Chapter 9:
Mission 66 and the Road to the Future
The National Park Service's Mission 66 might be
fairly described as a renaissance. From the time that automobile travel
began to build up in the 1920s following World War I until driving was
curtailed by gasoline rationing in World War II, visitor use of the
national and state parks increased tremendously. Moreover, the types of
facilities preferred by people visiting the parks in their own cars were
different from the kind formerly provided for those who traveled by
train and took coach tours. Annual appropriations had been sufficient to
protect park areas and develop the necessary facilities for this
increased use. During World War II attendance dropped sharply, and a
number of the national parks were made available to the military both as
training grounds and as rest areas for troops suffering from combat
fatigue. In view of the need to pour funds into all phases of the war
effort, appropriations for administration of the park system were
sharply curtailed. But ten years after the war the park system was still
short of funding, in spite of a resurgence of visitation and the
problems of inadequate maintenance, protection, and development during
the war and postwar years. Mission 66 was conceived in 1956 and was
designed to overcome the inroads of neglect and to restore to the
American people a national park system adequate for their needs. This
was to be accomplished within ten years, by 1966.
A lot could be written on the conditions that existed
in the areas of the national park system in 1955, but an article in
The Reader's Digest described them bluntly:
One out of three persons in the United States will
visit some part of our national-park system during 1955. To these
visitors I must pass along a warning: Your trip is likely to be fraught
with discomfort, disappointment, even danger.
This warning, the result of a year-long investigation
which included an 8000-mile inspection tour, is borne out by the
director of the National Park Service (NPS) himself, Conrad L. Wirth.
Says Mr. Wirth:
"It is not possible to provide essential services.
Visitor concentration points can't be kept in sanitary condition.
Comfort stations can't be kept clean and serviced. Water, sewer and
electrical systems are taxed to the utmost. Protective services to
safeguard the public and preserve park values are far short of
requirements. Physical facilities are deteriorating or are inadequate to
meet public needs. Some of the camps are approaching rural slums. We
actually get scared when we think of the had health conditions."
[Charles Stevenson, "The Shocking Truth About Our National Parks,"
The Reader's Digest, January, 1955. Quoted by permission.]
Mission 66 required a lot of helping hands in its
formulation and execution. A group of Park Service professionals started
with nothing but an idea and put together a program of such
comprehensive proportions and solid design that it attracted nationwide
attention and received the full backing of the Department of the
Interior, the president, and Congress. The service developed an
esprit de corps and a determination in this endeavor that were
wonderful to behold. Mission 66 influenced the activities of several
other federal and state agencies and even attracted the interest of the
White House in favor of other conservation studies and projects. Roy E.
Appleman, the Park Service historian, had a very important part in
working up the program and later compiled the history of organizing and
launching Mission 66. I am indebted to his report for much of what
follows in this chapter.
One weekend in February, 1955, I was pondering the
reason the Park Service couldn't get the money we needed for the
national parks. In 1940, when there were 161 areas in the system,
totaling 21-1/2 million acres, with close to 17 million park visitors,
total funds available were $33,577,000, including funds for some 109
national park CCC camps. In 1955, with 181 areas totaling 23-7/8 million
acres and visitation more than tripled to a total of 56,573,000, the
appropriation of $32,525,000 was approximately $1 million below the 1940
level. Moreover, our appropriations had been cut drastically during the
wardown to a low of $4,740,000 in 1945and we were in
desperate need of extra money to repair the damage that wartime neglect
had wrought. I had been in the director's chair for three full years,
during which we had presented the government with some very strong
arguments for what we felt were reasonable requests for funds. We had
also submitted two-, three-, and four-year programs as requested by the
Bureau of the Budget. But nothing happened. A few minor increases were
approved, but even those were knocked out by the committees of
Congress.
As I pondered our dilemma, I asked myself, "What
would I want to hear from the Park Service if I were a member of
Congress?" The answer to this question was a series of new questions:
What would be the total amount of work required to bring the whole park
system up to a satisfactory condition after the lean years of funding?
How much would it cost? What would be the most economical way of getting
this job done? How long would it take the service to do this on a
reasonably economic basis? I envisioned not a crash program but a
long-range one. As I went along with my cogitations, the various aspects
of the problem began to clear up and make sense. I also realized that
this kind of program would be difficult to set up, and I began to have
strong doubts. Perhaps it would not clear the department, not to mention
the Budget Bureau. Two- or three-year programs were all they were
ever willing to consider, and even then they would make no commitment
beyond the first appropriation year.
I spent several hours the next day, Sunday, working
up some notes and making estimates based on figures I
rememberedthey were more "guesstimates" than estimatesand
my thinking began to crystalize. I reasoned that other bureaus, such as
the Bureau of Public Roads, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Army
Corps of Engineers got money year after year. They had big projects,
such as dams and long highways, to construct that couldn't possibly be
completed under a single annual appropriation or even in two or three
years. That was it. Our projects were all relatively small ones that
could be cut out of the budget because they were not sufficiently
appealing to the committees that reviewed our request. But if we
submitted one all-inclusive, long-term program for the entire park
system, it would mean a complete review and some major policy changes by
Congress. The whole program could be so arranged that if it were stopped
halfway through, for example, half of the parks would be in good shape
and the other half would be in poorer shape than ever. If we requested
funds for a specific segment of a complete package program and all the
congressmen knew that the parks in their states were part of the package
and would be similarly taken care of within a given time, it seemed that
once the overall program got started it would be hard to stop. Further,
by letting larger contracts to do all the work necessary in an area and
finishing the job instead of doing a little bit at a time, the project
would in the long run be more economical and would interfere less with
management and public use.
On Monday morning, February 7, I expounded my ideas
to my branch heads. I proposed that we set up a special staff, selected
from personnel in the Washington office, and put this group in the
conference room, with no telephone, to work exclusively on the plan.
They would be relieved of all their regular duties and would devote full
time to the plan until it was completed, even if that took a year. These
Mission 66 committee members would be selected so as to represent the
major functions of the service, and they would be people who were so
important in their regular assignments that they would be sorely
missed.
The branch heads favored the proposal with
enthusiasm. Although my original thought provided for only one Mission
66 committee, they suggested that a steering committee be set up
consisting primarily of the bosses of the members of the main committee.
Both were under my general supervision. The steering committee was to
meet with the Mission 66 committee at regular intervals to review the
work and make suggestions. The two committees worked well together and
came up with an outstanding report and program that were the envy of
other bureaus of the federal government. The members were:
|
Steering Committee |
Mission 66 Committee |
|
Lemuel A. Garrison, Chairman
Chief, Conservation and Protection Branch, Operations Division
Thomas C. Vint
Chief, Division of Design and Construction
Henry Langley
Chief, Programs and Plans Control Branch, Operations Division
John E. Doerr
Chief, Natural History Branch, Division of Interpretation
Donald E. Lee
Chief, Branch of Concessions Management, Operations Division
Keith Neilson
Finance Officer, Administration Division
Jackson E. Price
Chief, Branch of Lands, Operations Division
|
William C. Carnes, Chairman
Chief Landscape Architect, Division of Design and Construction
Harold G. Smith
Assistant Chief, Programs and Plans Control Branch, Operations Division
Robert M. Coates
Chief, Economics and Statistical Section, Conservation and Protection Branch
Howard N. Stagner
Principal Naturalist, Natural History Branch, Division of Interpretation
Jack B. Dodd
Assistant Chief Forester, Conservation and Protection Branch
Roy E. Appleman
Staff Historian, History Branch, Division of Interpretation
Raymond L. Freeman
Assistant Chief, Branch of River Basin Studies, Division of Cooperative Activities
|
|
We realized from the beginning that if the program
was to be successful we would have to have a title that was short,
expressive, easy to remember, and provocative. We spent some time on the
problem of the title at our first meeting, and our discussions
concerning a title helped us to form a better understanding of our total
objective. We felt a sense of "mission" in the program and listed all
that we hoped to accomplish. We talked about the time needed to do all
that had to be done. We felt we had to allow enough time to make certain
that what we did would be economically sound and well executed, and we
finally decided that ten years was the length of time to "try on for
size." Further, 1966 would mark the fiftieth anniversary of the
establishment of the National Park Service, and it would be a good
golden anniversary if the park system was in acceptable condition by
that time. We reasoned that everything we had in mind was contained in
two words, Mission 66.
|
The Mission 66 committee, whose members
devoted full time, including after hours, to setting up the program.
Left to right: Howard Stagner, naturalist; Bob Coates, economist;
Jack Dodd, forester; Bill Carnes, landscape architect and chairman;
Harold Smith, fiscal; Roy Appleman, historian; Ray Freeman, landscape
architectland planner. 1956. Courtesy National Park
Service.
|
Roy Appleman's account describes the temper of the
Washington office after the staff meeting on February 7: "Excitement ran
through the Park Service offices just before noon that Monday as word
passed around that a special study group had been formed to inquire into
possible changes in the service's policies and to plan for the future.
Members of the staff received news of their selection for the work with
a mingled feeling of surprise, uncertainty, and anticipation. But all
looked forward to the afternoon meeting when they would learn more about
the task ahead."
At that meeting I emphasized two things: one, a
reasonable objective for the service over a long period; and, two, a
program to accomplish that objective. I told them they wouldn't find
the answers in any book, regulation, or even in legislation, but we had
to find the answer, whatever it might be, because the public was not
satisfied with the condition of the national park system and was calling
on us to say what must be done, and why, to correct that condition; the
public wanted to see our cards. I handed down two dead lines. I informed
the staff that I wanted the program outline available for presentation
at the Public Services Conference at Great Smoky Mountains National Park
on September 18, 1955. I also got very emotional and told them that I
would give them until Friday, February 11, to prepare a memorandum that
I could send to the field and the personnel in the Washington office
informing them of the service's Mission 66 project and what we hoped to
accomplish.
The Mission 66 staff and the steering committee
started right to work. The memorandum was prepared and went out on time.
It stated in part:
The year 1966 will mark the Golden Anniversary of the
National Park Service. In an effort to solve, by that time, the
difficult problem of protecting the scenic and historic areas of the
National Park System from over-use and, at the same time, of providing
optimum opportunity for public enjoyment of the parks, I have initiated
a project which we are calling MISSION 66....
The purpose of MISSION 66 is to make an intensive
study of the problems of protection, public use, interpretation,
development, staffing, legislation, financing, and all other phases of
park operation, and to produce a comprehensive and integrated program
of use and protection that is in harmony with the obligations of the
National Park Service under the Act of 1916.
The immediate objective of MISSION 66 is the
development of a dynamic program to be presented to the Secretary for
consideration by the Bureau of the Budget and the Congress beginning
with the 1957 fiscal year estimates. The ultimate objective is
the complete execution of the program by the time the Service celebrates
its Golden Anniversary in 1966.
In the first two or three weeks the staff delved into
a considerable amount of history, policy, and legislation, going back to
the establishment of Yellowstone, the Antiquities Act, the founding of
the Park Service, the presidential reorganization orders of 1933, the
Historic Sites Act of 1935, the Park, Parkway, and Recreational-Area
Study Act of 1936, and the CCC program. As an axiom of intent and
purpose, the committee adopted for its own, a statement that was made
by Justice Mathew W. Hill in the case of Dexter v.
Washington and that was delivered in the Washington Supreme Court
on February 18, 1949 (202 Pacific reporter, 2d series): "Edmund Burke
once said that a great unwritten compact exists between the dead, the
living, and the unborn. We leave to the unborn a colossal financial
debt, perhaps inescapable, but incurred, none the less, in our time and
for our immediate benefit. Such an unwritten compact requires that we
leave to the unborn something more than debts and depleted natural
resources. Surely, where natural resources can be utilized and at the
same time perpetuated for future generations, what has been called
"constitutional morality" requires that we do so.
Each person within the Mission 66 staff and steering
committee was free to question anything he thought could be done in a
better way. Nothing was to be sacred, except the ultimate purpose to be
served. Men, method, and time-honored practices were to be accorded no
vested deference. Old traditions seem to have determined standards far
beyond their time; for instance, the distance a stagecoach could travel
in a day seemed to have been a controlling factor in establishing public
facilities in some parks.
By the end of February the Mission 66 committee had
started collecting detailed material in order to develop the program for
Mission 66. A request for factual information was sent to each division
and branch of the service, and a questionnaire was sent out to the
parks. (The term parks was to be common to all classifications of
areas in the system for the purposes of Mission 66.) The office in
Washington, the regional offices, and the field offices were instructed
to give high priority to any request that came from the Mission 66
committee or the steering committee. A list of twenty-eight items that
should be looked into in each park was tabulated. The Mission 66 staff
reviewed the Mount Rainier National Park master plan and asked for a
pilot study of Mount Rainier. The superintendent, Preston P. Macy, came
to Washington for five days. Macy was a man with many years of very
successful park administration experience. They had a lot of good "skull
practice" with Macy, with excellent results.
By March 17 work had progressed far enough that the
steering committee and Mission 66 staff felt a second memorandum should
go to the field. The memorandum reviewed the work done by the
committees, clarified certain of the earlier directives, summarized some
of the more troublesome problems, and outlined the steps yet to be
taken. It firmly requested suggestions and recommendations from the
field. Part of the memorandum was a questionnaire to be answered by
each park superintendent, outlining a course of action for the Mission
66 program in the park under his administrative control. All replies
were to be sent to the Mission 66 staff by April 11. Finally, the
memorandum also invited all employees to send any suggestions or
thoughts they might have to the Mission 66 staff in Washington. The
responses were many and good.
During the week of April 11 a meeting of regional
directors was held in Shenandoah National Park and attended by
representatives of the steering committee and the Mission 66 committee.
In view of the findings of the Mount Rainier National Park pilot study,
it was decided at that meeting that pilot studies should be carried out
on a variety of other areas. The parks selected constituted a good cross
section of the service's administrative, preservation, protection,
development, and visitor-use problems. They were Yellowstone National
Park, in Wyoming, Chaco Canyon National Monument, in New Mexico, Shiloh
National Military Park, in Tennessee, Adams Mansion National Historic
Site, in Massachusetts, Fort Laramie National Historic Site, in Wyoming,
and Everglades National Park, in Florida.
The Mission 66 staff placed on my desk once a week a
brief of their accomplishments on the subjects they were currently
pursuing or would be taking up the following week, together with a
statement on the decisions they had reached the past week. Copies of
this report went to key people in the Washington office. It reminded all
of their responsibility to speak out with suggestions or objections as
the work progressed and not to wait until the report was completed. I
quote from Roy Appleman's notes:
As often as his duties would permit, Mr. Wirth
stepped through the side door of his office to join the Staff informally
for a few minutes. He would comment on some aspects of the work or pass
on to the Staff members some bit of information he had just received. He
cut through the confusion that often seemed to overwhelm the Staff and
helped to keep its work on course by advice and criticism. Above all,
his optimism on the outcome of the Staffs work was of immeasurable
value.
As this indicates, everybody had a responsibility to
help put Mission 66 together. We were not going to have time for long
reviews after the committee finished its report which, when finished,
was to be final.
The service's field forces had conducted several
visitor polls during the summer at the request of the Mission 66
committee, and the results followed very closely those of a poll made by
an outside organization that was not financed by National Park Service
funds. Of approximately 1,750 persons interviewed, a total of 718 had
visited national parks in the preceding five years. Of those, 69 per
cent had complaints of one kind or another. Many complaints concerned
the facilities available in a park and the general condition of the
parks; there were very few complaints against Park Service personnel.
About one-third mentioned overcrowding, and about one-half referred to
overnight accommodations. Practically all park visitors wanted either
cabin or motel accommodations. Very few wanted hotel accommodations,
and only 14 per cent wanted campgrounds. Seventy per cent visited a park
for one day or less, and only 29 per cent stayed overnight.
In 1952, my first full year as director, we had a
field meeting in Glacier National Park. At that time we got a lot of
complaints from the ladies about living conditions for the staff in the
parks. I had seen some of the housing, and it was terrible. At that time
I asked Herma Baggley, wife of George Baggley, then superintendent of
the Lake Meade National Recreation Area, in Arizona and Nevada, if she
would head a committee made up of a Park Service wife from each park to
get pictures and make a report with recommendations on the condition of
their housing. Tom Vint was to work with them in drawing up standard
floor plans for new housing. Besides the terrible condition of the
buildings, the rooms and windows were of different sizes in different
parks so that when a family moved from one park to another such items as
furniture, rugs, and curtains did not fit. The ladies did a great job,
and their final two-volume report, with pictures and descriptions, came
in just about the time Mission 66 got started. It fitted right into the
scheme of things. The report contained standard floor plans for two- and
three-bedroom houses. The exterior architectural appearance of these
more or less uniform houses could be varied and suited to a particular
locality. This study made a great impression on the Bureau of the Budget
and the committees of Congress and resulted in the building of thousands
of new homes for our field people.
|