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 that each address a particular area of heritage, landscape, architecture, industry, or infrastructure. In 1956, the United Nations Environmental, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) founded its International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM) to promote preservation of cultural heritage worldwide, and through intergovernmental cooperation they offer training, information, research, cooperation, and advocacy of preservation.3 Just a few years later, the Second Congress of Architects and Specialists of Historic Buildings met in Venice in 1964, where they adopted thirteen resolutions. The first of these resolutions created the Venice Charter, while the second resolution—sponsored by UNESCO—created the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), a non-governmental organization, to oversee the implementation of the Venice Charter. Each member of Paris-based ICOMOS must be qualified in conservation or be a practicing landscape architect, architect, archeologist, town planner, engineer, heritage administrator, art historian, or archivist. The Venice Charter stressed the importance of documentation, especially of any interventions; the importance of setting and original fabric; and the importance of contributions from any and all historic periods to a site’s heritage. It gave very specific guidelines for conservationists and preservationists on how to treat historic sites.4 Charters and Declarations One method of protection for historic sites is a charter. Over the last 134 years, various groups interested in preserving historic structures, landscapes, and cultural heritage have created charters to establish a systematic approach of protection for important historic sites. Initially architecture-based, the preservation effort to protect through charters has expanded to now include cultural heritage, landscapes, bridges, roads, industry, and even historic cars. Focusing on authenticity and integrity, documents and declarations politely demand that all who consider work on historic structures or areas of heritage follow their recommendations. Charters are not legally enforceable; rather, they are establishments of standards for those working in the fields of conservation and preservation. William Morris’s 1877 “Manifesto of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings” is the first cohesive attempt to promote protection of old buildings in a document. Most of the Manifesto’s doctrine establishes the importance of protection and preservation; its last two paragraphs offer clues on what and how to protect “anything... artistic, picturesque, historical, antique, or substantial: any work...which educated, artistic people would think it worthwhile to argue for.” His elitist approach was an important beginning for preservationists; he thought that we should “protect our ancient buildings, and hand them down instructive and venerable to those that come after us.”1 In Athens in 1931, the First International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments developed the Carta del Restauro, which called for international standards and oversight of restoration projects of historic sites. Their goal Section 3: Preservation NHPA; while it requires any federal agency or federally sponsored action’s careful review of historic properties, it ultimately does not prevent the federal agency from taking harmful actions on historic properties. It only requires the review and careful consideration of alternatives. Consultation within the groups typically results in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), where the federal agency agrees to proceed with its undertaking in accordance with the MOA. 43 partially applied to the Croton Waterworks, none of them handle all of the complexities and challenges of preserving historic infrastructure. We have provided a chart on the folowing page to illustrate the inadequacies of the various charters and declarations that were studied. Therefore we must seek out alternate methods of preservation, aimed at the treatment of historic infrastrucutre specifically. William Morris, “Manifesto of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings,” taken from William Morris, “The Principles of the Society As Set Forth upon Its Foundation,” Builder 35 (25 August 1877), http:// www.spab.org.uk/what-is-spab-/the-manifesto/. 2 First International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments, Carta del Restauro (1931), http://www.icomos.org/docs/athens_charter. html. 3 International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM), http://www.iccrom.org/ eng/00about_en/00_00whats_en.shtml. 4 Second Congress of Architects and Specialists of Historic Buildings, Venice Charter (1964), http://www. international.icomos.org/charters/venice_e.htm. 5 ICOMOS, Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance (1979), australia. icomos.org/wp-content/uploads/BURRA_CHARTER.pdf. 6 UNESCO, Nara Document on Authenticity (1993), http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/events/documents/ event-443-1.pdf. 7 European Network of Ancient Places of Performance, Verona Charter (1997), http://www.coe.int/t/ dg4/cultureheritage/heritage/resources/Texts/ Verone_EN.pdf. 8 International