federal action that significantly affects the quality of the human environment. The federal government is required to use all practicable means and measures to protect environmental values consistent with other essential considerations of national policy to avoid environmental degradation; preserve historic, cultural, and natural resources; and ‘promote the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without undesirable and unintentional consequences.’ Therefore, the NEPA makes environmental protection a part of the mandate of every federal agency and department.” If a federal agency or federally funded project comes near a historic district or site, particularly one listed in the NRHP (bingo), like the Croton Waterworks, the agency is required to determine the environmental impact on the area of their proposed work with either an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environment Impact Statement (EIS).3 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) has a component to it titled “Section 106.” Section 106 requires federal agencies to weigh the effects of their actions on historic properties. They must also allow the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a “reasonable” chance to “comment” on the federal action. The review process does not necessarily guarantee the protection of the historic site, but it demands that the federal agency follow a list of regulations (outlined in “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR, part 800) in its evaluation and analysis of the proposed federal action. Any project with federal involvement or funding, whether it be by an action using federal funds, or an action that requires federal permits, licensing or federal approvals, triggers the Section 106 process. The project leaders must first map out the “area of potential effects” (APE). Then, the federal agency must determine whether its activity has an “undertaking,” that is, a federal action that could negatively impact historic properties. If not, the review process is complete, but if so, it must continue. The project leaders must then contact the State Historic Preservation Officer or the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer to allow them to consult in the case as well. They should also identify any other parties, including the public, who should be involved and make certain to allow them their say, or they will not be completing their Section 106 obligations. During the Section 106 review, it must be determined whether or not the project will have adverse effects on the historic site. These can be direct effects or indirect effects; examples might be visual intrusion, noise, loss of access, traffic, loss of setting or context, etc. All parties concerned are allowed to weigh in on the process. The goal of the Section 106 review is to find ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effects of the project. Section 106 is the regulatory heart of Designations and Protections New York City Landmarks (Landmarks Preservation Commission) 1967: High Bridge Water Tower, 5 LP-0319 1970: High Bridge, Aqueduct, and Pedestrian Walk, LP-0639 1981: 135th Street Gatehouse, List 141: LP-1035 High Pumping Station, List 145: LP-1080 2000: 119th Street Gatehouse, List 312: LP-2051 2000: Jerome Park Reservoir (Bronx, NY), reference number 00001014 All state agencies must consider environmental impact equally with social and economic factors during discretionary decision making when they are considering work near a historic, archeological, or cultural site. SEQR review is required for projects that might affect these sites.2 Section 3: Preservation Designations and Protections 41 Charters and Declarations http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/51406.html. 3 “NEPA Activities in Site Selection,” U.S. General Services Administration, http://www.gsa.gov/portal/ content/104829. 4 “Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act,” National Trust for Historic Preservation, http:// www.preservationnation.org/resources/legal-resources/understanding-preservation-law/federal-law/transportation-act.html. Department of Transportation Act 1966 (DOT): This is the strongest tool in the federal preservation toolbox. It requires “substantive protection for historic resources” by prohibiting federal approval or funding of transportation projects (like a highway) that requires the use of any historic site…unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the project, and the project includes “all possible planning to minimize harm” to the historic site. By use, they mean not only the actual taking of historic land for the project (typically, a highway), but any adverse affects that would substantially impair the historic site (traffic noise, pollution, etc). Any federal transportation agencies must conduct a 4(f) assessment on any federal transportation project. Section 4(f) requires the DOT to avoid harming such resources, unless no “feasible and prudent alternatives” exists.4 There is one caveat: the Secretary of the DOT may determine a “de minimus impact” if a Section 106 review has found no adverse effect on an historic site. “New York City Landmarks Law,” The New York Preservation Archive Project, http://www.nypap.org/ content/new-york-city-landmarks-law. 2 “Archeological and Historic Resources,” New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 1 42 43 was to ensure integrity, offer preservation assistance, and demand protection for historic sites and their surrounding areas.2 Since then, several charters and declarations have been written