[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 28, Volume 2]
[Revised as of July 1, 2003]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 28CFR91.51]

[Page 397-398]
 
                    TITLE 28--JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION
 
              CHAPTER I--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Continued)
 
PART 91--GRANTS FOR CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES--Table of Contents
 
  Subpart D--Environmental Impact Review Procedures for VOI/TIS Grant 
                                 Program
 
Sec. 91.51  Policy.

    (a) NEPA Policy. NEPA policy requires that Federal agencies, to the 
fullest extent possible:

[[Page 398]]

    (1) Implement procedures to make the NEPA process more useful to 
decision-makers and the public; reduce paperwork and the accumulation of 
extraneous background data; and emphasize real environmental issues and 
alternatives. Environmental impact statements shall be concise, clear, 
and to the point, and shall be supported by evidence that agencies have 
made the necessary environmental analyses.
    (2) Integrate the requirements of NEPA with other planning and 
environmental review procedures required by law and by agency practice 
so that all such procedures run concurrently rather than consecutively.
    (3) Encourage and facilitate public involvement in decisions which 
affect the quality of the human environment.
    (4) Use the NEPA process to identify and assess reasonable 
alternatives to proposed actions that will avoid or minimize adverse 
effects of these actions upon the quality of the human environment.
    (5) Use all practicable means to restore and enhance the quality of 
the human environment and avoid or minimize any possible adverse effects 
of the actions upon the quality of the human environment.
    (b) OJP's policy to minimize harm to the environment. It is OJP's 
policy to minimize harm to the environment. Consequently, OJP can reject 
proposals or prohibit a State from using formula grant funds for a 
project that would have a substantial adverse impact on the human 
environment. Additionally, federal law prohibits the implementation of a 
project that jeopardizes the continued existence of an endangered 
species or that violates certain regulations related to water quality. 
Generally, though, where an EA or EIS reveals that a project will have 
adverse environmental impacts, OJP will work with the State grantee to 
identify ways to modify the project to mitigate any adverse impacts, or 
will encourage the State to consider an alternative site.
    (c) Mitigation. OJP may require the following mitigation measures to 
reduce or eliminate a project's adverse environmental impacts:
    (1) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking certain action or 
part of an action.
    (2) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the 
action and its implementation.
    (3) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring 
the affected environment.
    (4) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and 
maintenance operations during the life of the action.
    (5) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute 
resources or environments.
    (d) Use of grant funds. In accordance with OJP's general policy of 
providing the States with the maximum amount of control and flexibility 
over the use of formula grant funds, the States can use VOI/TIS grant 
funds to pay for the costs of preparing environmental documents, to 
implement mitigation measures to reduce adverse environmental impacts, 
and to cover the costs of construction delays or other project changes 
resulting from compliance with the NEPA process. However, any funds used 
for these purposes must be included as a portion of the State's grant 
which requires a State match.