The provisions of this subpart are intended to assure that all Federal agency activities including development projects affecting any coastal use or resource will be undertaken in a manner consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of approved management programs. The provisions of subpart I of this part are intended to supplement the provisions of this subpart for Federal agency activities having interstate coastal effects.

(a) The term “Federal agency activity” means any functions performed by or on behalf of a Federal agency in the exercise of its statutory responsibilities. The term “Federal agency activity” includes a range of activities where a Federal agency makes a proposal for action initiating an activity or series of activities when coastal effects are reasonably foreseeable, e.g., a Federal agency's proposal to physically alter coastal resources, a plan that is used to direct future agency actions, a proposed rulemaking that alters uses of the coastal zone. “Federal agency activity” does not include the issuance of a federal license or permit to an applicant or person (see subparts D and E of this part) or the granting of federal assistance to an applicant agency (see subpart F of this part).

(b) The term federal “development project” means a Federal agency activity involving the planning, construction, modification, or removal of public works, facilities, or other structures, and includes the acquisition, use, or disposal of any coastal use or resource.

(c) The Federal agency activity category is a residual category for federal actions that are not covered under subparts D, E, or F of this part.

(d) A general permit proposed by a Federal agency is subject to this subpart if the general permit does not involve case-by-case or individual issuance of a license or permit by a Federal agency. When proposing a general permit, a Federal agency shall provide a consistency determination to the relevant management programs and request that the State agency(ies) provide the Federal agency with review, and if necessary, conditions, based on specific enforceable policies, that would permit the State agency to concur with the Federal agency's consistency determination. State agency concurrence shall remove the need for the State agency to review individual uses of the general permit for consistency with the enforceable policies of management programs. Federal agencies shall, pursuant to the consistent to the maximum extent practicable standard in § 930.32, incorporate State conditions into the general permit. If the State agency's conditions are not incorporated into the general permit or a State agency objects to the general permit, then the Federal agency shall notify potential users of the general permit that the general permit is not available for use in that State unless an applicant under subpart D of this part or a person under subpart E of this part, who wants to use the general permit in that State provides the State agency with a consistency certification under subpart D of this part and the State agency concurs. When subpart D or E of this part applies, all provisions of the relevant subpart apply.

(e) The terms “Federal agency activity” and “Federal development project” also include modifications of any such activity or development project which affect any coastal use or resource, provided that, in the case of modifications of an activity or development project which the State agency has previously reviewed, the effect on any coastal use or resource is substantially different than those previously reviewed by the State agency.

(a)(1) The term “consistent to the maximum extent practicable” means fully consistent with the enforceable policies of management programs unless full consistency is prohibited by existing law applicable to the Federal agency.

(2) Section 307(e) of the Act does not relieve Federal agencies of the consistency requirements under the Act. The Act was intended to cause substantive changes in Federal agency decisionmaking within the context of the discretionary powers residing in such agencies. Accordingly, whenever legally permissible, Federal agencies shall consider the enforceable policies of management programs as requirements to be adhered to in addition to existing Federal agency statutory mandates. If a Federal agency asserts that full consistency with the management program is prohibited, it shall clearly describe, in writing, to the State agency the statutory provisions, legislative history, or other legal authority which limits the Federal agency's discretion to be fully consistent with the enforceable policies of the management program.

(3) For the purpose of determining consistent to the maximum extent practicable under paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section, federal legal authority includes Federal appropriation Acts if the appropriation Act includes language that specifically prohibits full consistency with specific enforceable policies of management programs. Federal agencies shall not use a general claim of a lack of funding or insufficient appropriated funds or failure to include the cost of being fully consistent in Federal budget and planning processes as a basis for being consistent to the maximum extent practicable with an enforceable policy of a management program. The only circumstance where a Federal agency may rely on a lack of funding as a limitation on being fully consistent with an enforceable policy is the Presidential exemption described in section 307(c)(1)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1456(c)(1)(B)). In cases where the cost of being consistent with the enforceable policies of a management program was not included in the Federal agency's budget and planning processes, the Federal agency should determine the amount of funds needed and seek additional federal funds. Federal agencies should include the cost of being fully consistent with the enforceable policies of management programs in their budget and planning processes, to the same extent that a Federal agency would plan for the cost of complying with other federal requirements.

(b) A Federal agency may deviate from full consistency with an approved management program when such deviation is justified because of an emergency or other similar unforeseen circumstance (“exigent circumstance”), which presents the Federal agency with a substantial obstacle that prevents complete adherence to the approved program. Any deviation shall be the minimum necessary to address the exigent circumstance. Federal agencies shall carry out their activities consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of a management program, to the extent that the exigent circumstance allows. Federal agencies shall consult with State agencies to the extent that an exigent circumstance allows and shall attempt to seek State agency concurrence prior to addressing the exigent circumstance. Once the exigent circumstances have passed, and if the Federal agency is still carrying out an activity with coastal effects, Federal agencies shall comply with all applicable provisions of this subpart to ensure that the activity is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of management programs. Once the Federal agency has addressed the exigent circumstance or completed its emergency response activities, it shall provide the State agency with a description of its actions and their coastal effects.

(c) A classified activity that affects any coastal use or resource is not exempt from the requirements of this subpart, unless the activity is exempted by the President under section 307(c)(1)(B) of the Act. Under the consistent to the maximum extent practicable standard, the Federal agency shall provide to the State agency a description of the project and coastal effects that it is legally permitted to release or does not otherwise breach the classified nature of the activity. Even when a Federal agency may not be able to disclose project information, the Federal agency shall conduct the classified activity consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of management programs. The term classified means to protect from disclosure national security information concerning the national defense or foreign policy, provided that the information has been properly classified in accordance with the substantive and procedural requirements of an executive order. Federal and State agencies are encouraged to agree on a qualified third party(ies) with appropriate security clearance(s) to review classified information and to provide non-classified comments regarding the activity's reasonably foreseeable coastal effects.

(a) Federal agencies shall determine which of their activities affect any coastal use or resource of States with approved management programs.

(1) Effects are determined by looking at reasonably foreseeable direct and indirect effects on any coastal use or resource. An action which has minimal or no environmental effects may still have effects on a coastal use (e.g., effects on public access and recreational opportunities, protection of historic property) or a coastal resource, if the activity initiates an event or series of events where coastal effects are reasonably foreseeable. Therefore, Federal agencies shall, in making a determination of effects, review relevant management program enforceable policies as part of determining effects on any coastal use or resource.

(2) If the Federal agency determines that a Federal agency activity has no effects on any coastal use or resource, and a negative determination under § 930.35 is not required, then the Federal agency is not required to coordinate with State agencies under section 307 of the Act.

(3)(i) De minimis Federal agency activities. Federal agencies are encouraged to review their activities, other than development projects within the coastal zone, to identify de minimis activities, and request State agency concurrence that these de minimis activities should not be subject to further State agency review. De minimis activities shall only be excluded from State agency review if a Federal agency and State agency have agreed. The State agency shall provide for public participation under section 306(d)(14) of the Act when reviewing the Federal agency's de minimis activity request. If the State agency objects to the Federal agency's de minimis finding then the Federal agency must provide the State agency with either a negative determination or a consistency determination pursuant to this subpart. OCRM is available to facilitate a Federal agency's request.

(ii) De minimis activities are activities that are expected to have insignificant direct or indirect (cumulative and secondary) coastal effects and which the State agency concurs are de minimis.

(4) Environmentally beneficial activities. The State agency and Federal agencies may agree to exclude environmentally beneficial Federal agency activities (either on a case-by-case basis or for a category of activities) from further State agency consistency review. Environmentally beneficial activity means an activity that protects, preserves, or restores the natural resources of the coastal zone. The State agency shall provide for public participation under section 306(d)(14) of the Act for the State agency's consideration of whether to exclude environmentally beneficial activities.

(5) General consistency determinations, phased consistency determinations, and national or regional consistency determinations under § 930.36 are also available to facilitate federal-State coordination.

(b) Federal agencies shall consider all development projects within the coastal zone to be activities affecting any coastal use or resource. All other types of activities within the coastal zone are subject to Federal agency review to determine whether they affect any coastal use or resource.

(c) Federal agency activities and development projects outside of the coastal zone, are subject to Federal agency review to determine whether they affect any coastal use or resource.

(d) Federal agencies shall broadly construe the effects test to provide State agencies with a consistency determination under § 930.34 and not a negative determination under § 930.35 or other determinations of no effects. Early coordination and cooperation between a Federal agency and the State agency can enable the parties to focus their efforts on particular Federal agency activities of concern to the State agency.

(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.

(a) If a Federal agency determines that there will not be coastal effects, then the Federal agency shall provide the State agencies with a negative determination for a Federal agency activity:

(1) Identified by a State agency on its list, as described in § 930.34(b), or through case-by-case monitoring of unlisted activities; or

(2) Which is the same as or is similar to activities for which consistency determinations have been prepared in the past; or

(3) For which the Federal agency undertook a thorough consistency assessment and developed initial findings on the coastal effects of the activity.

(b) Content of a negative determination. A negative determination may be submitted to State agencies in any written form so long as it contains a brief description of the activity, the activity's location and the basis for the Federal agency's determination that the activity will not affect any coastal use or resource. In determining effects, Federal agencies shall follow § 930.33(a)(1), including an evaluation of the relevant enforceable policies of a management program and include the evaluation in the negative determination. The level of detail in the Federal agency's analysis may vary depending on the scope and complexity of the activity and issues raised by the State agency, but shall be sufficient for the State agency to evaluate whether coastal effects are reasonably foreseeable.

(c) A negative determination under paragraph (a) of this section shall be provided to the State agency at least 90 days before final approval of the activity, unless both the Federal agency and the State agency agree to an alternative notification schedule. A State agency is not obligated to respond to a negative determination. If a State agency does not respond to a Federal agency's negative determination within 60 days, State agency concurrence with the negative determination shall be presumed. State agency concurrence shall not be presumed in cases where the State agency, within the 60-day period, requests an extension of time to review the matter. Federal agencies shall approve one request for an extension period of 15 days or less. If a State agency objects to a negative determination, asserting that coastal effects are reasonably foreseeable, the Federal agency shall consider submitting a consistency determination to the State agency or otherwise attempt to resolve any disagreement within the remainder of the 90-day period. If a Federal agency, in response to a State agency's objection to a negative determination, agrees that coastal effects are reasonably foreseeable, the State agency and Federal agency should attempt to agree to complete the consistency review within the 90-day period for the negative determination or consider an alternative schedule pursuant to § 930.36(b)(1). Federal agencies should consider postponing final Federal agency action, beyond the 90-day period, until a disagreement has been resolved. State agencies are not required to provide public notice of the receipt of a negative determination or the resolution of an objection to a negative determination, unless a Federal agency submits a consistency determination pursuant to § 930.34.

(d) General negative determinations. In cases where Federal agencies will be performing a repetitive activity that a Federal agency determines will not have reasonably foreseeable coastal effects, whether performed separately or cumulatively, a Federal agency may provide a State agency(ies) with a general negative determination, thereby avoiding the necessity of issuing separate negative determinations for each occurrence of the activity. A general negative determination must adhere to all requirements for negative determinations under § 930.35. In addition, a general negative determination must describe in detail the activity covered by the general negative determination and the expected number of occurrences of the activity over a specific time period. If a Federal agency issues a general negative determination, it may periodically assess whether the general negative determination is still applicable.

(e) In the event of a serious disagreement between a Federal agency and a State agency regarding a determination related to whether a proposed activity affects any coastal use or resource, either party may seek the Secretarial mediation or OCRM mediation services provided for in subpart G.

(a) Federal agencies shall review their proposed Federal agency activities which affect any coastal use or resource in order to develop consistency determinations which indicate whether such activities will be undertaken in a manner consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of approved management programs. Federal agencies should consult with State agencies at an early stage in the development of the proposed activity in order to assess whether such activities will be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of such programs.

(b) Timing of consistency determinations. (1) Federal agencies shall provide State agencies with a consistency determination at the earliest practicable time in the planning or reassessment of the activity. A consistency determination should be prepared following development of sufficient information to reasonably determine the consistency of the activity with the management program, but before the Federal agency reaches a significant point of decisionmaking in its review process, i.e., while the Federal agency has the ability to modify the activity. The consistency determination shall be provided to State agencies at least 90 days before final approval of the Federal agency activity unless both the Federal agency and the State agency agree to an alternative notification schedule.

(2) Federal and State agencies may mutually agree upon procedures for extending the notification requirement beyond 90 days for activities requiring a substantial review period, and for shortening the notification period for activities requiring a less extensive review period, provided that public participation requirements are met.

(c) General consistency determinations. In cases where Federal agencies will be performing repeated activity other than a development project (e.g., ongoing maintenance, waste disposal) which cumulatively has an effect upon any coastal use or resource, the Federal agency may develop a general consistency determination, thereby avoiding the necessity of issuing separate consistency determinations for each incremental action controlled by the major activity. A Federal agency may provide a State agency with a general consistency determination only in situations where the incremental actions are repetitive and do not affect any coastal use or resource when performed separately. A Federal agency and State agency may mutually agree on a general consistency determination for de minimis activities (see § 930.33(a)(3)) or any other repetitive activity or category of activity(ies). If a Federal agency issues a general consistency determination, it shall thereafter periodically consult with the State agency to discuss the manner in which the incremental actions are being undertaken.

(d) Phased consistency determinations. In cases where the Federal agency has sufficient information to determine the consistency of a proposed development project or other activity from planning to completion, the Federal agency shall provide the State agency with one consistency determination for the entire activity or development project. In cases where federal decisions related to a proposed development project or other activity will be made in phases based upon developing information that was not available at the time of the original consistency determination, with each subsequent phase subject to Federal agency discretion to implement alternative decisions based upon such information (e.g., planning, siting, and design decisions), a consistency determination will be required for each major decision. In cases of phased decisionmaking, Federal agencies shall ensure that the development project or other activity continues to be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the management program.

(e) National or regional consistency determinations. (1) A Federal agency may provide States with consistency determinations for Federal agency activities that are national or regional in scope (e.g., rulemaking, national plans), and that affect any coastal use or resource of more than one State. Many States share common coastal management issues and have similar enforceable policies, e.g., protection of a particular coastal resource. The Federal agency's national or regional consistency determination should, at a minimum, address the common denominator of these policies, i.e., the common coastal effects and management issues, and thereby address different States' policies with one discussion and determination. If a Federal agency decides not to use this section, it must issue consistency determinations to each State agency pursuant to § 930.39.

(2) Federal agency activities with coastal effects shall be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of each State's management program. Thus, the Federal agency's national or regional consistency determination shall contain sections that would apply to individual States to address coastal effects and enforceable policies unique to particular States, if common coastal effects and enforceable policies cannot be addressed under paragraph (e)(1). Early coordination with coastal States will enable the Federal agency to identify particular coastal management concerns and policies. In addition, the Federal agency could address the concerns of each affected State by providing for State conditions for the proposed activity. Further, the consistency determination could identify the coordination efforts and describe how the Federal agency responded to State agency concerns.

A Federal agency may use its NEPA documents as a vehicle for its consistency determination or negative determination under this subpart. However, a Federal agency's federal consistency obligations under the Act are independent of those required under NEPA and are not necessarily fulfilled by the submission of a NEPA document. State agencies shall not require Federal agencies to submit NEPA documents as information required pursuant to § 930.39. If a Federal agency includes its consistency determination or negative determination in a NEPA document, the Federal agency shall ensure that the NEPA document includes the information and adheres to the timeframes required by this subpart. Federal agencies and State agencies should mutually agree on how to best coordinate the requirements of NEPA and the Act.

(a) A consistency determination is required for ongoing Federal agency activities other than development projects initiated prior to management program approval, which are governed by statutory authority under which the Federal agency retains discretion to reassess and modify the activity. In these cases the consistency determination must be made by the Federal agency at the earliest practicable time following management program approval, and the State agency must be provided with a consistency determination no later than 120 days after management program approval for ongoing activities which the State agency lists or identifies through monitoring as subject to consistency with the management program.

(b) A consistency determination is required for major, phased federal development project decisions described in § 930.36(d) which are made following management program approval and are related to development projects initiated prior to program approval. In making these new decisions, Federal agencies shall consider effects on any coastal use or resource not fully evaluated at the outset of the project. This provision shall not apply to phased federal decisions which were specifically described, considered and approved prior to management program approval (e.g., in a final environmental impact statement issued pursuant to NEPA).

(a) The consistency determination shall include a brief statement indicating whether the proposed activity will be undertaken in a manner consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the management program. The statement must be based upon an evaluation of the relevant enforceable policies of the management program. A description of this evaluation shall be included in the consistency determination, or provided to the State agency simultaneously with the consistency determination if the evaluation is contained in another document. Where a Federal agency is aware, prior to its submission of its consistency determination, that its activity is not fully consistent with a management program's enforceable policies, the Federal agency shall describe in its consistency determination the legal authority that prohibits full consistency as required by § 930.32(a)(2). Where the Federal agency is not aware of any inconsistency until after submission of its consistency determination, the Federal agency shall submit its description of the legal authority that prohibits full consistency to the State agency as soon as possible, or before the end of the 90-day period described in § 930.36(b)(1). The consistency determination shall also include a detailed description of the activity, its associated facilities, and their coastal effects, and comprehensive data and information sufficient to support the Federal agency's consistency statement. The amount of detail in the evaluation of the enforceable policies, activity description and supporting information shall be commensurate with the expected coastal effects of the activity. The Federal agency may submit the necessary information in any manner it chooses so long as the requirements of this subpart are satisfied.

(b) Federal agencies shall be guided by the following in making their consistency determinations. The activity its effects on any coastal use or resource, associated facilities (e.g., proposed siting and construction of access road, connecting pipeline, support buildings, and the effects of the associated facilities (e.g., erosion, wetlands, beach access impacts), must all be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the management program.

(c) In making their consistency determinations, Federal agencies shall ensure that their activities are consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable, policies of the management program. However, Federal agencies should give consideration to management program provisions which are in the nature of recommendations.

(d) When Federal agency standards are more restrictive than standards or requirements contained in the management program, the Federal agency may continue to apply its stricter standards. In such cases the Federal agency shall inform the State agency in the consistency determination of the statutory, regulatory or other basis for the application of the stricter standards.

(e) State permit requirements. Federal law, other than the CZMA, may require a Federal agency to obtain a State permit. Even when Federal agencies are not required to obtain State permits, Federal agencies shall still be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies that are contained in such State permit programs that are part of a management program.

Whenever more than one Federal agency is involved in a Federal agency activity or its associated facilities affecting any coastal use or resource, or is involved in a group of Federal agency activities related to each other because of their geographic proximity, the Federal agencies may prepare one consistency determination for all the federal activities involved. In such cases, Federal agencies should consider joint preparation or lead agency development of the consistency determination. In either case, the consistency determination shall be transmitted to the State agency at least 90 days before final decisions are taken by any of the participating agencies and shall comply with the requirements of § 930.39.

(a) A State agency shall inform the Federal agency of its concurrence with or objection to the Federal agency's consistency determination at the earliest practicable time, after providing for public participation in the State agency's review of the consistency determination. The Federal agency may presume State agency concurrence if the State agency's response is not received within 60 days from receipt of the Federal agency's consistency determination and supporting information required by § 930.39(a). The 60-day review period begins when the State agency receives the consistency determination and supporting information required by § 930.39(a). If the information required by § 930.39(a) is not included with the determination, the State agency shall notify the Federal agency in writing within 14 days of receiving the determination and supporting information that the 60-day review period has not begun, identify missing information required by § 930.39(a), and that the 60-day review period will begin when the missing information is received by the State agency. If the State agency has not notified the Federal agency that information required by § 930.39(a) is missing within the 14 day notification period, then the 60-day review period shall begin on the date the State agency received the consistency determination and accompanying information. The State agency's determination of whether the information required by § 930.39(a) is complete is not a substantive review of the adequacy of the information provided. Thus, if a Federal agency has submitted a consistency determination and information required by § 930.39(a), then the State agency shall not assert that the 60-day review period has not begun because the information contained in the items required by § 930.39(a) is substantively deficient. The failure to submit information not required by 930.39(a) shall not be a basis for asserting that the 60-day review period has not begun.

(b) State agency concurrence shall not be presumed in cases where the State agency, within the 60-day period, requests an extension of time to review the matter. Federal agencies shall approve one request for an extension period of 15 days or less. In considering whether a longer or additional extension period is appropriate, the Federal agency should consider the magnitude and complexity of the information contained in the consistency determination.

(c) Final Federal agency action shall not be taken sooner than 90 days from the receipt by the State agency of the consistency determination unless the State concurs or concurrence is presumed, pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b), with the activity, or unless both the Federal agency and the State agency agree to an alternative period.

(d) Time limits on concurrences. A State agency cannot unilaterally place an expiration date on its concurrence. If a State agency believes that an expiration date is necessary, State and Federal agencies may agree to a time limit. If there is no agreement, later phases of, or modifications to, the activity that will have effects not evaluated at the time of the original consistency determination will require either a new consistency determination, a supplemental consistency determination under § 930.46, or a phased review under § 930.36(d) of this subpart.

(e) State processing fees. The Act does not require Federal agencies to pay State processing fees. State agencies shall not assess a Federal agency with a fee to process the Federal agency's consistency determination unless payment of such fees is required by other federal law or otherwise agreed to by the Federal agency and allowed by the Comptroller General of the United States. In no case may a State agency stay the consistency review period or base its objection on the failure of a Federal agency to pay a fee.

(a) Management programs shall provide for public participation in the State agency's review of consistency determinations. Public participation, at a minimum, shall consist of public notice for the area(s) of the coastal zone likely to be affected by the activity, as determined by the State agency.

(b) Timing of public notice. States shall provide timely public notice after the consistency determination has been received by the State agency, except in cases where earlier public notice on the consistency determination by the Federal agency or the State agency meets the requirements of this section. A public comment period shall be provided by the State sufficient to give the public an opportunity to develop and provide comments on whether the project is consistent with management program enforceable policies and still allow the State agency to issue its concurrence or objection within the 60 day State response period.

(c) Content of public notice. The public notice shall:

(1) Specify that the proposed activity is subject to review for consistency with the enforceable policies of the management program;

(2) Provide sufficient information to serve as a basis for comment;

(3) Specify a source for additional information, e.g., a State agency web site; and

(4) Specify a contact for submitting comments to the State agency.

(d) Procedural options that may be used by the State agency for issuance of public notice include, but are not limited to, public notice through an official State gazette, a local newspaper serving areas of coastal zone likely to be affected by the activity, individual State mailings, public notice through a management program newsletter, and electronic notices, e.g., web sites. However, electronic notices, e.g., web sites, shall not be the sole source of a public notification, but may be used in conjunction with other means. Web sites may be used to provide a location for the public to obtain additional information. States shall not require that the Federal agency provide public notice. Federal and State agencies are encouraged to issue joint public notices, and hold joint public hearings, to minimize duplication of effort and to avoid unnecessary delays, so long as the joint notice meets the other requirements of this section.

(a) In the event the State agency objects to the Federal agency's consistency determination, the State agency shall accompany its response to the Federal agency with its reasons for the objection and supporting information. The State agency response shall describe:

(1) How the proposed activity will be inconsistent with specific enforceable policies of the management program; and

(2) The specific enforceable policies (including citations).

(3) The State agency should also describe alternative measures (if they exist) which, if adopted by the Federal agency, would allow the activity to proceed in a manner consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the management program. Failure to describe alternatives does not affect the validity of the State agency's objection.

(b) If the State agency's objection is based upon a finding that the Federal agency has failed to supply sufficient information, the State agency's response must describe the nature of the information requested and the necessity of having such information to determine the consistency of the Federal agency activity with the enforceable policies of the management program.

(c) State agencies shall send to the Director a copy of objections to Federal agency consistency determinations.

(d) In the event of an objection, Federal and State agencies should use the remaining portion of the 90-day notice period (see § 930.36(b)) to attempt to resolve their differences. If resolution has not been reached at the end of the 90-day period, Federal agencies should consider using the dispute resolution mechanisms of this part and postponing final federal action until the problems have been resolved. At the end of the 90-day period the Federal agency shall not proceed with the activity over a State agency's objection unless:

(1) the Federal agency has concluded that under the “consistent to the maximum extent practicable” standard described in section 930.32 consistency with the enforceable policies of the management program is prohibited by existing law applicable to the Federal agency and the Federal agency has clearly described, in writing, to the State agency the legal impediments to full consistency (See §§ 930.32(a) and 930.39(a)), or

(2) the Federal agency has concluded that its proposed action is fully consistent with the enforceable policies of the management program, though the State agency objects.

(e) If a Federal agency decides to proceed with a Federal agency activity that is objected to by a State agency, or to follow an alternative suggested by the State agency, the Federal agency shall notify the State agency of its decision to proceed before the project commences.

In the event of a serious disagreement between a Federal agency and a State agency regarding the consistency of a proposed federal activity affecting any coastal use or resource, either party may request the Secretarial mediation or OCRM mediation services provided for in subpart G.

(a) Federal and State agencies shall cooperate in their efforts to monitor federally approved activities in order to make certain that such activities continue to be undertaken in a manner consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the management program.

(b) The State agency may request that the Federal agency take appropriate remedial action following a serious disagreement resulting from a Federal agency activity, including those activities where the State agency's concurrence was presumed, which was:

(1) Previously determined to be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the management program, but which the State agency later maintains is being conducted or is having an effect on any coastal use or resource substantially different than originally described and, as a result, is no longer consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the management program; or

(2) Previously determined not to be a Federal agency activity affecting any coastal use or resource, but which the State agency later maintains is being conducted or is having an effect on any coastal use or resource substantially different than originally described and, as a result, the activity affects any coastal use or resource and is not consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the management program. The State agency's request shall include supporting information and a proposal for recommended remedial action.

(c) If, after a reasonable time following a request for remedial action, the State agency still maintains that a serious disagreement exists, either party may request the Secretarial mediation or OCRM mediation services provided for in subpart G of this part.

(a) For proposed Federal agency activities that were previously determined by the State agency to be consistent with the management program, but which have not yet begun, Federal agencies shall further coordinate with the State agency and prepare a supplemental consistency determination if the proposed activity will affect any coastal use or resource substantially different than originally described. Substantially different coastal effects are reasonably foreseeable if:

(1) The Federal agency makes substantial changes in the proposed activity that are relevant to management program enforceable policies; or

(2) There are significant new circumstances or information relevant to the proposed activity and the proposed activity's effect on any coastal use or resource.

(3) Substantial changes were made to the activity during the period of the State agency's initial review and the State agency did not receive notice of the substantial changes during its review period, and these changes are relevant to management program enforceable policies and/or affect coastal uses or resources.

(b) The State agency may notify the Federal agency and the Director of proposed activities which the State agency believes should be subject to supplemental coordination. The State agency's notification shall include information supporting a finding of substantially different coastal effects than originally described and the relevant enforceable policies, and may recommend modifications to the proposed activity (if any) that would allow the Federal agency to implement the proposed activity consistent with the enforceable policies of the management program. State agency notification under this paragraph (b) does not remove the requirement under paragraph (a) of this section for Federal agencies to notify State agencies.