Stakeholders’ Advisory Working Group Environmental Meeting #2 and #3,
July 18, September 25, 2007

The Environmental SAWG meeting #2, dealing with the Cultural Resources topic, was held on July 18, 2007 at the Crowne Plaza, White Plains, Westchester County, NY. View minutes of the meeting here (PDF, 65 KB).

The continuation of the Environmental Studies SAWG meeting #3, on Cultural Resources and Archaeological topics, was held on September 25, 2007 at the Best Western Nyack on Hudson, Rockland County, NY. View minutes of the meeting here (PDF, 54KB).

The presentation for both meetings can be viewed in the following formats:

This introductory slide shows the Tappan Zee Bridge (TZB), the Hudson River, and the Tarrytown side of the bridge.

Cultural resources studies for the TZB/I-287 Environmental Review are being undertaken in compliance with federal and state regulations. These include: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966; Section 4(f) of the US Department of Transportation Act of 1966, the Historic Sites Act of 1935 and the New York State Historic Preservation Act of 1980. In addition, local historic preservation regulations will be consulted to determine whether locally protected resources are located in the proposed area of potential effect (APE).

The National Historic Preservation Act, the primary federal regulation guiding the cultural resources studies, established: The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP); a system of State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs); and the Section 106 Process.

The National Register of Historic Places is the nation's official list of cultural resources worthy of preservation. Buildings, structures, sites, districts and objects over 50 years old are eligible for listing in the National Register if they retain integrity and meet one of the following criteria: association with significant events, association with significant persons; distinctive design or construction, and/or likely to yield important prehistoric or historic information or data.

The Section 106 Process for the Tappan Zee Bridge/I-287 Environmental Review has multiple participants, including: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), New York State Thruway Authority (NYSTA), Metro-North Railroad (MNR), New York State Historic Preservation Office (NYSHPO), Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), Consulting (interested) parties, and the general public.

The Section 106 Process has a structured process that includes the following steps:

1. The lead Federal agency (FHWA and FTA) determine the “undertaking” (the project), identify an Area of Potential Effect (APE), and identify consulting parties to be involved.
2. Historic properties are identified and are evaluated for significance.  If no historic properties are affected, the process is complete.
3. A determination is made as to whether the effects on the historic properties are adverse.  If there are no adverse effects, the process is complete.
4. The lead agency works with the consulting parties to resolve (avoid, minimize, mitigate) the adverse effects.  If an agreement is not reached, the ACHP is involved. 
5. The agency and consulting parties develop a Memorandum of Agreement or a Programmatic Agreement.

Historic properties are also covered by Section 4(f) of the US Department of Transportation Act of 1966.  Section 4(f) requires that FHWA/FTA ensure that historic sites not be “used” without engaging in all possible planning to avoid and minimize harm.

The Historic Sites Act of 1935 established the National Historic Landmarks Program, which is administered by the National Park Service.  National Historic Landmarks are included in the Section 106 process and agencies must "to the maximum extent possible...minimize harm" to these properties.  Section 110(f) of the National Historic Preservation Act sets forth specific actions required when an undertaking would affect a National Historic Landmark.

The New York State Historic Preservation Act of 1980 established a review process similar to that of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 for state–initiated undertakings. 

Multiple local governments in Rockland County have adopted historic preservation regulations, including: Rockland County, Clarkstown, Orangetown and Nyack. Nyack no longer has an active landmarks commission.

Multiple local governments in Westchester County have adopted historic preservation programs and regulations, including: Westchester County, Greenburgh, Tarrytown, Rye and Irvington. Irvington is considering adopting local historic district regulations to protect the National Register–eligible Main Street Historic District.

There are two types of historic sites considered under Section 106: architectural sites and archaeological sites.  We will start by reviewing the process by which historic architectural sites are identified and addressed.
The first step of the architectural survey process is to establish the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the project.

The APE must take into account both direct and indirect impacts of undertakings.  The size of the APE should be directly linked to the scale and nature of the undertaking.  Depending on the project, the APE may account for physical, visual, noise, and vibration impacts that would result from the construction or operation of the project.

The proposed APE for the Tappan Zee Bridge/I–287 Environmental Review would include all areas that would be physically impacted by any of the alternatives and a buffer area to encompass any indirect impacts.  The size of this buffer varies depending on the type of activity and the possible impacts that could result.

The second step of the architectural survey process involves identification of previously designated cultural resources within the APE.

Four types of sources were reviewed for previously identified cultural resources located within the study area.

Three National Historic Landmark sites are located within the study area: Lyndhurst (Tarrytown); Sunnyside (Tarrytown); and Old Croton Aqueduct (Westchester County).
No National Historic Landmarks are located within the Rockland County portion of the study area.

Fifteen National/State Register–listed resources are located within the study area.  Some examples include: Wayside Chapel (Grand View–on–Hudson); White Plains Armory; and Bronx River Parkway Reservation.
These sites have already been listed on the National/State Register.

An additional 18 sites in the study area have been previously identified as being eligible for the National/State Register.  This determination grants these resources the same level of protection as resources that have been formally listed on the National/State Register.  Two examples of such resources within the study area include the Tappan Zee Bridge and the original New York & Erie Railroad Company alignment.

Ten locally protected landmarks and historic districts are located within the study area.  Examples (shown here) include the West Nyack Historic District and 99 White Plains Road in Tarrytown.

The next step in the architectural survey process is to conduct a survey to identify any additional sites within the APE that may be eligible for listing on the National/State Register.

Architectural survey results to date have identified an additional 14 districts and 24 buildings that are recommended as being eligible for the National Register.

Recommended National Register–eligible resources include residential buildings, institutional/commercial buildings, districts, and landscapes.  Shown are two residential properties, one in the Village of Chestnut Ridge and one in the Village of Nyack, that were recommended as eligible for the National Register.

Institutional/commercial buildings recommended as National Register–eligible include the Clarkstown Reformed Church in West Nyack and an early 20th Century commercial building in Suffern.

Examples of districts recommended as National Register–eligible include the proposed Harrison, Tappan Landing, and East Hillburn Historic Districts.

Historic Tibbits Park in the City of White Plains is an example of a historic landscape recommended as eligible for listing on the National Register.

The fourth step of the architectural survey process requires assessment of impacts to the resources identified above.

Section 106 requires impacts analysis to take into account direct and indirect impacts to historic properties.
“An adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register…”

Direct impacts to historic properties include: physical destruction or damage, alteration inconsistent with historic elements and removal of a property from its historic location.
Indirect impacts can include: change in character of use or setting and visual, atmospheric, or noise impacts.

The final step of the architectural survey process is to develop mitigation measures to offset any adverse effects.  NYSHPO and other consulting parties must concur with these measures.

Mitigation measures can vary depending on the resource and the type of impact.  As an example, if the National Register–eligible Tappan Zee Bridge were replaced by the project, mitigation could include documentation of its design, development of public education programs, or the development of exhibits at local museums.

The goal of the archaeological survey is similar to that of the architectural one in that it seeks to identify sites that are potentially eligible for the National Register.  However, because the resources are located below ground, the process is somewhat different.
Similar to the architectural survey, the first step of the archaeological survey is to establish the APE.

Because they are located below ground, only direct impacts to archaeological resources are considered during the survey.  Direct impacts can include excavation, cut/fill or grading, compression resulting from heavy objects and vibration. The APE for the archaeological survey is designed to encompass all areas that may be impacted in these ways during construction of the alternatives.

Following the delineation of the APE, a Phase 1 Archaeological Survey is conducted.

The Phase 1 Survey has two distinct phases. Phase 1A assesses the potential for the presence of archaeological resources through background research including NYSHPO files, local archives, etc. and through a site walk–over.  This evaluation identifies areas to be investigated further during Phase 1B.  Phase 1B uses shovel test pits to verify the presence or absence of artifacts.  Based on the results, a recommendation is made regarding further in–ground testing.

This photo shows an example of a Phase IB survey area in rural Suffolk County, New York.  Archaeologists have marked a transect line using flagged stakes at 15–meter intervals where shovel test pits will be dug.

This photo shows another example of a Phase IB survey area along a road corridor in suburban Connecticut. The crew member is screening dirt for artifacts from a shovel test pit.

This photo shows another example of a Phase IB survey area in rural Connecticut. Crew members are working along a flagged transect in the Village Green area that would be impacted by proposed road construction.

This photo shows an example of Phase IB supplemental testing in an urban setting. Heavy machinery was required to safely excavate a trench below approximately 10 feet of fill in search of deeply buried wooden wharf/dock–related features.

A Phase 2 Archaeological Survey is conducted, if warranted, based on the results of the Phase 1B survey.

The Phase 2 survey has two major objectives: 1. To delineate the boundaries of the encountered resource; and 2. To evaluate the National Register eligibility of the encountered resource.
The Phase 2 survey includes additional subsurface testing, research, analysis of artifacts, and stratigraphic analysis.  The integrity of the resources is evaluated and its eligibility for the National Register is determined.  Finally, an assessment of the impacts of the project on the resource is completed.
If the resource is determined to be eligible for the National Register, Phase 3 mitigation is recommended.

This photo shows an example of a Phase 2 excavation unit showing a stone wall segment that was first encountered during the Phase IB survey in the Village Green area in rural Connecticut.

This photo shows the expansion of the Phase 2 excavation unit to delineate the stone wall. The darker soil to right of wall represents interior deposits of a 19th century building.

This photo shows a Phase 2 trench excavation to locate historic landscape features in the Henry Wadsworth Longfellow House garden in Cambridge, Massachusetts for the National Park Service.

If resources encountered during the Phase 2 survey are determined to be National Register eligible, a Phase 3 Archaeological Survey is recommended.  The goal of the Phase 3 survey is to mitigate impacts to the resource.

The Phase 3 Archaeological Survey develops a plan to mitigate the adverse impacts of the proposed project actions on the National Register eligible resource.  Two options are typically considered. Option 1: avoidance of the resource through project redesign. This is the preferred option, if possible. If Option 1 is not possible, then Option 2 may be chosen. Option 2 requires data recovery, including: Site excavation; Research, analysis and curation of artifacts; and Public Outreach to share results.

This photo shows an example of Phase 3 data recovery excavation units along a road corridor in suburban Connecticut. This prehistoric site was located during the Phase IB survey and was determined National Register–eligible during the Phase 2 survey. Data recovery was conducted to mitigate unavoidable adverse impacts to resource.

This photo shows data recovery excavation of a National Register–eligible prehistoric site nearing completion along a road corridor in suburban Connecticut.

This photo shows examples of projectile point types recovered from the data recovery excavation of the National Register–eligible prehistoric site in suburban Connecticut.

This photo shows a data recovery excavation in progress in an urban setting in Elizabeth, New Jersey. Replacement of the US Route 1 & 9 viaduct over the Elizabeth River required the taking of this late–18th century house, which was determined to be National Register–eligible.

This photo shows an early–19th century domestic trash midden encountered in the driveway/side yard area of a late–18th century house in Elizabeth, New Jersey. Historic ceramic shards, oyster and clam shells, and butchered bone comprised the bulk of the 8,000–plus artifacts recovered.

This photo shows a data recovery excavation in progress in Elizabeth, New Jersey. A backhoe and steel shoring box were necessary to safely excavate a trench through over ten feet of fill to expose deeply buried wooden wharf/dock related features along the Elizabeth River.

Thank you!