ROUTE 66 CORRIDOR PRESERVATION PROGRAM
ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
November 1-2, 2007
Route 66 Corridor Preservation Program Advisory Council met in
Pasadena, California, on November 1-2, 2007.
Mary Ann Naber
Park Service (NPS) staff in attendance:
Mahr, Superintendent, National Trails Office - Intermountain Region
Michael Taylor, Program Manager, Route 66 Corridor Preservation
Kaisa Barthuli, Deputy Program Manager, Route 66 Corridor Preservation
Josina Martinez, Recorder
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.
John Murphey opened the meeting by asking everyone to introduce
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
on the agenda was a summation by Mr. Taylor and Ms. Barthuli of
what the program and its partners have accomplished in the past
Taylor thanked Nicole and Pam for their assistance with arranging
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
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.
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.
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.
will host the National Trust Conference next year in October.
Route 66 will be a focus at the conference.
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
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).
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.
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.
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.
NPS program website is going to be updated to current NPS standards.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Murphey opened the meeting by opening the floor to public comments.
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.
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.
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.
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.
of Public Comment period]
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Identify existing state and national historical contexts. This
has also been done.
Identify existing corridor management plans. Chairman Murphey
has done some survey to determine this.
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.
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).
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.
Investigate collaboration through national scenic byways program.
NPS is already involved with this.
Identify preservation tools; this is more or less is being handled
by another committee.
a result, three revised goals/recommendations.
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.
Historic context for Missouri, Arizona, and California. The committee
recommends that these contexts be prepared and completed.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Murphey opened the floor to general discussion.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
oral history interviews that Dr. Dunaway has collected have been
transcribed, indexed, fact checked and submitted to all ten research
centers and the NPS.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Murphey emphasized the importance of finishing the state contexts.
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
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
program has compiled a list of special projects for FY 08 which
still eaves some money for a few more grant projects.
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
Murphey asked how important are roadbed and road alignment surveys
to the council?
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
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).
Murphey asked for consensus on whether roadbed surveys are essential
to complete prior to sunset. Consensus was unanimous.
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.
was consensus that the top three priorities of the program should
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.
Taylor reviewed the program’s existing priority list for
FY2008. The council did not have any problems with the established
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.
Taylor proposed that the next meeting be held in St. Louis, Missouri.
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.
Taylor thanked the council for its time and participation.
Murphey also thanked the council.