Printed from the St. George Public Web Site....

Opportunities for Public Comment on the EIS

Public Information Meeting/Public Hearing

 

A Public Information Meeting and Public Hearing was held on October 19, 2005 at The Dixie Center, 1835 Convention Center Drive, St. George, UT 84790. The Public Information Meeting began at 3 p.m. (MST) and lasted until 7 p.m. (MST). The Public Hearing was conducted concurrently with an information workshop. The public was afforded the opportunity to present oral testimony and/or written testimony pertinent to the subject of the hearing. Forms for providing written comments were also available at the Public Hearing.

 

View materials from the Public Hearing:

Presentation Boards

Transcript (includes oral comments given at Public Hearing)

 

Draft EIS Comment Period

 

The public comment period on the Draft EIS and associated studies began September 9, 2005 and ended November 8, 2005.

 

All comments were to be submitted in writing, via mail, e-mail, or fax, to Mr. David Field of the FAA, at the address shown below, and the comments must be postmarked and email/fax must be sent by no later than midnight (MST), Tuesday, November 8, 2005. Comments received via fax or e-mail were accepted with the full name and address of the individual commenting.

 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. David Field, Manager, Planning/Programming Branch, Airports Division, Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region, 1601 Lind Avenue, S.W., Suite 315, Renton, WA 98055-4056

 

Telephone: (425) 227-2600

Fax: (425) 227-1600

Email: David.Field@faa.gov

 

Response to Comments

 

All comments received at the public hearing and during the official comment period are currently being reviewed and considered by the FAA. The FAA will prepare responses to comments, either individually or collectively, and include them in the Final EIS. View the written comments received regarding the Draft EIS. Responses to comments will be made by at least one of the means listed below:

  • Modification of alternatives studied in the EIS, including the proposed action.

  • Development and evaluation of reasonable alternatives meeting the purpose and need for the project not previously given serious consideration.

  • Modification or improvement of analyses described in the Draft EIS.

  • The making of factual corrections.

  • Explanation of why the comments do not warrant further agency response, citing the sources, authorities, or reasons that support the position.

The Nature of Comments

 

NEPA includes the following guidelines for the submission of comments on an EIS:

  • Comments should be as specific as possible and may address either the adequacy of the statement or the merits of the alternatives discussed or both.

  • When a commenting party criticizes a lead agency's predictive methodology, the commenting party should describe the alternative methodology that it prefers and why.

  • For a cooperating agency, it shall specify in its comments whether it needs additional information to fulfill other applicable environmental reviews or consultation requirements, and the information it needs. In particular, it shall specify any additional information it needs to comment adequately on the draft statement's analysis of significant site-specific effects associated with the granting or approving by that cooperating agency of necessary Federal permits, licenses, or entitlements.

  • When a cooperating agency with jurisdiction by law objects to, or expresses reservations about, the proposal on grounds of environmental impacts, the agency expressing the objection or reservation shall specify the mitigation measures it considers necessary to allow the agency to grant or approve applicable permit, license, or related requirements or concurrences.