(As provided in federal and state statutes)

Coho coordination

Coordination with the USFS - meeting minutes and audio 7/13, /8/11, 8/23 and 11/15. Public lands, forestry projects discussed -   11/15/11 Meeting 1

Siskiyou Sheriff Plays Politics;
Sheriff Lopey's letter on coordination to the DFG
Letter from DFG to Sheriff Lopey denying coordination

new.gif (26402 bytes)California Counties and Federal Government Sign Historic Memorandum of Agreement; MOA between USFS, BLM and RCRC and CSAC; The Siskiyou County BoS has decied not to sign (see Board Minutes May 8, 2012  )

Board letter to John Bezdek dated February 7, 2012, regarding coordination relative to Klamath River Dams; Board letter to Irma Lagomarsino dated February 7, 2012, regarding the Coho Salmon Recovery Plan; Letter to Secretary Salazar of February 7, 2012 - Notice of Intention to File Suit Re Secretarial Determination

new.gif (26402 bytes)Vilsack reponse to Herger 1/27/12
Herger 9/27/11 letter to Scty. Vilsack (USDA)
Herger 9/27/11 letter to Scty Salazar
Herger 9/27/11 letter to Actng. Scty. Balnk (DOC)

new.gif (26402 bytes)Lagomarsino letter responding to request for coordination:

new.gif (26402 bytes)Forest Service sues state, Otero Co.; Forest Service sues state, Otero Co. (not a dup) ; statement from U.S. Attorney Kenneth J. Gonzales; complaint; Senate Bill 1, click here.

Fred Kelly Grant Redding Tea Party presentation Protecting Your Rights 1/26/12

Fred Kelly Grant Redding Tea Party meeting 7/25/11
8/8/11 Radio
We the People Radio
Fred Kelly Grant Interview Good Morning Scott Valley
Fred Kelly Grant - Friends of Shasta Trinity National Forest - Shasta National Forest Speech
Fred Kelly Grant and the 10th Amendment Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4
Tea Party Radio Coordination I (F.K. Grant, Milligan, Baugh)
Coordination II (F.K.Grant)
Property Right (F.K. Grant)
Video F.K. Grant on the 10th Amendment
Federal Statutory Authority for Coordination

new.gif (26402 bytes)Aging sagebrush rebel keeps up fight against feds

Federal Statutory Authority for Coordination of 43 U.S.C. Federal Land Policy and Management Act

Karen Budd-Falen

Coordination Overview (American Stewards of Liberty); How it works

grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes) Relevant federal Citations (coordination - consultation and other references found in a variety of federal legislation - not up to date.)

grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes) Petitions to Federal Agencies for Solutions under the Administrative Procedures Act

grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes) Protecting Community Stability - List of Citations; Coordination

grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes)Federal law requiring coordination

grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes) E.O. 12372--Intergovernmental review of Federal programs (Pres. Reagan)

grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes) Excellent series on coordination by former Tuolemne Co. Supervisor Teri Murrison; Coordination column

new.gif (26402 bytes)Bond v. United States  individuals have standing to challenge federal laws as violations of state sovereignty under the 10th Amendment

grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes) Proposed Arizona S.B. 1398 (Allen) -



grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes) Siskiyou County Appeal of Shasta-Trinity National Forest Motorized Travel Management Record of Decision/Final Environmental Impact Statement. (The USFS was a no show to the informal conference on the appeal to both Siskiyou and Shasta Counties. Siskiyou has asked for an extension.) Siskiyou County Comments;  Shasta Trinity Record of Decision. Denial of Appeal

grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes) Siskiyou County has filed an appeal on the Klamath National Forest Travel Management Plan.

grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes) County, Forest coordination efforts continue

grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes) Development of New USFS Planning Rule (Will alter the 1982 coordination language)

grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes) FS Agreement No. OI-MU-11020402-008 MCANo. 20(n-26 Memorandum of Understanding Between Board of Commissioners of Mesa County, Colorado, and Grand Valley Ranger District, Grand Mesa and Uncompahgre National Forest


grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes) Siskiyou County Resolution Date: 11/09/93 - Joint Environmental Planning

grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes)County Code on Coordination:
Title 10; Chapter 12; Section 10-12.01 and 10-12.02

grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes)County Planning Authority

grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes)County Coordination Resolution

grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes) Conservation Element of the Siskiyou County Genereal Plan: Page 18

E. Coordination with Other Agencies

It is an absolutely necessity that the various departments of Siskiyou County coordinate their planning decisions. It is also an absolute necessity that Siskiyou County coordinate its decisions with other levels of government.

Coordination will be in accordance with the U.S. Forest Service, the California Division of Forestry, the U.S. Soil and Conservation Service, The Bureau of Land menegemnt, The Department of Fish and Game and with the Countywide Water Agency and with all District and City Agencies.


grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes) (1) Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land and Resource Management Plan  (accepted by the County in February, 1996. These are the primary planning documents for coordination, along with resolutions passed by the Board of Supervisors.); (2) full scanned copy with appendices)

grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes) 2008 Board of Supervisors Strategic Plan (excerpt on Natural Resources)

grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes)

Search U.S. Code on Conservation

Coordination as applies to the


Revised Proposed Planning Rule 1/12 http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5349156.pdf

Coordination - County Government and the New Forest Planning Rule: After a first round of public comment, the U.S. Forest Service has now published its proposed new Planning Rule with changes to the current “coordination” language. At least they are an improvement on the first proposed change.

The new language require the “responsible official” rather than the “line officer” to coordinate “land management planning” rather than “regional and forest planning” with equivalent and related planning efforts of local governments. Coordination consists of “reviewing the planning and land use policies” of local governments.

Both versions require “consideration” of local government’s objectives “as expressed in their plans and policies.” The new version requires assessment of “compatibility and interrelated impacts” of the plans and policies. Then seeks “opportunities” for the plan to: address impacts; contribute to joint objectives; and to “resolve or reduce conflicts, within the context of developing the plan’s desired conditions or objectives. “ The 1982 version required: an assessment of the interrelated impacts of the plans and policies; a determination of how each Forest Plan would deal with them; and “where conflicts were identified, “consideration of alternatives for their resolution.”

The new version qualifies the coordination section by indicating that the responsible official shall not “conform management to meet non-Forest Service objectives or policies.” The previous language requiring the responsible line officer to meet with the representative of local government at the beginning of the planning process to develop procedures for coordination has been removed. New rule: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5349156.pdf   Old rule:    http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/includes/nfmareg.html#Coordination with other public planning efforts

National Forest Management Act of 1976 Title 16, Chapter 36, Subchapter I, Section 1604. National Forest System land and resource management plans

a) Development, maintenance, and revision by Secretary of Agriculture as part of program; coordination

As a part of the Program provided for by section 1602 of this title, the Secretary of Agriculture shall develop, maintain, and, as appropriate, revise land and resource management plans for units of the National Forest System, coordinated with the land and resource management planning processes of State and local governments and other Federal agencies.

1604(e)(1) provides for multiple use and sustained yield to "include coordination of outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife and fish, and wilderness;"


In accordance with the existing 1982 Planning Rule, in effect because of lawsuits regarding the 2008 and 2000 planning rules (In 2009, the US District Court for the District of Northern California overturned the 2008 NFMA Planning Rule  (Decision)  As an interim measure, Forest Service returns to the transition provisions of the 2000 rule which allow continued use of 1982 rule procedures for revisions and amendments.) Judge forbids Forest Service from using 2005 planning regs


Section 219.7 Coordination with other planning efforts. (a) states that "The responsible line officer shall coordinate regional and forest planning with the equivalent and related planning efforts of other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Indian tribes." (c) states that "The responsible line officer shall review the planning and land use policies of other Federal agencies, State and local governments and Indian tribes. The results of this review shall be displayed in the environmental impact statement for the plan..The review shall include -

(1) Consideration of the objectives of other Federal, State and local governments, and Indian tribes, as expressed in their plans and policies; (2) An assessment of the interrelated impacts of these plans and policies; (3) A determination of how each Forest Service plan should deal with the impacts identified; and, (4) Where conflicts with Forest Service planning are identified, consideration of alternatives for their resolution."

(d) Requires the responsible line officer to "meet with the designated State official (or designee) and representatives of other Federal agencies, local governments, and Indian governments at the begining of the planning process to develop procedures for coordination.."

(e) States that: "In developing the forest plan, the responsible line officer shall seek input from other Federal, State and local governments, and universities to help resolve management concerns in the planning process and to identify areas where additional research is needed. This input should be included in the discussion of the research needs of the designated forest planning area."



(1) Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, sets out the administration of the Forest Transportation System. The Transportation Plan set out at 36 C.F.R. § 212.53 requires the responsible official to "coordinate with appropriate...county, and other local government entities when designating National Forest System roads...". 36 CFR § 212.6(a) provides that National Forest System Roads shall grant appropriate access across National Forest and other lands for ingress and egress to assure effective utilization of lands administered by the Forest Service and intermingled and adjacent private and public lands, and for the use and development of the resources upon which communities within or adjacent to the National Forests are dependent. Sub§ (c) provides that "roads and trails shall be permitted for all proper and lawful purposes subject to compliance with rules and regulations governing the lands and the roads or trails to be used."

grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes)

As stated in CA Resource Agency v. USDA (US District Ct. N. CA. case No. C 08-3884 MHP:
" ...Those regulations require a number of specific actions, including: giving notice to state agencies, 36 C.F.R. § 219.7(b) (1982); reviewing the State’s planning and land use policies and documenting the results of such review, id. § 219.7(c); meeting with responsible state officials, id. § 219.7(d); seeking state input regarding management concerns and areas where additional research is needed; id. § 219.7(e); and giving consideration to the effects of National Forest management on nearby lands, including those managed by the State, id. § 219.7(f)."




Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974

SEC. 6. ø16 U.S.C. 1604¿ NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM RESOURCE PLANNING.—(a) As a part of the Program provided for by section 4 of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall develop, maintain, and, as appropriate, revise land and resource management plans for units of the National Forest System, coordinated with the land and resource management planning processes of State and local governments and other Federal agencies..


The RPA was extensively amended by the National Forest Management Act of 1976. Significantly, Section 6(a) of the RPA, quoted above, was not amended. The National Forest Management Act requires that each plan developed "be revised (A) from time to time when the Secretary finds conditions in a unit have significantly changed, but at least every fifteen years." It must coordinate land use planning efforts with those of county governments under this Act and through the NEPA process:

The resulting plans shall provide for multiple use and sustained yield of goods and services from the National Forest System in a way that maximizes long-term net public benefits in an environmentally sound manner.

(b) Plans guide all natural resource management activities and establish management standards and guidelines for the National Forest System. They determine resource management practices, levels of resource production and management, and the availability and suitability of lands for resource management. Regional and forest planning will be based on the following principles:

(5) Preservation of important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage;

(9) Coordination with the land and resource planning efforts of other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Indian tribes;

(13) Management of National Forest System lands in a manner that is sensitive to economic efficiency; and

(14) Responsiveness to changing conditions of land and other resources and to changing social and economic demands of the American people. [Emphasis added]

Specific requirements for accomplishing the purposes of planning coordination with county governments are provided as follows:

(a) the responsible line officer shall coordinate regional and forest planning with the equivalent and related planning efforts of other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Indian tribes. [Emphasis added]

(c) The responsible line officer shall review the planning and land use policies of other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Indian tribes. The results of this review shall be displayed in the environmental impact statement for the plan (40 CFR 1502.16(c), 1506.2).


Coordination as applies to the


Federal Land Management Planning Act (FLPMA) Title 43, Chapter 35, Subchapter II Sections 1701 (Congressional Declaration of Policy) and 1712 (Land Use Plans and Coordination with Local Government.)

Section 1712: Land Use Plans

(9) to the extent consistent with the laws governing the administration of the public lands, coordinate the land use inventory, planning, and management activities of or for such lands with the land use planning and management programs of other Federal departments and agencies and of the States and local governments within which the lands are located, including, but not limited to, the statewide outdoor recreation plans developed under the Act of September 3, 1964 (78 Stat. 897), as amended [16 U.S.C. 460l–4 et seq.], and of or for Indian tribes by, among other things, considering the policies of approved State and tribal land resource management programs. In implementing this directive, the Secretary shall, to the extent he finds practical, keep apprised of State, local, and tribal land use plans; assure that consideration is given to those State, local, and tribal plans that are germane in the development of land use plans for public lands; assist in resolving, to the extent practical, inconsistencies between Federal and non-Federal Government plans, and shall provide for meaningful public involvement of State and local government officials, both elected and appointed, in the development of land use programs, land use regulations, and land use decisions for public lands, including early public notice of proposed decisions which may have a significant impact on non-Federal lands. Such officials in each State are authorized to furnish advice to the Secretary with respect to the development and revision of land use plans, land use guidelines, land use rules, and land use regulations for the public lands within such State and with respect to such other land use matters as may be referred to them by him. Land use plans of the Secretary under this section shall be consistent with State and local plans to the maximum extent he finds consistent with Federal law and the purposes of this Act.


Title 43 Subtitle B Chapter II Part 1600 § 1610.3-1 - Coordination of planning efforts

a) In addition to the public involvement prescribed by §1610.2, the following coordination is to be accomplished with other Federal agencies, state and local governments, and federally recognized Indian tribes. The objectives of the coordination are for the State Directors and Field Managers to:

(1) Keep apprised of non-Bureau of Land Management plans;

(2) Assure that BLM considers those plans that are germane in the development of resource management plans for public lands;

(3) Assist in resolving, to the extent practicable, inconsistencies between Federal and non-Federal government plans;

(4) Provide for meaningful public involvement of other Federal agencies, State and local government officials, both elected and appointed, and federally recognized Indian tribes, in the development of resource management plans, including early public notice of final decisions that may have a significant impact on non-Federal lands; and

(5) Where possible and appropriate, develop resource management plans collaboratively with cooperating agencies.

(b) When developing or revising resource management plans, BLM State Directors and Field Managers will invite eligible Federal agencies, state and local governments, and federally recognized Indian tribes to participate as cooperating agencies. The same requirement applies when BLM amends resource management plans through an environmental impact statement. State Directors and Field Managers will consider any requests of other Federal agencies, state and local governments, and federally recognized Indian tribes for cooperating agency status. Field Managers who deny such requests will inform the State Director of the denial. The State Director will determine if the denial is appropriate.

(c) State Directors and Field Managers shall provide other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Indian tribes opportunity for review, advice, and suggestion on issues and topics which may affect or influence other agency or other government programs. To facilitate coordination with State governments, State Directors should seek the policy advice of the Governor(s) on the timing, scope and coordination of plan components; definition of planning areas; scheduling of public involvement activities; and the multiple use opportunities and constraints on public lands. State Directors may seek written agreements with Governors or their designated representatives on processes and procedural topics such as exchanging information, providing advice and participation, and timeframes for receiving State government participation and review in a timely fashion. If an agreement is not reached, the State Director shall provide opportunity for Governor and State agency review, advice and suggestions on issues and topics that the State Director has reason to believe could affect or influence State government programs.

(d) In developing guidance to Field Manager, in compliance with section 1611 of this title, the State Director shall:

(1) Ensure that it is as consistent as possible with existing officially adopted and approved resource related plans, policies or programs of other Federal agencies, State agencies, Indian tribes and local governments that may be affected, as prescribed by §1610.3–2 of this title;

(2) Identify areas where the proposed guidance is inconsistent with such policies, plans or programs and provide reasons why the inconsistencies exist and cannot be remedied; and

(3) Notify the other Federal agencies, State agencies, Indian tribes or local governments with whom consistency is not achieved and indicate any appropriate methods, procedures, actions and/or programs which the State Director believes may lead to resolution of such inconsistencies.

(e) A notice of intent to prepare, amend, or revise a resource management plan shall be submitted, consistent with State procedures for coordination of Federal activities, for circulation among State agencies. This notice shall also be submitted to Federal agencies, the heads of county boards, other local government units and Tribal Chairmen or Alaska Native Leaders that have requested such notices or that the responsible line manager has reason to believe would be concerned with the plan or amendment. These notices shall be issued simultaneously with the public notices required under §1610.2(b) of this title.

(f) Federal agencies, State and local governments and Indian tribes shall have the time period prescribed under §1610.2 of this title for review and comment on resource management plan proposals. Should they notify the Field Manager, in writing, of what they believe to be specific inconsistencies between the Bureau of Land Management resource management plan and their officially approved and adopted resources related plans, the resource management plan documentation shall show how those inconsistencies were addressed and, if possible, resolved.

(g) When an advisory council has been formed under section 309 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 for the area addressed in a resource management plan or plan amendment, BLM will inform that council, seek its views, and consider them throughout the planning process.

Uintah County v. Norton Civil No. 2:00-CV-0482J




 All federal agencies shall prepare an environmental impact statement (“EIS”) or an environmental assessment (“EA”), (i.e. a NEPA document) for "every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment."  42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(c).

 Such EIS or EA shall include, among other things, alternatives to the proposed action.  42 U.S.C. § 4332(C)(iii).

 Each EIS or EA shall also contain a “no action” alternative which describes the status quo.  Natural Resources Defense Council v. Hodel, 624 F.Supp. 1045, 1054 (D. Nev. 1985).

 Culture is defined as the customary beliefs, social forms and  material traits of a group; an integrated pattern of human behavior passed to succeeding generations.  Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 277 (1975).

 A custom is a usage or practice of the people, which, by common adoption and acquiescence, and by long and unvarying habit, has become compulsory and has acquired the force of law with respect to the place or subject-matter to which it relates.  Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 417 (1st ed. 1867).

Copies of comments by State or local governments must accompany the EIS or EA throughout the review process.  42 U.S.C. § 4332(C).

Federal agencies shall “consult [] early with appropriate state and local agencies and Indian tribes and with interested private persons and organizations when its own involvement is reasonably forseeable.”   40 C.F.R. § 1501.2(d)(2).

Local governments shall be invited to participate in the scoping process.  40 C.F.R. § 1501.7(a)(1).

Federal agencies shall cooperate “to the fullest extent possible to reduce duplication” with State and local requirements.  Cooperation shall include:

(1) Joint planning

            (2) Joint environmental research

            (3) Joint hearings

            (4) Joint environmental assessments.  40 C.F.R. § 1506.2

Agencies shall cooperate with State and local agencies to the fullest extent possible to reduce duplication between NEPA and comparable State and local requirements, unless the agencies are specifically barred from doing so by some other law.  Such cooperation shall to the fullest extent possible include joint environmental impact statements.  In such cases one or more Federal agencies shall be joint lead agencies.  Where State laws or local ordinances have environmental impact statement requirements in addition to but not in conflict with those in NEPA, Federal agencies shall cooperate in fulfilling these requirements as well as those of Federal laws so that one document will comply with all applicable laws.  40 C.F.R. § 1506.2(c).

 Federal, State, or local agencies, including at least one Federal agency, may act as joint lead agencies to prepare an environmental impact statement.  40 C.F.R. § 1501.5(b).

Any Federal agency, or any State or local agency or a private person substantially affected by the absence of lead agency designation, may make a written request to the potential lead agency that a lead agency be designated.  40 C.F.R. § 1501.5(d).

A State or local agency of similar qualifications [one who has special expertise]. . . may by agreement with the lead agency become a cooperating agency.  40 C.F.R. § 1508.5.

To better integrate EIS into State or local planning processes, such statement shall discuss any inconsistency of a proposed action with any approved State or local plan and laws (whether or not federally sanctioned).  Where an inconsistency exists, the statement should describe the extent to which the agency would reconcile its proposed action with the plan or law.  40 C.F.R. § 1502.16(c).

"This section forms the scientific and analytic basis for the comparisons under Sec. 1502.14. It shall consolidate the discussions of those elements required by sections 102(2)(C)(i), (ii), (iv), and (v) of NEPA which are within the scope of the statement and as much of section 102(2)(C)(iii) as is necessary to support the comparisons. The discussion will include the environmental impacts of the alternatives including the proposed action, any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, the relationship between short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposal should it be implemented. This section should not duplicate discussions in Sec. 1502.14. It shall include discussions of:

(a) Direct effects and their significance (Sec. 1508.8).

(b) Indirect effects and their significance (Sec. 1508.8).

(c) Possible conflicts between the proposed action and the objectives of Federal, regional, State, and local (and in the case of a reservation, Indian tribe) land use plans, policies and controls for the area concerned. (See Sec. 1506.2(d).)

 Environmental impact statements must discuss any "inconsistency of a proposed action with any approved State or local plan and laws (whether or not federally sanctioned).  Where an inconsistency exists, the [EIS] should describe the extent to which the agency would reconcile its proposed action with the plan or law.”  40 C.F.R. § 1506.2(d).

40 C.F.R. § 1506.2(d).): (d) To better integrate environmental impact statements into State or local planning processes, statements shall discuss any inconsistency of a proposed action with any approved State or local plan and laws (whether or not federally sanctioned). Where an inconsistency exists, the statement should describe the extent to which the agency would reconcile its proposed action with the plan or law. “

Appropriate mitigation measures much be included in the EIS.  40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(F).  40 C.F.R. § 1508.20.Mitigation includes (a) avoiding the impact altogether, (b) limiting the degree of the impact, (c) repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the affected environment, (d) reducing the impact by preservation opportunities, or (e) compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. 

Sec. 1502.14 Alternatives including the proposed action.

"This section is the heart of the environmental impact statement. Based on the information and analysis presented in the sections on the Affected Environment (Sec. 1502.15) and the Environmental Consequences (Sec. 1502.16), it should present the environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives in comparative form, thus sharply defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decisionmaker and the public. In this section agencies shall:

(a) Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and for alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for their having been eliminated.

(b) Devote substantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail including the proposed action so that reviewers may evaluate their comparative merits.

(c) Include reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency.

(d) Include the alternative of no action.

(e) Identify the agency's preferred alternative or alternatives, if one or more exists, in the draft statement and identify such alternative in the final statement unless another law prohibits the expression of such a preference.

(f) Include appropriate mitigation measures not already included in the proposed action or alternatives. "

Sec. 1508.20 Mitigation.

"Mitigation" includes:

(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.

(b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation.

(c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment.

(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action.

(e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. "

 Federal agencies shall circulate the entire draft and final EIS, or if the EIS is unusually long, a summary of the EIS, to State and local agencies authorized to develop and enforce environmental standards.  40 C.F.R. § 1502.19(a).

 A local government, because of a concern for its environment, wildlife, socio-economic impacts and tax base, has standing to sue federal agencies and seek relief for violations of NEPA.  Commission of Catron County v. U.S.F.W.S., 75 F3d 1429 (10th Cir. 1996) - we are the 9th circuit.




(1) The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), is intended to ensure that Federal agencies actively participate as cooperating agencies in other agency's NEPA processes. The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing cooperating agencies status (40 C.F.R. §§ 1501.6 & 1508.5) implement the NEPA mandate that Federal agencies responsible for preparing NEPA analyses and documentation  do so "in cooperation with State and local governments" and other agencies with jurisdiction by law or special expertise. (42 U.S.C. §§ 4331 (a), 4332(2)).

(2) The Environmental Protection Agency, charged with administration and implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), has issued regulations which require that federal agencies consider the economic impact of their actions and plans on local government such as Siskiyou County.

(3) NEPA requires federal agencies to consider the impact of their actions on the customs of the people as shown by their beliefs, social forms, and "material traits," it reasonably follows that NEPA requires federal agencies to consider the impact of their actions on the rural, land and resource-oriented citizens of Siskiyou County who depend on the "material traits" including recreation, tourism, timber  harvesting, mining, livestock grazing, and other commercial pursuits for their economic livelihoods.

(4) NEPA requires federal agencies to consider the impact of their actions on the customs, beliefs, and social   forms, as well as the "material traits" of the people. It is reasonable to interpret NEPA as requiring federal agencies to consider the impacts of their actions on those traditional and historical and economic practices,  including commercial and business activities, which are performed or operated on federally and state managed lands (including, but not limited to recreation, tourism, timber harvesting, mining, livestock grazing, and other commercial pursuits.)

(5) 42 U.S.C. § 4331 places upon federal agencies the "continuing responsibility... to use all practicable means, consistent with other considerations of national policy to... preserve important historic, culture, and natural aspects of our national heritage." (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (at 277, 1975) defines "culture" as "customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a group; the integrated pattern of human behavior passed to succeeding generations.”



Coordination as Applies to

Bureau of Reclamation

PUBLIC LAW 97-293 Reclamation Act; October 12, 1982, and the amendments December 27, 1987, and December 21, 1995.

Title 2, SEC. 210: Water Conservation

(c) The Secretary is authorized and directed to enter into memorandums of agreement with those Federal agencies having capability to assist in implementing water conservation measures to assure coordination of ongoing programs. Such memorandums should provide for involvement of non-Federal entities such as States, Indian tribes, and water user organizations to assure full public participation in water conservation efforts. [(43 U.S.C. 390jj)]




“[N]ot less than ninety days before the effective date of the regulation,” the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) is required to give actual notice to local  governments of its intent to propose a species for listing or  change or propose critical habitat.  16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(5)(A)(ii).

"(5) With respect to any regulation proposed by the Secretary to implement a determination, designation, or revision referred to in subsection (a)(1) or (3) of this section, the Secretary shall - (A) not less than 90 days before the effective date of the regulation - (i) publish a general notice and the complete text of the proposed regulation in the Federal Register, and (ii) give actual notice of the proposed regulation (including the complete text of the regulation) to the State agency in each State in which the species is believed to occur, and to each county, or equivalent jurisdiction in which the species is believed to occur, and invite the comment of such agency, and each such jurisdiction, thereon;"

"(6)(A) Within the one-year period beginning on the date on which general notice is published in accordance with paragraph (5)(A)(i) regarding a proposed regulation, the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register - (i) if a determination as to whether a species is an endangered species or a threatened species, or a revision of critical habitat, is involved, either - (I) a final regulation to implement such determination, (II) a final regulation to implement such revision or a finding that such revision should not be made, (III) notice that such one-year period is being extended under subparagraph (B)(i), or (IV) notice that the proposed regulation is being withdrawn under subparagraph (B)(ii), together with the finding on which such withdrawal is based; or (ii) subject to subparagraph (C), if a designation of critical habitat is involved, either - (I) a final regulation to implement such designation, or (II) notice that such one-year period is being extended under such subparagraph."

(C) A final regulation designating critical habitat of an endangered species or a threatened species shall be published concurrently with the final regulation implementing the determination that such species is endangered or threatened, unless the Secretary deems that - (i) it is essential to the conservation of such species that the regulation implementing such determination be promptly published; or (ii) critical habitat of such species is not then determinable, in which case the Secretary, with respect to the proposed regulation to designate such habitat, may extend the one-year period specified in subparagraph (A) by not more than one additional year, but not later than the close of such additional year the Secretary must publish a final regulation, based on such data as may be available at that time, designating, to the maximum extent prudent, such habitat.

Once notified, the local government has the opportunity to comment on the proposed species listing or critical habitat designation.  50 C.F.R. § 424.16(c)(i)(ii).

The FWS must directly respond to the "State agency"comments.  16 U.S.C. § 1533(i).

Other federal agencies must also consider local government and public comments regarding the management of threatened or endangered species.  16 U.S.C. § 1533(f)(5).

The listing of a species as threatened or endangered by the FWS is to be based on the “best scientific and commercial data available.”  16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(1)(A).

The FWS shall list species only after taking into account efforts of State or political subdivisions to protect the species.  16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(1)(A).

(1)(A) The Secretary shall make determinations required by subsection (a)(1) of this section solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available to him after conducting a review of the status of the species and after taking into account those efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision of a State or foreign nation, to protect such species, whether by predator control, protection of habitat and food supply, or other conservation practices, within any area under its jurisdiction; or on the high seas.

Critical habitat designations must take economic impacts into account.  Areas may be excluded as critical habitat based upon economic impacts unless the failure to designate the area as critical habitat would result in extinction of the species.  16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(2).

"(2) The Secretary shall designate critical habitat, and make revisions thereto, under subsection (a)(3) of this section on the basis of the best scientific data available and after taking into consideration the economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude any area from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based on the best scientific and commercial data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species concerned."

The FWS is required to complete full NEPA documentation when designating critical habitat.  Commission of Catron County v. U.S.F.W.S., 75 F.3d 1429 (10th Cir. 1996 - note we are in the 9th Circuit)

The Secretary “shall develop and implement [recovery] plans for the . . . survival of endangered species . . . unless he finds that such a plan will not promote the conservation of the species.”  16 U.S.C. § 1533(f)(1).

According to the ESA section 7 consultation regulations, an applicant “refers to any person . . . who requires formal approval or authorization from a Federal agency as a prerequisite to conducting agency action.  50 C.F.R. § 402.02.  “Although early consultation is conducted between the Service [FWS] and the Federal agency, the prospective applicant should be involved throughout the consultation process.  50 C.F.R. § 402.11(a).  The Biological Assessment or Biological Evaluation (“BA”), i.e., the document created by the federal agency containing the proposed action, may be prepared by a non-Federal representative.  50 C.F.R. § 402.12(a) to (c). 

16 U.S.C. § 1533 (f) (B)(3)(i) (Argument could be made that the County as vested with its powers from the State Legislature is an "agency" of the State

"(i)Submission to State agency of justification for regulations inconsistent with State agency's comments or petition If, in the case of any regulation proposed by the Secretary under the authority of this section, a State agency to which notice thereof was given in accordance with subsection (b)(5)(A)(ii) of this section files comments disagreeing with all or part of the proposed regulation, and the Secretary issues a final regulation which is in conflict with such comments, or if the Secretary fails to adopt a regulation pursuant to an action petitioned by a State agency under subsection (b)(3) of this section, the Secretary shall submit to the State agency a written justification for his failure to adopt regulations consistent with the agency's comments or petition."

The Sensitive Species Program was created on January 6, 1989 by the FWS and is implemented by all federal agencies.   These federal agencies are to give "special consideration" to those plant and animal species that the FWS is considering for listing but lacks the scientific data to list.  54 Fed. Reg. 554 (January 6, 1989).



The Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 6501-6506 and companion  Executive Order 12372, require all federal agencies to consider local viewpoints during the planning stages of any federal project.  31 U.S.C. § 6506(c).

"(7) concern for high standards of design. (c) To the extent possible, all national, regional, State, and local viewpoints shall be considered in planning development programs and projects of the United States Government or assisted by the Government. State and local government objectives and the objectives of regional organizations shall be considered within a framework of national public objectives expressed in laws of the United States. Available projections of future conditions in the United States and needs of regions, States, and localities shall be considered in plan formulation, evaluation, and review. "

The obligation of federal agencies to consider local government concerns is a legally enforceable right.  City of Waltham v. U.S. Postal Service, 11 F.3d 235, 245 (1st Cir. 1993).

Injunctive relief is available in those cases in which federal agencies fail to comply with the ICA.  City of Rochester v. U.S. Postal Service, 541 F.2d 967, 976 (2nd Cir. 1976).

The consideration of local government plans and policies must occur on the record.  Federal agencies have an affirmative duty to develop a list of factors which support or explain an agency’s decision to act in disharmony with local land use plans.  Village of Palatine v. U.S. Postal Service, 742 F. Supp. 1377, 1397 (N.D. Ill. 1990).



Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 Title 16 Chapter 9



(Presidential) Executive Order 12372

Section 1. Federal agencies shall provide opportunities for consultation by elected officials of those State and local governments that would provide the non-federal funds for or that would be directly affected by proposed federal financial assistance or direct federal development.

Section 2.

(a) ...federal agencies shall to the extent permitted by law:...determine official views of State and local elected officials.

(b) Communicate with State and local elected officials as early in the program planning cycle as is reasonably feasible to explain specific plans and actions.

(c) Make efforts to accommodate State and local elected officials' concerns with proposed federal financial assistance and direct federal development...where the concerns cannot be accommodated, federal officials shall explain the basis for their decisions in a timely manner.

Section 3. (a) The State process referred to in Section 2 shall include those where States designate, in specific instances to local elected officials the review, coordination, and communication with federal agencies .

Executive Order - Establishment of the White House Rural Council
Executive Order--Delivering an Efficient, Effective, and Accountable Government
Executive Order--Regulation and Independent Regulatory Agencies
Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review - Executive Order



Executive Order 13575 - Establishment of the White House Rural Council

Sec. 4. Mission and Function of the Council

     (b) coordinate and increase the effectiveness of Federal engagement with rural stakeholders, including agricultural organizations, small businesses, education and training institutions, health-care providers, telecommunications services providers, research and land grant institutions, law enforcement, State, local, and tribal governments, and nongovernmental organizations regarding the needs of rural America;




(Federal)  Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)


They are required to “prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis. Such analysis shall describe the impact of the proposed rule on small entities. The initial regulatory flexibility analysis or a summary shall be published in the Federal Register at the time of the publication of general notice of proposed rulemaking for the rule.”

“Each initial regulatory flexibility analysis required under this section shall contain—

(1) a description of the reasons why action by the agency is being considered;

(2) a succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed rule;

(3) a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;

(4) a description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record;

(5) an identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed rule.

(c) Each initial regulatory flexibility analysis shall also contain a description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. Consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, the analysis shall discuss significant alternatives such as--

(1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities;

(2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities;

(3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and

(4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities.

The Act under  § 604. Final regulatory flexibility analysis states:

(a) When an agency promulgates a final rule under section 553 of this title, after being required by that section or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking, or promulgates a final interpretative rule involving the internal revenue laws of the United States as described in section603(a), the agency shall prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis. Each final regulatory flexibility analysis shall contain--

(1) a succinct statement of the need for, and objectives of, the rule;

(2) a summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, a summary of the assessment of the agency of such issues, and a statement of any changes made in the proposed rule as a result of such comments;

(3) a description of and an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule will apply or an explanation of why no such estimate is available;

(4) a description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record; and

(5) a description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected.

(b) The agency shall make copies of the final regulatory flexibility analysis available to members of the public and shall publish in the Federal Register such analysis or a summary thereof.



Data Quality Act



grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes)

Search CA code



Coordination and the CA Porter Cologne Water Quality Act

Joint Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction and power of the Siskiyou County Flood Control and Water Conservation District CA Water Code 5900-5901; Klamath River Basin Compact between Oregon and Callifornia approved by Congress; or here  Appendix B - Siskiyou County Water Conservation and Flood Control District Boundaries: "All of that territory of the County of Siskiyou lying within the exterior boundaries thereof, exclusive of the area in Siskiyou County within the Upper Klamath River Basin, as delineated on the Official Map of the Upper Klamath River Basin approved September 6, 1956, and made a part of the Klamath River Basin compact between the States of Oregon and California, ratified by said states on April 17, 1957."

,,,"to prevent contamination, pollution or otherwise rendering unfit for beneficial use the surface or subsurface water used or useful in said district, ..."




California Administrative Procedures Act


Section 11342. In this chapter unless otherwise specifically indicated:

(b) "Regulation" means every rule, regulation, order, or standard of general application or the amendment, supplement or revision of any such rule, regulation, order or standard adopted by any state agency to implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered by it, or to govern its procedure, except one which relates only to the internal management of the state agency....

Statement of Reasons for Adoption or Amendment; Specific technology or Equipment; Alternatives

Section 11346.14. The initial statement required by Section 11346.7 shall also include, but not be limited to, the following:

(a) Where the adoption or amendment of a regulation would mandate the use of specific technologies or equipment, a statement of the reason why the agency believes such mandates or prescriptive standards are required.

(b) A description of the alternatives to the regulation considered by the agency and the agency’s reasons for rejecting those alternatives, and a statement that no alternative considered by the agency would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the regulation is proposed or would be as effective or less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed regulation. In the case of a regulation which would mandate the use of specific technologies or equipment or prescribe specific actions or procedures, the imposition of performance standards shall be considered as an alternative.

Any statutory reference to Section 11346.7 shall be construed to also be a reference to this section.

Notice of Proposed Action; Mailing; Delivery; Publication; Effective Period; Notice of Adoption, Amendment or Repeal after Completion and Approval; California Regulatory Register

Section 11346.4. (a) At least 45 days prior to the hearing and close of the public comment period on the adoption, amendment, or repeal of a regulation, notice of the proposed action shall be:

(1) Mailed to every person who has filed a request for notice of regulatory actions with the state agency.

Express Terms of Proposed Action, List of Small Business Enterprises and Initial Statement of Reasons; Availability to Public; Final Statement of Reasons and Updated Informative Digest; Adoption or Amendment of Federal Regulations

Section 11346.7. Every agency subject to this chapter shall;

(a) Prepare, submit to the office with the notice of the proposed action, and make available to the public upon request, a copy of the express terms of the proposed action as described in subdivision (b) of Section 11346.5, a list of the small business enterprises or their representatives to whom the notice of adoption, amendment, or repeal of a regulation will be mailed and an initial statement of reasons for proposing the adoption, amendment, or repeal of a regulation. The statement shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following:

(1) A description of the public problem, administrative requirement, or other condition or circumstance that each adoption, amendment, or repeal is intended to address.

(2) A statement of the specific purpose of each adoption, amendment, or repeal and the rationale for the determination by the agency that each adoption, amendment, or repeal is reasonably necessary to carry out the purpose for which it is proposed.

(3) An identification of each technical, theoretical, and empirical study, report, or similar document, if any, on which the agency is relying in proposing the adoption, amendment, or repeal of a regulation.

(4) A description of any alternatives the agency has identified that would lessen any adverse impact on small businesses. It is not the intent of this subdivision to require the agency to artificially construct alternatives or to justify why it has not identified alternatives.

(b) Prepare and submit to the office with the adopted regulation a final statement of reasons which shall include all of the following:

(3) A summary of each objection or recommendation made regarding the specific adoption, amendment, or repeal proposed, together with an explanation of how the proposed action has been changed to accommodate each objection or recommendation, or the reasons for making no change. This requirement applies only to objections or recommendations specifically directed at the agency’s proposed action




(1) The California Environmental Quality Act requires the preparation of an analysis to evaluate the impact of economic and social effects resulting from a project to physical changes caused by the economic or social changes.

(2) The California legislature has mandated in Section 65040 that the State Office of Planning and Research shall "coordinate, in conjunction with...local agencies: with regard to matters relating to the environmental quality of the state."

http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/art9.html California Code of Regulations Chapter 3. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act Article 9. Contents of Environmental Impact Reports

15125. Environmental Setting

must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant. The description of the environmental setting shall be no longer than is necessary to an understanding of the significant effects of the proposed project and its alternatives.

(b) When preparing an EIR for a plan for the reuse of a military base, lead agencies should refer to the special application of the principle of baseline conditions for determining significant impacts contained in Section 15229.

(c) Knowledge of the regional setting is critical to the assessment of environmental impacts. Special emphasis should be placed on environmental resources that are rare or unique to that region and would be affected by the project. The EIR must demonstrate that the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project were adequately investigated and discussed and it must permit the significant effects of the project to be considered in the full environmental context.

(d) The EIR shall discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general plans and regional plans. Such regional plans include, but are not limited to, the applicable air quality attainment or maintenance plan or State Implementation Plan, area-wide waste treatment and water quality control plans, regional transportation plans, regional housing allocation plans, habitat conservation plans, natural community conservation plans and regional land use plans for the protection of the Coastal Zone, Lake Tahoe Basin, San Francisco Bay, and Santa Monica Mountains.

(e) Where a proposed project is compared with an adopted plan, the analysis shall examine the existing physical conditions at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced as well as the potential future conditions discussed in the plan.


grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes)



Coordination is NOT

"Coooperating Agency" Status

From Stewards of Liberty: In the article “Nine Reasons for Avoiding Cooperating Agency Status,” we spell out the differences between coordination and “cooperative agency status” and point out that to gain a seat at the table as a “cooperative agency,” you must first have the permission of the lead agency to participate.  This means they dictate the terms of how you can advocate your position.  (Read the 1999 memo by the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality detailing the factors for allowing local governments to have “cooperating agency status.”)

Coordination is mandated by Congress and does not require the permission of the agency; rather it simply requires compliance with the law.

The legislative branch of our federal government did not need to create a special status for local governments; instead they recognized that local governments already had a special status.  They are a duly created political subdivision of the state that has the responsibility to protect the health, safety and welfare of their citizens. [They are not an "agency"]  Because of the critical role local governments have in the functioning of our free society, Congress went to great effort to ensure local governments would have a process to advocate what is best for their citizens, local economy, and unique way of life, where the agencies could not dismiss their position.

BLM issues updated Guide for Cooperating Agencies; Desk guide

Definition (from American Stewards of Liberty): In California Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordova, 172 Cal. App. 4th 603, 91 Cal. Rpr. 3d. 571 (Third App. Dist. 2009) the Court said this of “coordinate”:

“... the concept of ‘coordination’ means more than trying to work together with someone else.  Even under the City’s definition of the word ‘coordination’ means negotiating with others in order to work together effectively.  To ‘coordinate’ is ‘to bring into a common action, movement, or condition’; it is synonymous with ‘harmonize.” (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. Supra, at p. 275, col. 1)  Indeed, the very dictionary the City cites for the definition of the word ‘coordinate’ defines the word ‘coordination’ as ‘cooperative effort resulting in an effective relationship.’ (New Oxford Dict., supra, at p. 378, col.3)
“Although the city suggests ‘coordination’ is synonymous with ‘consultation’ -- and therefore, the city satisfied its ‘coordination’ obligation under the general plan at the same time it satisfied ‘consultation’ obligation under the plan -- that is not true.  While the City could ‘consult’ with the Service [Fish and Wildlife] by soliciting and considering the Service’s comments on the draft EIR, the City could not ‘coordinate’ with the Service by simply doing those things.  . . . by definition ‘coordination’ implies some measure of cooperation that is not achieved merely by asking for and considering input or trying to work together.”

  • Sonoma County Water Coalition v. Sonoma County Water Agency, Case No. A124556, California Appellate Court, First District, Division 5, October 8, 2010. (F.K.Grant analysis) " The Court rejected the Coalition’s challenge to the Agency’s Plan based on alleged failure to coordinate.  But it did so because the statute gave the Agency the discretion to decide which agencies with which it would coordinate.

    The statute in question provided that the Agency “shall coordinate the preparation of its plan with other appropriate agencies in the area….” The Court held that this left it to the Agency to decide the agencies “in the area” with which it would coordinate.  But the Court referred to the act of coordination as a statutory “requirement,” even though it is a “requirement” limited by this particular statute to “certain categories” to be decided by the Agency.

    The Sonoma County Water Coalition decision in no way limits the statutory requirements that California and Federal agencies must coordinate with local government.   “Local government” is not a category left to the discretion of an agency under the obligation to coordinate.

    Local governments in California have a statutory right to engage state and federal agencies in negotiations to reach consistency between their local policies and state/federal plans and policies.  The right is to be exercised through a “coordination” process of government to government engagement."

grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes)




grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes) Boundary Backpackers v. Boundary County 913 P.2d 1141 (1996) 128 Idaho 371

grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes) Allegations that "Coordinating Agency Status" Does Not Exist

grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes)CRS opinion on Siskiyou County's Resolution

grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes)Draft Klamath (KBRA) drought plan; Siskiyou Co. Board of Supervisors and the Siskiyou Co. Flood Control District's Response to the Draft Drought Plan

grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes) Klamath River Watershed Coordination Agreement

grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes) Correspondence on KHSA/KBRA (dam removal):


grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes) Oct 20, 2009 BoS letter to NOAA Fisheries requesting coordination with the County, allowing it to participate in designing the recovery plan for coho salmon; November 9, 2009 NOAA letter to BOS; 8/16/11 update - NOAA has allowed recovery plan draft review by the County prior to public release. NOAA refuses to meet in an open meeting regarding coordination on the coho recovery plan (Will only meet behind closed doors. By the CA Brown Act, that precludes a quorum of the Board from meeting,)  NOAA invited to a general coordination meeting 9 a.m. on 8/23/11. This is a government to government full Board meeting open to the public.)  NOAA was a "no-show" to this meeting.

grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes) Sheriff Lopey's letter on coordination to the DFG
Letter from DFG to Sheriff Lopey denying coordination


grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes)


grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes)  2005 Scott River TMDL Comments

grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes) 2008 ITP Comments ;

grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes) 2010 Dam removal comments

grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes) 2011 Suction dredge comments

grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes) 2011 USFS Planning Rule Comments

grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes) 2011 WaterSMART Comments

grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes)



grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes)


grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes) County Authority

grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes) County Planning Jurisdiction  

grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes)California Coastal Commission v. Granite Rock Co., 480 U.S. 572 (1987)

grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes) Kleppe v. New Mexico  426 U.S. 529 (1976)

grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes) Colorado State v. Toll, 268 U. S. 228 (1925)

grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes) Jurisdiction: Paul v. United States, 371 U.S. at 371 U. S. 264; Fort Leavenworth R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U.S. at 114 U. S. 541-542, Pacific Coast Dairy v. Dept. of Agriculture of Cal., 318 U. S. 285 (1943),   E.g., Paul v. United States, supra, at 371 U. S. 265; Collins v. Yosemite Park Co., 304 U. S. 518, 304 U. S. 528-530 (1938); James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U. S. 134, 302 U. S. 147-149 (1937).

grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes)Property Clause: Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 46, 206 U. S. 89 (1907),   United States v. San Francisco, 310 U. S. 16, 310 U. S. 29-30 (1940); Light v. United States, 220 U. S. 523, 220 U. S. 537 (1911); @ 39 U. S. 537-538 (1840);   Paul v. United States, 371 U. S. 245, 371 U. S. 264 (1963),  Canfield v. United States, 167 U. S. 518 (1897), United States v. Gratiot, 14 Pet. at 39 U. S. 537-538; Ivanhoe Irrig. Dist. v. McCracken, 357 U. S. 275, 357 U. S. 294 295 (1958); Alabama v. Texas, 347 U. S. 272, 347 U. S. 273 (1954); FPC v. Idaho Power Co., 344 U. S. 17, 344 U. S. 21 (1952); United States v. California, 332 U. S. 19, 332 U. S. 27 (1947); 80 U. S. 99 (1872); United States v. Gratiot, supra@ at 39 U. S. 537, Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 243 U. S. 389, 243 U. S. 405 (1917), Sinclair v. United States, 279 U. S. 263, 279 U. S. 297 (1929); United States v. Midwest Oil Co., 236 U. S. 459, 236 U. S. 474 (1915), Mason Co. v. Tax Comm'n of Washington, 302 U. S. 186, 302 U. S. 197 (1937), Ohio v. Thomas, 173 U. S. 276, 173 U. S. 283 (1899).

grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes) Pre-emption of federal law over state and local law/ Supremacy: [Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Development Comm'n, 461 U.S. 190 ,] 203-204 [(1983)]; Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. De la Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141, 153 (1982); Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230 (1947), Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142 -143 (1963), Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 (1941), Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U.S., at 248 , Hunt v. United States, 278 U.S. at 278 U. S. 100; McKelvey v. United States, 260 U. S. 353, 260 U. S. 359 (1922).

grnbullet.jpg (1185 bytes)


homebutn.jpg (7555 bytes)

Free Hit Counter                                   
free hit counter