Laserfiche WebLink
FEDERAL PROGRAMS, PROPOSALS AND PROJECTS ARE SUBJECT TO THE <br />INTER -GOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS. PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS SHOULD <br />NOT BE ADDED OR DELETED FROM THE LIST WITHOUT PROPER NOTICE. <br />F-2 REGIONAL REVIEW AGENCY <br />THE REGIONAL AGENCIES REVIEW AUTHORITY, SHOULD BE LIMITED TO <br />JUDGING THE PROGRAMS, PROPOSALS, PROJECTS CONSISTENCY WITH <br />REGIONAL PLANS, GOALS AND POLICIES. NO PREFERENCE OR PRIORITY <br />SHOULD BE GIVEN TO PROJECTS, PROGRAMS OR PROPOSALS WHICH EXCEED <br />THE REGIONAL OR STATE REQUIREMENTS AS OPPOSED TO THOSE PROJECTS, <br />PROGRAMS OR PROPOSALS WiiICH MEET THE REGIONAL OR STATE <br />RE QU�.REMENTS. EACH PROGRAM PROJECT PROPOSAL SHOULD BE REVIEWED <br />PRIMARILY ON ITS OWN MERITS AND THE REGIONAL REVIEWING AGENCY <br />SHOULD DOCUMENT ITS REASONS FOR CONSIDERING FACTORS NOT DIRECTLY <br />RELATED TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PROGRAM, PROJECT, PROPOSAL. <br />F-3 NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS <br />NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW <br />PROCESS, SHOULD BE AS STRINGENT AS THOSE FORMERLY REQUIRED BY <br />A-95. <br />IV-G COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING - ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS <br />Regional, state, and federal governmental levels •equire a variety <br />of special-purpose and environr;ental review-- for proposed <br />development projects. Each of these reviews represents a response <br />to a perceived need or a public concern. Environmental reviews <br />can cause significant delay which creates uncertainty and <br />sometimes higher costs tc_ the developer and ultimately the <br />consumer. The process of environmental -eview can also be abused <br />frivolously. <br />Improvements have been made to simplify th:e state environmental <br />=, review process, administered by the Environmental Quality Board <br />�- (EQB). In ,97h, the Env ironmenta1 Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was <br />introduced. To aid in determininr, whether a proposed action has <br />potential for significant environmental effects that would require <br />the thorough evaluation of an Environmental Impact Statement <br />(EIS). In most cases, ar, E1:'2 is not required, and the <br />environmental review process is complete when the EAW is cleared. <br />A more recent change ha- shifted the responsibility for most F:IS <br />preparatior, to local units c,' Government. We commend the <br />Legislature and thf: EQB for ing there positive steps to <br />simplify and streamline the ronmtntal review process a d <br />further believe thall another t., would be tc incorporate more <br />the environmental review process into the lo.-al planning Froces:,. <br />Each metropolitan area community rcust prepare a comprehensive <br />1"'an; the local plan is an excellent vehicle for Qu,h are <br />