Several documents pertaining to the Main Post museum project have been posted to the Presidio Trust website. These include the:
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)
According to the Trust Summary Table and
36 CFR §800.5(a)(2) the following are examples of adverse effects:
(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
Tags:
main post,
museum,
Section 106 consultation,
SEIS
Tags: History by Doug
No Comments »