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 has been ongoing since then, and the following outcomes are summarized below.

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 has been made regarding the proposed project.  Specifically, the finding of adverse effect relates to three historic architectural resources, including the:

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

In addition, the Coast Guard formally invited the ACHP into the development of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). Such MOA, including its stipulations and feasible mitigation measures, is currently being prepared in consultation with the NJHPO, the NYSOPRHP and other consulting/ interested parties for its future execution pursuant to 36 CFR 800.6 (Resolution of Adverse Effects).

Archaeological Resources - Both NJHPO and NYSOPRHP have concurred that the project would not result in impacts to archaeological sites.  However in New York, the NYSOPRHP has requested that additional archaeological investigations would be necessary within a limited area only if any of the two northern alignment alternatives were to be 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 Draft EIS.  Additionally, more details on all of the Section 106-related documentation (reports and correspondences) can be found in the related Appendix E of the Draft EIS.