ROUTE 66 CORRIDOR PRESERVATION PROGRAM
ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
February 9-10, 2006
Program Manager Mike Taylor opened the meeting with introductions
and housekeeping announcements.
noted that two members were unable to attend the meeting, Mike
Wallis and Robert Scott Taylor. He asked the advisory council
members to introduce themselves.
members present were:
– State of California
James Conkle – California Route 66 Preservation Foundation
David Dunaway – University of New Mexico
Melvena Heisch – State of Oklahoma
Michael Jackson – State of Illinois
David Knudson – National Historic Route 66 Federation
John Murphey – State of New Mexico
Mary Ann Naber – Federal Highway Administration
Carolyn Gallagher Pendleton – Kansas Historic Route 66 Association
Tommy Pike – Missouri Route 66 Association
Jim Ross – Oklahoma Route 66 Association
Phyllis Seitts – Bureau of Land Management
Gregory Smith – State of Texas
to the advisory council members, the following National Park Service
(NPS) representatives were in attendance:
Superintendent, National Trails System – IMR
Mike Taylor, Route 66 Program Manager
John Conoboy, Chief, Interpretation and Resource Management
Kaisa Barthuli, Assistant Route 66 Program Manager
Josina Martinez, Budget Analyst
the agenda and explained how the day would progress.
Federal Advisory Act
The first item
on the agenda was to review the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Critical points noted:
advisory committee serves the public interest
• Requires that different points of view be represented
• Council members should occupy diverse occupations
• Membership is balanced in terms of points of view
• Members have expertise and skills that parallel the program
• A charter must be developed and filed
• A balanced membership is maintained
• Allow the public to speak or file written statements
• Announce all meetings in the federal register 15 days
in advance of any meetings
• Maintain all documents for public inspection.
yearly cost for an advisory council meeting is approximately $20,000,
which also includes NPS preparation, implementation and follow-up
time. Meetings will be held once a year. Major and opposing viewpoints
should be represented. Numerical parity is not required; no individual
or group has the right to be on the committee.
the FACA charter.
Human Resources Officer for the Intermountain Region Santa Fe
Support Office of the National Park Service presented a short
session on ethics. Advisory council members are representatives
and are not covered by the same restrictions as federal employees.
Special government employees are subject to ethics laws. Mr. Conkle
said that e-mails could be an area of concern and it should be
noted if they are not to be shared with the public.
discussed administrative details and reimbursement of travel expenses.
Overview of Route 66 Corridor Preservation Program
then provided an overview of the Route 66 Corridor Preservation
Program. A gentleman by the name of Bob Audette, from near Edgewood,
New Mexico, was one of those early on to realize the importance
of Route 66 and brought the need for attention of the Mother Road
to the public. Because of this type of attention and comments
from the public, Congress directed the National Park Service to
conduct a special resources study. Although there are few hard
copies of the study left, it is available on the website. The
study provided options of how the government could be involved
in the preservation of Route 66, which ultimately resulted in
the 1999 Route 66 Preservation Act. Mr. Knudson also provided
background on how the federation became involved in getting the
Act passed. There were a series of meetings held and in 1999,
the Act was passed. Mr. Taylor reviewed the Act and emphasized
the importance of the Act and how it governs what the program
and the council do. It is the basis of why the program exists.
After the Act was passed, the National Park Service was required
to establish a program. Mr. Taylor was hired in 2001 as the Program
Manager and Ms. Barthuli was hired in 2002 as the Assistant.
2002, a meeting was held with various partners in Albuquerque
to solicit recommendations as to what direction the program should
take. A summary of the proceedings of the meeting was discussed.
The goals of the Albuquerque meeting were to:
• Goal 1 - Agree upon criteria and program guidance for
ways to best preserve the most significant and representative
resources along the Route 66 Corridor.
2 – Discuss various types of technical assistance that can
be provided by the Route 66 Corridor Preservation Program to best
help partners in preserving the most representative and significant
3 – Explore ways to leverage preservation funds from other
sources to match federal dollars.
4 – Establish an ad-hoc group to advisor the National Park
Service on formulating a permanent advisory committee.
was involved in the passing of the Act and discussed the political
problems he encountered in getting the bill passed. It was viewed
by many as a “Republican” bill because of the support
of Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), and there was some Democratic
presented a power point presentation on the Route 66 Corridor
Preservation Program . She discussed once again the passage of
the Act and the meeting held in 2002 which resulted in the following
mission statement developed by Program staff:
National Park Service, Route 66 Corridor Preservation Program
collaborates with partners to provide funding, technical assistance,
and education towards the long-term preservation of the most representative
and significant resources of the historic Route 66 corridor.”
have been to identify partners and historic resources, evaluate
preservation issues, values, preservation education, provide financial
and technical assistance, and to serve as a clearinghouse. Partners
include Congressional leaders, state legislators, state historic
preservation officers (SHPOs), departments of transportion (DOTs),
local and state tribal agencies, Route 66 associations, other
nonprofit organizations, and private landowners.
of transportation related historic properties on Route 66 have
been completed in Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas,
New Mexico with partial inventories in Arizona and California.
issues on Route 66 include escalating values in urban areas, balancing
safety and capacity needs with preservation, adverse impacts to
roadbed through road improvements, lack of awareness of Route
66 as a valuable historic resource, and a paucity of local historic
corridor management plans.
of Route 66 include:
and social values
• Educational values,
• Aesthetic values, the beauty of the landscape
• Historical values
provides educational outreach, workshops, meetings, conferences
and publicity. A publicity plan has been developed to raise awareness
of the significance and importance of the preservation of Route
also provides technical assistance through site visits, by e-mail,
phone, letter writing, and has serve as a clearinghouse for preservation
related information regarding Route 66. A website has been developed
and a yearly newsletter is published.
has been provided through a cost share program. To date, 61 projects
have been funded by the program at a cost of $927, 711, with partner
share amounting to $817,915.
provides funding for preservation, rehabilitation, and restoration.
The priority is for transportation related properties such as
motels, gas stations, hotels, and signs. Projects funded also
include surveys, historic contexts, and national register nominations.
This information will be compiled into a comprehensive database.
The program has also provided funding for planning documents,
local corridor management plans, historic structure reports, and
preservation treatment plans.
and oral history are also objectives of the program. Oral history
training workshops have been conducted for all Route 66 states.
Existing sign ordinances have been researched and a model historic
sign ordinance has been developed. Brick and mortar projects have
been prioritized over planning projects.
After a short
break, Ms. Naber discussed the upcoming National Historic Roads
conference in Boston on preserving historic roads.
discussed the program goals that have been developed by staff
for the period encompassing FY 2005-2009. (refer to program goals
and strategies in handouts). The following discussions ensued
while discussing the goals:
There are great initiatives along Route 66 with the scenic byway
program that are administered out of FHWA. The scenic byway program
provides funding for corridor management plans, interpretation,
brochures, etc. Mr. Taylor said they hope to get an All American
highway designation for Route 66 in the future which would encompass
all eight states. Scenic byway definitions differ state by state.
Ms. Pendleton said they have run into problems with scenic byways
in Kansas. John Conoboy suggested she talk to Kansas Department
of Transportation about this. Ms. Seitts said that portions of
the road could be scenic while other portions could be historic.
ensued on the definition of the All American Highway designation.
It defines the road itself as a destination. The National Road
and Selma to Montgomery are All American Roads. The scenic byway
program is administered by FHWA, which makes funds available.
Ms. Naber explained that funds are available only for items for
public enjoyment, i.e., the outside of a hotel that everyone can
see as opposed to the interior where someone would have to pay
with other U.S. highways. There are many other historic highways
that need assistance. The Lincoln Highway just finished their
resource study. Mr. Bricker said he believed there have been two
other congressional acts passed for U.S. Highway 101 and U.S.
asked Ms. Naber if she knew of any states that had a program for
treatment of historic roads. She said it has been very difficult
because there are so many historic roads and trails. It would
be easier if you define a specific resource, i.e, Route 66 in
Oklahoma. There ensued a discussion on how difficult it is to
implement and maintain a program for historic road treatment.
Ms. Heisch mentioned that if there are no federal funds involved,
it is difficult to monitor how these roads are maintained before
damage is done. Mr. Taylor said education and awareness is critical.
Local management plans could play a part in preventing this from
A field trip
to sites along Route 66 in downtown Albuquerque was scheduled
for the lunch break. Mr. Ed Boles, Preservation Planner, City
of Albuquerque would be leading the field trip and he was introduced
to the group.
Mr. Boles discussed
the efforts the city has undertaken in trying to preserve Route
66 resources. It has been difficult due to the variety of resources,
from buildings to roadbeds. Mr. Boles explained the route the
tour would take, beginning at the El Vado Motel, driving up Central,
east to Nob Hill . He provided background on the El Vado motel
and the history of what is currently happening with the property.
The Route 66 preservation efforts in Albuquerque began with a
study in the early 1990’s by David Kammer to identify and
evaluate places along Route 66 in New Mexico, which resulted in
the inclusion of several properties in the national register.
Albuquerque is like many other cities with many Route 66 resources.
They have many motels that have been destroyed in recent years.
There were over 100, and now less than half survive. They are
not being saved because they are not commercially viable and are
located in areas that are economically and socially deficient.
There is a city effort to deal with problem properties, a safe
city strike force. The city buys them for the purpose of demolition
or forces the owners to close them. However, there are also efforts
to buy some properties and rehab them. The El Vado Motel was designated
a City of Albuquerque landmark. Whenever a landmark is proposed
to be demolished, the owner must show there is no way to make
the property an economic success. There is a one year moratorium
to give the city time to find a way to preserve the property.
After the field
trip, the group reconvened and Mr. Taylor continued his discussion
of program goals.
threats. There was discussion on how to coordinate with SHPOs
to establish monitoring threats on the ground and along the route
which would be reported to the SHPOs and local organizations.
Mr. Knudson proposed the adopt-a-segment initiative to keep people
posted on what is happening along the road. Mr. Ross discussed
the loss of the Dosie Creek bridge in Oklahoma and noted that
the bridges built in the 1930’s and 1940’s are at
the end of their lifespan.
sites according to HABS. Mr. Jackson said it is very expensive
to document sites according to HABS. HABS quality is top of the
line, perhaps a lower level of recordation would work better for
a comprehensive documentation program along the road. Mr. Smith
said a possibility is to use the local university architectural
students to do some of this work. It was stated that documentation
could be used for rehabilitation projects, not just to record
No focused work has been done on landscape documentation. Ms.
Naber said that Carol Ahlgren worked on this issue on the Lincoln
Coordinate with partners. The Act does not require an overall
management plan, but directs that local efforts along the road
will be coordinated. An important part of the program is to coordinate
with local officials. The program is interested in conducting
an inventory of existing corridor management plans. There are
concerted efforts on the road to raise community awareness of
needs and initiatives. Mr. Conkle said they have succeeded in
Flagstaff because of the meetings and awareness that have been
developed. Getting the community educated is very important as
is coordinating with SHPOs. Ms. Naber asked if it would it be
possible to link the website to existing plans that other states/areas
cost share grant program; review and update application guidelines.
This is a great deal of Ms. Barthuli’s workload. Scope of
work, contractual obligations, monitoring projects/contacting
contractors. A discussion ensued on whether there were too many
grants involving small amounts of money. Would it be better to
fund fewer but larger projects?
technical assistance program. Mike and Kaisa are on the road working
with partners approximately one week out of every month. An effort
is made to visit each state at least twice a year. A trip report
is submitted at the completion of each visit. Mr. Knudson asked
if they visited every site which submitted a proposal. Ms. Barthuli
replied that they’ve visited some, but have not been able
to visit all. The grant program is such that there is no program
control over what projects are submitted for funding consideration.
meetings, and workshops. Preparation, implementation, and follow-up
take quite a bit of staff time. Program staff collaborates with
partners for many of these workshops. For example, last year a
workshop was held in Monrovia, California, with the collaboration
of the California Route 66 Preservation Association. The SHPO’s
office was also very involved. Many local government officials
attended and it was very successful. Participation in the Environmental
Protection Agency leaking underground workshop in Arizona was
also very successful.
information. Ms. Barthuli is working on the development of a relational
database to combine inventory data from all eight Route 66 states.
It has been decided by staff to back off the idea of building
a GIS database for now. The focus now is on the synthesis and
integrity of existing data into a relational database. The program
is hoping to hire an intern this summer to work on this. This
will give us the first opportunity to look at that data from an
integrated national perspective. It is thought that this data
could be used as the basis for a GIS database in the future. It
is hoped the relational database will be made available online.
Mr. Murphey asked who would maintain the database. That decision
will have to be made if the program sunsets.
mentioned the Curt Teich postcard collection, which has many Route
66 images. He said they are very approachable and would be good
to work with to make the images available over the Internet .
maintain website. A program website has been developed with some
links, basically listing training opportunities, notice of Federal
Advisory Council, etc. Ms. Naber suggested that there be links
to related sites provided. It is one of the more frequently visited
sites of the NPS Links to the Past website. FHWA is linked to
the Route 66 web site, and Ms. Seitts suggested they link to recreation.gov.
Develop and maintain the national register initiative. A Route
66 National Register Itinerary website is under development. When
completed, travelers can plan trip on Route 66 based around national
register sites. The site will start with 50 sites and add more
later. The program may hire an intern to help facilitate the compilation
of the research part of this initiative. To date, part-time volunteers
have been working on the research.
distribute the Directory of Financial and Technical Assistance.
It is difficult to manage because there are constant changes to
this document. It is available on hard copy and the web site.
At the Albuquerque meeting in 2002, Dr. Dunaway emphasized the
importance of capturing oral histories. National Public Radio
asked him to document the history of Route 66 which he did in
a series that aired in 2001. He has also authored a textbook on
oral history. He has been working with the NPS program for four
years to train citizen historians and consult in oral history
as part of historical documentation. He has set up the following
priorities: The first is training citizen historians to collect
their own history; conducting weekend workshops which involve
planning, learning how to conduct oral history interviews through
all the states. The second function was finding and preserving
oral histories relating to Route 66. He has finished copying Tom
Teague interviews. Most importantly, to develop a research infrastructure
that future generations can build on. Dr. Dunaway has conducted
a feasibility study on having a network of state repositories
and negotiated with various libraries and historical societies
in each state to do this. In many cases this will lead to depositories
doing the history of Route 66 locally. His goal is for a national
center for Route 66 data to lay the basis on the research infrastructure
for the history of Route 66, to create a center where people can
go and find comparative data about the whole road and not just
state sections. This would involve a great deal of coordination
between states. The third priority has been to produce publications.
Two documents have been developed, a Route 66 Oral History Reader,
and a “Route 66 Oral History, A Manual.” This latter
document will be published by the Government Printing Office and
is available to anyone who wants to begin an oral history project
in their community. He feels the history of Route 66 lies with
the citizen historians.
mentioned that the Act states that an oral history program for
the road will be developed. The largest oral history collection
of Route 66 material is located in the middle of the Mojave Desert.
suggested an oral history of the migration along Route 66. Dr.
Dunaway has just finished editing the first anthology of Route
66 which has information on the migratory patterns.
The Act states that the NPS will identify how the NPS will deal
with curation needs. To date, these needs have not been addressed
by the Program. There are many visitor centers and museums along
Route 66, with many mom and pop type operations.
of Route 66 related museums/visitor centers/ numbers of tourists
traveling the road
Program staff intend to look at getting a study funded which would
identify the museums/visitor centers and what type of story they
are telling. If the same story is being repeated, they might suggest
how these local museums could better interpret the route, make
the stories more localized. Another component of this study would
be to determine how many people are actually visiting Route 66.
The number one question from Congress and other decision makers
is how many people are cruising the road. There is a general idea,
but no good hard data is available.
a concern that there could be an overabundance of visitor centers
and museums starting to pop up on the road. Part of the proposed
assessment would entail what museums/visitor centers already exist
and how they could better exchange information/ideas among themselves.
Mr. Knudson noted that no one has come up with a way to count
visitors along Route 66 accurately. Mr. Conkle said he thought
it was critical and that it was more important to spend money
on these surveys than the small rehab projects. It would have
greater benefit. Mr. Taylor said there have been benefits realized
from these small projects, such as the El Reno sign. This is one
of the items they want to discuss later. Mr. Conkle said he thought
the money was not being used most effectively. We make a bigger
effect talking to people at all levels, showing them what they’re
doing. Ms. Barthuli said that if there is nothing happening on
the ground, there is nothing to show people. Mr. Bricker said
that the integrated approach needs to be implemented. You must
have evidence that there is value to what is being done. It takes
time. Mr. Jackson said the smaller scale projects such as roof
rehabilitation can be important, but not if there is a lack of
capacity by the grantee or community to go further than that.
Mr. Jackson said it is important to finance projects that build
capacity, such as historic structures reports and local corridor
management plans. This may be more cost effective for preservation.
Ms. Heisch asked how much competition they have for grant money.
To date, 111
eligible project applications have been received, 61 have been
funded. Mr. Ross feels that the whole thing is rooted in awareness.
He agrees with Mr. Conkle that the brick and mortar projects are
good for the property owner; however, these projects get lost
in the expanse of the highway. He thinks the surveys are vital.
Until you know what properties are there, how can you prioritize
and know which need the most attention? In terms of keeping the
program alive, the surveys and a tourist count is what is going
to matter to the people in Washington. That should be a priority
in every state – Oklahoma is the only state that has a comprehensive
road survey. (clarification: Program staff did not mention that
Illinois and Kansas also have comprehensive road bed surveys.
Texas, New Mexico and Missouri have identified priority road segments,
but these need to be further inventoried and recorded) The priority
should be a roadbed survey in each state, followed by an updated
structure survey, putting the data into context and prioritizing.
A substantial list of historic register nominations have evolved
as a result of these surveys. Mr. Taylor said other states have
done the historic building survey and historic register nominations,
but not road surveys. Mr. Ross stated that they need to think
of the long-term benefits. This data is very important especially
if the program sunsets. Dr. Krakow asked if any statistics have
been relayed to Congress on how many volunteer and organization
hours have been contributed to the Route. Give examples, products
of your work, to key members of Congress or committees that show
this taxpayer-supported effort really pays off. Mr. Conkle said
the advisory council’s efforts should be to make this program
successful, and they should not focus on who gets the money for
small projects. Mr. Knudson said a professional team would be
required to determine how many people travel the road and would
cost a minimum of $20,000. Mr. Ross said there has to be a way
statistically to use road counters and look at guest registers
and come up with a reasonable number of visitors. Mr. Knudson
said it must be done by an experienced research organization so
it will be credible. Mr. Taylor asked if there was a consensus
from the council that this needed to be done. There was consensus
that an Economic Impact Study including visitor statistics should
be done. It was stated that Overland Victory Trail has done one.
Ms. Heisch mentioned that Rutger’s University may have experience/advice
on this topic.
was to develop a class for children teaching them about Route
66. There isn’t a week goes by that this isn’t requested.
Creating an awareness of Route 66 among the youth and determining
how many tourists actually travel Route 66 are two high profile
items that will get a lot of attention in the media. These are
both critically important.
There was further
discussion that information on visitor statistics will be of great
importance not only to the government, but also to private foundations.
Dr. Krakow asked what the outcome would be if the statistical
data is collected, how will this information be used? Mr. Knudson
said it would be used to market the road, for corporate sponsorship,
and in numerous other ways to keep the program alive. Ms. Heisch
noted that if these statistics are available to local officials,
it can help show that the historic resources are worth preserving.
Dr. Krakow said that this awareness also has an implication for
funding components and is a great educational and economic opportunity.
Ms. Naber said
that while we’re out counting visitors, we cannot lose resources.
We need on the ground projects to show what the potential is.
The small investment projects get local publicity and keep local
communities involved. Mr. Ross said they are both vital.
said that if the program is reauthorized, the Act may need to
be revised to be more effective. It is currently preservation
oriented, towards bricks and mortar projects. Mr. Conkle said
volunteer/advocate involvement and passion is important, they
are doing it because they care. After paid people go home or leave,
advocates are all that remain. No one will remember the small
grants, so it’s important to make a big impact.
asked about the shelf life of the surveys. Mr. Ross said the surveys
only have to be done once. The rest can be used for brick and
mortar and other projects. The program is about to end so there
is a need to conduct the surveys soon. Surveys do need to be updated
every five-six years.
Annual Budget and Travel
reviewed the budget from 2001-2005. The average annual appropriation
has been approximately $300,000 over the life of the program which
means the buying power has diminished. Although travel costs may
seem high, they cannot do their job without traveling. To date,
the program has received $1.68 million.
advised the group that he is no longer working on Route 66 full-time.
He has also been assigned to El Caminjo Real de Tierra Adentro,
and approximately one-third of his salary will be charged to that
program, thus freeing up more funds for the Route 66 program.
Dr. Krakow explained that we are currently operating under a travel
ceiling and that travel spending is being monitored by our Regional
Office and Washington.
Cost Share Program
reviewed the cost share program. Historic building survey work
has been done in many of the states. The number of applications
received in the last grant cycle was less than in previous years.
Government contracting has been cumbersome to some extent, and
a new application format used in the last grant cycle may have
discouraged people from applying. However, the Route 66 program
has taken steps towards making the process easier. Mr. Pike said
many of these property owners do not apply because they do not
trust the government and think they’re will be strings attached.
It is not free money. It was stated that the cost share grants
have to have a payback to the public. The application process
can be tedious for those unfamiliar with grant writing and program
staff is working towards helping all applicants as much as possible.
Mr. Jackson said the local associations or federations might be
able to assist locally. Counties that have a grants coordinator
could help. We need to encourage applicants to seek out help.
discussed the process of how the grants are administered and the
evaluation criteria. The grant cycle is open annually from the
end of January when the request for proposals is sent out. In
that process, program staff revises or refines the evaluation
criteria based on issues raised in past years. They select a peer
review panel each year to look at the applications that include
an association member, a SHPO member, a national Route 66 federation
member, Mr. Taylor, Ms. Barthuli, and one other NPS member. The
application deadline this year is April 28. The reviewers have
6-8 weeks to review and return comments/recommendations. The grant
award decisions are largely based on those reviews.
then suggested that they skip the discussion on this process to
free up time to discuss important issues that the council needs
to resolve. Mr. Taylor asked the members if they agreed. Mr. Bricker
said maybe they could go through the agenda items in a more abbreviated
manner and free up some time.
It was noted
that the Davis-Bacon act is no longer required. Davis-Bacon was
a great hindrance to the applicants. Applications guidelines now
stress the importance of OSHA standards needing to be met. These
are the two substantial changes this year.
and Ms. Barthuli presented some examples of successful projects
and some problematic projects.
Chairman/ Vice-chairman Elections
After a short
break, Mr. Taylor suggested that the agenda be altered to vote
for the chairmanship of the advisory council. He explained the
role of the chairperson and then opened the floor for nominations.
Mr. Bricker nominated Mr. Jackson. Mr. Ross nominated Mr. Bricker.
Mr. Conkle said he supported the idea of a co-chair and he nominated
Mr. Murphey as chairman. Because he has done work on Route 66
and because of his geographically availability he then nominated
himself as vice-chair. Ms. Gallagher said she was going to nominate
Mr. Conkle as chair, but he said he would have to decline because
he would not be able to devote the time. Mr. Taylor said they
would vote for chair and then vice-chair. The nominations were
closed. Mr. Jackson declined the nomination. Mr. Bricker and Mr.
Murphey agreed to the chairman nominees.
It was discussed
and decided that in addition to Mr. Conkle, the runner-up would
also be considered for vice-chair.
A vote was
taken and John Murphey was elected by a vote of 6 to 5.
then voted on a vice-chair. Mr. Bricker was elected by a vote
of 8 to 3.
As his first
order of business, Chairman Murphey asked if the council could
be productive due to the late hour or if it would be best to adjourn
for the day and resume the following day. It was agreed that the
meeting would continue.
suggested the future of the Route 66 Corridor Preservation Program
wanted to discuss how to increase funding and the sunset or reauthorization.
Mr. Taylor also wanted to discuss donations, where the program
would be housed after sunset, coordination after sunset, and getting
the associations together.
said there has been a great deal of effort by some individuals
to increase program funding. He feels there needs to be a team
to apply pressure to Congressional members to increase funding;
the grass roots people need to be more aggressive. Mr. Conkle
said that at the 2002 Albuquerque meeting, it was discussed to
put a “dog and pony” show together to go up and down
the road. He feels this is still viable, not necessarily lobbying,
but educating people about the program. Mr. Ross said he does
not think the Corridor Act authorizes payment for lobbying activity,
and Mr. Taylor agreed. However, if the presentations were informational
in nature, and intended to create an awareness of the preservation
needs, then these types of presentations are fine. The partners
would need to find a sponsor to pay for lobbying efforts on their
own. Mr. Pike said he spoke to his Congressman, Roy Blunt at a
preservation conference, and that he is aware of Route 66 and
supported the Act. Mr. Pike advised the Congressman that the program
was going to sunset and asked what needed to be done to extend
the program. Congressman Blunt asked him to give them the information
needed and he did not see any problem with reauthorizing. However,
an increase in annual funding would probably not be available.
said that he thinks the program may be missing an opportunity
by not educating the youth of America on the route. He thinks
there may be potential to reach a large international audience
by using an entity such as MTV to educate the youth. Mr. Conkle
said that 3 weeks ago he filmed a television show called “On
The Road With Jim Conkle.” There is a possibility that what
Mr. Bricker is talking about is already in the works. HGTV is
looking at this show. HGTV is very supportive of preservation.
Each show will center around a preservation project.
Ms. Naber suggested
putting the successful projects in a handout as an educational
tool that could be passed on to Congress. One page Spotlights
have already been developed for many projects, which need to be
put on the program website. There is a publicity plan that includes
reaching out to the media and getting media attention to these
projects. Other methods of educating the public were discussed,
such as articles in National Geographic. Dr. Krakow said NPS is
now just beginning to explore these issues and has a recently
appointed public affairs individuals who might be able to assist
with brainstorming ideas about publicity. Ms. Seitts said they
meet annually with state tourism individuals. Chairman Murphey
suggested that we should do a media package. Dr. Krakow thought
it should be a multiple approach. Mr. Jackson said they would
have to decide if they wanted to advertise Route 66 or what the
NPS has done on Route 66. He wants it to be genuine and authentic.
Mr. Ross asked if this was directed towards Congress for funding
purposes or if this was geared to the public. Mike said we do
not operate in isolation, everything we do is with partners. The
media that we pitch needs to reflect what the NPS, along with
other entities, is doing along the road. The publicity plan addresses
how to approach different groups. Who is going to do it, who is
going to pay for it. Mr. Conkle said there is now a Route 66 display
at the Smithsonian. Many people are not aware of that. He said
you need to self-promote. For $900 you can send out news releases
that will go out to newspapers throughout the world. Ms. Naber
asked what our message is if we are going to send out these releases.
Mr. Jackson suggested measuring our performance, new things on
the national register, what we’ve done, and what still needs
to be done. Chairman Murphey said he thinks there could be two
workgroups, one for media and one for how the surveys will be
done. Mr. Ross agreed with the accountability of convincing Congress;
it would be good if there was a good briefing paper/booklet. He
would be willing to work on an annual report.
said it would be best for the NPS to focus on preservation, and
let the others take care of the media. He would like to meet with
the NPS tourism expert. He doesn’t want to lose track of
the reauthorization which seems critical to pursue. NPS cannot
do that, but he has met with Congress and they are aware of this.
We can provide support, but Mr. Pike’s suggestion to approach
his Congressman is a good idea. It needs to be both the Senate
and the House for reauthorization. Potential funding increases
takes another strategy. Ms. Heisch said you can meet with your
congressional delegations locally, it doesn’t necessarily
need to be in Washington. The congressional staff makes many of
the decisions, and taking them on a tour locally could have great
results. Ms. Naber suggested a briefing book could be provided
for this purpose. Mr. Ross said politicians like it when they
get feedback on a program that is working. Mr. Murphey said it
would be a good idea to require job signs on the project sites.
Mr. Taylor said that congressional staff have indicated that reauthorization
is very plausible. In terms of any money added to the program,
that is something that the program cannot approach. Why do you
want to be reauthorized, what are you going to do? Program staff
needs advice from the council on what they need to do on and where
they should go. It’s advice the Program is seeking, not
directives. Mr. Conkle said that if they are going to try to reauthorize,
they should go to Congresswoman Heather Wilson and Senators Pete
Domenici and Jeff Bingaman first since they are the ones who initiated
the bill. They may not even realize that the program is not getting
the funding that was authorized. Mr. Taylor said he has briefed
all three and they know that the money has not been forthcoming.
He has been told be happy with what you get.
Wilson, and Senators Domenici and Bingaman will be getting invitations
to the rendezvous this June and will be recognized for the bill.
Mr. Knudson said they have gotten recognition for this in the
past. Dr. Krakow said that when individuals meet with Congress,
the NPS can provide packets on activities along the route. It
is important to compile figures on volunteer hours and money for
There was a
great deal of discussion on how Congress should be approached
and what information they should be given regarding reauthorization.
Mr. Conkle said he would rather see the program be reauthorized
than for the entire $10 million to be given to the program before
it sunsets in 2009. He doesn’t feel the money could be well
spent. Mr. Taylor said an important use of the money is when program
staff is on the road working with communities and private business
owners in furthering preservation of the corridor.
brought up economic development. Is this part of the main engine
of what could move the reauthorization forward? He suggested that
the program contact the grantees and their network of individuals
and ask them to produce a letter in which they would evaluate
the impact of this program in their town and the effect on their
economic development. He thinks this would vastly strengthen the
programs position. Mr. Ross said this would provide a great deal
asked if Chairman Murphey could be a lobbyist as chairman. Mr.
Taylor said that was not allowed.
asked if the program could hire a professional firm to compile
statistics on the Route. Mr. Taylor felt that this could be done;
however, federal contracting regulations would have to be followed.
Mr. Bricker agreed that this should be done to insure credibility
and accuracy, which is critical. Mr. Conoboy said we cannot do
surveys unless they are approved by OMB. An economic impact study
could be done. Mr. Taylor said they will look into the mechanics
of getting this done. Since it was getting late, Dr. Dunaway suggested
that anyone who has ideas on the survey, or any other issues that
need in depth discussion, draft their ideas and present them the
at 6:00 p.m.
reconvened at 8:30 a.m. on Friday with all participants present
from the previous day with the exception of Dr. Krakow and Ms.
greeted the members and asked everyone to provide him with their
Public Comment Period
advised the council that the FACA meetings are open to the public
and that this was the time period scheduled for comments by the
public. There was a member of the public in the audience who wished
to address the council. The Chairman asked the members to introduce
themselves to him.
Gilmore from Albuquerque addressed the group. He gave a short
history of his family on Route 66. Bob Audette and others have
started the Route 66 Chamber of Commerce and Mr. Gilmore gave
an update of what this chamber is doing to promote the road. They
have petitioned the Governor to change the name of Highway 333
back to Route 66. They are also working to improve signing along
the Route, including a stenciling project. Mr. Knudson asked why
they went out on their own instead of working with the New Mexico
Association. Mr. Gilmore said they felt that they wanted to work
more on Route 66 east of Albuquerque. They are not in competition
with Route 66 Association and they plan to work closely with the
The next member
of the public to speak was Steve Maynes He is the chairman of
the Route 66 Festival to be held in Albuquerque in June 2006.
He provided a flyer listing the festival events and discussed
what will be happening during the festival.
said that as an example of preservation efforts at these festivals,
program staff organized a workshop in Monrovia, California last
year in conjunction with the festival in which local government
officials participated. They would like to do the same at the
Albuquerque festival, and would like to know whether the council
thinks this is a good idea. There is also a summit scheduled of
Route 66 Association representatives on preservation issues, and
this year the program is also thinking about doing a mini-workshop
on oral histories. Dr. Dunaway said that his publication on oral
history could serve as a guide. This would be part of the summit.
Mr. Taylor said they will make a decision on this as soon as possible.
Dr. Dunaway asked if it would be a day-long workshop or just a
couple of hours. Mr. Taylor said he would want to leave the summit
as a full day and have a half-day meeting regarding preservation
issues and the other half day as an oral history workshop. This
would add a whole day of travel and expenses for the people who
would be involved. Dr. Dunaway thinks the target audience is not
necessarily the association member. There are two different audiences
for the summit and the workshop. Mr. Maynes said that the Friday
morning of the festival did not have scheduled events. Mr. Conkle
said that the preservation workshop and the summit could not be
combined. A discussion ensued on what would be the best time for
this workshop. They will discuss this and make a decision. Chairman
Murphey suggested that this be discussed outside the council meeting.
Recap of yesterday
Chairman Murphey restated some of the points made the day before
Should we explore
an All American Road designation?
Road bed surveys
have not been done for all states, and should be done before the
Publicity/Marketing: are we getting the message out to the right
people, and to the youth? Should we do something more systematic?
What is the medium, PR person, Congressional briefings, how sophisticated
should those be?
Money - Cost
share grants: are the grants being used to the greatest advantage?
Should we be funding larger projects which will attract more attention?
Can economic advantages in recipient communities be demonstrated?
how should we go about it, who should we contact?
Impact Study: getting an accurate count of people who drive/use
Route 66, and the economic impact.
suggested the council come to a consensus on discussion points,
work up a goal statement for each committee established, and volunteer
for committees to make this happen.
said that the critical issue is that we hire someone to compile
statistics. A vote was taken with 9-2 in favor of doing the survey.
suggested forming the following committees: Accountability/Measurement
of grant program and resource protection; All American Road designation;
a strategic media committee to develop media strategy for publicizing
Route 66; an education committee to provide materials and make
presentations on Route 66 activities; a preservation committee;
research and oral history committee; and a priorities committee.
suggested measuring tourist use is important, but so is resource
said that we have a lot of data that has been collected and we
need to identify how to use that data. Prioritize where we can
be most effective. Some efforts are needed to set up those priorities
and how to implement those recommendations.
Mr. Ross said
he thought that the briefing packet for politicians was very important.
He understands the purpose of the council is to advise the Secretary
on how best to preserve the road. He thinks some of the committee’s
suggestions should be done by the associations since the council
has limited time and resources. Mr. Taylor said he agrees; the
committees are good, but the council cannot do this work alone.
Mr. Jackson said various committee composition does not necessarily
mean that the advisory council would have to comprise all the
committees. As long as an advisory council member is on the committee
it can include other members. Mr. Conkle said it should be open
to other people outside of association members, city councils,
DOTs, etc. Don’t depend on the associations. Mr. Ross said
the associations have some responsibility and he thinks there
should be some pressure brought on the associations to get them
to do what they should be doing anyway. Dr. Dunaway asked if someone
from the council could serve as a liaison with the associations.
He clarified the role of the education committee stating that
he was talking about creating briefing packets for Congress.
Chairman Murphey said their purpose in this particular discussion
is to advise the program on two things, sunset and reauthorization.
Mr. Pike felt that reauthorization should be the number one priority.
said he did not feel reauthorization should be the first priority.
He stated that reauthorization should be a by-product of program
activities, not a goal. Emphasis should be on the program mission,
including inventory, establishment of protection ordinances, National
Register listings, etc. Reauthorization should not be the focus,
rather is the program’s mission complete? This can be demonstrated
through numbers/statistics to show progress and need. He reemphasized
that the focus should not be on keeping the program, rather it’s
about ensuring properties are protected. Others felt that it would
appear self-serving to have reuthorization be the top priority.
Mr. Taylor said he would like to discuss the national register
initiative. Program staff have a responsibility to identify properties
along the route for national register nominations. Approximately
40 properties have been nominated throughout the eight states.
This is important because it affords the property owners an opportunity
to take advantage of federal and state tax credits.
Committee Formation Discussion
asked how the council was going to go forward, if there should
be a working group to do this. Who will take charge of the statistical
thought we should first identify committees. And then discuss
the issue. He again mentioned the committees he proposed and suggested
Mr. Smith said
there should be a full discussion about priorities and then a
decision on committees.
Points of discussion:
and Measurement Committee Mr. Knudson feels a contract should
be done. Mr. Ross would also be willing to work on this. It should
include economic impact of foreign tourists. The scope of work
would reflect the type of information they want included. Ms.
Heisch mentioned Donovan Rypkema “Place Economics”
has done these type of studies and might be a good person to talk
to about the model. Chairman Murphey asked if the study would
consume the entire budget and there would be no cost share projects,
would they still want to do it? The consensus was that we would
have to stick to something we could afford. Scenic byways program
could advise. Mr. Knudson said he thinks they could get a good
survey for an affordable price. Dr. Dunaway thought the council
could be advisor to chambers of commerce and departments of tourism.
Mr. Bricker said they would need to find out who has jurisdiction
of portions of the road; state DOT’s do not necessarily
have jurisdiction. Mr. Ross stated that fairly recent traffic
counts have been done and could be used. He thinks some of this
data is available and could be shared. Mr. Pike thought that if
the request came from the NPS, the local agencies would be more
It was suggested
that this committee should determine the feasibility of hiring
a consultation firm that will undertake the study which will fit
within the program’s financial means. This will assist the
program in giving us hard concrete figures with what is happening
on the road and how to preserve the resources.
Prepare a briefing
packet highlighting the success stories.
proposed the following resolution The Federal Advisory Council
on Route 66 requests that the Route 66 Corridor Preservation Program
evaluate the effectiveness of its’ efforts to date via follow
up correspondence with communities that have received its grants
or technical assistance. The program will ask its’ grantees
to write out brief statements on the effects of the grants on
the following areas:
of project on economic development
• Effects of the project on promoting partnerships and cooperation,
including interagency cooperation
• Degree of support and technical assistance provided by
the program during project
• Overall value of the project to the community as a whole.
thought technical assistance should also be taken into account,
not just grant projects that were funded by the program.
suggested taking a vote on this resolution. Dr. Dunaway made the
motion, Mr. Conkle seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
and Mr. Smith agreed to serve on the education and outreach committee.
Ms. Naber was also assigned to the committee in absentia.
After a short
break, the council reconvened.
and Management committee
One of the purposes of the program is to identify the most important
resources of the Route 66 corridor. Mr. Jackson and Mr. Smith
said it is going to be the local entities that will protect the
resources. Mr. Jackson stated that a lot of survey information
is already available. Mr. Taylor and Ms. Barthuli need to meet
with property owners and make them aware of the benefits of National
asked if they should be spending money to purchase plaques for
properties to make them more visible.
asked for clarification. We have established a measurement committee,
and an education and outreach committee, and now a preservation
management committee would recommend priorities to identify the
most important resources on Route 66, and establish tools to protect
the corridor as a result of the identification efforts under Section
2(e)(1) of the Act which states, “The Secretary shall provide
assistance in the preservation of the Route 66 corridor in a manner
that is compatible with the idiosyncratic nature of the Route
asked for volunteers for this working group. Chairman Murphey,
Ms. Heisch, and Mr. Bricker will serve on this committee.
Dr. Dunaway discussed the committee for development of a media
strategy. Mr. Knudson noted that since it is the 80th anniversary
of the road, there is a great opportunity for publicity. It was
discussed as to whether we really needed a publicity committee.
Mr. Conkle discussed a newspaper that will begin publishing this
year on a monthly basis. Mr. Taylor said they are talking about
two different things, publicity of Route 66 and publicity regarding
the preservation of the road. The council should focus on preservation
success stories, not promotional activities along Route 66. The
program already has a publicity plan, it just needs to be implemented.
Mr. Smith asked if this could fall under education and outreach.
Chairman Murphey was thinking along the same lines. Mr. Ross felt
that absent member Michael Wallis would be an ideal person to
serve on the committee. Mr. Pike said he would like to have some
direction on how to get things in the local paper. The misconception
about the association is that they are car clubs. Dr. Dunaway
said the focus is not sending out press releases, but rather developing
a media strategy. When do we want to have clout and to what end.
What points do we want to get across. Dr. Dunaway and Mr. Conkle
volunteered for this committee. Are they actually going to issue
press releases or provide advice to the program? It would be the
program that would actually issue any press releases. The council
is advisory, they provide advice, not directives. Mr. Pike and
Ms. Pendleton will also serve on this committee.
passed out a flyer regarding a state context study for California
that has just been done entitled, “Life In the Past Lane,
The Route 66 Experience.” Mr. Taylor said the other state
contexts are on the web site.
committee be formed for the All American Road designation? It
was suggested that this would be a part of the preservation committee.
Review of committees
and members established by the council:
and measurement committee – Mr. Ross and Mr. Knudson.
and outreach committee – Mr. Jackson, Mr. Smith, Ms. Naber.
and management committee - Ms. Heisch, Mr. Bricker, Chairman Murphey.
media committee – Mr. Conkle, Dr. Dunaway, Mr. Pike, Ms.
Pendleton, Mr. Wallis.
named for each committee:
1. Jim Ross
2. Greg Smith
3. David Bricker
4. David Dunaway
Mr. Pike said
that his association would be willing to help any of the committees.
Ms. Seitts indicated she could assist with each committee in her
capacity as representative of the Bureau of Land Management.
Are these committees
going to be in-house, or will we be recruiting outside help? Ms.
Seitts said that the findings need to come back to the Advisory
Council for full implementation or consideration. Mr. Taylor said
that due to travel and funding availability, we will not be able
to meet on a regular basis. Members can correspond by e-mail and
phone calls, but they will be public record. Any members of the
a committee who are not on the Federal Advisory Council would
have to be approved by Mr. Taylor as the Designated Official.
discussed the legalities and technicalities of meetings. Dr. Dunaway
asked that Mr. Taylor issue a memo clarifying this.
How the subcommittees
will relay information to the council was discussed. Chairman
Murphey suggested each committee chairperson report quarterly
to Mr. Taylor, Ms. Barthuli, and himself. Mr. Taylor stated that
within the next 2 weeks he will get information to everyone on
the legality of committee meetings. Committee member contact information
will also be distributed.
opened up the floor for any other items the council wished to
Mr. Pike said
he feels the NPS should look at having a national museum with
a library. They could get corporate sponsorship. It would be a
big tourist draw. Dr. Dunaway said that we need to give value
to collections that already exist. He would propose that they
have a state repository in each state. The University of New Mexico
has indicated its desire to build the Route 66 collection for
the State of New Mexico, and interested institutions in the other
seven states have also been identified. Ms. Barthuli said they
are working with these institutions to look at the feasibility
of developing a coordinated national program of oral history/research.
Dr. Dunaway thinks the idea of a single physical place, or national
center, where the information would be available is a great idea.
Mr. Conkle recommends that they do something to keep the oral
history project going. This year’s project is to conduct
six to nine interviews with key people along the road. Mr. Taylor
mentioned that conflicts of interest issues will have to be looked
at in terms of directing Program funds to oral history projects
managed by Dr. Dunaway.
thought it would be a good idea to try and entice the national
road conference to a Route 66 location. He feels we need to expand
and think in a broader sense. Use program resources to bring the
conference to a Route 66 location.
Mr. Smith talked
about the society of commercial archeology and provided information
on their group.
no other items for discussion or announcements.
Mr. Taylor asked where and when the next meeting will be held.
It had mentioned having a meeting in conjunction with next year’s
festival. At this time it appears the meeting may be held in Clinton,
OK. This would provide a great deal of opportunity for public
involvement. The charter allows us to meet once a year. Mr. Knudson
said the advisory council meetings should not be linked to the
festival. Mr. Conkle suggested that the meetings be held in Albuquerque
since there are so many people who would not have to travel. Ms.
Heisch said that having all the meetings in Albuquerque would
limits public access. Mr. Taylor suggested that the next meeting
be held in early November 2006, location to be determined.
On behalf of
the National Park Service, Mr. Taylor thanked the group for their
participation, advice, input, recommendations, etc. He felt it
was a very productive meeting.
Motion to adjourn,
seconded, and passed.
at 12:30 p.m.