–Doug Kern

The Fishers have made it clear that they want their building to sit on the promontory at the top of the parade ground, and those familiar with the negotiations said there is a chance that if the museum’s site, size and design are not approved, the Fishers would retract their offer.

Wow. 

Just the site, size and design? Is that all?

“Their” building?

–Doug Kern

Kicking it Up a Notch

In a rare move, this week the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation requested guidance from the National Park Service in the form of a “Section 213 report.” That document, due in October, will assist the council in its review of the proposed museum by recommending ways to ”avoid, minimize, and mitigate” harm to the Presidio National Historic Landmark District. The council’s sparingly used request is a direct result of a July 8 letter from National Trust President Richard Moe, who explained the need for an objective review of the proposal’s impact on the park.

In this previous post, I took a look at the Section 106 process from the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Now, the rarely invoked NHPA Section 213 is put into action. What is Section 213 and what does it mean for the Presidio Section 106 process?

Section 213 [16 U.S.C. 470u].

To assist the Council in discharging its responsibilities under this subchapter, the Secretary at the request of the Chairman, shall provide a report to the Council detailing the significance of any historic property, describing the effects of any proposed undertaking on the affected property, and recommending measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects.

This is an important request by the Executive Director of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) to the Director of the National Park Service. As noted in the article and the section language these reports seek to make recommendations about avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating adverse effects to the National Historic Landmark District (NHDL). This report will aid the ACHP in the Section 106 consultation process.

This interesting Section 213 report for the proposed Highwood Generating Station on the Portage Route of the Lewis and Clark Expedition near Great Falls, Montana, determined that proposed mitigations were not effective or adequate and went on to say that the proposed construction was immitigable unless the project was relocated. That project has received widespread negative public reaction and has been tied up since the Final EIS was issued in January 2007.

–Doug Kern

Lots of very interesting thoughts in the comments section. Many wondered why the water at El Polin Springs was not potable. While lots of answers were given, the principle reason is that the spring is not protected at the source from contamination by mammals, wild and domestic. The spring is fairly low flow, easily contaminated by coliform bacteria and therefore, not good to drink.

Great to see this project receiving some good press and congratulations to Allison for the interview.

–Doug Kern

…three makers of artificial turf deliberately failed to disclose that their products contain lead.

It turns out that lead is used to give the green color to artificial turf. According to the article:

lead,…,has been identified by state agencies as a chemical that can cause cancer, damage to male and female reproductive systems, and birth defects in developing fetuses.

The article does indicate that excessive lead was not found in all of the artificial turf samples from the three companies.

However, it was noted that:

Although artificial turf presents little or no danger when it is new, lead levels rise to potentially harmful levels as it gets older, said Deputy Atty. Gen. Dennis A. Ragen, the state’s lead attorney on the lawsuit.

The lead in artificial turf is a serious issue as the field ages and the dust from the material comes off on children’s hands, which they then put in their mouths. Lead contaminated dust could wash off the field and into the environment. Any installation of artificial turf at the Presidio should be carefully considered in the light of this information.

–Doug Kern

There will be a Board of Directors meeting on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 6:30 pm at the Palace of Fine Arts Theater, 3301 Lyon Street.

In addition, the Trust will hold workshops on the Main Post. According to the website:

The workshops will also provide a forum to discuss further the kinds of activities that the public would like to see in the Main Post in the future.

The workshops will be held:

• Thursday, September 25, 6:30 to 8:30 pm, Presidio Officers’ Club, 50 Moraga Avenue
• Sunday, September 28, 2 to 4 pm, Presidio Officers’ Club, 50 Moraga Avenue
• Thursday, October 2, 6:30 to 8:30 pm, Golden Gate Club, 135 Fisher Loop

–Doug Kern

Guided Project Tours at El Polin Springs in the Presidio’s Tennessee Hollow Watershed 

• Saturday, September 6, 10:30 am–Noon
• Saturday, September 13, 10:30 am–Noon
• Meet at the picnic tables at El Polin Springs, off MacArthur Avenue, in the Presidio. RSVP/Directions (415) 561-5357.
• Sponsored by the Presidio Trust 

Restoration of the Tennessee Hollow watershed is now continuing at El Polin Springs, a place remarkable for nature and wildlife as well as for its extraordinary human history.

Beginning in September 2008, habitat restoration will begin to return ecological richness to the wetland area surrounding the springs. As a first phase, 60 eucalyptus, cypress, and pine trees will be removed from around El Polin Loop. Habitat will then be restored with plants and trees grown in the Presidio Nursery, including coast live oak and California buckeye, as well as wax myrtle, toyon, willows, and native grasses.

Later, a number of improvements will showcase the history of the area and welcome visitors. El Polin Loop will be transformed into a boardwalk and trail with a new picnic area, public restrooms, and benches. The stone channels and well will be restored, and interpretive gardens and other features will share the long history at the springs.

For complete project details, visit the Presidio Trust website on the Tennessee Hollow Project.

Artist’s conceptual rendering of boardwalk and restored habitat around El Polin Springs. Illustration by Art Zendarski.

• Main Post Finding of Effects, Part 1
• Main Post Finding of Effects, Part 2

The Finding of Effects (FOE) is an important document in the Section 106 Process. This report identifies historic properties in the area of potential effects (which is the entire Presidio, for the National Historic Landmark District) and evaluates the effects of the proposed undertaking on the historic properties.

This summary table from the FOE indicates the effects determined to occur from the various alternatives proposed in the Main Post SEIS. There are three different effects possible:

• No Historic Resources Affected: No Effect
• Altered According to the Secretary’s Standards: No Adverse
• Resource Adversely Affected: Adverse

Editor’s note: Brings back word usage nightmares, no? affect (mostly, a verb) and effect (mostly, a nown)

(i) Physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property

(ii) Alteration of a property, including restoration, rehabilitation, repair, maintenance, stabilization, hazardous material remediation and provision of handicapped access, that is not consistent with the Secretary’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (36 CFR part 68) and applicable guidelines

(iii) Removal of the property from its historic location

(iv) Change of the character of the property’s use or physical features within the property’s setting that contribute to its historic significance

(v) Introduction of visual, atmospheric or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property’s significant historic features

(vi) Neglect of a property which causes its deterioration, except where such neglect and deterioration are recognized qualities of a property of religious and cultural significance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization

(vii) Transfer, lease, or sale of property out of Federal ownership or control without adequate and legally enforceable restrictions or conditions to ensure long‐term preservation of the property’s historic significance

From the table, it is clear that the proposed alternatives, particularly Alternative 2, will have many adverse effects. We knew that, but now it is officially documented. Discussions will occur with “consulting parties to the Section 106 process” to ”seek ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate the adverse effects.”

Other notes on the FOE at this early stage of review: Yes, the date on the draft for Part 1 is May 27, 2008, about 11 weeks ago. The document hasn’t been released to the public until now, because the Trust had it under internal review for that period. No changes were made by the reviewers, who took about 77 days to review the document. I understand that the Trust is allowing the consulting parties to the Section 106 process a 30-day comment period on these materials.

I may have missed it before today in my review of other materials, but I notice now that there is a Presidio Chappel Addition being proposed in Alternatives 1, 2, and 2A. I don’t know what this is yet. More to come on that proposal.

This note from the Presidio Trust website regarding these recent postings:

Many of the documents referenced are in draft form and should not be relied upon as establishing Presidio Trust policy unless adopted by the Trust Board of Directors.

I’m sure the Trust will let us know when we can rely on these documents.

–Doug Kern

What is Section 106 and where does it come from?

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) was passed in 1966 and according to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the independent federal agency created by the NHPA,

The goal of the NHPA is to have federal agencies act as responsible stewards of our nation’s resources when their actions affect historic properties. The ACHP is the only entity with the legal responsibility to encourage federal agencies to factor historic preservation into federal project requirements.

The NHPA has 46 sections: 

• Sections 1-2
• Title I Sections 101-113 
• Title II Sections 201-215
• Title III Sections 301-309
• Title IV Sections 401-407

The full text of Section 106 states (note: emphasis mine -ed.):

The head of any Federal agency having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed Federal or federally assisted undertaking in any State and the head of any Federal department or independent agency having authority to license any undertaking shall, prior to the approval of the expenditure of any Federal funds on the undertaking or prior to the issuance of any license, as the case may be, take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. The head of any such Federal agency shall afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation established under Title II of this Act a reasonable opportunity to comment with regard to such undertaking.

Once the NHPA became law, the Act was placed into the appropriate Title, Chapter, Subchapter and Sections of United States Code. In the case of the NHPA, it can be found in:

• Title 16: Conservation
• Chapter 1A: Historic Sites, Buildings, Objects, and Antiquities
• Subchapter II: National Historic Preservation
• Section 470: Programs
• Part A: Effect Of Federal Undertakings Upon Property Listed In National Register; Comment By Advisory Council On Historic Preservation

You can find examples of drilling down through the US Code to the NHPA here and here. 

OK, so the short paragraph listed above is Section 106. What is the Section 106 process?

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), as an independent Federal agency, may create rules or regulations in order to implement US Code. These regulations have the force of law. In order to implement Section 106 and require Federal agencies to evaluate the impact of all Federally funded or permitted projects on historic properties, the ACHP created the “106 process” in their regulations.

The ACHP rules are contained within the Code of Federal Regulations under

• Title 36 - Parks, Forests, and Public Property, 
• Volume 3
• Chapter VIII
• Parts 800-899 - Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

The regulations of the ACHP Section 106 process are contained in the links listed below:

• Part 800, Protection of Historic Properties. 
• § 800.1   Purposes.
• § 800.2   Participants in the Section 106 process.
• Subpart B—The section 106 Process
• § 800.3   Initiation of the section 106 process.
• § 800.4   Identification of historic properties.
• § 800.5   Assessment of adverse effects.
• § 800.6   Resolution of adverse effects.
• § 800.7   Failure to resolve adverse effects.
• § 800.8   Coordination With the National Environmental Policy Act.
• § 800.9   Council review of section 106 compliance.
• § 800.10   Special requirements for protecting National Historic Landmarks.
• § 800.11   Documentation standards.
• § 800.12   Emergency situations.
• § 800.13   Post-review discoveries.
• Subpart C—Program Alternatives
• § 800.14   Federal agency program alternatives.
• § 800.15   Tribal, State, and local program alternatives. [Reserved]
• § 800.16   Definitions.
• Appendix A to Part 800—Criteria for Council Involvement in Reviewing Individual section 106 Cases

Incidentally, you can see the Presidio Trust regulations in Part 1000-1099, Presidio Trust.

That’s a brief overview as to what Section 106 is and where it comes from. You may be interested in reading these three particular sub-sections as they are clearly relevant to the current situation at the Main Post:

• Assessment of adverse effects.
• Resolution of adverse effects.
• Failure to resolve adverse effects.

There is obviously a lot more to interpreting these regulations and making sure that the Presidio is afforded the protections that these laws and regulations intended for historic resources.

–Doug Kern

Parking on the El Presidio is a tough problem that has to be solved. Worse, there is Moraga Street cutting across the archeological site directly in front of the 1778 structure, the Officers Club now. And Moraga is on the city’s scenic 49 MIle Drive. How can it be cut off so the historic site can be revealed and presented, or that the traffic on it can easily be diverted?

There will have to be some compromises, but there is no excuse for not having a plan. The Trust refuses to face reality concerning parking becasue it does not want to discourage future tenants. Even now, the historic streetscapes that had little or no parking, as along Funston, are crowded with cars. One part of a plan might be some parking extended between the Library and Day Care Center, maybe with one level under ground and one on the surface, landscaped so it is not very visible. Parking in that area could serve a history center built nearby and the Officers Club. This suggestion does not solve the Moraga Street problem, however.

–Doug Kern