THE DAILY KERNEL

Last night the Presidio Trust held a meeting to discuss interim results of their Section 106 process regarding the proposed Main Post contemporary art museum, lodge and theater addition.

In an interesting “cooking channel” overhead video-style presentation, a Trust representative effectively demonstrated how the proposed museum at the head of the Main Post did not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for rehabilitating historic buildings. Even though the Trust selected only 5 of the 10 Secretary’s standards as being applicable to their Main Post rehabilitation project, it was an important initial public discussion of how the Secretary of the Interior’s standards were relevant and applicable to the Presidio, a national park and National Historic Landmark District. Many audience members expressed their appreciation to the Trust for the presentation.

Trust representatives were unapologetic, however, about the time, money and effort spent on promoting the proposed action. Representatives went on the say that no one should have interpreted that the proposed Fisher museum was actually the Trust’s preferred action.

The Trust did not explain their decision to choose rehabilitation as a treatment approach for historic buildings, given that the National Park Service has defined four different possible approaches: preservation, rehabilitation, restoration and reconstruction. A careful read of these approaches suggests that large scale new construction is not the intent of the Secretary’s standards for the treatment of historic buildings. Instead, the standards do seem to contemplate “related new construction” that “will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property.”

There are also extensive Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Archeological and Historic Preservation. These standards, while relevant to the Presidio and the Main Post, were not discussed at the meeting.

–Doug Kern

Tags: Conflict, New Construction by Doug
No Comments »

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: Conflict, History, New Construction by Doug
No Comments »

Several documents pertaining to the Main Post museum project have been posted to the Presidio Trust website. These include the:

• 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

Tags: History by Doug
No Comments »

We are hearing a lot about Section 106 in the Main Post debate.

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

Tags: Conflict, History, New Construction by Doug
No Comments »

State Historic Preservation Officer, Milford Wayne Donaldson, offered the following critique to Craig Middleton, regarding the Presidio Trust’s decision to delay releasing the Finding of Effects (FOE) under the 106 consultation for the Main Post.

Your decision to delay release of the FOE is regrettable because it puts the Section 106 process and NEPA process out of phase.

And this:

By releasing the DEIS prior to arriving at agreement on effects, you have denied the public the ability to appreciate the effects of the undertaking on historic properties, which, of course, is the purpose of the FOE under Section 106.

Read the entire letter (2 pages pdf).

–Doug Kern

Tags: History, New Construction by Doug
No Comments »