THE IMPACT OF CONCESSION OPERATIONS ON HERITAGE RESOURCE INTERPRETATION IN THE STA TE PARKS OF ALASKA AND THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST by SYLVIA HAINES ELLIOTT A THESIS Presented to the Interdisciplinary Studies Program: Historic Preservation and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science June 1994 / 11 "The Impact of Concession Operations on Heritage Resource Interpretation in the State Parks of Alaska and the Pacific Northwest," a thesis prepared by Sylvia Haines Elliott in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Master of Science degree in the Interdisciplinary Studies Program: Historic Preservation. This thesis has been approved and accepted by: R bert z. Melnick, Chair of the Examining Committee Date 1 Committee in charge: Robert z. Melnick, Chair Donald L. Peting Joan M. Antonson David Brauner Vice Prov t and Dean of the Graduate School 111 Copyright 1994 Sylvia Haines Elliott iv Sylvia Haines Elliott An Abs tract of the Thesis of for the degree of Master of Science in the Interdisciplinary Studies Program: Historic Preservation to be taken June 1994 Title: THE IMP ACT OF CONCESSION OPERATIONS ON HERITAGE RESOURCE INTERPRETATION IN THE STATE PARKS OF ALASKA AND THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST Approved: Robert Z. Melnick Since passage of the National Historic Preservation Act in 1966, the state park systems of Alaska and the Pacific Northwest have made efforts to acquire, preserve and interpret heritage resources which contribute significantly to public understanding of the history and development of this region. Legislative funding specifically allocated for restoration and maintenance of historic buildings and landscapes has been relatively minimal, however, forcing administrators to seek alternative revenue sources. Several parks have been able to generate additional income by leasing historic buildings to private businesses which provide goods and services to park visitors. Some of these operations have introduced visual elements V which compromise the historic character of heritage resources. This occurs because of the differing purpose and goals of private enterprise and state parks. This paper will evaluate eight concessions using a single criterion: Is visitor recognition and understanding of the parks' historic resources eroded or enhanced by commercial operations? CURRICULUM VITA NAlvfE OF AUTHOR: Sylvia Haines Elliott PLACE OF BIRTH: Seattle, Washington DATE OF BIRTH: February 8, 1949 GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED: University of Oregon University of Alaska Anchorage Anchorage Community College DEGREES AWARDED: Master of Science in Interdisciplinary Studies Program: Historic Preservation, 1994, University of Oregon Bachelor of Arts in History, 1989, University of Alaska Anchorage Associate of Applied Science in Interior Design, 1986, Anchorage Community College AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST: Heritage Resource Interpretation for State and National Parks PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Intern, Office of History and Archaeology, State of Alaska, Anchorage, Summer 1990 Intern, Office of History and Archaeology, State of Alaska, Anchorage, January - July 1990 Vl Docent, Anchorage Museum of History and Art, January - July 1989 Vll ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author expresses sincere appreciation to her father and stepmother, Douglas and Elizabeth Fugitt, for their support and assistance during the preparation of this manuscript. In addition, special thanks are due to my committee chair, Robert Z. Melnick for his guidance with this project, and to my committee members Jo Antonson, Don Peting, and David Brauner for their comments. I am also particularly indebted to Ted Sobel and Teri Yaeger for their help with formatting, and to my sisters, Lynda Leary and Laurie Monterey for their assistance and encouragement during my field research. Also appreciated is the cooperation of the many individuals connected with Alaska, Washington, Idaho and Oregon State Parks. And for their constant encouragement and support during graduate school, I am deeply grateful to Jean and Alex Agha, Lisa Anderson, Carol and Steve Burkhart, Rolfe Buzzell, Diane and Mike Carr, Janet and Al Clemens, Sue Curley, Frank Culbertson, Jayne and Greg Dittmer, Paula Eckman, Linda Evans, Donna Hartmans, Joan Kelley, Donna Lane, Molly Meyers, Tim Netsch, Terry and Joel Narva, Dena Sanford, Patti Sobel, Dave Skilton, Ross Sutherland, Lisa Teresi-Burcham, Rebecca and David Thompson, Jerome Vergamini and Steve Yaeger. Vlll TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION .......... ........ ... .. . .. . .................. 1 >Jotes ........ . ..... . ............................. . ...... 9 II. TOCRISM AND CONCESSION OPERATIONS IN THE NATIONAL PARKS: 1884-1992 Commercial Operations in the National Parks: 11 1864 - 1915 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 12 Frederick Law Olmsted and the National Park Ideal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Early Visitor Services: Yosemite and Yellowstone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Esthetic Conservation: Tourism as a Vehicle for Resource Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 The Changing Definition of Park Tourism: 1916 - 1941 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 The Railroad Era of National Park Tourism: 1883-1920 ......................... . ........... 19 Automobiles in the Parks: Changes in Concession Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Concessions Consolidation: Regulated Monopolies, Public Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Park Visitation During the Depression . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 The Civilian Conservation Corps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Historic Preservation Legislation and the National Parks ...... . ......................... 31 Issues of Appropriate Use and Development in the National Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Growth of Concession Operations in the National Parks: 1942 -1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 The Effect of World War II on Park Tourism and and Concessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Post-War Pressures on Parks and Concessioners . . . . 35 IX Redefining the Purpose and Scope of National Park Visitor Services: 1970 - 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 National Parks for the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 The Conglomerates ............................. . . 45 Congressional Hearings and House Report, 1976: NPS Concessions Management Policy ... .. 48 Continuing Status Quo, Continuing Criticism: Commercialism and the Parks During the 1980s . . 52 1990 Congressional Hearings: Concessions Policy of the National Park Service .. .. . ....... . . 54 Sale of MCA, Inc. to Matusushita Electric Industrial Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 National Park Service Concessions Policy Reform Act of 1991 . .. .. ..... ....... ... .. .. .... 58 NPS 1991 (Draft) Master Plan for Yosemite . . . . . . . . 59 S1755: 1992 Congressional Hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 1993 and Beyond: Restoration of the National Park Ideal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Notes................. . ...... .. . ... .............. ... .. 66 III. STATE PARKS: SELECTED ISSUES OF PURPOSE AND DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Nineteenth Century Beginnings: the State Park Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 The Adirondack State Forest Preserve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 State Parks: 1864 - 1895 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Preservation Societies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 State Park Systems in the Twentieth Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 The National Conference on State Parks . . . . . . . . . . . 90 The 1920s: Defining State Park Purpose and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 State Park Development: 1930 -1949 .. ...... ....... 97 World War II and the Early Post-War Years .. .. .. . . 101 State Parks Since 1970: Quality of Use Issues for Heritage Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Notes . .. .. ... . ..................................... .. 118 X IV. STATE PARKS: A REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . 128 State Park Systems of Alaska and the Pacific Northwest .... .. ......... . ... ... ... .. . .. ....... .. .. 130 Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation . . . . . . 130 Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission ... .. ... ....... . ... . .. .. ... . . . ... 143 Idaho State Parks and Recreation Department . . . . . . 152 Oregon State Parks and Recreation Department . . . . 161 Conclusion ..... .. .... ... ..... . . .. ... .. .. . .. .. . . . . . ... 181 Notes . .. . . .. . . .... .... ... . ... . . ..... .. .. ..... ...... . . 185 V. CONTRACTING FOR VISITOR SERVICES: PROCEDURES AND POLICIES ... ..... . ... .. . .. ... . .. .. . . 194 Overview Comparison: National Park and State Park Contracting and Lease Procedures . . ... . . ... 195 Procedures for Establishing State Park Concessions . . . . . . . 197 Evaluation of Proposed Concession and Its Impact on the Surrounding Community . . . . . . . 198 Letters of Interest, Request for Proposals . . . . . . . . . . 201 Evaluation of Proposals, Selection of Concessionaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 The Concession Contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 Notes . ...... .. .... .. . .... ... . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . .. . .... 220 VI. CONCESSION OPERA TIO NS IN EIGHT HISTORIC BUILDIN'GS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 Visitor Service Buildings Contructed by the CCC for State Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 Rocky Point Lodge, Heyburn State Park, Plummer, Idaho . ....... . ... . . . ... . .... ... ... . 231 Silver Falls Lodge, Silver Falls State Park, Sublimity, Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Concession Building, (Former Bathhouse), Jessie M. Honeyman Memorial State Park, Florence, Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 Food and Lodging for Travelers ....... ...... . . . ......... 241 Frenchglen Hotel State Wayside, Frenchglen, Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 Wolf Creek Tavern State Wayside, WolfCreek,Oregon ... .... . . . ..... ... . . .. . . .. 248 Rika' s Roadhouse, Big Delta State Historical Park, Big Delta, Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 Federal Government.Support Services Buildings . . . . . . . . 259 Potter Section House State Historic Site, Chugach State Park, Indian, Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 Artillery Engineer Cable House, Fort Worden State Park, Port Townsend, Washington . . . . . . . 266 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272 Notes . ... ... ...... .. . . .. . .......... ...... . ... ... .. ... 273 VII. STATE PARK CONCESSIONS: THEIR FUNCTIONAL ROLE IN HERITAGE RESOURCE INTERPRETATION . . . . . 276 Advertising and Signage .. ........ . ...... . . .... . . .. . ... 278 Merchandise Selection and Display . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 Written and Verbal Information . .... ... . . ... .... . ... .. . 281 Federal Government Support Services Buildings . . . . . . . . 283 Artillery Engineer Cable House, Fort Worden State Park, Port Townsend, Washington . . . . . . . . . 283 Potter Section House State Historic Site, Chugach State Park, Indian, Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286 Food and Lodging for Travelers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289 Rika' s Roadhouse, Big Delta State Park, Big Delta, Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289 Wolf Creek Tavern State Wayside, Wolf Creek, Oregon .... ...... . ... . .... ..... . .. . 295 Frenchglen Hotel State Wayside, Frenchglen, Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298 Visitor Service Buildings Constructed by the CCC for State Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302 Silver Falls Lodge, Silver Falls State Park, Sublimity, Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302 Concession Building, Jessie M. Honeyman Memorial State Park, Florence, Oregon . . . . . . . . . . 305 Rocky Point Lodge, Heyburn State Park, Plummer, Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311 Notes ... . ... . ......... ... .... .. . . . .. . .. .... .... ...... 315 Xll VIII. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323 Notes . . .. . ....... . .... . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . .. .. . ... ... . 333 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335 Xlll LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Comparison of State Park Systems in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska .. . ..... . ... . ...... ..... . . .. . ...... 184 2. Concession Agreements and Contracts: Fees and Percentage of Gross Receipts Paid by Contractor to State. . . . . 216 3. Visitor Service Buildings Constructed for State Parks by the Civilian Conservation Corps .. . .................. .. 230 4. Buildings Constructed to Provide Meals and Lodging for Travelers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 5. Federal Government Support Services Buildings ........ . ... 261 XIV LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Concessions located in Historic Buildings in the State Parks of Alaska and the Pacific Northwest, January 1990 . . . . . . . . . 129 2. Two Alaska State Parks with Concessions Located in Historic Buildings, 1990. Rita Cottnair Collection, University of Alaska Fairbanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 3. Ferry Crossing Tanana River at Big Delta, Alaska, ca. 1914 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 4. Tanana River at Big Delta State Historical Park, Alaska, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 5. Fairbanks-Valdez Stage, ca. 1911. John Zug Album, University of Alaska Fairbanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 6. Roadhouse at Big Delta, Alaska, ca. 1912. Reuel Griffin Collection, University of Alaska, Fairbanks . ....... . 138 7. Potter Section House on the Shore of Cook Inlet, Aerial, 1951. Alaska Railroad Collection, Anchorage Museum of History and Art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 8. Potter Section House, Indian, Alaska, 1952. The Anchorage Museum of History and Art 141 9. Potter Section House, ca. 1975. State of Alaska, Office of History and Archaeology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 10. Potter Section House State Historical Site, Chugach State Park, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 11. Fort Worden State Park on Washington's Olympic Penninsula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 xv 12. Fort Worden, Port Townsend, Washington, Aerial, ca. 1905. Courtesy, Jefferson County Historical Society .............. 149 13. Waterfront (Admiralty Inlet), Fort Worden, Port Townsend, Washington,ca. 1905. Courtesy, Coast Artillery Museum, Fort Worden ...... . ....... . ... .. 151 14. Heyburn State Park in Northwestern Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 15. Postcard, Lake Chatcolet, Heyburn State Park, Idaho. Photographer Unknown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 16. Rocky Point Lodge, Heyburn State Park, ca. 1945. Courtesy, Interpretive Center, Rocky Point Lodge . . . . . . .. .. 158 17. Dining Room, Rocky Point Lodge, Heyburn State Park, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 18. Dining Booths with Original Light Fixtures, Rocky Point Lodge, Heyburn State Park, ca. 1989. Courtesy, Leonard Watt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 19. Four Oregon Parks with Concessions Located in Historic Buildings, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 20. CCC Trail Below South Falls in Silver Falls State Park, Oregon, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 21. Rock Steps with Railing, CCC Trail Below South Falls in Silver Falls State Park, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 22. Silver Falls Lodge, Silver Falls State Park, 1942. Oregon Historical Society . . ........... . .. . . ........ . . . ... 170 23. Bathhouse, Lake Cleawox, Jessie M. Honeyman Memorial State Park, Oregon, ca. 1950s. Oregon Historical Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 24. Wolf Creek Tavern, Wolf Creek, Oregon, ca. 1920s. Oregon Historical Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 25. "Aerial View of French glen in the 1950s." Postcard, Geneva Publishing Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 xvi 26. Frenchglen Hotel, Frenchglen, Oregon, ca. 1930s. Postcard, Geneva Publishing Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 27. Metal Stair Rail, Frenchglen Hotel State Wayside, Frenchglen, Oregon, 1991 . .. . . . ... . .. . . . . .... . . . 180 28. Cattle on Street in Frenchglen, Oregon, 1991 181 29. Guest Room, Frenchglen Hotel State Wayside, Oregon, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 30. RFP for Wolf Creek Tavern State Wayside Concession. Oregon State Parks Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 31. Log Infill of Windows, North Facade, Rocky Point Lodge, Heyburn State Park, 1991 .... . ......... . ... . ..... . . 233 32. Metal and Glass Door, West Entrance, Rocky Point Lodge, Heyburn State Park, Idaho, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 33. Door to Walk-In Cooler, for Kitchen at Rocky Point Lodge, Heyburn State Park, Idaho, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 34. South Facade, Cooler Door, Rocky Point Lodge, Heyburn State Park, 1991 ....... . ... . ... . .......... 234 35. Concession Merchandise Displayed in Windows, West Entrance, Silver Falls Lodge, 1991 . . .. .. . . .. .. . ... .. . 236 36. West Entrance Near Concession Area, Silver Falls Lodge, Silver Falls State Park, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 37. Interior, Concession Area, West Entrance to Silver Falls Lodge,1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238 38. Concession Area in West Entryway to Silver Falls Lodge, Silver Falls State Park, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238 39. South Entrance, Concession Building (Former Bathhouse), Jessie M. Honeyman Memorial State Park, Oregon, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 XYll 40. North Entrance, Concession Building, Jessie M. Honeyman Memorial State Park, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 41. Interior, Concession Building, Jessie M. Honeyman Memorial State Park, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 42 Souvenir Merchandise, Concession Building, Jessie M. Honeyman Memorial State Park, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 43. Frenchglen Hotel State Wayside, Frenchglen, Oregon, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 44. Brochure, Frenchglen Hotel State Wayside, 1991. Courtesy, Oregon State Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 45. Lobby and Dining Room, Frenchglen Hotel State Wayside, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 46. Wolf Creek Tavern State Wayside, Wolf Creek, Oregon, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 47. Souvenir Display in Coffee Shop, Wolf Creek Tavern State Wayside, 1991 . .... . . . .... ... .. . .. .......... 251 48. Milepost Advertisement for Big Delta State Historical Park, Alaska, Designed by Concessionaire, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 49. Fur Stoles: Postcard Advertisement for Whitestone Furs of Alaska in Big Delta State Historical Park, 1991. Whitestone Furs of Alaska . . . .... . ......... . .. 255 50. Fur Accessories: Big Delta State Historical Park, 1991 Postcard, Whitestone Furs of Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 51. Rika' s Roadhouse, Big Delta State Historical Park, Alaska, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 52. Concessionaire's Fur Salon, Second Floor of Rika's Roadhouse, Big Delta State Historical Park, Alaska, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 XVlll 53. Interpretive Display (Kitchen) by Concessionaire, Rika's Roadhouse, Big Delta State Historical Park, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . 2.57 54. Souvenir Display in Concessionaire Gift Shop, Rika's Roadhouse, Big Delta State Historical Park, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . 2.57 55. Member of Concessionaire Staff Posing as Live Mannequin, Gift Shop, Rika's Roadhouse, Big Delta State Historical Park, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.59 56. Postcard, "Historic Potter Section House," Chugach State Park. Dennis Freeman and Kathy Snitker, Arctic Circle Enterprises . ...... . ... ..... .. ... . . .... ...... 262 57. Concessionaire's Brochure for Potter Section House State Historic Site, Chugach State Park, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 58. Paint Cratering in Kitchen of Potter Section House Prior to Opening of Gift Shop. State of Alaska, Office of History and Archaeology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 59. Souvenirs in Concessionaire's Gift Shop (Kitchen), Potter Section House, Chugach State Park, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . 265 60. ''The Picnic Basket," Concession Located in Artillery Engineer Cable House, Fort Worden State Park, Washington, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268 61. "Cable House Canteen," Beach Concession (Artillery Engineer Cable House), Fort Worden State Park, Washington, 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268 62. Concessionaire-Designed Menu/Brochure, "Cable House Canteen," Fort Worden State Park, Washington, 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 63. Searchlight Tower (ca. 1898) at Point Wilson, Fort Worden State Park, 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270 64. Interior, "Cable House Canteen," Souvenir T-Shirts with Concession Logo, 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 XlX 65. Souvenir T-Shirts, Frenchglen Hotel State Wayside, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300 66. Visitor Opinion Card for Frenchglen Hotel State Wayside. Oregon State Parks ...... ....... ... . ... . .. 330 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION As first envisioned, preservation meant restoring a building as a historic object. Increasingly, it means finding a new use for pieces of our cultural environment. New materials for rehabilitation alone will not be preservation panaceas; good planning and the need to make new uses consistent with the fabric of the past will become ever more important. A major loss of historic ... character is caused by introducing incompatible new uses in existing buildings. Because buildings must be used if they are to survive, the uses to which they are subjected are of critical importance.1 E. Blaine Cliver, 1992 Past Meets Future: Saving America's Historic Environments 1 Since passage of the Historic Preservation Act of 1966, state park agencies have become increasingly committed to their role in the preservation of America's heritage resources. In Alaska and the Pacific Northwest, this has resulted in the acquisition of historic properties for new park units, in addition to Parks' restoration, reconstruction or rehabilitation of historic buildings in existing parks, formerly unacknowledged as significant. The adaptive uses of the historic buildings examined in t11is study have been determined in varying degrees by the heritage preservation goals of the individual park systems, Parks' budgetary constraints, and practical considerations dictated by the condition, configuration, and location of each building. In certain respects, these buildings have benefited from their occupation by private enterprise: it has protected them from vandalism and theft, prevented 2 the extremes in temperature which often damage historic interiors, and in several cases provided needed revenue for building maintenance. These vernacular buildings were originally used for commercial or utilitarian purposes, and are representative of the changing emphasis of historic preservation: "attention has shifted from things and places of high architectural merit or unique historical consequence to those that have played a part in the lives of ordinary people."2 Given their original function, decreases in legislated funding for park operations and maintenance, the need to provide services to park visitors, and the fact that "saving old structures often costs less in materials, energy and capital than replacing them with new buildings," park agencies decided to adaptively use a number of these historic buildings for park concessions operated by private contractors.3 This decision was based on the assumption that "historic preservation and economic development can be consistent and mutually beneficial public and private goals."4 This assumption has proved itself only partially correct, however. Although the historic fabric of the buildings has remained relatively protected (by contract provisions which prohibit physical alteration by concessionaires), the presentation of these buildings to the public as significant historic resources has often been compromised. This has been caused by the failure of concessionaires to acknowledge the visual aspects of these buildings which are integral to their historic character: "feelings conveyed by ... sense of time and place."5 Perception of a building as historic is related to "surface qualities of the materials ... because they impart the very sense of craftsmanship and age that distinguishes historic buildings from other buildings."6 Especially in "more modest buildings, the plainness of surface materials and finishes may be an aspect of their historic character.''7 3 Conflict between State Parks' mission to "protect and enhance sites ... of outstanding historic value for the ... education of present and future generations"8 and the profitable operation of commercial enterprises has occurred at these sites as a result of several relatively common business practices. Although certain techniques of advertising, merchandise selection, and merchandise display have proven effective for the park contractor in terms of product sales, these practices have often camouflaged the building's historic character. This in turn has undermined State Parks' interpretive mission: presentation of the building to visitors as a significant heritage resource. Interpretation, an integral component of historic preservation in state parks, has long been recognized as a necessary function of visitor service in order to engender visitor appreciation of these public lands. Concessionaires, because their operations are highly visible and accessible to park visitors, play a functional role in resource interpretation. Although some of the concessions examined in this study were not intended by state park management to be interpretive in nature, they nonetheless constitute a passive representation of the building' s importance to the state park: "what [park management] encourages . . . visitors to do in a park is a statement to visitors ... [of] what that park really stands for."9 If the appearance of the park concession resembles a commercial enterprise in a shopping center or city park, it is difficult for visitors to apprehend the unique purpose of state parks or the intrinsic value of the historic building and surrounding landscape. Examination of over one hundred years of concession operation by the private sector in the national parks reveals an extensive history of property misuse.10 Many of these problems resulted from the tendency of commercial 4 operations to promote their profit objectives over Parks' preservation goals. For this reason, the practice of utilizing his toric buildings to house privately operated state park concessions requires critical re-evaluation, based on this history, the resource stewardship role of State Parks, and the lack of existing contract provisions which address preservation of his toric resource character. The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of commercial operations on Parks' presentation of concession buildings as significant heritage resources. The key issue is: how is visitor understanding of building significance and the resource conservation purpose of state parks enhanced or eroded by existing concession operations? Visitor recognition and appreciation of historic buildings is crucial in order to gain public support for the funding necessary to protect them. As an educator at the 1991 National Trust Conference observed, "if we want people to get involved in protecting their historic and cultural resources, we must help them recognize these places as part of their heritage."11 Determination of the impact of concession operations on historic buildings in selected state parks is based on the following: 1. Examination of the history of privately operated concessions in national parks from 1884 to 1992. 2. Presentation of selected issues relating to the purpose and development of state park systems. 3. Overview of the history, organization, funding, and heritage preservation goals of the park systems of Alaska, Washington, Idaho, and Oregon. 4. Findings from site visits to eight concessions. 5. Examination of provisions in the concession contracts for these eight commercial operations which address resource interpretation issues. State park concessions in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest were selected 5 as a study region based on similarities of architectural style, original function, and current adaptive use of the historic buildings: The geographic and financial limitations of the researcher were also a determinant. Methodology employed in the assessment of concession impact involved a review of literature pertaining to national and state park concessions, review of the transcripts of congressional hearings on concession policy reform in the national parks, examination of state park department files in Alaska, Washington, Idaho and Oregon, an inquiry letter sent to forty-six state park agencies, and interviews with state park department administrators, district and regional managers, on-site park managers, park rangers, and concessionaires. Eight concession contracts (representing the total number of concessions operating in historic buildings in Alaska, Washington, Idaho, and Oregon state parks as of January 1991) were also examined, and each concession was visited twice.12 This study is presented in eight chapters, beginning with a history of private contracting in public parks and ending with recommendations for improving the quality of contractor-provided visitor service as it relates to interpretation of the park's significant resources. Chapter II of this paper chronicles the operation of concessions in the national parks from the late nineteenth century through the final decade of the twentieth century. This history is offered to provide a context for examination and comparison of similar commercial operations in state parks. The focus of Chapter III is a discussion of selected issues pertaining to the purpose of state parks, and how various definitions of this purpose affected both their recreational development and their resource preservation goals. Chapter IV gives the history, organization and funding sources for the park systems of the study region. It also provides a brief biography of each of the historic buildings 6 examined in this study and the parks in which they are located. All but one of the buildings are listed on the National Register of Historic Places.13 Chapter V examines specific provisions in the concession contracts for each park which relate to the preservation and interpretation of historic buildings. It also details the process used to select park contractors and the inherent limitations of these procedures. Visits to each of the concession operations are described in Chapter VI. Site visits were conducted for the purpose of evaluating three aspects of commercial operation: advertising and signage, merchandise selection and display, and verbal and written information provided to visitors. Chapter VII provides an appraisal of the impact of the concessionaire's business practices on the building's presentation to visitors as a significant historic resource. Operations were evaluated to determine \vhich aspects of advertising, merchandising and information distribution promoted visitor understanding of the concession building's historic significance. The conclusion of this study, Chapter VIII, offers an assessment of the limitations and difficulties associated with the use of historic buildings by State Parks for provision of visitor goods and services. It also suggests ways in which the operation of these concessions may be improved in order to provide a basic level of resource interpretation for park visitors. There are a number of limitations to this study. The first of these is the lack of a data base pertaining to the history of concessions in state parks as an aggregate body. There is, however, a vast amount of information available which documents the history of commercial operations in the national parks. This history will be used to illustrate the difficulties inherent when a government agency entrusted with resource stewardship allows the private sector (motivated 7 by profit) to define the goods and services necessary for public enjoyment of the parks. Secondly, this study examines concessions only in the context of heritage resource interpretation. Legal and economic issues of concession management are not discussed except as they relate to this focus. Concession operations in general (those located in non-historic buildings) were not investigated. This study also does not directly compare or evaluate the resource preservation and private contracting policies of Alaska, Washington, Idaho and Oregon State Parks. Finally, this paper does not propose solutions to the financial challenges associated with historic resource preservation in state parks, nor to the economic difficulties that concessionaires face in their provision of visitor services. Specific terms (and their usage) are defined as follows: "Contractor," "private contractor," "park contractor," "service provider," "concessioner," and "concessionaire," all denote individuals or groups of individuals not affiliated with national and state parks who provide visitor services in the parks. "Concessioner" is the preferred spelling used by the National Park Service (NPS), and "concessionaire" the spelling that is favored by most state park systems. Within the text, "concessioner" will be used when referring to contractors in national parks and "concessionaire" when discussing contractors in state parks. "Resource conservation," "historic preservation" and "heritage resource management" are used interchangeably to describe one of the primary mandates of state park systems. A basic premise of this study is the assumption that a certain degree of interpretation is inherent in State Parks' conservation of historic objects, structures, buildings and landscapes. "Necessary visitor goods and services" refers to any items or services which a state park system has decided are necessary for the visitors' enjoyment of a specific park. "Merchandise" 8 generally denotes non-food items. The terms "contract," "lease," and "leasehold agreement" are used interchangeably to identify the legal document that lays out the terms governing the contractor's provision of visitor service in the park. "Parks" (capitalized) denotes the administrative agency for a state park system, a..n.d "parks" (uncapitalized) refers to more than one state park unit. State parks have experienced many of the same problems as national parks in their role as trustees of the parks' historic resources. As the assistant director for Cultural Resources in the National Park Service observed in 1979: the historical parks have not enjoyed the vociferous and dedicated constituency that the natural ... parks have had. There are pressures on our smaller parks - almost all of which are historical and archeological - pressures to ... permit various kinds of commercial exploitation of their resources.14 It is hoped that this study will serve as an information base for further research on concessions and state parks, and raise the questions necessary for a re-evaluation of concession contracting in historic buildings. Notes 1 E. Blaine Cliver, "Revisiting Past Rehabilitation Practices," in Past Meets Future: Saving America's Historic Environments, ed. Antoinette Lee (Washington, D.C.: Preservation Press, 1992), 177-178. 2David Lowenthal and Marcus Binney, ed., Our Past Before Us: Whv Do We Save It? (London: Maurice Temple Smith Ltd, 1985), 220. 3fuid, 227. 4Donovan D. Rypkema, "Rethinking Economic Value," in Past Yieets Future: Saving America's Historic Environments, ed. Antoinette Lee (Washington, D.C.: Preservation Press, 1992), 205. 5Lee H. Nelson, FAIA, Preservation Brief 17, Architectural Character: Identifving the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to Preserving Their Character (Washington, D.C. : National Park Service, u. S. Department of the Interior, undated), 1. 6fuid, 2. 7Ibid, 10. 8Llnda Lopez and Martin Wheeler, "Start Up Notebook for Friends Groups" (Salem: Oregon State Parks and Recreation Department, 1991), Chap. 4, 2, photocopied. 9Dr. Harry Butowsky, "Recreation and the Historical Park," CRM Bulletin 2 (December: 1979) : 5. 10Alfred Runte, National Parks: The American Experience, 2nd ed.rev. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1987), 162-169; William C. Everhart, The National Park Service (Boulder: Westview Press, 1983), 110-116; Earl Pomeroy, In Search of the Golden West: The Tourist in Western America (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1957), 164; Charles Stevenson "Shocking Truth About Our Natural Parks, " Landscaoe Architecture 45 (January 1955): 57-59; Gladwin Hill, "Pristine Preserves or Popcorn Playgrounds?," Saturdav Review January 1972, 40; and Jack Anderson, "Yosemite: Another Disneyland?," The Washington Post, 15 September 1974, 2. 9 11Kathleen A. Hunter, "Tangible Texts for Heritage Education," in Past Meets Future: Saving America's Historic Environments, ed. Antoinette Lee (Washington, D.C. : Preservation Press, 1992), 233. 12The only exception is Rocky Point Lodge in Heyburn State Park, Idaho, which was visited only once. 13Rocky Point Lodge, Heyburn State Park, Idaho. 14Russ Holland Jr., "The Park Service as Curator," l\"ational Parks and Conservation Magazine 53 (August 1979): 15. 10 CHAPTER II TOURISM A.t"JD CONCESSION OPERATIONS IN THE NATIONAL PARKS: 1884-1992 What is fundamentally idealistic cannot fail to be eventually economic. Idealism and economics are inalienably related by virtue of the former's tremendous commercial value. Mark R. Daniels, landscape engineer, Department of the Interior, address before the American Civic Association, December 3, 19141 11 Since 1872, when two million acres of wilderness land in northwest Wyoming, southern Montana and eastern Idaho were designated by Congress as Yellowstone National Park, the Secretary of the Interior has had the power to "grant leases 'at such places as shall require the erection of buildings for the accommodation of visitors.' "2 This provision for visitor services was based upon the precedent set by the Yosemite Act of 1864 which deeded the Yosemite Valley to the State of California, specifying that "basic accommodations and visitor services in the parks would be provided by private concessioners."3 It can be argued, however, that both parks were established to protect the land from American private enterprise. William C. Everhart, in his book The National Park Service. related that during the hearings which led to the establishment of Yellowstone as public park land, one senator expressed the fear that "if Yellowstone were not protected, some chiseler would 'plant himself right across the path that leads to these wonders, and charge every man that passes along between the gorges of these mountains a fee of a dollar or five dollars.' "4 12 This illustrates a basic dilemma that has troubled park systems in the United States since the late nineteenth century: what does stewardship for the nation's natural and cultural resources entail, and to what degree does private enterprise hinder or implement Park's stewardship role? The history of both the National Park Service and state park systems shows that this question has been asked many times in the past seventy-six years, and that a proper balance between provision of necessary visitor services and profit of private interests at the expense of resource integrity has yet to be fully realized. This chapter will provide a context for examination of current visitor­ service contracting in the state park systems of the Pacific Northwest and Alaska by tracing the history of tourism and concession operations in the national parks from the late 1800s to 1993. Most state park systems were established several decades after the National Park Service, and used the federal system as a model. For this reason, an understanding of how visitor service contracting developed in the National Parks and the affect which it has had on protection and interpretation of the parks' natural resources is relevant to understanding the relationship between commercial contracting and heritage resource preservation in state parks. Commercial Operations in the National Parks: 1864 - 1915 Frederick Law Olmsted and The National Park Ideal In the mid-nineteenth century, Frederick Law Olmsted, noted landscape architect and one of the original members of the Yosemite Park Commission, had a clear vision of the preservation ethic for National Parks, and repeatedly expressed his misgivings about commercial enterprises in the parks. Although Olmsted acknowledged that visitor access through the park was necessary, he 13 maintained that keeping the park reserves in as natural a state as possible should always take precedence over visitor services designed merely to replicate the comforts and familiarity synonymous with urban existence.-3 In an 1865 report prepared for the California legislature, "The Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Big Tree Grove," Olmsted outlined the policy recommendations he believed necessary for the wise management of this reserve. His report included specific governmental injunctions "against the obstacles . . . which the selfishness of individuals or combinations of individuals is liable to interpose ... "6 on this land. In this report, Olmsted made a number of important observations regarding commercial activities within the national parks. First, he recounted a centuries-old practice of Europe's ruling classes: the provision of "artificial pleasures .. . [for] the large mass of human[s] who ... spent their lives in almost constant labor."7 These government leaders considered it beyond the capacity "of ... humble toilers . . . to cultivate ... the facilities [necessary] for enjoying ... beauty either of nature or of art in any high degree." [Therefore,] "it was thought better to provide recreation for [the] masses by providing ... theatres, parades, and promenades where they will be amused ... "8 Clearly, Olmsted felt that such a paternalistic philosophy was anathema to the democratic purpose of American national parks. Regarding the nature of governmental stewardship appropriate for the newly established Yosemite reserve, Olmsted maintained that the first point to be kept in mind .. . is the preservation and maintenance as exactly as is possible of the natural scenery ... , [the very reason] which has caused Congress to treat it differently from other parts of the public domain."9 Responsible management of this area, wrote Olmsted, mandates "restriction ... within the narrowest limits consistent with the necessary accommodation of visitors, of all artificial constructions and the prevention of all constructions markedly inharmonious with the scenery or which would unnecessarily obscure, distort or detract from the dignity of the scenery.10 14 Olmsted's report, however, disappeared mysteriously and "never reached the [California] legislature. Had it done so and received favorable action," wrote his biographer Laura Roper, "the future of the valley would not have been jeopardized as it was in the next few years."11 Following Olmsted's resignation from the Commission in 1865, the influence of political interests rather than resource protection effected a transformation of the valley. By 1890, entrepreneurs providing transportation into Yosemite had erected a collection of "sheds, stables and fences" for their livestock.12 Much of the original vegetation was cleared to accommodate these structures, giving this portion of Yosemite the appearance of "a run-down farrn."13 The impetus for such development stemmed from the fact that spectacular land forms and other 'oddities of nature' were eminently marketable commodities. Runte described this attitude toward park resources as a mind set which valued national parks as "wonderland[s] to enthrall, rather than instruct, the visitor."14 It was upon such an attitude that the pattern and character of tourism in the national parks evolved. Early Visitor Services: Yosemite and Yellowstone During the late nineteenth century, concessioners in Yosemite created a carnival atmosphere amid the wilderness backdrop. In 1870, one contractor provided entertainment for tourists by flinging a live chicken over the edge of the 3,200 foot Glacier Point Promontory.15 This spectacle eventually gave way to a display known as the "firefall, ... where burning embers .. . would tumble to the valley floor"16 A later concessioner continued this ritual, adding the accompaniment of a violin to the firefa!l.17 Another entrepreneur provided novelty and enjoyment for visitors by cutting huge holes in the bases of Sierra Redwood trees so that carriages could drive through. 18 15 Initially the only way to reach the newly established national parks was by horse and pack mule. Both Yellowstone and Yosemite were remote from existing transportation lines, and early journeys to these areas took many days.19 Although stagecoaches soon replaced pack teams as the principal means of transportation, these trips were particularly arduous, even by the standards of the time. Visitors to Yosemite, wrote Olmsted, arrived "quite overcome with the fatigue and unaccustomed hardship of the journey."20 In 1894, one writer termed Yosemite "the most exhausting, expensive, and impressive excursion which the tourist can make ... "21 By 1916, tourism in the Yosemite Valley supported twenty-four private businesses which offered lodging, meals, and access through the park.22 One of the most enduring and financially successful of these operations was established in 1894 by the Curry family. Before its consolidation and expansion in later years, this early concession provided visitors with tours of the park, tent lodging and simple dining facilities. Concessions in Yellowstone, prior to the founding of the National Park Service, were characterized by Everhart as "disruptive and uneconomical" businesses which compromised both the natural resources of the park and the safety of visitors.23 Horace Albright, the first National Park Service superintendent of Yellowstone, reported after a 1919 park inspection that one contractor "was cutting away large sections of forests surrounding his hotels to fuel their 16 fireplaces," as well as selling trout caught in park lakes and rivers at his dining halls. 24 He also noted that ptomaine poisoning was a common occurrence, and that "all facilities were badly overcrowded and in need of extensive repairs."25 Everhart asserts that the basic business philosophy of this concessioner "established a precedent much favored by his successors: ... put as little money as possible into the operation, while extracting the maximum profit."26 Esthetic Conservation: Tourism as a Vehicle for Resource Protection Tourism, as promoted by preservationists during the first decades of the twentieth century, was seen as the key to protecting scenic areas. Conservationists, therefore, considered it imperative that private citizens be provided with convenient access to and accommodations within the park lands. Early park advocates believed that after a strong base of public support was generated, legislators could be convinced that preservation of scenic beauty "for public recreation and esthetic enjoyment constituted a legitimate use of the land."27 These early park proponents realized "that the survival of the reserves clearly hinged on the number of people who claimed direct benefits from scenic preservation."28 A differing view of responsible land use was advocated by those who supported the practice of utilitarian conservation. Utilitarian interests saw natural resources on public land, such as timber, as commodities to be nurtured primarily for harvest. It is important to note that in the last decade of the nineteenth century "there was no clear distinction between national forest 'reserves' and national 'parks' ... "29 Despite utilitarian belief that landscape protection "should be on a minimum scale only," some esthetic conservationists contended that utilitarian philosophy provided a useful rationalization for 17 resource protection: economic gain via tourism.30 Alliance between proponents of utilitarian conservation and those of scenic conservation, however, soon proved unwieldy. Although tourism could serve the economic ends of utilitarianism, it could not perpetuate itself without emphasis on the principles of scenic conservation. Gifford Pinchot of the Forest Service and John Muir, a founder of the Sierra Club, embodied the polarization of the commercial use and the scenic preservation philosophies, as well as the debate which still continues today over appropriate use of park resources. The 1913 flooding of Hetch Hetchy Valley in Yosemite National Park in order to provide drinking water for residents of San Francisco represented the triumph of "the economic concept of conservation based on Pinchot's idea of beneficial use."31 It also confirmed one of Muir's deepest fears: If [land] which lay within the boundaries of a national park could be flooded and used for extraneous purposes, then no park in the country would be safe from similar exploitation, commercial and otherwise, by would-be developers.32 After the damming of the Hetch Hetchy, preservationists realized that "unless the national parks were under the unified administration of a single agency willing to fight for their integrity, the parks could fall to development schemes one at a time."33 Sierra Club members began the task of securing such a national governing agency in 1910. After forming an alliance with other public interest groups, such as the General Federation of Women's Clubs, the National Federation of Audubon Clubs, and the Save-the-Redwoods League, the Sierra Club organized national parks conferences in 1911 and 1912. The result of these conferences was a formal recommendation by the Sierra Club that "a parks bureau [be established] within the Interior Department, where there would be organizational distance between it and the Forest Service."34 President Taft approved of this proposat and recommended that Congress establish such a bureau.35 The Changing Definition of Park Tourism: 1916 -1941 18 In 1915, Secretary of the Interior Franklin Lane recruited his friend Stephen T. Mather to "help bring some order into the management of Interior's national parks."36 Mather soon became aware that before an administrative bureau for the national parks could be established, it was necessary to arouse the interest of Congress and the general public. Mather began by initiating a program to publicize the parks and promote tourism. He realized that Congress would not give adequate support to the parks until the American people demanded it and that the American people would not do much demanding until they had been introduced to the parks.37 One year after Mather arrived in Washington D.C., Congress established the National Park Service, and Mather was appointed its first director. The enabling legislation, known as the National Park Act of 1916 or The Organic Act, directed the newly created bureau: to administer areas of the National Park System in accordance with the fundamental purpose of preserving their scenery, wildlife, natural and historic objects, and providing for their enjoyment in a manner that will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations38 The problems which faced the newly-created Park Service were formidable. Peter J. Blodgett, in ''Managing Concessions in the National Parks, 1916-33," states that "one of the most vexing challenges ... in 1917 and thereafter sprang from the service's obligation to oversee the conduct of the private concessionaires within the na tional parks."39 The purpose clause of the Organic Act, as interpreted by Mather and his assistant Horace Albright, specifically directed the bureau to implement 19 enjoyment of the parks by making them accessible to the general public. The challenge of this mandate was to effect "a proper balance between the rights of private enterprise and the responsibilities of public management."40 To this end, Mather and Albright sought out allies in business by portraying national parks as good opportunities ... for the tourist business. [They] realized that ... those whose livelihoods came to depend on the existence of the parks could be counted on to defend them. Mather pointed out to businessmen the great profits to be made in expanding facilities in national park concessions.41 The powerful ally which both the nascent Park administration and the scenic preservationist organizations needed to promote visitation of the national parks was the western railroad companies. The Railroad Era of National Park Tourism: 1883 - 1920 The railroads' investment in the national parks began well before Mather's tourism campaign. Since 1883, the Northern Pacific Railroad had been providing access to Yellowstone, and in 1907 the Yosemite Valley Railroad began operations in California. In the first decades of the twentieth century, investment by private corporations was absolutely crucial if accommodations for park visitors were to be provided, because the newly formed Park Service had very little in the way of operating funds, equipment, or personnel. Its budget was meager, about $30,000 a year for each of the parks ... and only $166 for each of the monuments. [It] badly needed funds for facilities development. Compared to other agencies, the Park Service was barely operational.42 Railroad Hotels The hotels and lodges constructed in the western national parks by the Santa Fe, Northern Pacific, Great Northern and Southern Pacific Railroads - the Wawona, Ahwahnee, Le Conte, El Tovar, and Grand Canyon - \.vere all 20 superbly crafted with careful attention to visitor comfort. These buildings, many designed in a romanticized style of Rustic-Classicism, projected a sense of grandeur derived from their setting and from the scale of building materials, much of it harvested from the parks with the consent of Park administration. Elements which comprised the Rustic Style were "log construction, steeply pitched gabled roofs and casement sashes; sapling and barreled balustrading, decorative shingling, carved wooden detailing and hickory furniture."-D The luxurious image which the buildings represented was all-important, for the railroads sought to portray civilized living amidst the wilderness.44 Their hotels provided conveniences such as "telephones, modern plumbing, steam heat, ... barbering [and] gourmet dining" for those who could afford the rail excursions.45 Although concessions of this type proved extremely successful in increasing park tourism, the buildings themselves often became destinations, supplanting the parks' natural features as the focus of visitor attention. A writer in 1920 commented that the El Tovar Hotel, located on the South Rim of the Grand Canyon, was .. . far too beguiling. From that comfortable quarter you look out and perhaps indolently come to the conclusion that you are seeing the whole Canyon. Nine people out of ten rest content with that view and that conclusion. They get no farther than the benches along the Rim . .. When the evening train goes out they go with it, rather glad that they came, and quite satisfied perhaps that they have seen the Canyon.46 Laura Soulliere, an architectural historian with the National Park Service, observed in the 1986 Architecture in the Parks: National Historic Landmark Theme Studv that "the natural wonders of the National Parks drew more visitors when the scenic beauty was enhanced by significant architecture worthy of writing home about."47 Luxury hotels, such as The Ahwahnee in Yosemite National Park, were seen by Park Service management as ... drawing card[s] not only to increase tourism ... - at a time [ when] park appropriations were directly related to numbers of visitors -but undoubtedly as a special haven for the important and influential whose backing of national parks was always welcome.48 21 Rodd L. Wheaton, a regional historical architect for the National Park Service, wrote that these concessions, "wilderness stage sets, adorned literally with the trappings of the frontier," imparted to the visitor "a basic preconceived, if not contrived, park experience."49 Earl Pomeroy, author of In Search of the Golden West: The Tourist in Western America, substantiates this assertion in his description of Glacier National Park Hotel, circa 1908: Guests arrived in jinrikishas, entered through a Chinese pagoda ... and chose between Swiss-costumed waitresses in the dining room or geisha-girl waitresses in the grill room; they ate to the sound of tom-toms beaten by Blackfoot Indians. The furnishings included bear skins and Navajo rugs on the floors and pelts and skulls on the walls.50 Automobiles in the Parks: Changes in Concession Facilities Although railroad companies provided the initial means of transport for visitors en masse to the remote western parks, their era of influence, from 1892 through 1929, was relatively brief. Soon after the first Ford Model Ts were marketed to the American public in 1908, automobiles began a transformation of park touring. Since auto travel was less costly than travel by rail, park visitation was no longer limited primarily to a segment of the population who could afford expensive rail excursions and lavish hotel accommodations. Significantly, many of the new tourists were families, and they did not desire the services that existed in the parks. Even if they could afford to stay in the park hotels, auto tourists shied away from them. Hotels, whether ... big or small, prestigious or sleazy, ... made middle-dass travelers feel awkward and ill at ease. Motoring in the open touring cars was a dusty business [and] respectable people did not feel comfortable entering a lobby in dirty touring clothes.51 22 The self-sufficient auto travelers that entered the national parks in 1911 (Crater Lake), 1913 (Yosemite) and 1915 (Yellowstone), were greatly resented by the concessioners.52 Popularly referred to as 'sagebrushers', they "flood[ed] the roads, stores, and campgrounds, . .. spoil[ing] the contained and profitable railroad-hotel business."53 According to an often-cited 1924 description, the sagebrusher, in marked contrast to the sedate rail tourist, ... cuts loose from all effeteness, bringing clothes and furniture and house and food - even the family pup- and lets his adventurous pioneering spirit riot ... in the mountain air.54 Despite the fact that by 1916 automobile travelers had begun to outnumber railroad excursionists,55 concessioners "lagged ... at building facilities catering to automobiles."56 Although in 1924, thirty-five percent of the visitors to Yellowstone still came by rail, four years later this number had dropped to just under seven percent.57 It took several more years for railroad companies to come to terms with the realization that the era of genteel park travel, limited to the select wealthy few, was drawing to a close. The transition to motorized vehicles forced many existing contractors, such as the stagecoach concession at Glacier National Park, out of business. In 1916 this concessioner was informed by the Park Service that his contract would not be renewed because "automobiles and horses could never coexist on the same roads, and ... automobiles ... would move travelers from one point to another more efficiently."58 Blodgett points out that by this decision the Park Service: established a fundamental principal to which it would return time and again: In managing park concessions, the service would insist upon 'businesslike' operations that devoted every effort to satisfying the needs and wants of park visitors. As in the past, the federal government would accept private enterprises, but not free enterprise, within the parks.59 23 This precept was a crucial one, because it emphasized that national parks were separate from open-market commerce. For businesses operating in the parks, unlimited capitalization was not intended to guarantee unlimited financial opportunity. Being able to drive through the parks gave visitors a degree of personal control over their "park experience," autonomy previously absent in the regimented sightseeing excursions of the railroad companies. Visitor independence changed the parks in several ways. The concession operations of the railroad companies had helped to prevent "rampant despoliation" of the park ''by controlling the movements of thousands of tourists ... by stagecoach from one hostelry to another."60 Automobile travelers, however, were not so easily restrained. In addition, because automobiles enabled a broader spectrum of Americans to visit the parks, concessioners perceived that profit margin depended on catering to a wider diversity of vacationer needs and tastes. New visitor services also reflected changes in the purpose of park tourism, a pursuit no longer proscribed by the conventions of nineteenth century Romanticism. Rather than the concessioner setting the standard for the quintessential or "proper" park tour, auto travelers set their own agendas and timetables for a self-directed visit. Concessioner profit now seemed to depend on catering to the actual requirements of park travel, instead of maintaining contrived enclaves of luxury. 24 Initially, the services that auto travelers required seemed relatively modest: gasoline stations, grocery stores, small cafes and sleeping accommodations. Overnight facilities for the first auto travelers were of three basic types: public campgrounds, "crude, half-cabin/half-tent structures as had been built in earlier years ('permanent camps')," and "rustic, inferior hos telries."61 Significantly, the automobile had changed the pace of travel within the park, making it possible for vacationers to see many more "sights" in a shorter period of time. Given the new emphasis on velocity, different marketing techniques were required to entice people first to stop, and then to stay long enough to spend their money at concession facilities. Although many preservationists heralded automobiles as the "convenient transportation [necessary for] the public .. . [to] support scenic preservation," not everyone was enthusiastic about motorized traffic in the parks.62 The naturalist Victor Cahalane deplored the "processions of automobiles, clumps of filling stations, gasoline smells, restaurants and hot dog stands," predicting that their proliferation would destroy the very reason for the parks' existence: their value as natural 'islands' in an expanding nation rapidly swallowing up its wilderness.63 The automobile, observed one historian," ... accelerated the confrontation between those who viewed the national parks as playgrounds, and those who ... saw them as sanctuaries."64 Concessions Consolidation: Regulated Monopolies, Public Utilities When Mather began the task of improving and standardizing the quality of service offered by park concessioners, he discovered many operations that were poorly run and exploitative. Besides the obvious hazards to human health 25 and resource preservation, Mather worried that these unprofessionally operated services would cause visitors to remember their park visit with displeasure, thereby "tarnishing the park's reputation ... and weakening the popular support necessary for more parks and bigger budgets."65 To correct this si tuation, ~.father set about creating a system of visitor services known as "regulated monopolies."66 Mather believed that this system would prevent: unrestrained competition among park concessionaires, [which] drained off the patronage necessary to earn a return upon investment, threatened the economic well-being of all competitors . . . and subjected ... the public to ... poor service and unscrupulous tactics.67 To implement his policy of regulated monopolies, Mather forced most of the existing park concessions into mergers, and by this process eliminated businesses run by "notably incompetent operators.1168 Although the forced mergers were bitterly opposed by many contractors, and some small businesses managed to survive by exception,69 by 1918 this course of action had achieved "success .. . [in] improving tourist facilities in all the parks."70 The Secretary of the Interior subsequently institutionalized this concession management strategy. In 1928, Park administration gave concessioners permission "to use their franchises as collateral against which to raise money for 'installing, enlarging or improving ... facilities for the accommodation of the public. ' "71 The intention of this provision was to encourage the stability of existing businesses and provide an incentive for their continued improvement. In addition to the franchise-as-collateral policy, the Park Service also had instituted iri 1924 the policy of preferential rights, which virtually guaranteed routine renewal of existing leases, provided the contractor had fulfilled visitor service obligations in a satisfactory manner.72 A former park concessioner, Don Hummel, wrote that "concessioners regard this [provision] as the cornerstone of concession policy."73 26 While providing a measure of security for existing park concessioners, the preferential rights provision severely limited the opportunity of other businesses who were interested in providing visitor services for the parks. Potential bidders, even if their proposed operations appeared of better quality than existing concessions, stood little chance of being awarded a lease unless the current contractor had performed abysmally. Preferential rights and the use of franchises as collateral were a response by Park administration to years of contractor insistence that the unique business risks inherent in operating park concessions - the short visitor season, the effect of weather conditions on park visitation, and the expense involved in transporting supplies to remote areas - deserved compensation. For the ?\ational Park Service, the preferential rights principle shifted the emphasis of policy from extracting the finest service possible from the best possible operators to extracting the best possible service from the operators available. To achieve this more modest goal, the [Park] service focused on ensuring that the operators then in the parks would have every means and every opportunity to combine good service with a fair profit.74 The contracts of 1926 park concessioners contained a significant provision (Article IX) which specified that "all buildings, fixtures, and appurtenances whether now on the land or hereafter placed thereon shall at all times be part of the realty and property of the United States."75 Although extremely unpopular with concessioners, this provision prevented creditors from seizing buildings in the parks for non- payment of debt by concessioners. It also reaffirmed the precept that private enterprise in the parks, although allowed, was not the same as commercial business operating in the private sector. Private business was allowed to operate in the parks only under the control of the federal government. In December of 1929, representatives of the twenty-nine major concession 27 operations in the parks met for a conference convened by NPS Director, Horace Albright. As a result of this meeting, concessioners in the western national parks (whose operations were now referred to as "public utilities" by the Park Service) formed an association, The National Park Operators Conference,76 According to its Statement of Purpose, this organization was designed To provide a mechanism by which ... Park Operators could . .. present or consider questions of policy affecting all concerned. To encourage better understanding and closer affiliations among the Operators themselves in the interests of better service, greater operating economies .. . To cooperate with the National Park Service in placing the contractual status of the Operators on a more logical, uniform, and secure basis. 77 Despite the Conference's goals of cooperation, conflict between commercial enterprise and the Park Service continued. In Yellowstone, the period from 1921 through World War II was characterized by one historian as a "litany of continual [contract] cancellation and renegotiation."78 The difficulties in this park, wrote Bartlett, seemed to stem from "a lack of research and planning by both sides prior to the signing of contracts, and too little respect by both parties for the sanctity of the contractual term."79 Despite these problems, however, the relationship between the Park Service and its single-operator public utilities was generally "a workable one."80 On another level, however, a fundamental conflict continued to characterize the relationship of the Park Service to its regulated monopolies. This conflict existed because of the inherent contradiction in providing "public pleasuring grounds"81 while mandating preservation of resources so as to "leave them unimpaired."82 Although the Park Service was instructed: to oppose commercialism in the parks resolutely, it exempted commercial use 'incidental to the accommodation and entertainment of visitors'. It emphasized that the public should have every opportunity 'wherever possible, to enjoy the national parks in the manner that best satisfies the individual taste.'83 28 A focus on catering to individual tastes of park visitors set the stage for increasing compromise of the essential character of the National Parks, areas intended to be distinct from the mainstream of urban America. Efforts to accommodate diverse expectations of what constituted "necessary" services encouraged a generic definition of the park experience based on popular taste and the economic goals of private enterprise. The sanctity of the American free­ enterprise system provided a further rationale for diversification and expansion of concession operations. Although an article in a 1921 issue of The Ladies Home Journal described the national parks as "the last national resource the American people have withheld from commercial exploitation,"84 this distinction was tenuous at best. Commercial exploitation had, in fact, existed since the inception of the national park system and was checked only temporarily by the Great Depression of the 1930s and by World War II. Park Visitation During The Depression Opinions vary on the affect that the Depression had on park visitation and concession operations. Runte maintains that the Depression did not decrease tourism in the national parks: in fact, just the reverse was true. Visitation . .. climbed steadily from approximately three million in 1929 to more than twelve million immediately prior to World War II. Yosemite and Yellowstone averaged between 400,000 and 500,000 visitors annually, an all-time high.85 Everhart, however, writes that only a "relatively wealthy few .. . [ were] 29 able to travel during the doldrums of the Depression."86 Blodgett likewise states that as the national economy worsened in 1930, businesses failed and unemployment increased, so that "the flow of tourists [to the parks] was shut off at the tap."87 The result was that "many [concessioners] were obliged to drop plans for expansion, and some had to curtail service or . .. close down [entirely].1188 Even when park attendance began a slow recovery in the summer of 1930, concessionaires discovered that increasing numbers of visitors did not spell renewed prosperity. Those tourists who did come often preferred cheaper accommodations outside the parks to the more expensive official concessions within park boundaries. The tastes of the traveling public had changed so drastically that some concessionaires never complete! y recovered. 89 The declining park attendance of the Depression "reinforced a practical alliance [between concessioners and Park administration] of long standing."90 Their shared emphasis was no longer "planning for the future," but instead, how "to get people into the parks."91 The methods suggested by the concessioners to achieve this end were focused, understandably, on how to shore up their lagging businesses. One group of contractors proposed that the Park Service partially subsidize their operations by "divert[ing] all of the money that [Parks] spent on roads or on educational programs for one or two years into advertising designed to promote park travel."92 Another concessioner urged "more flexibility within leases [in order] to 'make such changes in rates or such concessions as [the contractors] feel are in the interest of good merchandising of what they have to sell.' ,,93 These suggestions were rejected, however, by both the Assistant Interior Secretary and by Albright, who "opposed unlimited flexibility in pricing or other matters of merchandising.94 Albright argued that although "the interests of commerce .. . [were] undeniably important, [they] were subservient 30 to ... the responsibility of the Park Service to protect the public interest."95 The Civilian Conservation Corps The Emergency Conservation Work Act of 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt's response to the massive unemployment of the Depression, had a profound impact on the development of tourist accommodations in the parks. This act created the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), which employed men between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five to work on projects in the national forests, national parks, state parks and elsewhere which ranged from flood and erosion control, fire suppression, and reforestation, to construction of campgrounds and support services buildings.96 Although thousands of structures were built in a relatively short span of time (nine years) by the CCC, each building proposed for the national parks first underwent a mandatory project review.97 This review process helped to mitigate some of the apprehensions of park superintendents, who feared that "a result of the CCC program would . . . [be] park overdevelopment and ... irretrievable losses of natural and cultural resources."98 Strict guidelines charged Park Service engineers and architects "to study every change, every proposed 'improvement', weighing its benefits against its potential for disrupting the landscape."99 Improvements were then to be made within the context of a master plan formulated "with special reference to the preservation of the landscape."100 The regulations which governed construction of improvements such as concession buildings often emphasized the building's form and siting above its practical use by contractors: Although a park structure exists solely for the use of the public, it is not requi~ed to be seen from a distance. In its most satisfying expression, the park structure is designed with a view to subordinating it to its environment, and is located so that it may profit from any natural screening that may exist.101 31 This viewpoint did not take into consideration the very different priorities of commercial enterprise, and stood in marked contrast to a basic marketing principle: utilizing the visibility of a business to attract potential customers. Thus, many of these concession buildings, although aesthetically pleasing, did not necessarily serve the needs of the park concessioners. The use of these buildings by state park contractors and the significance of the CCC architecture will be discussed in Chapters IV and VI. Historic Preservation Legislation and the National Parks "Protecting the public interest" in the national parks with an emphasis on the nation's cultural heritage was an ethic that evolved during the 1930s, a decade pivotal for the historic preservation movement in the United States.102 During the 1930s, "historic preservation emerged as a legitimate component of the Service's mission."103 This interest in America's cultural resources indicated that the national parks were beginning to be understood as more than simply wilderness reserves or public playgrounds. The Historic Sites Act (1935) directed that historic sites, buildings, and objects were to be "preserved for public use ... for the inspiration and benefit of the people of the United States."104 Section 2h of this law, providing for the operation and management of historic properties, authorized competitive bidding for leases to provide accommodations for the public at such locations. The relationship of these services with Park Service interpretation efforts however, was not addressed in depth. The law specified only that "such 32 concessions ... shall be let at competitive bidding, to the person making the highest and best bid."105 What constituted the "best bid" for privately operated services at historic national park properties was not precisely defined. Issues of Appropriate Use and Development in the National Parks The National Parks Association,106 a non-profit public advocacy group for national parks which Mather was instrumental in establishing, was founded in 1919. Since its inception, this association had been critical of commercial development in the parks.107 In response to the Park Service's ever-present dilemma of "reconciling [its] role as the preserver of the great scenic places with its role as a provider of recreation opportunities"108 the association declared its objective, "to defend the National Parks and Monuments fearlessly against assaults of private interests and aggressive commercialism,"109 and adopted a position favoring "minimal development and preservation-oriented management'' for national parks.110 Inappropriate function and siting of visitor service buildings were of particular concern to NP A president Wallace Attwood. In 1931, Atwood observed that many "hotels and other buildings [were located] too near the objects of interest," and also recommended that "no building should be erected in the parks solely for amusement purposes."111 Although the Park Service, by the mid-1930s, had in place a program "designed to remove 'artificial intrusions' that impaired the attractiveness of [a park's] natural features," enforcing this policy proved difficult.112 Concessioners protested any attempts to relocate their operations, citing financial hardship, and the Park Service tolerated their non-compliance. The Old Faithful Bathhouse at Yellowstone provides one example of this situation. The location of 33 this building, sited in conjunction with "a swimming pool, a ... photo shop, a ... store and service station and the government sewage disposal site" created a situation where "visitors ... frequently got their first view of the eruption of Old Faithful over the roof of the concessioner's bathhouse and swimming pool."113 Although Park Director Albright "ordered, in 1933, the removal of [the bathhouse] within a year to a new location," it remained standing until 1957.114 Criticism regarding the appropriate use of the parks by the public was leveled at many of Yosemite's concessions in 1936. Albert W. Atwood, a writer for the Saturdav Evening Post, decried the existence of entertainments in this park such as dance halls, movies, bear pit shows, . . . baseball, golf, swimming pools .. . and barbeques, .. . asserting that although these diversions were not in themselves bad, ... none had 'any relation whatever to the purpose for which the national parks were established.'115 A similar viewpoint was expressed two years later by a professor of landscape architecture at the University of Illinois, Henry Baldwin Ward. Ward suggested that "tourists seeking pure entertainment [in the parks] might be wisely diverted to areas of less unique and supreme value."116 Concern that the parks were losing their unique qualities because of excessive commercialism prompted Interior Secretary Harold L. Ickes to propose a policy of government owned and operated concessions: we do not want any Coney Islands: the parks are for those who will appreciate them and not merely for hordes of tourists who dash through them at break-neck speed.117 Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. , writing for Landscaoe Architecture in 1934, expressed a similar conservative management philosophy. In his article "Amusements and Related Artificial Conveniences in the National Forests," 34 Olmsted strongly denounced "the introduction of any artificial elements not clearly necessary for, or directly and clearly tending to enhance, enjoyment of the natural features peculiar to Kings River Canyon."118 The presence of such elements, warned Olmsted, had already "endangered the essential values of Yosemite" by facilitating the "successive introduction of similar activities and conveniences of all kinds into the Valley."119 Such artificial conveniences, he asserted, had an "aggregate effect," and shaped "development of the valley in a direction ultimately and basically inconsistent "with the essential value of its natural features."120 Olmsted believed that the ultimate result of this progression would be an "urban pleasure resort."121 Although Calahane concurred with Olmsted's warning, he was pessimistic about the ability of parks to withstand such development pressure from private enterprise and visitors. As park visitation increased, Calahane predicted in 1940, "demands for all kinds of . . . elaborate structures and big-city amusements" would proliferate.122 Further debate over appropriate use and development of the national parks was interrupted by the United States' involvement in World War_ II. When attention was once again focused on this issue in the late 1960s, many of the parks had become firmly imbedded with the "urban resort facilities" which Calahane and Olmsted had foretold. Growth of Concession Operations in the National Parks: 1942-1970 The Effect of World War II on Park Tourism and Concessions In 1941, visits to the national parks reached 21,236,000, the highest number in twenty-five years.123 A year later, after the United States entered World War II, park tourism had dropped to less than half this amount.124 For the next four 35 years park management and private sector contractors struggled to keep the parks operational as the federal government drafted many park employees for military service and reduced park appropriations by over fifty percent.125 With funds and personnel unavailable for routine maintenance, park facilities sustained marked deterioration during the period from 1940 through 1945, a condition made worse by an increased incidence of vandalisrn.126 Other changes in the parks due to the War were the closing of the CCC camps, the curtailment of road and trail construction, and government use of a number of concession buildings to accommodate military personneL 127 During these years, concessioners were often unable to secure financing for either day-to-day operation or expansion of their businesses. Discouraged by this difficulty, the drastic drop in park visitation, and the problems of obtaining supplies due to war rationing,128 "many concessioners would have been glad to unload their properties onto the government, but ... Congress could not see the wisdom of buying them."129 An example of this occurred in 1944 when the Yosemite Valley Railroad was auctioned off in pieces, based on its only market value: as scrap metal.130 Post-War Pressures on Parks and Concessioners At the end of World War II, people began to visit the national parks again, and in record numbers. Everhart attributed this tremendous influx, which began in 1946, to the end of gasoline and tire rationing together with increased economic prosperity.131 Many facilities, however, had lain virtually dormant for over five years and concessioners now found themselves ill-prepared to provide adequate service to the deluge of park visitors. Tourists outnumbered available cabins and dining facilities, and many restaurants closed entirely due to the 36 difficulty of obtaining supplies such as meat.132 Visitor services at Yellowstone were particularly taxed, which resulted in numerous complaints. Bartlett recounted in Yellowstone: A Wilderness Besieged that "protests streamed into Congressional offices and appeared in newspapers. Soon the whole nation was aware of Yellowstone's poor food, wretched housing, surly clerks, and inadequate management."133 This situation came about for reasons beyond merely an increase in the number of park visitors. One cause was "the concessioner's reluctance to upgrade facilities in the late 1930s," leaving the operation "totally unprepared for the tide of humanity expecting service ... in the post World War II years."134 Another was the fact that "the owners of the principal park concession had lost interest in the business, had no desire to sink more money into it, and in fact wanted to sell - but at what buyers considered an absurdly inflated price."135 A former contractor at Lassen National Park, Don Hummel, wrote that these conditions existed because concessioners were still unable, even after the end of the War, to borrow the capital or obtain the building materials for needed improvements.136 According to Hummel, several other factors also contributed to the concessioners' lack of enthusiasm. One of these was a recommendation by the Solicitor's Office to the Interior Department in 1946 that the twenty-year contract term for concessioners be reduced, and franchise fees raised to five percent.137 Also of concern to contractors were various proposals that called for the government to construct and operate concession facilities.138 John Ise, in his book Our National Park Policy (1961), observed that: businessmen must feel confidence in the future to do their best. Unless there is a definite and realizable plan [for] government ovvnership of facilities, it is unwise to agitate for [this]. Ickes' and Krug's [Interior Secretary Julius Krug] talk of government ownership had such an effect on the private concessioners of the forties.139 37 In an effort to provide concessioners with an incentive for investing in their businesses when funds became available, the National Park Service, in 1948, instituted a policy of possessory interest, which entitled private contractors to the sound value of improvements ... they made to fixtures on park land. The NPS defined the "sound value" as the replacement cost of the improvement, less observed depreciation. This effectively allowed the concessioner's investment in improving the facilities to appreciate over time.140 Despite the urgent need, expansion of visitor service facilities proceeded slowly during the early 1950s, a situation which worsened as use of the parks escalated while park appropriations, cut drastically during the war years and remaining at a minimum level, were reduced even further with the outbreak of the Korean War. Unlike World War II, however, U.S. involvement in the Korean War had little perceptible impact on national park visitation. "By 1954," wrote Everhart, "the parks were receiving 54 million visitors, using the same run-down facilities that had served only 15 million visitors before the war."141 Mission 66 The National Park Service's response to this crisis was Mission 66, a proposal introduced in 1955 by National Park Service Director Conrad L. Wirth. This ten-year plan, with a completion date intended to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the National Park Service, was financed by a Congressional appropriation of over one billion dollars, and designed "to expand ... the carrying capacity of the national parks by reconstructing roads ... and increasing 38 overnight accommodations."142 It also established two NPS training centers and approximately 150 museums and interpretive centers, in addition to providing new housing for NPS employees One million dollars per year for the duration of the program was budgeted for reconstruction and stabilization of historic structures.143 Wirth, in his Foreword to Mission 66 for the U.S. National Park Service (1956), wrote that "the first requirement of the Mission 66 program . .. is to consider anew the purpose for which the parks exist, [and] its objective is to . . . improve the quality of [visitor] experience."144 The report went on to state that: the values of an area do not derive from lodges [or] coffee shops, but from the recreational use of park resources. Concession facilities shall be developed in the parks only when they are necessary for appropriate enjoyment of the areas by the visiting public.145 Another NPS publication, Our Heritage, A Plan for Its Protection and Use: "Mission 66" (1956), reinforced this stipulation by including a recommendation that: operating and public use facilities of both government and concessioners which encroach upon important park features should be eliminated or relocated at sites of lesser importance, either within or outside the park.146 According to the original report, however, the type of concessions that operated in 1955, food service, gas stations, "retail stores and other services," offer[ed] no particular problem. The concessions problem is almost wholly one of lodgings and it arises principally from the difficulty of recovering original investment and making a fair profit on investments when construction costs are high, seasons are short, and the public is seeking low-rental accommodations. Concessioners find it difficult to obtain capital from private lenders because accommodations are on Government lands.147 To relieve these financial difficulties, the NPS advocated "extending the 39 authority of the Small Business Administration to guarantee loans to • concessioners."148 Mission 66 significantly broadened the definition of "necessary visitor services" beyond "food, lodging, and transportation," to include "a number of other services dictated by present-day travel habits and requirements."149 These "other services" were not specifically defined in either of the Mission 66 overviews, ho,s ever, which seemed to indicate that popular taste and consumer habit would be influential in determining what concessions would be allowed in the parks. Thus, the objectives of Mission 66 -- to restore historic buildings on a broad scale while providing for visitor comfort and concessioner profitability - temporarily diverted attention away from the more fundamental issue: what visitor services were truly necessary as well as appropriate to the setting and values of national parks? Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, articles in American Forests, Landscape Architecture, and Changing Times criticized many of the commercial enterprises in the national parks as unnecessary for visitor enjoyment and contradictory to the fundamental purpose of the parks. Activities deemed particularly objectionable were those which "obstructed famous views" and diverted visitor attention from natural landscape features.150 Another concern of the writers was that the parks, already overcrowded, would be further inundated by visitors attracted solely by resort entertainments such as dances and shopping centers.151 The interests who promoted such "synthetic attractions," warned one writer, were "relentless," constantly seeking new opportunities to expand their operations at the expense of the "harmony and beauty" of these lands.152 Inappropriate merchandise was the focus of an article that charged park concessioners with basically "ignoring Interior Department policy that souvenirs 40 must be craft items indigenous to the area."153 Efforts designed to eliminate inadequate visitor accommodations of the early post-war years had, by the mid 1960s, created a backlash effect which promoted a wide array of products, services, and entertainment as a necessary and desirable aspect of visiting the national parks. A 1958 amendment to the Organic Act (1916) increased the twenty-year concession contract term to thirty years, and Federal legislation enacted in 1965, the Concessions Policy Act, further entrenched the facilities-development point of view.154 The Concessions Policv Act (1965) In 1964, Congressional hearings were held to evaluate testimony regarding HR2091, a bill which specified the legal obligations of the federal government toward private-sector contractors in the national parks. The proposed act addressed three key provisions. The first of these mandated preferential right of contract renewal for current park concessions and the sole right of the current concessioner "to provide new or additional accommodations, facilities or services for the accommodation and convenience of the public."155 Another provision amended the 1935 Historical Sites Act to permit the Secretary of the Interior to grant concessions "without advertising and without securing competitive bids."156 The most important provision of this bill, however, was Section 6, a statutory acknowledgment of the 1948 NPS policy which specified the possessory interest of concessioners in all existing and future contractor­ financed structures, fixtures or improvements.157 Possessory interest could not be "extinguished by the expiration or ... termination of the contract [nor] taken for public use without just compensation," and the contractor was allowed to assign or transfer this interest when he sold the business.158 Compensation for 41 the concessioner's possessory interest was calculated essentially as it had been in 1948, "an amount equal to the sound value of such structure, fixture, or improvement at the time of taking by the United States, [and] determined upon the basis of reconstruction cost less depreciation ... not to exceed fair market value."159 The Concessions Policv Act became law on October 9, 1965. Section 6 of this Act created a management situation that proved extremely difficult for park administrators. As Dyan Zaslowsky observed in These American Lands: In a sense there was little difference between "possessory interest" and outright ownership. If Park Service administrators were dissatisfied with a concessioner, the agency could not cancel the agreement without simultaneously buying out all concessioner­ owned capital improvements at current market value. The act was intended to protect concessioners from capricious rule chan