National Park Service, Department of Interior Image with Arrowhead ParknetLinks to Pastcontact Title Image entitled Route 66 Corridor Preservation Program, Preserving America's Heritage
home link imageprogram description link imagegrants/cost-share link imagecurrent news link imageconferences/training linkconferences/training link imagepublications link imagelinks link imageroute 66 map link imagecontact us link image


November 1-2, 2007


The Route 66 Corridor Preservation Program Advisory Council met in Pasadena, California, on November 1-2, 2007.

Members present were:

John Murphey, Chairman
David Bricker
Jim Conkle
David Dunaway
Melvena Heisch
Carolyn Pendelton
Tommy Pike
Jim Ross
Phyllis Seitts
Gregory Smith

Members absent were:

Michael Jackson
David Knudson
Mary Ann Naber
Michael Wallis

National Park Service (NPS) staff in attendance:

Aaron Mahr, Superintendent, National Trails Office - Intermountain Region
Michael Taylor, Program Manager, Route 66 Corridor Preservation Program
Kaisa Barthuli, Deputy Program Manager, Route 66 Corridor Preservation Program
Josina Martinez, Recorder

Thursday, November 1

The morning session was held at the Casa de Adobe, a replica Hispanic rancho built in the early part of the 20th century. It is a landmark on Route 66 in the Highland Park area of greater Los Angeles.

Chairman John Murphey opened the meeting by asking everyone to introduce themselves.

In attendance were Pam Hannah of the Southwest Museum, Nicole Possert of the Highland Park Heritage Trust, and Glen Duncan, vice-president, California Route 66 Preservation Foundation.

Superintendent Mahr welcomed the group and explained the mission of the National Trails System-Intermountain Region. He talked about preserving resources along Route 66 and his perception of the road.

Pam Hannah gave an overview of the history and mission of the Southwest Museum. She discussed the history of Casa de Adobe and its construction and authenticity, past use as a living history museum, and hope for future use.

Nicole Possert gave an overview of Route 66 resources in the immediate area including the Arroyo Seco Parkway, which is a National Scenic Byway on Route 66, and Highland Park, a Route 66 community.

John Murphey gave the Chairman’s report. 2006 was a year dominated by the movie “Cars,” which brought much attention to Route 66. As well, Route 66 was placed on the World Monuments Fund Watch List as one of the world’s 100 most endangered sites. The motels of Route 66 were also placed as a category on the 11-most endangered lists in Oklahoma and New Mexico, followed by the National Trust for Historic Preservation listing them on the nation’s 11-most endangered places list. Examples of threats to motels are illustrated in Albuquerque, where the motel portion of the National Register-listed Horn Oil Company and Lodge was demolished for condo development, and El Vado Motel is threatened by the same. Chairman Murphey is working with NPS staff to come up with draft language on action items the NPS can undertake to address the needs of motels. During this meeting, FACA members will visit the Aztec Hotel in Monrovia, where issues relating to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) can be seen, underscoring the challenges of bringing a building up to code while keeping its historic integrity. At the Route 66 Summit this summer, two workshops were held, in which two committee members participated (John Murphey and David Dunaway). During the Summit it was discussed whether a national alliance with state chapters can be organized for Route 66, similar to the Lincoln Highway Association. Such an Alliance could take over responsibilities should the NPS program sunset in 2009. Chairman Murphey’s concern is that the program may sunset, despite the fact there is still much work to be done. FACA’s role is to provide advice to the NPS and he would like to take all the individual subcommittee groups and rethink their goals. In particular the Missouri context, roadbed surveys, the legacy of all the collective material – where will it go, who will house it. Chairman Murphey hoped to discuss how the NPS program can be assisted by narrowing the goals of individual committees.

Next on the agenda was a summation by Mr. Taylor and Ms. Barthuli of what the program and its partners have accomplished in the past year.

Mr. Taylor thanked Nicole and Pam for their assistance with arranging the meeting.

First was a review of the budget. Council members were given a copy of the budget summary. The annual budget has been right around $300,000. Mr. Taylor mentioned that they are trying to cut back on travel, so he and Kaisa are trying to split the trips between them more.

Next Mr. Taylor discussed the listing of the World Monument Fund’s List of 100 Most Endangered Sites, the National Trust 11 Most Endangered Historic Places, and the Oklahoma and New Mexico most endangered lists. Route 66 has received important media attention as a result of these listings. The NPS is hoping to work with World Monuments Fund (WMF) and American Express to address some priorities. A $150,000 proposal has been made to the WMF/AmEx Partners in Preservation program that would enable a more in-depth study of the economic impact of tourism on Route 66. An inventory study of gas station contamination and development of a preservation plan for a contaminated site was also proposed. Lastly, the completion of a comprehensive historic property survey was proposed.

Since the National Trust listed motels among the nation's 11-most endangered properties this year, the Trust has provided seed funding for the development of a few motel preservation plans and design guidelines. That seed money will most likely be focused in Oklahoma City, Albuquerque and Flagstaff. Initiatives in each of these cities was discussed, including preservation plans for the Aztec Motel in Albuquerque and the Triangle Motel in Amarillo, which represent examples in hot and cold markets, respectively.

The city of Flagstaff held a workshop inviting all the motel owners in town to discuss motel preservation and marketing, but attendance was less than hoped for. At the workshop, an entrepreneur motel owner made a presentation about his experience re-developing a motel in Flagstaff with modern amenities, which resulted in the ability to raise room rental prices and provide a great Route 66 experience. The Small Business Administration presented a really good, common sense approach of how businesses could take advantage of small business associations. Developing one-on-one relationships with private business owners is critical to motel preservation.

Tulsa will host the National Trust Conference next year in October. Route 66 will be a focus at the conference.

The Preserving the Historic Road conference will be in Albuquerque September 11-14, 2008. It is held every 2 years. The conference brings together transportation and preservation professionals to discuss how to balance safety issues with the historic preservation of roadbed. Mr. Taylor provided information on the conference, including registration. NPS Route 66 program is helping organize the conference. Chairman Murphey noted that the Society for Commercial Archeology is having a co-conference in conjunction with the historic roads conference.

Ms. Barthuli discussed the archive and research initiative. Several archival institutions along Route 66 have come together to establish a Route 66 archive and research collaboration. The mission of the Route 66 Archives and Research Collaboration (ARC) is to collect, archive and make accessible historical research materials to facilitate education, preservation and management of the historic Route 66 corridor. They are in the process of drafting a Memorandum of Agreement (MOU) as a framework to work within. Each involved institution will appoint a selector, and have a website with links to the ten institutions involved. They may seek grants to inventory their resources and collections, and/or to develop a collaborative website. Chairman Murphey noted that the University of New Mexico (UNM) has hired an individual to go through towns along Route 66 in New Mexico and interview former owners or descendants of owners of Route 66 businesses, and collect and compile archives for the UNM Center for Southwest Research (an ARC participant).

At the Route 66 Summit in Clinton, OK, four mini-workshops were organized by the Route 66 Corridor Preservation Program with help from many partners. The workshops were on capacity building, media development, local zoning ordinances, and scenic by-way collaboration.

The firm Thomason and Associates was contracted by the Program to produce a national Multiple Property Documentation Form (MPDF) based on the national context that had been prepared by Michael Cassity in 2004. The MPDF was submitted to the National Register of Historic Places for review and approval. Staff at the National Register office indicated that it could take some time to review the document because of policy issues pertaining to some of its content. Since NR nominations are being held up pending acceptance of the national context/MPDF, the NPS program is thinking of funding individual state contexts to expedite the consideration of these nominations prepared in 2005. Much of what is needed for the state contexts has been compiled but needs to be put into the proper format for submittal. There are currently ten prepared nominations for Route 66 properties in Missouri, for example that are pending approval due to the lack of a context.

There is a real need to address historic property surveys. Data that does exist has been compiled in one database, which has been helpful. California needs a complete survey; there are gaps in Arizona and Missouri. Illinois data is over 13 years old. Some state surveys need to be completed, some need to be updated. The database consists of information taken from the individual SHPO survey forms. The database needs to be put online for accessibility. Program staff have entered existing data into a database, but it has not been put online because there is so much missing data.

The NPS program website is going to be updated to current NPS standards.

Mr. Taylor stressed the need for a survey of roadbeds. He asked FACA members to come up with a recommendation of how this can be done. Although funding is an issue, it needs to be accomplished for effective program administration. There are on-going preservation issues in Oklahoma. Parts of highway segments owned by counties are being damaged by heavy traffic use and grading equipment, The City of Miami might be applying for funding to deal with immediate issues pertaining to the nine foot highway segments. Program staff is discussing options with the City of Miami and county officials to get funding to find out what the needs are of the public, how to deal with tourism, and management of the resource. Floods at the western end of Oklahoma have damaged some of the best parts of Route 66. Staff and partners need to start talking to Congressional delegations, Army Corps of Engineers, etc. to preserve that stretch of road.

One of the many workshops that took place at the Clinton Route 66 Festival was on scenic byways. There are three national scenic byways that have been established along Route 66; Illinois, New Mexico, and Arizona. There is a good way to leverage funding through Scenic Byway programs for preservation and public awareness of the resource. The ultimate goal for scenic by-way designation is an All American Highway designation. Kansas is being very creative in implementing a Scenic Byway designation for its short stretch of Route 66.

The sustainability of Route 66 associations was discussed. Very few associations have paid staff; there is a burnout among volunteers. A national alliance could help the state associations come together. This issue will be further discussed tomorrow. Some associations are doing well, some don’t even meet anymore.

In preparation for sunset of the Route 66 Preservation Program, the NPS is looking into where the compiled research material and other records will be housed once the program ends.

Status of grants and projects. Ms. Barthuli provided the Council members a listing of all projects funded to date, the status of the projects, etc., and a table listing grant project statistics by fiscal year. To date 148 applications have been received, 3.6 million dollars has been requested; 78 projects have been funded; $1.2 million has been provided for projects. Projects have included survey work, historic structures reports, oral histories, along with brick and mortar projects. A listing of all projects by state was provided to FACA members. Carolyn Pendleton provided information on the Baxter Springs gas station project that was assisted by Route 66 Preservation Program funding. Mike discussed some of the individual projects. He discussed a couple of cost-share projects that have not been successful, but the majority have been. Two Indian Tribes: the Hualapai Tribe and Santo Domingo Pueblo received cost-share grants this year. The tribal connection is an important part of the Route 66 experience.

This year $57,000 of program funds will be provided for special projects to enable the preparation of historic contexts for Missouri, Arizona, and California; $2,000 for an economic impact study reconnaissance; $20,000 for the Archive and Research Collaboration project; $5,000 for documentation of a cultural landscape; and a few more projects. The program will also provide $5,000 for motel rehabilitation guidance. The staff feels that these in-house projects should be funded, even though they will take away from grant funds.

Ms. Barthuli discussed the successful collaboration last summer with UNM to record Luna Lodge using Historic American Building Survey (HABS) documentation. They took advantage of student labor to get the project done. The goal is to generate HABS and Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) documentation examples for other Route 66 resources. They are now working with UNM to document another project on a cultural landscape (La Bajada) and want to provide funding for this project. Temple University in Pennsylvania is also interested in Route 66 as a focus for a semester long documentation course.

Educational curricula is very important. This year, a grant to the University of Connecticut was funded which is using Route 66 as a model for their sociology course. They are developing a college level curriculum. The NPS program is also interested in surveying and compiling what curricula already exists.

The National Register Route 66 itinerary is 99% completed. Ms. Barthuli will wrap it up and submit it to the National Register of Historic Places Travel Itinerary program in Washington DC. The DC program is looking forward to the Route 66 itinerary, as it is thought it will bring attention to the Travel Itinerary program.

Final item Mr. Taylor brought up was that all along Route 66 there are museums and visitor centers with Route 66 exhibits that have collections. The Act directs NPS to consider curatorial issues along the route. The program has not done this to date. He asked the FACA members to consider if the program should provide funding for an assessment of these resources along Route 66 and also to look at what kind of interpretive stories are being told. This would help the program advise institutions on needed resources to care for their collections, and also provide a better perspective of how the story of Route 66 is being told up and down the road.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation just released their most recent edition of the Forum Journal, which NPS wrote an article for. The entire issue is devoted to cultural corridors.

Mr. Taylor asked the FACA members to be sure to vote for consent on any recommendations made to the NPS program. Chairman Murphey said they should try to come up with their top ten list of recommendations of things that need to be accomplished – especially if the program sunsets.

Chairman Murphey reviewed the agenda for the remainder of the day. The meeting was adjourned for lunch, committee meetings, and field sessions at the Aztec Hotel in Monrovia and Bono’s Restaurant in Fontana.

Friday, November 2

Chairman Murphey opened the meeting by opening the floor to public comments.

Daryl Cozen, Senior Planner for the City of Pasadena discussed the historic preservation movement in Pasadena. He gave the history of the program. Old Pasadena was targeted to be destroyed for new development. Pasadena Heritage formed a private, nonprofit organization, the second largest organization in California. They saved old Pasadena and it now houses great restaurants, shopping, and entertainment venues. Another innovation is the Vista Del Arroyo Hotel. It was a hospital in WWII, then was vacant until the 70’s. GSA purchased the building and it’s now the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for the United States. The architectural firm, Green and Green, was a leader in Craftsman bungalow architecture in the early 20th century. In Pasadena in the 1980’s, a Craftsman home was bought and sold piece by piece. In order to prevent that from happening again, the City established a unique ordinance to protect both the interior and exterior historic features of the bungalows. Businesses along Colorado Boulevard, known as the route for the Tournament of Roses Parade, have been encouraged to use Route 66 themes in the development of their buildings. Mr. Conkle stated that his organization listed the Packard dealership on Colorado Boulevard as one of the 12 most endangered Route 66 resources in California. Mr. Dunaway, asked about the alignments of Route 66 in Pasadena. Mr. Cozen replied that Route 66 went through Eagle Rock when the Pasadena freeway was built, but he was not certain of other alignments.

Scott Piotrowski, author of Finding the End of the Mother Road, was in attendance. This book outlines all the alignments of Route 66 in greater Los Angeles. He described the history of the different alignments. He has studied the road in Los Angeles County for several years. There is more interest in the metropolitan areas in Route 66, but he feels there has not been enough effort devoted to locating and documenting the resources. No comprehensive survey for California Route 66 has been done. He feels the council should find ways to help the program document sections that have not yet been documented. Mr. Taylor asked if there were alignments in the metropolitan area other than the five alignments documented by Mr. Piotrowski. Mr. Piotrowski said he does not feel that he has missed any of the alignments, but is not 100% certain. The sources he used for his research included American Automobile Association Maps, but not Department of Transportation records. Mr. Conkle said that they are in the process of doing a survey in California and are trying to decide if they should survey just the known alignments or should they look for other alignments. Mr. Taylor said it would be all inclusive. The first step should be to find all the alignments. Mr. Piotrowski has compiled a list of all the National Register properties (?) in Pasadena, Los Angeles, and some other cities, but not all. There followed discussion on which alignments should be considered when doing a survey; detours, temporary signed routes? Mr. Bricker said that the History Center at California Department of Transportation has map files and as-built drawings where route alignment documentation might be found. Mr. Taylor said that they have contracted with Design Aid to do a survey of cultural resources along Route 66 in California. There have been problems with the contract. Glen Duncan has been trying to figure out how to get this project off the ground. The project received $15,000 from NPS with an indication that $85,000 in in-kind and other matching contributions would be obtained by Design Aid.. Mr. Conkle said they are still trying to work this out. Mr. Piotrowski said there are a lot of resources in Los Angeles that have not yet been contacted. Some of the work has already been done that can be capitalized on by others. Mr. Ross suggested that there is already a team in place and if they were brought together they could compile all their efforts. Much of the work has already been done. Mr. Taylor said they could do this, and it is critical, but it will take money away from brick and mortar projects. But it is a priority. Mr. Ross stated that they have everything they need, it’s a matter of putting it together. Dr. Dunaway stated that over the last year the NPS Route 66 program has identified and started working with ten research centers along the road, and it is Martha Felchin at the Autry Center Library who is compiling a repository on Route 66 documentation. In 2010-2011 they are planning a Route 66 exhibit, perhaps at the Southwest museum. He suggested Mr. Piotrowski contact them. Chairman Murphey asked how do you define Route 66 properties in urban areas? Ms. Possert commented on how difficult it is in these areas because history is layered in urban areas. The context statement and the alignments in urban areas are very difficult. She does not feel urban Route 66 has been touched. It was discussed what the cost might be to do a road alignment survey in California. It was stated that the NPS provided $19,000 to conduct the Oklahoma roadbed survey in 2002. Mr. Ross stated that the cost was so low because a lot of work had already had done. Until you do an inventory and know what/where the alignments, road beds, etc. are, you cannot prioritize which are most important and which should be preserved. Ms. Possert said the context statement is critical because that defines what you are going to inventory. Chairman Murphey said that receptive communities should be sought to partner with a survey. Perhaps a test study could be done to determine the cost and complexity of surveying a dense urban area. In Los Angeles, many buildings had multiple uses and it would take a lot of research to understand the link to Route 66. Mr. Conkle said that an extensive survey needs to be done. Ms. Possert stated that a community based survey is being done in Los Angeles County including Highland Park, which is raising very complex issues in terms of historical context. For example, there is the question of themes – what defines a particular community, yet what crosses community lines. Mr. Taylor said that for the California Route 66 survey it would be useful to approach a survey project by county: Los Angeles County and San Bernardino County since one is much more complex than the other. He also agreed that they need to consider the different levels of documentation. Baseline documentation should be done and then it can be built upon over time.

Ms. Possert provided public comment on three main points. The first was to urge support for the development of a historical context statement and survey work before program sunset. Second, she is concerned that historic highways, i.e., Arroyo Seco Parkway and Figueroa Street, are not well understood by city and other agencies. Historic buildings are much better understood than curbs, medians and pavement. Most alignments are owned by municipalities, not the California Department of Transportation. With the Arroyo Seco Parkway, projects are slow. They are faced with the dilemma that the DOT focuses on safety issues without full consideration of the historical issues. Arroyo Seco Parkway is the only historic parkway in California, so there are many challenges. This is an advocacy issue – it is not a matter of safety versus preservation, but safety with preservation. They are asking for support from programs like the NPS program. They also want to use the Scenic Byway designation to develop tourism and economic development opportunities. She discussed the Autry Center’s Southwest Museum expansion and environmental report. No official plan for the use of the Southwest Museum is available. The Southwest Museum is a lynch-pin to the success of the Arroyo Seco Scenic Byway program. If the museum moves, it will remove incentive for tour operators to visit that community. She urged the NPS program to focus more on urban area issues.

Chairman Murphey stated that in rural areas, there is a linear connection between the communities and Route 66. Mr. Piotrowski stated that things are different at the terminus of the route in LA. There is no political interest in Route 66. Ms. Possert said that in terms of tourism there is some interest by Chambers of Commerce, etc. How to raise awareness about this important part of the community’s history? There are often competing interests in intensively historic areas. Mr. Conkle said that once the economic impact study of tourism on Route 66 is done it must be brought to the attention of government officials. The economic impact study will show that there are advantages to promoting the route. Mr. Pike said there has to be communication between the different agencies. Education of city governments is essential; it is a continual process to keep interest alive.

[End of Public Comment period]

Chairman Murphey said that since the first FACA meeting, an economic impact study had become a priority. He introduced Dr. David Listokin, Rutgers University, who has completed a preliminary economic impact study. Dr. Listokin gave Council members a copy of the executive summary and his educational and work background. About 12 years ago he began studying the economic effect of historic preservation. Heritage tourism is growing and is affecting the economy. Economic and community development is terrifically enhanced by historic preservation. For Route 66, they have attempted to link input-output models and multiplier effects to determine the economic impact of tourism along the road. They look at what is going on internally and how it affects the national picture. The direct outlays of tourism and rehabilitation are all that’s being measured at this time. The drawback of the approach is that they are measuring the low hanging fruit that is not always the most significant measure. What is not being measured at this point is the quality of life component, for example. The existing report focuses on available numbers from guest register books, and plugging them into known models. They are trying to leverage what data is out there to come up with some pilot numbers on the economic impact of historic preservation and tourism on Route 66. Ideally to measure heritage tourism, you want to know how many people are traveling, what they are spending, what is their socio-economic standing, etc. We also need more data on rehabilitation work that’s being done both programmatically and non-programmatically. It would be beneficial to capture this info through survey, although this is expensive and a non-exact science. The pilot example focused on the Route 66 museum in Clinton where fairly good data has been maintained. The weakness in focusing on guest registers is that they do not necessarily reflect the average visitor (e.g. not all visitors sign, locals rarely sign, etc.). He discussed incidental versus intentional travel. He also discussed the complexities of collecting traveler data on a linear resource, including trying to avoid double-counting for example, and how to distinguish travelers who travel the whole route vs. part of the route, and incidental travelers.

Dr. Listokin discussed the difficulty in trying to collect and analyze accurate data. You have to acknowledge these challenges. Page 4 of the executive summary looks at the economic benefits from three sectors of spending and activity along Route 66. First heritage tourism; what type of tourist, how much was spent, on what? When you add up all the numbers based on the data and economic formulas, it comes to an outlay of $50 million. Based on this they have made an informed (conservative) estimate of $40 million spent in association with visitors who went to the Route 66 Museum in Clinton, Oklahoma. Dr. Listokin discussed and explained how this data was compiled and analyzed. The full report gives much more detail.

He stated his observations. Input-output models are beneficial, and showcase the benefits of rehabilitation. Preservationists need to tout their numbers – the defense industry uses input-output models, why not preservation? More significant is the contextual benefit. The numbers you get affect the state and national economies, but the ultimate significance of Route 66 is that it affects smaller communities and how a place is perceived. The Clinton museum study shows that tourism has a significant impact on the community. The point would be made that Route 66 has economic value, but also historic value. What can a small local community do to bring back some of its vitality? Route 66 is very important. He thinks a basic survey of Route 66 museums could be done, inventory what rehabilitation is being done. Presenting the information to the communities is very important.

Committee Reports

Dr. Dunaway asked questions about the methodology. There was discussion on figures that were used in the study. He asked about data sources, and whether volunteer labor had been considered. Mr. Taylor stated that this is a draft; it has barely touched the surface of what type of possibilities exist for study. What they hope to do is to take these concepts and apply them more specifically to Route 66.

After the break, Dr. Dunaway gave the report for the publicity committee. He discussed the great success of the last publicity effort that focused on the NPS program and the 80th anniversary of Route 66. He has subsequently developed a media contact list for use by the NPS Program. Mr. Taylor asked how this list can be used by the NPS and the Route 66 associations/partners. Dr. Dunaway suggested it be largely kept in-house and shared with state associations with some restrictions. Mr. Conkle said it could be used as a resource list, to advertise FACA meetings, grants, etc. Chairman Murphey recommended the list not be announced, but that it be used as a resource and given out piecemeal as needed. Mr. Bricker stated that the purpose is to disseminate information about the program, so NPS should have control over the list. It is a FOIA document, a public document, so it must be available. Mr. Taylor said the list should be used to put out information about the program when the need exists. Supt. Mahr said that as FACA members, they should have a copy, but it should not be widely disseminated. Dr. Dunaway stated that prior to the next meeting, the Publicity Committee should address items from their past agenda.

A report was made for the Education and Outreach Committee. Mr. Smith reported that they are thinking about the legacy and priorities of the program. He thinks that owners of historic Route 66 properties need more education about their importance and resources for preservation. What will happen after NPS Route 66 Corridor Preservation Program is no longer operating? It is important to introduce and make them aware of other preservation programs from cities, states, etc. The National Register and survey efforts are a great first step. National Register is a form of documentation and allows property owners to get their foot in the door with financial opportunities such as tax credits. It’s important to make them aware of the State Historic Preservation Offices, federal and state tax credits, easement programs, Section 106, HUD funding for rural development and economic development and other programs. Mr. Smith recommended that over the next year information about such programs should be assembled to make it available to property owners. He would like to develop a toolbox to make it easier for people to find out about economic incentives without having to look hard for it. He mentioned that Ms. Naber spearheaded the most endangered list. Mr. Jackson has done HABS documentation. There are opportunities for more in depth studies of properties and solvency of historic motels.

Chairman Murphey asked if the NPS could provide a framework for the toolbox by the next meeting? Ms. Barthuli stated that they have produced a guide to technical and financial resources for Route 66 which incorporates many available resources, which is being distributed primarily online but also through hardcopy. It is not clearly known how extensively it is being used. Mr. Taylor stated that the NPS program is interested in doing an outreach effort to individual owners of National Register listed properties, but that they have not done this yet in a systematic way. They want to work with each state SHPO to do this. It was recommended that they come up with a rack card or brochure with this information (this brochure is to be a product of this committee). Mr. Conkle asked if there couldn’t be some funding outside NPS from schools and libraries? Mr. Smith mentioned the Teaching with Historic Places program (TWHP). What is the status of their teaching curricula in regards to Route 66? Ms. Barthuli said nothing is being done specifically, but there is interest by the TWHP program in Washington DC in seeing a Route 66 curriculum developed. Dr. Dunaway reminded the group of the Route 66 Archive and Research Collaboration. He forwards new grant information to this network of centers. He has been trying to interest Northern Arizona University in developing a curriculum. Ms. Barthuli said that Central Connecticut State University is developing a college-level curriculum, and will evaluate whether their content and format may be suitable for TWHP. There is also desire to conduct a search/survey of existing curricula and make this information available. The standard process for getting a curriculum developed is to hire a contractor to do it. The average cost to start from scratch is around $10,000. Dr. Dunaway said NEH gives out money for this type of curriculum. Mr. Conkle asked what we are willing to do to help with the education. There is educational money out there, in schools and libraries. Mr. Smith asked Ms. Barthuli to send him the program’s existing public outreach information. Chairman Murphey would like to see the skeletal model of a rack card/brochure by next meeting.

The next committee report, Accountability and Measurement, was given by Mr. Ross. Mr. Knudson, Mr. Ross, Mr. Taylor and Ms. Barthuli have been working together to compile data for the Economic Impact Study. There is still a lot of data that needs to be gathered. Mr. Knudson compiled a list of all counties on Route 66 and contact information. Simultaneously, Mr. Ross created a list of contact information for tourist contacts in each of the eight states, and places that keep data on the visitors. NPS drafted and sent out a letter to ten museums and visitor centers on the route asking for visitation information. Dr. Listokin used visitation information from some of these sources as a basis for his preliminary study. Dr. Listokin said it would make sense to tweak the report to include recently unearthed data from a Gallup, New Mexico Route 66 economic impact study. Ms. Heisch said that Listokin’s report, although preliminary, shows that the contributions of preservation and tourism to federal revenue exceeds the cost of the NPS Route 66 program budget; in other words, it pays for itself.

Mr. Ross shared a list of museums and sites that maintain guest registrations. Chairman Murphey asked if Listokin could incorporate the Gallup numbers into the report under the existing contract. Dr. Listokin said he would do that. Ms. Barthuli clarified what the Gallup data is; it is the result of an economic impact analysis of tourism on Route 66 that was done in 2000 using Scenic Byway funding. Dr. Dunaway said that Dr. Listokin could ask Clinton to administer a one page survey to visitors to get more information for use in the study.

The Preservation Management Committee gave their report. Mr. Bricker reported that the mission of the committee is to recommend priorities for the identification of significant resources on or along Route 66. When the committee identified their mission, they established eight goals, which now require revision since progress has been made.

1. Identify existing inventories and resources that have already been recorded. This data exists within NPS materials and the goal has already been addressed, although it is a work in progress. Also, the issue of coordination with various SHPOs has already been done by NPS.

2. Identify existing state and national historical contexts. This has also been done.

3. Identify existing corridor management plans. Chairman Murphey has done some survey to determine this.

4. Identify the various state, federal, local agencies and tribes along the road. The value of this is important, but it is beyond the scope of this committee.

5. The committee brought up the issue of cost for surveys. They are expensive. One suggestion is to take the current projects as a sample approach. Can these be used in other surveys? Identify existing HABS/HAER documentation of Route 66 resources. The committee brought up the issue of the cost of generating these reports. One suggestion is to use the current projects as a sample to determine the approximate cost of documenting similar resources (e.g., motels, roadbeds, cultural landscapes).

6. Identify methods to identify threats. Again, NPS has been very successful in regards to this effort. The program should be commended for achieving so much.

7. Investigate collaboration through national scenic byways program. NPS is already involved with this.

8. Identify preservation tools; this is more or less is being handled by another committee.

As a result, three revised goals/recommendations.

1. Current priority is to address properties that have nominations pending for National Register listing. The process of those reviews should be addressed, since the national context could take awhile until it is approved. It is important to consider when the nominations were prepared; there is a concern that they may have become stale.

2. Historic context for Missouri, Arizona, and California. The committee recommends that these contexts be prepared and completed.

3. Review or reevaluate of the National Historic context that is now in preparation. What are the costs to do the revision? It is important that there be peer reviews conducted by the appropriate state contacts. Make sure the national context does not trump the value of the state contexts.

Mr. Taylor said that they will keep pushing these nominations to be considered ASAP. The MPDF put together by Phil Thomason is with the Keeper of the Register. There are some major policy issues. The idea of getting state contexts completed is what should be done and they are actively working on it with Missouri SHPO.

Ms. Seitts asked whether you can have a national context without state contexts. Ms. Heisch said the national context is stronger with associated state contexts in place, but that the state contexts would not be absolutely necessary.

Ms. Barthuli said that the National context was circulated to all state SHPO’s concurrent with going to Washington, so each was able to provide input. Mr. Taylor said that the documentation of the Luna Lodge Motel with UNM is a good sample of other types of documentation. At Amboy they are working with Temple University and it will take a small amount of staff time but will yield some good information. Mr. Taylor explained how they are trying to get documentation at different levels. The HAER report for the Arroyo Parkway is another great example. Mr. Bricker said it is good to have these as models, but due to cost it is important to look at other documentation approaches as well.

Chairman Murphy discussed using local experts to get the contexts done. Could Phil Thomason subcontract with experts at the local level for efficiency? If the National context has policy issues, is Thomason still under contract to fix those issues? Mr. Taylor said it depends on the level of corrections needed. Major issues would have to go under a new contract. He thinks the Keeper of the National Register will come back with comments that can be fixed. Mr. Smith asked if there are any Route 66 properties that could be considered for national significance?

Chairman Murphey stated that the committee feels that these are critical items that should be closed out by the end of the fiscal year. Mr. Taylor said the state contexts can be worked on, but we are at the mercy of the National Register staff in Washington.

Chairman Murphey opened the floor to general discussion.

First topic, motel initiatives. Mr. Conkle feels it is surprising that more people have not taken advantage of the National Trust Most Endangered sites status. Mr. Conkle does not know what can be done. Mr. Taylor thinks NPS staff have an important role in making motel owners aware of this status. Mr. Taylor said that there is a work plan that NPS and the National Trust have put together to educate motel owners. They are in the process of implementing strategy to address this issue. Mr. Bricker said the issue of resources in danger is a challenge. Properties are listed, but in most cases, few elected officials would support these efforts. It is hard to get government officials to listen to these issues. Chairman Murphey asked if there is a way to get the contact information for motel owners about the NPS programs. Mr. Conkle thinks they would not be receptive and would not read information sent to them. Mr. Conkle asked if there was a way to send out a flyer that would give them a toll free number? Mr. Taylor said that is already being done to some extent. The trick is to come up with some good case studies for motels. Then the word will spread. Many owners do not belong to any kind of motel association.

Chairman Murphey said the endangered listing is just to bring attention to the situation. The National Trust typically does not do much more than that. In New Mexico, the idea of putting a motel on the National Register was once considered a dangerous idea; but once one got listed, others realized that it was a benefit and wanted their properties listed. This is a long term issue, it is not going to go away within the next year.

Chairman Murphey moved on to discussion of the Worlds’ Most Endangered List. The listing is the way the World Monuments get worldwide attention and perhaps attract philanthropic attention for the listing. Mr. Taylor stated that the world listing greatly assists their program and when they visit communities discussion of it underscores the significance of Route 66 properties. The potential to receive the WMF/AmEx grant support is a direct result of this listing. It will be announced on Nov 7. Although comprehensive historic property survey was recommended by the program as a funding priority, it is unlikely it will be considered for the grant. The WMF/AmEx grant program is particularly interested in assisting with sustainable tourism and environmental issues. If the funding is awarded, all the money will be used for projects; none will be taken for NPS program administration. There was a question on how this funding could be used to leverage funding/partnerships from other sources. Mr. Mahr suggested that this idea be pursued cautiously, as there would be terms and expectations of any funding awarded.

Chairman Murphey moved on to issues relating to the program’s sunset. His concern is that some of the champions of the original bill may be going away. What can be done to move forward reauthorization. Mr. Taylor said the NPS program cannot lobby for reauthorization, and can only provide information about the program as requested. FACA members cannot lobby for reauthorization, but they can as individuals.

Chairman Murphey asked when the NPS will start considering a legacy plan for when the program sunsets. Mr. Taylor said that if there is not any action by the public for reauthorization, then they will prepare for closing the program. They are already coming up with options as to what will happen if the program closes down.

Dr. Dunaway discussed the three day Route 66 Archive and Research Collaboration (ARC) workshop held in May 2007. The NPS Route 66 program convened a meeting of ten designated archival institutions to consider issues involved in creating a network of research centers on Route 66. It is the first effort to identify a systematic collection center in each state for materials about Route 66. It will also serve as a clearinghouse for researchers and institutions. It will serve many functions, including communication about important Route 66 collections; and state associations can tell people to deposit materials and collections. Materials could disappear unless they are documented and archived. The Autry Center has begun to set up their collection of Route 66 documents. They are seeing results in all the states along the route in this effort. This could be a legacy for the Route 66 Corridor Preservation Program. Hopefully, these centers will continue to collect these items if the program sunsets.

Recent oral history interviews that Dr. Dunaway has collected have been transcribed, indexed, fact checked and submitted to all ten research centers and the NPS.

In Texas, a project using state funds from the Humanities Council of Texas took place to train 40 graduate students from West Texas A&M in the collection of oral histories. This was followed by a marathon history telling session at a rest home in Amarillo. The students were taken there and 14 people were interviewed and an oral history session was done. This shows what can be done with state funding and cooperation of educational institutions, especially the ARC institutions.

Chairman Murphey discussed priority setting. He asked all members to review the list of priorities. Open discussion is needed of what the advisory council recommends and what projects they would like to see completed before sunset.

Mr. Conkle said the number one consensus is the formation of a national alliance. Credibility and communication must be established for such a an alliance if it is established. He asked for an endorsement that this is something that needs to be done. Mr. Bricker thought it was a good idea, but not a responsibility of the program. He considered it a separate issue. Mr. Conkle said that we need a national entity. Dr. Dunaway said there are historical predecessors for this type of issue. Mr. Taylor said the Route 66 Corridor Preservation Act states that the program may assist the states in establishing and supporting a non-Federal entity or entities to perform the functions of the program after it sunsets. There was discussion on how this would be accomplished. Mr. Ross stated that you either have strong sponsorship or you have paid staff. The only way to have paid staff is to have a revenue source. This has to get done. He would be very open to approaching the Lincoln Highway Association to model their efforts. Mr. Pike said there was discussion at the Clinton Summit meeting in June 2007 about forming an alliance of the eight state associations. Chairman Murphey again restated what the Act states, and said the NPS role is to assist, not establish these organizations. We are all in consensus that a move to a national organization is necessary.

The question was raised that if the program is to sunset, how should the program proceed from this point forward? Should the program stop making grants? If so, how should the money be spent? Mr. Pike said that grant projects should be put on hold and money should be spent on closing out the program and finishing what has already begun. Mr. Ross said he would rather see the money go towards things like the surveys, economic studies, and other issues that will benefit Route 66 beyond sunset.

Chairman Murphey emphasized the importance of finishing the state contexts.

Regarding the Economic Impact analysis, what will the cost be? That will be an important legacy of the program. It could be expensive and lengthy though. Mr. Mahr said we must be realistic as to the timeframe. What can be done must be taken into consideration with available limited funding. Mr. Pike asked where all the program information and products would go after sunset? It could go to the Route 66 archival institutions (ARC), and/or be passed on to the alliance of associations.

Mr. Mahr said the NPS is committed to seeing all projects completed. If managing projects goes beyond sunset, there will be NPS staff available to close the projects. We can use funds to complete the state context or road bed surveys instead of using it for new grants.

The program has compiled a list of special projects for FY 08 which still eaves some money for a few more grant projects.

Mr. Mahr said we want to make sure that the program leaves something that can be used in the future, which is why the surveys are so important.

Mr. Murphey asked how important are roadbed and road alignment surveys to the council?

Mr. Ross said they are very important. Ideally all road alignments should be surveyed before building surveys begin. Must know where alignments are before you can know where to go to document the buildings.

Chairman Murphey asked if there is an existing Department of Transportation survey format that could be considered, instead of or in onjunction with the SHPO forms. Mr. Taylor said this can be determined on a state by state basis. Mr. Bricker said that the roadbed surveys could be important tools for DOT planning.

Mr. Ross said we need to consider the time; there may not be time to work collaboratively (let’s just do it).

Mr. Murphey asked for consensus on whether roadbed surveys are essential to complete prior to sunset. Consensus was unanimous.

Mr. Pike said that in Missouri DOT wants to widen Interstate 44. This could impact Route 66 since much of it is frontage road for the interstate. This survey is important to help protect 66.

Final Recommendations

There was consensus that the top three priorities of the program should be

1) to complete the state contexts;
2) conduct the roadbed surveys; and
3) complete the economic impact study.

It was discussed that historic building survey is important, but roadbed should be priority. Building survey could come after program through CLGs, SHPO funds, etc.

Mr. Taylor reviewed the program’s existing priority list for FY2008. The council did not have any problems with the established priorities.

Mr. Dunaway asked if FACA members could be issued ID cards. Mr. Taylor said he would call FACA authorities to find out. Mr. Bricker reminded the group that the council’s role is fulfilled during the meetings, and in their subcommittee’s roles, but that’s the extent of it. Mr. Ross stated that some of his research for the council would benefit from some type of credential or explanation.

Mr. Taylor proposed that the next meeting be held in St. Louis, Missouri.

Mr. Ross said that the November dates are difficult. He suggested piggy-backing the next FACA meeting with the Tulsa Preservation Conference October 21-25, 2008. He also suggested the first Thursday or Friday in November, 2008. Mr. Smith requested we not meet on Halloween again. Mr. Taylor said we’ll look at November 6-7. Mr. Pike suggested that if the next meeting will be the council’s last meeting (due to sunset) we might need an extra ½ day. Mr. Conkle, Mr. Dunaway and Mr. Ross agreed that 2-1/2 days would be better. There was general agreement that St. Louis would be fine. Meetings could possibly be held inside the St. Louis Arch.

Mr. Taylor thanked the council for its time and participation.

Mr. Murphey also thanked the council.

Meeting adjourned.


captions pagePrivacy & Disclaimer