While all the Rockefellers have pursued their individual interests, they nevertheless have worked together on joint enterprises, as for example, their several family foundations in which they and their children take part.

In this vein should be mentioned the shoreline projects with which Paul Mellon was so helpful. Cape Hatteras National Seashore, in North Carolina, was authorized for establishment as a national seashore area on August 17, 1937. The bill was introduced by Representative Lindsay Warren, a strong advocate of the protection of our seashores and of their use as parks. It authorized the assembling of ten thousand acres to comprise the seashore area and the transfer of certain lands under public ownership to the federal government. It also provided that the private lands within the boundary lines of the proposed area should be acquired by the National Park Service by means other than purchase with federal funds. In 1937 the state of North Carolina adopted legislation authorizing the purchase of private holdings in the area for transfer to the federal government, but this was not carried out. The state did have title to the land at the tip of the cape, which was administered as a state park, although this land was a small part of the total acreage required.

In the spring of 1952, I received a telephone call from Paul Mellon's office stating that there was a piece of land in North Carolina that was up for sale and asking whether the National Park Service would be interested in this acreage as a gift for park purposes. I was familiar with the land, and actually I didn't think we would be interested in it; however, I felt that I should have somebody take another look at it before I gave Mellon our answer. I told him I would look into it and get in touch with him a little later. A week went by and I got another call stating that the land in question was no longer available and wanting to know whether we were interested in any other land in that section of the country. I immediately replied that we were interested in Cape Hatteras seashore, which was authorized by Congress, and that since the state had not bought the land, we would like very much to interest Mellon in that. The office called me back a day later for an appointment with Mellon. Ben Thompson, head of the Branch of Lands, and I had lunch with Mellon at the Hay-Adams House. Mellon didn't ask very many questions, but I guess he didn't have a chance to, because Ben and I did most of the talking. The meeting adjourned and I didn't hear from Paul Mellon for about a week. I began to think that perhaps I had made the terrible mistake of talking too much. I was relieved to get a telephone call shortly thereafter inviting me to join Paul Mellon on a flight over Cape Hatteras; I accepted. A few days after that I got a call asking whether Mellon could come over to see me. I felt sure as we talked that he was going to offer to purchase land for us that we had estimated to cost about one and a quarter million dollars. But I thought that the state should help buy it, and I told Paul that I would like to go to North Carolina, talk to Governor Robert Scott, and find out whether the state would be willing to put in half the cost of the property if we could get some matching funds. I made an appointment to see the governor the following week.

In conversation with the conservation commissioner while waiting to see the governor, I solicited his support, and he offered to see the governor with me. He also told me that the balance in the governor's reserve fund was approximately $600,000. This money could go for the purchase of Cape Hatteras, if Governor Scott and his cabinet would approve it. I also was informed that the governor would most likely leave the talking to me and wouldn't say much himself. Most important of all, I was advised, if he pulled out his plug of tobacco and started chewing, it would mean he was interested, but if he didn't, I might just as well give up. I talked for some time to the governor with no movement on his part. Finally the conservation commissioner spoke up, but instead of supporting me, as he had led me to believe he would, he said he felt that if the state did anything, it should buy the land and keep it as a state park. This got me so irritated that I turned to him and demanded to know why he had reversed his stand since walking into the governor's office. With that the governor opened his desk drawer, picked up a plug of tobacco, and took a chew. Then in a rich southern drawl he asked me how much money I was talking about. I told him, and the governor rang for an assistant and asked him how much money they had in the "kitty." While the man went to find out, Scott gave me a plug of his chewing tobacco; although it was risky for me to do so, I took a bite and started chewing. The assistant came back in a few minutes and said, "You have slightly over $600,000." The governor looked at me and said, "Mr. Wirth, have you been looking at my books?" I answered, "I did know how much you had left, but our estimate was still $1,250,000, and it just happens to match." He smiled and said, "Well, I'll tell you what I will do. My cabinet meets on Thursday of next week, and if they approve this I'll let you know."

Cape Hatteras National Seashore was purchased with funds provided by the state of North Carolina and the Mellon family. Attending the dedication in 1958 were, left to right: Assistant Secretary of the Interior Roger Ernst, Representative Herbert Bonner, of North Carolina, Director Wirth, Paul Mellon, Governor Luther H. Hodges, of North Carolina, Comptroller General Lindsay Warren, and three representatives of the private landowners.

On Friday of the next week I received a wire from the governor stating that the funds would be available if we could match them within ten days. I immediately called Paul Mellon and read the wire to him. On Monday morning a check for $600,000 was delivered to me to be deposited and held to match the state's $600,000. I sent a wire to the governor of North Carolina stating: "I've just received a donation of $600,000 to be held to match the state's funds. Where is your money?" Within a week I received a similar check from the state of North Carolina. We proceeded to buy the land. As it turned out, the $1.2 million was not enough, and we had to go back to Mellon and the state of North Carolina. Paul Mellon gave us an additional $200,000, and the state matched it. Cape Hatteras National Seashore was established on January 12, 1953, sixteen years after congressional authorization.

The money that came from the Mellons through Paul Mellon was actually from two foundations. Half was from Paul Mellon's Old Dominion Foundation, and the other half came from his sister's Avalon Foundation. Those two foundations have since been combined into one, the Richard Mellon Foundation. The Park Service had made a very thorough study of seashores in the thirties along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts as possible national and state seashore areas, and Cape Hatteras was the only one approved by Congress. Our negotiations with the Mellon foundations in 1952 and 1953 occurred almost twenty years after those studies were made. They showed great interest in the seashore projects at a time when the Park Service was suffering low budget problems that resulted from the costly cold war. At Paul Mellon's request we presented to the Old Dominion and Avalon foundations an estimate of the cost of making a restudy of not only the Atlantic and Gulf coasts but also the Pacific coast. The foundations provided the funds for this study and also for a study of the shores of the Great Lakes.

The acquisition of areas for the national park system and its administration are serious responsibilities that call for careful planning at a competent professional level. This fact was recognized early in the National Park Service, and the service takes credit for establishing and developing the master plan concept. The master plan as developed by the Park Service is a comprehensive land mass plan that contains all the basic known facts and needs for the protection, use, and development of a logical land mass set aside for a principal purpose or purposes, taking into consideration the potentialities for adjacent land uses and their effect on the area under study. A National Park Service master plan therefore consists of many maps and pages of written material covering every conceivable bit of information on an area, including its natural features, history and archaeology, engineering, road construction, developments of all kinds, forest-fire protection, maintenance, and nearly everything that must be considered in planning the protection and development of a piece of land for public use. The input comes from every professional and administrative person who has an interest in or information on the area and the surrounding related lands. Of course, the amount of written material and the number of maps vary from one master plan to another according to the areas' size, location, purpose, and related considerations. For instance, the forty acres of Arizona's Tuzigoot National Monunaent, containing a large Indian pueblo, did not require the twenty or thirty sheets, three feet by four feet, that Yellowstone National Park did, with its two and a quarter million acres. The Tuzigoot master plan does have four or five sheets, however, and was as thoroughly researched and prepared as the Yellowstone master plan was. The master plan covers all information necessary to fully develop a park and maintain it for the use and enjoyment of the people in accordance with its basic legislation.

Western Office of Plans and Design staff reviewing master plans, which control the use, development, and management of national park system units and are prepared with the combined help of all those involved.

Obviously, master plans are not prepared overnight. In fact, the master plan is a living thing, constantly being altered and revised to meet changing conditions. Its sole purpose is to insure a sound, economical, and orderly development of each area of the national park system in accordance with the purpose for which the area was established. If the master plan concept had not been in existence at the time Mission 66 came into being in 1956, we would have been in great trouble. I don't mean to imply that it necessarily would have been impossible to carry out Mission 66 without the master plans. The Park Service was tired of seeing the parks gradually decay during World War II and the cold war as the result first of nonuse and then of a great increase in use, both coinciding with lack of funds for administration and maintenance. The service was ready and willing to tackle anything to get the job done, even under adverse conditions. But without master plans that job would have been much more difficult, more expensive, and less promising than it turned out to be. The whole purpose of Mission 66 was to update and carry out the National Park Service's master plans.

According to Major Owen A. Tomlinson, former superintendent of Mount Rainier National Park, in Washington, and regional director of Region Four in San Francisco, the master plan had its origin at Mount Rainier in the late 1920s. The occasion was a meeting at the park called by Director Albright to review the concessioners' development programs. Chief Landscape Architect Tom Vint had been requested to bring plans to Mount Rainier for these discussions. There was a great rustling of tracing paper and pencils and many long hours of serious plan preparation in the design office in San Francisco, and they produced a package of plans they called the "Master Plan for Mount Rainier." While the master plan for Mount Rainier of the late twenties was not as comprehensive as such plans were by the time Mission 66 rolled around, it nevertheless had many of the full-scale master plan's basic ingredients. During the meetings, not only the concession proposals but also such other master plan subjects as park boundaries, land acquisition, roads, and Park Service facilities were reviewed. Albright was so impressed with Vint's master plan concept that before leaving the park he requested Tom to prepare similar master plans for each of the areas of the National Park System.

To carry out this directive, resident landscape architects were assigned to the major parks or groups of parks as funds became available, with the responsibility of developing and maintaining master plans. During the summer, while work progressed on approved construction projects, the long-range master plan would be reviewed with park staff and visiting officials from Washington and San Francisco. Major planning decisions in most cases were made in the park during these summer conferences. Late in the fall, after the weather had closed down most of the construction and field work, the park superintendents held staff meetings to review their master plans and the planning decisions of the past summer. With these data in hand the resident landscape architect would return to the San Francisco planning office for the winter. There the professional people in the central design office and the regional office would prepare the necessary plan revisions. As the revised plans were completed, copies were sent to the park and to the Washington office for review and approval. Upon completion of all revisions, the resident landscape architect would return to the park in the early spring to resume the master planning routine for the next season and supervise such developments as might be going on in the area.

In 1936, when four National Park Service regional offices were established, Tom Vint's planning staff was reassigned to the Washington office and the regional offices. Although most of the personnel of the division were now scattered throughout the regional offices, they were still under the professional control of the Central Design and Construction Division with Tom Vint in charge.

The following examples are but a few of many cases where the policies of protection and preservation of park values were applied through the master plan. In the early days of Yellowstone the explorer and his party could camp next to Old Faithful geyser without greatly harming the natural features because their requirements were very simple. The tents and log structures required later to accommodate the stage coach visitor needed permanent sites, and because they were few in number they were located adjacent to the points of interest. By the time the bus and automobile arrived on the scene, these overnight accommodations were well-established facilities, some located within the geyser area. The 1935 master plan for the Old Faithful area included recommendations for relocation of the main park road back of all the existing facilities and for removal of some of the buildings. Portions of this plan have been accomplished, and eventually, as conditions permit, other facilities will be eliminated or relocated. The new development at Grant Village, constructed under the Mission 66 program, is several miles removed from the West Thumb thermal activities. The master plan first recommended relocation of these facilities in 1936. It was twenty years later that the plan was implemented as one of the major projects of Mission 66. The master plan for Yellowstone contained other similar relocation projects, including those at the Canyon, Bridge Bay, and Madison Junction areas.

In nearby Grand Teton National Park a special master plan report prepared in 1936 recognized the dangers of continued expansion of facilities along the small lakes at the base of the mountains. The plan proposed relocation of the main highway on the east side of the Snake River and the development of visitor facilities along the north shore of Jackson Lake, far removed from the areas of greatest natural value. Stage coach access to the lakes and the mountain trails between the Snake River and the mountains was suggested. Except for the stage coach proposal, the development has followed the master plan recommendations.

In 1949 the master plan for Yosemite National Park proposed the development of the Big Meadows area, outside but overlooking the Yosemite Valley, for visitor accommodations. This would gradually phase out the overcrowding of overnight facilities in the valley. The proposal was based on the intent of reducing the visitor impact by gradually establishing day use for a major portion of the valley.

Before Mission 66 the master plans were loaded with projects of this type that needed financing. Mission 66 provided the momentum and resulted in a long list of completed projects that improved protection and the preservation of park values. Many of these projects involved major road construction, the engineering aspects of which were handled by the Bureau of Public Roads* under agreements dating back to the twenties. Over the years the Bureau of Public Roads worked closely with the landscape architects of the design office and was very sympathetic to the policies of the service. It followed the approved priorities and recommendations outlined in the master plans. Differences of views regarding road standards and safety requirements admittedly caused some disagreements. The questions of location and design as well as final approval have always been the Park Service's responsibility. In the overall performance of its responsibilities, however, the bureau rendered outstanding service. It provided park visitors with excellent roads that brought a minimum of complaints.

The U.S. Public Health Service also has provided outstanding assistance to the national parks in maintaining high standards for the development and operation of sanitary facilities. Starting in the middle 1920s, Public Health Service sanitary engineers have been assigned to work with the design offices and the parks in a program for improving these facilities and establishing high standards of maintenance and operation.

In 1954, just before Mission 66, there was another reorganization of Tom Vint's planning staff that resulted in the establishment of the Western and Eastern Design and Construction offices. The planning personnel in the regions were transferred to these offices, located in San Francisco and Philadelphia. The two offices were headed by Red Hill, in the West, and Bob Hall, in the East, and here again were two outstanding professional men in the right place at the right time. Preparation and upkeep of master plans remained one of their primary responsibilities, although during Mission 66 the major portion of their duties was devoted to the design and supervision of construction projects.

The master plan concept was one of Tom Vint's finest contributions to the National Park System. He possessed the wonderful Scottish love of the natural landscape and was completely devoted to the protection and preser vation of the parks. Through his planning leadership, recommendations of the master plans were always based on the preservation of natural features and the placing of required facilities in locations where they functioned effectively, blended into the natural landscape, and had minimum impact on the natural scene.

Many of Vint's staff also deserve special recognition for their contributions: particularly Bill Carnes, who was Tom's assistant for many years. Later, when Mission 66 was conceived, he was assigned to head a seven-man task force to develop the project. Every division of the service was represented on that task force, and its main job was to assemble a master plan of the National Park System itself, placing its various elements in a priority system and developing an orderly program. Bill Carnes's background made him the logical chairman of the task force, and he and his committee did an outstanding job.

The master plan as developed and practiced in the late twenties and refined with experience also exerted its influence for a well-conceived Civilian Conservation Corps program in the thirties. Its principles were applied to state and metropolitan parks. During the latter CCC days the National Park Service began a program called "Plans on the Shelf," which provided complete project plans to be used as soon as funds became available. It was only partially successful because of insufficient appropriations during World War II and the long subsequent delay before Mission 66 supplied adequate funds. In the meantime, changing conditions had required many plan revisions and, in some cases, a whole new master plan.

Tom Vint, chief landscape architect of the National Park Service for over forty years, caught at play when the director was away. Photo by Abbie Rowe, courtesy National Park Service.

There may be some who claim that the master plans have led to over development in some of the parks, but there are very few instances, if any, where this has happened. In fact, the master plan helped prevent overdevelopment. Horace Albright, while in Washington to receive the Cosmos Club Award on April 15, 1974, stated that the areas of the National Park System were in better overall condition than they had ever been. Had the National Park Service maintained a more restrictive policy of visitor access, the national park idea would never have fulfilled its basic responsibility to preserve and maintain the parks "for the use and enjoyment of the people." The present so-called overcrowding is but a public expression that parks are essential to satisfy the people's needs.