The purpose of this subpart is to inform grant recipients under the ViolentOffender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive (VOI/TIS) Formula GrantProgram of OJP's procedures for complying with the National Environmental PolicyAct (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et. seq., and related environmentalimpact review requirements.

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

(1) Implement procedures to make the NEPA process more useful to decision-makers and the public; reduce paperwork and the accumulation of extraneousbackground data; and emphasize real environmental issues and alternatives.Environmental impact statements shall be concise, clear, and to the point, andshall be supported by evidence that agencies have made the necessaryenvironmental analyses.

(2) Integrate the requirements of NEPA with other planning and environmentalreview procedures required by law and by agency practice so that all suchprocedures run concurrently rather than consecutively.

(3) Encourage and facilitate public involvement in decisions which affect thequality of the human environment.

(4) Use the NEPA process to identify and assess reasonable alternatives toproposed actions that will avoid or minimize adverse effects of these actionsupon the quality of the human environment.

(5) Use all practicable means to restore and enhance the quality of the humanenvironment and avoid or minimize any possible adverse effects of the actionsupon the quality of the human environment.

(b) OJP's policy to minimize harm to the environment. It isOJP's policy to minimize harm to the environment. Consequently, OJP can rejectproposals or prohibit a State from using formula grant funds for a project thatwould have a substantial adverse impact on the human environment. Additionally,federal law prohibits the implementation of a project that jeopardizes thecontinued existence of an endangered species or that violates certainregulations related to water quality. Generally, though, where an EA or EISreveals that a project will have adverse environmental impacts, OJP will workwith the State grantee to identify ways to modify the project to mitigate anyadverse impacts, or will encourage the State to consider an alternative site.

(c) Mitigation. OJP may require the following mitigationmeasures to reduce or eliminate a project's adverse environmental impacts:

(1) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking certain action or part of anaction.

(2) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action andits implementation.

(3) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring theaffected environment.

(4) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation andmaintenance operations during the life of the action.

(5) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substituteresources or environments.

(d) Use of grant funds. In accordance with OJP's general policyof providing the States with the maximum amount of control and flexibility overthe use of formula grant funds, the States can use VOI/TIS grant funds to payfor the costs of preparing environmental documents, to implement mitigationmeasures to reduce adverse environmental impacts, and to cover the costs ofconstruction delays or other project changes resulting from compliance with theNEPA process. However, any funds used for these purposes must be included as aportion of the State's grant which requires a State match.

The definitions supplied by the Council on Environmental Quality in its Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act, 40 CFR Parts 1500 through 1508, (CEQ Regulations),shall apply to the terms in this subpart.

The Department of Justice has also published NEPA procedures that incorporatethe CEQ regulations at 28 CFR part 61. Additionally, the Office of JusticePrograms' Corrections Program Office has prepared a handbook for VOI/TISgrantees, Program Guidance on Environmental ProtectionRequirements. This publication and other relevant documents can be found athttp://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/cpo.

(a) Major Federal action. NEPA's requirements apply to anyproposal for legislation or other major federal action that might significantlyimpact the quality of the human environment. The CEQ regulations in 40 CFR1508.18 define “major federal actions” as actions with effects thatmay be major and which are potentially subject to Federal control andresponsibility. The CEQ regulations categorize “major federalactions” as, among other things, the “[a]pproval of specificprojects, such as construction or management activities located in a definedgeographic area. Projects include actions approved by permit or other regulatorydecision as well as Federal and Federally assisted activities.” (40 CFR1508.18(b)(4)).

(b) VOI/TIS construction grants subject to NEPA. This subpartapplies to all proposed, new and partially completed VOI/TIS projects (includingprojects on tribal lands) initiated by state or local units of government withgrant funding from OJP that involve construction, expansion, renovation,facility planning, site selection, site preparation, security or facilityupgrades or other activities that may significantly impact the environment.

(c) Projects. Although VOI/TIS money cannot be used for aproject's operations expenses, the definition of “project” or“proposal” for NEPA review purposes is defined as both theconstruction and the long-term operation of correctional facilities and relatedcomponents such as all off-site projects to accommodate the needs of thecorrectional facilities project (e.g., road and utility construction orexpansion, projects offered to the affected community as an incentive to acceptthe correctional facility construction or expansion, and other reasonablyforeseeable future actions regardless of what agency or third party undertakessuch action). Reasonably foreseeable actions include future prison constructionphases, especially when either current acreage requirements or design capacitiesfor utilities are based on needs stemming from future phases.

Activities undertaken by State, local, or tribal entities using VOI/TIS fundsthat are consistent with any of the following categories are presumed not tohave a significant effect on the human environment and thus, are categoricallyexcluded from the preparation of either an EA or an EIS. Although theseactivities are excluded from environmental reviews under NEPA, they are notexcluded from compliance with other applicable local, State, or Federalenvironmental laws. Additionally, an otherwise excluded activity loses itsexclusion and is subject to environmental review if it either would be locatedwithin or potentially affect any of the following: a 100-year flood plain, awetland, important farmland, a proposed or listed endangered or threatenedspecies, a proposed or listed critical habitat, a property that is listed oreligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, an area withinan approved State Coastal Zone Management Program, a coastal barrier or aportion of a barrier within the Coastal Barrier Resources System, a river orportion of a river included in or designated for potential addition to the Wildand Scenic Rivers System, a designated or proposed Wilderness Area, or a solesource aquifer recharge area designated by the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA). The resulting environmental review for those activities that lose theirexclusion status shall focus on the factor or factors that caused the loss ofthe exclusion.

(a) Minor renovations. Projects for minor renovations within anexisting facility, unless the renovation would impact a structure which is onthe National Register of Historic Places, or is eligible for listing on theregister.

(b) Limited expansion. Projects for the expansion of anexisting facility or within an existing correctional complex, which does not addmore than 50 beds or increase the capacity of the facility by more than 50percent whichever is smaller. This exclusion does not apply to either a phasedproject that exceeds these numerical thresholds or projects to expand facilitiesthat:

(1) Are located in a floodplain;

(2) Will affect a wetland;

(3) Will affect a facility on the National Register of Historic Places orthat is eligible for listing on the register;

(4) Will affect a federally proposed or listed endangered or threatenedspecies or its habitat;

(5) Is controversial for environmental reasons; or

(6) Would not be served by adequate sewage treatment, solid waste disposal,or water facilities.

(c) Expansion of support facilities. Projects for the expansionof bed space within an existing facility (e.g., double bunking or conversion ofnon-cell space) which are using grant funds to expand or add support facilities,such as a kitchen, medical facilities, recreational space, or program space, toaccommodate the increased number of inmates. This does not include projects toincrease capacity for support facilities which might pose a threat to theenvironment, such as solid waste and waste water management, new roads, new orupgraded utilities coming into the facility, or prison industry programs thatinvolve the use of chemicals and produce hazardous waste or water or airpollution.

(d) Security upgrades. Security upgrades of an existingfacility which are inside the existing perimeter fence or involve the upgrade ofthe existing perimeter fence. This exclusion does not include such upgrades asadding lethal fences or increasing height or lighting of a perimeter fence in aresidential area or other areas sensitive to the visual impacts resulting fromheight or lighting changes.

(e) Privatization. Projects that involve the leasing of bedspace (which may include operational costs) from a facility operated by aprivate correctional corporation or that contract with a private correctionalcorporation for the operation of a state facility or program. This exclusiondoes not apply if the correctional agency has contracted with the private vendorto build the facility, operate the facility, or lease beds to the correctionalagency using federal grant funds.

(f) Drug testing and treatment. Projects that use grant fundsto implement drug treatment, testing, sanctions, or interdiction programs.

(a) Renovation or expansion of existing correctional facility.Renovation or expansion activities not categorically excluded under§ 91.55 require an environmental assessment (EA). An environmentalassessment is generally prepared when a project is not expected to have asignificant impact on the environment. Since projects for the renovation orexpansion of an existing facility or the construction of a new facility withinan existing correctional complex may have limited impact on the environment,preparing an EA may be sufficient.

(b) Proposed construction of a new correctional facility. Theproposed construction of a new correctional facility will require thepreparation of an environmental assessment unless the proposal will clearly havea significant environmental impact in which case an environmental impactstatement can be initiated immediately without the preparation of anenvironmental assessment.

Significant impact. For the proposed construction of a newcorrectional facility or the proposed expansion of an existing facility, if theproposal is large or complex and/or controversial because of the nature ofpossible environmental impacts, and/or if any EA determines that the projectwill have a significant impact on the environment, an environmental impactstatement (EIS) will be required. For those projects that clearly will havesignificant environmental impact, a grantee can save time and resources byinitiating the EIS immediately without going through the EA process.

(a) Initial planning and site selection phase. The NEPAprocedures must be initiated as part of the planning and site selection phase ofall new construction, expansion, and renovation projects and completed beforethe construction or renovation on the project can begin.

(b) Early consultation with OJP. As grantees identify proposed,new projects, the grantees must inform OJP and after consulting OJP's Program Guidance on Environmental Protection Requirements, mustrecommend to OJP whether:

(1) The proposed project meets the criteria of a categorical exclusion;

(2) An environmental assessment should be initiated;

(3) Because of the project size and/or anticipated environmental impacts, anenvironmental impact statement should be initiated.

(c) Design phase. Projects currently in the planning and designphase must complete the NEPA procedures and no further decisions or newcommitments of resources can be made on these projects by the State or localentity that would either have an adverse impact on the environment or limit thechoice of reasonable alternative sites.

(d) Prohibited pre-analysis activities. None of the followingactions can be taken until the NEPA analysis is completed for the affectedproject:

(1) Starting construction;

(2) Accepting construction bids;

(3) Advertising for construction bids;

(4) Initiating the development of or approving final plans andspecifications; or

(5) Purchasing property.

(e) Ongoing or completed construction projects. For grant-funded projects under construction, OJP will work with the States to determinewhat environmental analysis has been done, making every effort to limitdisruption to projects under construction. For completed grant-funded projects,OJP will work with the States to determine whether those projects may posecontinuing environmental problems. For example, NEPA issues may exist due toexcessive noise, light pollution, excessive water consumption or draw down on animportant stream, or adverse visual impact due to an inappropriate facade colorin an environmentally scenic area. Consequently, performing an analysis forthose VOI/TIS VOI/TIS projects for which construction is completed may stillserve the useful purpose of determining the extent of a project's continuingadverse environmental impacts, and the feasibility of mitigation measures.

(f) Avoiding duplication of efforts. If an EA or EIS wascompleted on an original structure, any environmental research that wasconducted at the time the original structure was being planned and is stillrelevant need not be duplicated in any required environmental impact analysisfor proposed modifications or additions to that structure.

(a) In general. All NEPA decisions such as determining theadequacy of assessments, the need for environmental impact statements, and theiradequacy must, by statute, remain with OJP. Therefore, OJP, as the Federalagency sponsoring the major federal action, shall determine if a proposedproject qualifies for a categorical exclusion, if a finding of no significantimpact can be issued based on the EA, or if an EIS will be required.

(b) Specific duties. As part of its role in the NEPA process,OJP shall:

(1) Issue guidance on the preparation of environmental documents and the NEPAprocess.

(2) Review all draft documents.

(3) Participate in giving notice to state and federal agencies, as well as tothe public, and attend public meetings with the grantee, as appropriate.

(4) Identify and solicit appropriate state, local, and tribal agencies to bea cooperating or joint lead agency, as appropriate.

(5) Prepare a written assessment of any environmental impacts that anotherstate or federal land management or environmental protection agency believeshave not been adequately addressed through the NEPA process.

(6) Monitor implementation by the states to ensure the completion of anyrequired mitigation measures.

(7) Develop a sample Statement of Work for preparing an EIS that Statesemploying their own contractor can use to ensure that the services provided meetthe requirements.

Specific duties. As part of its role in the NEPA process, thegrantee agency must:

(a) Work closely with OJP on the development and review of the environmentaldocuments, and follow the NEPA process, with the full participation of OJP.

(b) Issue the documents for public comment jointly with OJP.

(c) Solicit comment from other state and federal agencies, interestedorganizations, and the public.

(d) Refrain from purchasing land, beginning bidding process, or startingconstruction on any project until all environmental work has been completed.

(e) Complete a project Status Report form for all projects under constructionor completed prior to the effective date of this subpart.

(f) Ensure that appropriate environmental analysis, as determined by OJP, iscompleted for all projects and that appropriate alternatives are considered andmitigation measures are implemented to reduce the impact of identifiedenvironmental impacts, if any.

(g) Identify and inform OJP of all applicable state and local environmentalimpact review requirements.

(h) Notify all subgrantees of the requirements of this subpart in the initialplanning and site selection phase.

If delegated by the grantee, the subgrantee shall:

(a) Prepare (if the required expertise exists) or contract for thepreparation of an environmental assessment (EA); and

(b) Submit all environmental assessments through the grantee to OJP forreview and the issuance of a draft finding of no significant impact (FONSI) or adetermination that an environmental impact statement (EIS) is required. If OJPissues a draft FONSI, the grantee agency shall make the draft FONSI and theunderlying EA available for public comment.

(a) In general. An Environmental Assessment (EA) is a concisepublic document that provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determiningwhether OJP should issue a Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact(FONSI) or prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). It is designed tohelp public officials make decisions that are based on an understanding of thehuman and physical environmental consequences of the proposed project and takeactions, in the location and design of the project, that protect, restore andenhance the environment. Completing an EA requires considering all potentialimpacts associated with the construction of the correctional facility project,its operation and maintenance, any related projects including those off-site,and the attainment of the project's major objectives. The latter requires ananalysis of the environmental impacts of any training and vocational activitiesto be conducted by the inmates.

(b) Project planning and site selection. During the planningphase of the project, OJP and the grantee jointly define the project, explorethe various alternatives and identify a proposed site for the construction orrenovation project. In order to identify possible environmental concerns andreduce the likelihood of later opposition to the project, the grantee shouldinvolve other interested parties at this stage through public meetings whichallow affected or interested parties to learn about the need for the action, thescope of the proposed action, and any alternatives being considered. Thesepublic meetings should also provide interested parties an opportunity to expresscomments or concerns about potential consequences of the action. Additionally,minority and low-income populations as well as Indian tribes that may beaffected by the proposal should be consulted at this early stage. The granteeshould obtain their views on proposed sites and mitigation measures as animportant step in meeting the environmental justice goals of Executive Order12898.

(c) Draft environmental assessment. The grantee should preparean EA after identifying the proposed site, but before reaching a final decisionto proceed with the effort at that location. The grantee may prepare the EA orcontract for the preparation of all or parts of the EA. In order to adequatelyassess all of the potential environmental impacts, a multi-disciplinary teammust be used to perform the environmental analysis. Any state or localenvironmental impact review requirements should also be incorporated into the EAprocess. The amount of analysis and detail provided must be commensurate withthe magnitude of the expected impact. At a minimum, an EA should include a briefdiscussion of the need for the proposal, the alternatives considered, theenvironmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives considered, and alist of agencies and persons consulted. VOI/TIS grant funds may be used to paythe costs of preparing the environmental assessment.

(d) OJP's Review of the Draft EA. The Office of JusticePrograms will review the EA for the following:

(1) Has the need for the proposed action been established?

(2) Have the relevant areas of environmental concern been identified?

(3) Have other agencies with an interest been consulted?

(4) Has the grantee provided opportunities for public involvement?

(5) Have reasonable alternatives and mitigation measures been considered andimplemented where possible, including the costs and resources to operate thefacility?

(6) Has a convincing case been made that the project as presently conceivedwill have only insignificant impacts on each of the identified areas ofenvironmental concern?

(7) Has the grantee adequately documented compliance with other relatedfederal environmental laws and regulations as well as similar state and localenvironmental impact review requirements.

(e) Draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or determinationthat EIS is required. If the EA satisfies all the factors in OJP's seven-part review set forth in the previous paragraph, OJP will issue a draft FONSI.If OJP's review of the EA results in a response of “no” to any ofthe questions, except question 6, then the EA is incomplete and will be returnedfor further work. If the only “no” is in response to question 6,then OJP will issue a determination requiring an EIS for that particular projectat that site. Given the cost and time required to complete an EIS, the granteemay wish to explore another alternative site at this point.

(f) Circulate EA and draft FONSI for public comment. Thegrantee must provide public notice of availability of a Finding of NoSignificant Impact. The notice must be timed so that interested agencies and thepublic have 30 days for review and comment on the draft EA.

(g) Review comments and modify plans, as appropriate. Thegrantee must review any public or agency comments received as a result of reviewof the EA and draft FONSI, and should modify its plans, if appropriate.Modification may include modifying the project to mitigate the environmentalimpact of the proposed project, or abandoning the proposed site and selecting analternative that will have a less significant impact on the environment. Thegrantee must submit the comments, responses to these comments, and any revisionsto the proposed plan to OJP for review. If the grantee recommends proceedingwith the project in light of adverse comments on the environmental impact, thegrantee must include the rationale for its recommendation.

(h) Final action on EA. Unless a significant environmentalimpact surfaces through the public comments or other means, OJP will issue theFONSI and authorize the grantee to begin the purchase of land, the biddingprocess, the development of final plans and specifications, and the constructionwork.

(a) Initial determination. OJP will determine whether aproposed project may have a significant impact on the quality of the humanenvironment, thereby requiring the preparation of an environmental impactstatement (EIS). This determination will be made either:

(1) On the basis of an environmental assessment (EA) prepared for theproposed project or

(2) Without the preparation of an EA, but based on the extensive size of theproposed facility and the resulting variety of environmental impacts, thesensitive environmental nature of the proposed site, and/or the existence ofhighly controversial environmental impacts.

(b) CEQ regulations. The CEQ regulations in 40 CFR parts 1500through 1508 govern the preparation of the EIS. The Corrections Program Office'sHandbook on Environmental Protection Requirements offers furtherguidance.

(c) EIS preparation team. (1) Once OJP determines that an EISis needed, the grantee shall notify OJP in writing about the contracting methodthat the grantee will use to complete the EIS. The grantee shall establish anEIS preparation team or entity that meets the requirements for aninterdisciplinary approach. The team must not have any interest, financial orotherwise, in the outcome of the proposed projected or any related projects.

(2) If the grantee decides to use an alternate method to contracting out forpreparation of the EIS (such as using a team of experts from various stateagencies or a university), the grantee must submit a written proposal to OJPdemonstrating that the team has the necessary interdisciplinary skills andexperience in preparing EISs for similar projects. The proposal must include acompletion schedule demonstrating that the alternate method will not result insignificant delay. The proposal must also document that all members of the team,other than the grantee's employees, do not have any interest, financial orotherwise, in the outcome of the proposed project or any related projects.

(3) The grantee must use an OJP-approved statement of work (SOW) inconducting the EIS.

(4) Any consultant or contractor hired by OJP or the grantee to prepare anEIS must execute a disclosure statement specifying that it has no financial orother interest in the outcome of the project or any related projects.

(d) Notice of intent. OJP will publish a notice in the Federal Register to announce its intent to prepare the EIS. Thegrantee shall be responsible for drafting this notice. This notice must statethe date, time and place of the scoping meeting and briefly describe the purposeof the meeting. The grantee should schedule the meeting at least 30 days fromthe date that the grantee submits the draft Federal Registernotice to OJP.

(e) Scoping. The scoping process shall be conducted inaccordance with 40 CFR 1501.7 of the CEQ regulations. The purpose of scoping isto identify and consult with affected federal, state and local agencies, Indiantribes, interested organizations and persons, including minority and low-incomepopulations. The grantee and OPD shall conduct two distinct scoping meetings toassist in identifying both major and less important issues for the draft EIS. Atthe end of the scoping process, a brief report will be prepared summarizing the results, listing the participants, and attaching the meeting minutes.

(f) Draft EIS. The grantee and OJP will prepare the draft EISin accordance with the requirements of the CEQ regulations in 40 CFR parts 1500through 1508. The draft EIS must represent the best analysis reasonablypossible. The grantee must submit the draft EIS to OJP and any cooperatingagencies for internal review and comment. The revised draft must be submitted toOJP and any cooperating agency for approval.

(g) Public comment. The grantee, with OJP approval, mustestablish a distribution list and must mail the draft EIS to those parties. OJPwill then submit the approved draft EIS to the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) and will request EPA to publish a notice of the availability of the draftin the Federal Register. The grantee must publish a similar noticein a newspaper of general circulation in the area of the proposed action.Additionally, the grantee and OJP shall conduct a public information meeting toanswer questions and receive comments on the draft EIS.

(h) Final EIS. The grantee and OJP will prepare the final EIS,including a copy of all comments on the draft and a summary of the publicinformation meeting. The grantee shall submit the final EIS to OJP and anycooperating agencies for internal review. The grantee and OJP will circulate thefinal EIS to all parties on the distribution list, to any agency or person thatrequests a copy, and to EPA for publication in the FederalRegister. The grantee must also announce the availability of the final EISlocally.

(i) Record of decision. When the waiting period for circulationof the final EIS expires, OJP shall prepare the record of decision in accordancewith 40 CFR 1505.2 of the CEQ regulations and in consultation with the grantee.This record of decision shall determine the allowable uses of the grantee'sVOI/TIS fund with respect to the proposed action or its alternatives.

(j) Final action on EIS. In proceeding with the proposedaction, the grantee must implement any mitigation measures or other conditionsestablished in the Record of Decision. As part of any mitigation, the granteemust report back to OJP on the status of implementing the mitigation.

(a) OJP's duty to supplement. OJP shall prepare supplements toeither completed environmental assessments or draft or final environmentalimpact statements if the grantee proposes to make substantial changes in theproposed action that are relevant to previously assessed environmental concerns;or there are significant new circumstances or information relevant toenvironmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts.Additionally, OJP shall include the supplement in its formal administrativerecord.

(b) Grantee's duty to supplement. A grantee has a duty toinform OJP if it plans to make substantial changes in the proposed action thatare relevant to environmental concerns; or if it learns of significant newcircumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing onthe proposed action or its impacts.

(a) Corrections Program Office Director. The Director of theCorrections Program Office is primarily responsible for ensuring the completionof these procedures and for working with grantees to ensure that grantees andsubgrantees meet their responsibilities under this subpart. The Director alsohas the authority to execute on behalf of OJP all FONSIs required under thissubpart.

(b) Assistant Attorney General. The Assistant Attorney Generalof OJP is responsible for executing all records of decisions resulting from thecompletion of environmental impact statements on projects subject to thissubpart.

Environmental impact documents are public documents and the public should beprovided an opportunity to review and comment on them.

(a) Early project planning stages. During the early planningstages of a project, the grantee should make reasonable efforts to meet with theaffected public and other interested parties in order to obtain their views andany concerns regarding the potential environmental impacts of the proposedproject.

(b) Environmental assessment process—(1) Newspaper notice. At a minimum, the grantee must provide publicnotice of the availability of the draft EA and draft Finding of No SignificantImpact (FONSI) for review and comment. The grantee must publish this notice inthe non-legal section of at least two consecutive editions of the newspaper ofgeneral circulation in the affected community or area. The notice must:

(i) Explain how and where a copy of the assessment can be accessed orobtained for review;

(ii) Include a request for comments; and

(iii) Provide at least a thirty-day comment period that begins from the dateof the last published notice.

(2) Post Office notice. If the project area is not served by aregularly published local or area-wide newspaper, the notice described inparagraph (b)(1) of this section must be prominently displayed at the local postoffice.

(3) Site notice. The grantee must send a copy of the notice toowners and occupants of properties that are nearby or directly affected by theproposed project. Additionally, the grantee must place or post the notice on thesite of the proposed project.

(4) Distribution of the draft EA. At the same time that thegrantee provides the public notice of the availability of the EA for review andcomment, the grantee must mail a copy of the draft EA and FONSI to anyindividuals and groups that have expressed an interest in the planned project toeither the grantee or OJP and also to appropriate local, state, and Federalagencies. OJP will advise the grantee of the identities of any parties who havedirectly requested project information from OJP.

(5) Public information meeting. A public information meeting isnot required for each environmental assessment. Rather, OJP will decide if apublic meeting would be helpful in those cases in which the public commentseither reflect a serious misunderstanding of the proposed project and itspotential environmental impacts or raise substantial questions or issuesconcerning the content of the draft EA. If OJP determines that a meeting isnecessary, the grantee must schedule and hold a public meeting. An OJPrepresentative will attend.

(c) EIS process—(1) Scoping meeting. As oneof the first steps in the preparation of a draft EIS, OJP and the grantee willsponsor a public meeting in the area(s) that would be affected by the proposedproject and the alternative sites under consideration. This meeting is referredto as a scoping meeting and is intended to identify the proposed project'senvironmental impacts that are:

(i) Of most concern to the affected public and local, state, and federalagencies and

(ii) Of least concern to the affected public and agencies.

(2) Review and comment process for draft EIS. OJP's proceduresrequire the grantee to obtain the public's comments on the draft EIS by:

(i) Publishing a notice of availability of the draft EIS in the newspaper(s)serving the area(s) that would be impacted by the proposed project and thealternatives sites;

(ii) Distributing copies of the draft EIS to all interested agencies,organizations, and individuals for their review and comment;

(iii) Holding near the site of the proposed project a public informationmeeting in order to obtain the comments of the attendees; and

(iv) Allowing, at a minimum, a forty-five day review and comment period forthe draft EIS. Grantees should refer to OJP's Guidance Handbook for furtherinformation on how to conduct these public review and comment procedures.

(3) Distribution of final EIS. Any interested person or groupcan request a copy of the final EIS and will be provided a copy.

(a) Coordination. OJP will coordinate with grantees to ensurethat any state, local, or tribal environmental impact review requirementssimilar to the Federal NEPA procedures will be met concurrently, to the extentpossible, through requesting the appropriate non-federal agency(ies) to be ajoint lead agency(ies). This effort would involve joint analyses, publicinvolvement and documentation. Grantees are responsible for identifying theapplication of and informing OJP of these state and local requirements.

(b) Completed analysis. For projects that had state or localenvironmental impact analysis completed prior the implementation of theseprocedures, OJP will review the documents prepared to meet the state and localrequirements. In order to minimize any duplication of analysis, OJP will advisethe State on whether additional environmental impact review is required.

(a) Other Federal environmental laws. All projects initiated byState or local units of government with VOI/TIS grant funding are also subject,where applicable, to the environmental impact analysis requirements of thefollowing statutes, their implementing regulations, and the relevant executiveorders:

(1) Archeological and Historical Preservation Act,

(2) Coastal Zone Management Act,

(3) Coastal Barrier Resources Act,

(4) Clean Air Act,

(5) Safe Drinking Water Act,

(6) Federal Water Pollution Control Act,

(7) Endangered Species Act,

(8) Wild and Scenic Rivers Act,

(9) National Historic Preservation Act,

(10) Wilderness Act,

(11) Farmland Protection Policy Act,

(12) Flood Disaster Protection Act

(13) Executive Order on Floodplain Management,

(14) Executive Order on Wetland Protection,

(15) Executive Order on Environmental Justice, and

(16) Executive Order on Protection and Enhancement of the CulturalEnvironment.

(b) Combined requirements. Documenting compliance with theenvironmental requirements in paragraph (a) of this section does not normallyrequire separate documents or separate processes. Rather, documenting compliancewith all of these requirements is generally accomplished by incorporating theminto the NEPA documents. For example, one category of environmental impacts thatmust be addressed in a NEPA analysis is potential impacts to historicproperties. The National Historic Preservation Act, as well as the AdvisoryCouncil on Historic Preservation's regulations at 36 CFR part 800, also containFederal requirements for addressing the impacts on historic properties fromFederal actions. In order to avoid duplicate compliance procedures, the NEPAdocument traditionally becomes the process for meeting the requirements of bothlaws.