What is Section 213?
This online August 22, 2008 article in Preservation Magazine, describes the ongoing controversy surrounding the Contemporary Art Museum at the Presidio (CAMP) and reports this news:
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
Tags: National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 consultation, Section 213