Environmental Impact Statement Goethals Bridge Replacement Logo
 
Overview - Historic Resources and Section 106 Consultation
 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on cultural resources, and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment and participate. The review process mandated by Section 106 is outlined in regulations issued by ACHP. Revised regulations, "Protection of Historic Properties" (36 CFR Part 800), became effective January 11, 2001.

In June 2005, the Coast Guard sent letters to the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office (NJHPO) and the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (NYSOPRHP) to initiate the official Section 106 consultation process for the proposed project.  This process continued throughout the EIS process with the following outcomes.

Historic Resources - Subsequent to NJHPO and NYSOPRHP’s concurrences, the Coast Guard notified the ACHP in May 2009 that through this consultation, a determination of adverse effect was made regarding the proposed project.  Specifically, the finding of adverse effect related to the following three historic architectural resources:

  • Goethals Bridge;
  • Staten Island Railroad Historic District; and
  • Staten Island Railway Lift Truss Bridge over the Arthur Kill (aka, Arthur Kill Lift Bridge).

In addition, the Coast Guard formally invited the ACHP to the development of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The MOA, including its stipulations and feasible mitigation measures, was prepared in consultation with the NJHPO and the NYSOPRHP. A draft of the MOA was distributed in May 2010 for review by the consulting/interested parties and the public, the comment period for which ended on July 2, 2010. The final and signed version of the MOA was executed by the Coast Guard, NJHPO, NYSOPRHP, and the Port Authority on September 3, 2010, and is available for review at the link above.

Archaeological Resources - Both NJHPO and NYSOPRHP concurred that the project would not result in impacts to archaeological sites.  The NYSOPRHP requested that additional archaeological investigations be conducted within a limited area only if either of the two northern alignment alternatives were selected as the environmentally preferred alternative as a result of the environmental review process.

For more information on Historic Resources see Sections 4.8 and 5.7 and, on Archaeological Resources, see Sections 4.9 and 5.8, which are the respective excerpts of the Final EIS (FEIS).  Additionally, more detail on all of the Section 106-related documentation (reports and correspondences) can be found in the related Appendix E of the FEIS.


 
HOME USCG Logo
 
GBMP EIS Overview Link
  Steps in the Process
  NEPA Requirements
  Notice of Intent
  Scoping Process
  Purpose and Need
  Goals
  Preliminary Alternatives
  Potential Issues
  Refined Project Alternatives for DEIS Analysis
  Study Area
  Cultural Resources and Section 106 Consultation
  Draft EIS Published
  Formal Public Meetings
  Final EIS (FEIS) Published
  Preferred Alternative Selected - New Alignment South
  Modifications in the FEIS Since Publication of the DEIS
  General Conformity
  Record of Decision
  Essential Fish Habitat
  EIS Timeline
  Additional Resources
   
EIS Documents Link
Links Link
FAQs Link
Glossary of Terms Link
Participants Link
 
What's New Link
» Record of Decision (ROD) for Goethals Bridge Replacement Executed on January 31, 2011
» Final EIS (FEIS) Published in August 2010
» Preferred Alternative Selected – New Alignment South