15 C.F.R. § 930.46

Supplemental coordination for proposed activities

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

(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.

[65 FR 77154, Dec. 8, 2000, as amended at 71 FR 828, Jan. 5, 2006]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 2010–2014 · leading case: California Coastal Comm'n v. United States Dep't of the Navy, 22 F. Supp. 3d 1081 (S.D. Cal. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

California Coastal Comm'n v. United States Dep't of the Navy, 22 F. Supp. 3d 1081 (S.D. Cal. 2014). · cites it 16× “15 C.F.R. § 930.46 (a). The regulations on the CZMA explain that: 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)…”

Delaware Dep't of Nat. Resources & Env't Control v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 685 F.3d 259 (3rd Cir. 2012). “The agency’s conclusion that 15 C.F.R. § 930.46 (a) had been satisfied, and that no supplemental consistency determinations were required, was neither arbitrary nor capricious.”

State of Delaware Dep't of Nat. Resources & Env't Control v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 681 F. Supp. 2d 546 (D. Del. 2010). · cites it 3× “I) Accordingly, Secretary O’Mara agreed with Secretary Hughes’ December 2008 conclusion that these modifications required the Corps to issue a supplemental consistency determination in accordance with 15 C.F.R. § 930.46 (a). (Id.; D.I. 4, ex.”

Delaware Dep't of Nat. Resources & Env't Control v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), 751 F. Supp. 2d 715 (D. Del. 2010). “” (AR025147-48) It was based on these efforts that the Corps concluded that; “(1) none of the changes to the proposed project are ‘substantial;’ and (2) there are no new circumstances or information that can be considered ‘significant’ ” such as to war *730 rant a supplemental…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.