross-Sound Ferry Servs., Inc. v. Interstate Com. Comm'n & United States of Am., & Viking Starship, Inc., Intervenor, 934 F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir. 1991). “See 15 CFR § 930.34 (a), (b) (1990). Cross-Sound contends that the Commission violated these provisions by failing to notify the relevant states prior to deeming Viking exempt from its jurisdiction under section 10544(a)(4).”
Ocean Mammal Inst. v. Gates, 546 F. Supp. 2d 960 (D. Haw. 2008). “15 C.F.R. § 930.34 . Effects on coastal resources is construed broadly: “[t]he term .”
Nat. Resources Def. Council, Inc. v. Winter, 530 F. Supp. 2d 1110 (C.D. Cal. 2008). “Under the CZMA, agencies must comply with “the enforceable policies of management programs unless full consistency is prohibited by existing law applicable to the Federal agency.”
Conservation Law Found. v. Watt, 560 F. Supp. 561 (D. Mass. 1983). “” 15 C.F.R. § 930.34 (b). This information may be provided “in any manner [the agency] chooses so long as the requirements of this subpart are satisfied.”
Serrano-Lopez v. Cooper, 193 F. Supp. 2d 424 (D.P.R. 2002). “15 C.F.R. § 930.34 (A)(1) & 930.36(B)(1) Note (2001).”
Nat. Resources Def. Council, Inc. v. Winter, 645 F. Supp. 2d 841 (C.D. Cal. 2007). “Under the CZMA, agencies must comply with “the enforceable policies of management programs unless full consistency is prohibited by existing law applicable to the Federal agency.”
California Coastal Comm'n v. United States, 5 F. Supp. 2d 1106 (S.D. Cal. 1998). “15 C.F.R. § 930.34 . The California Coastal Act (CCA) addresses the federal activity in this case.”
Akiak Native Cmty. v. United States Postal Serv., 213 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2000). · cites it 2× “15 C.F.R. § 930.34 (b). Once the consistency determination is submitted to the state, the “State agency shall inform the Federal agency of its agreement or disagreement with the Federal agency’s consistency determination.”
Sierra Club v. Marsh, 692 F. Supp. 1210 (S.D. Cal. 1988). “” 15 C.F.R. § 930.34 . Chula Vista will not suffer any legally cognizable prejudice if the settlement is approved prior to its bringing a claim under the CZMA.”
Knaust v. City of Kingston, 978 F. Supp. 86 (N.D.N.Y. 1997). “This violates the spirit 15 C.F.R. § 930.34 , which requires agencies to provide the consistency determination to State agencies at least 90 days before final approval of the Federal activity unless both the Federal agency and the State agency agree to an alternative…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.