(1) New road locations from the south and west entrances to the rim
(2) New winter sports areas, including the Watchman, Hillman Peak, and Dutton Ridge areas
(3) Tunnel project through the rim of the crater to the lake shore
(4) New campgrounds at the Watchman, Munson Creek, and Sun Valley areas
(5) New headquarters development, covering the existing location and possible removal to the south entrance area
(6) Location of district ranger stations at the south, west, north, and east entrances
(7) Improved or additional facilities of the park operator whether in the rim area or elsewhere [42]
In January 1943 a “Report on Study for Future Headquarters Developments at Crater Lake National Park” was prepared by E.A. Davidson, Regional Chief of Planning, and R.D. Waterhouse, Regional Engineer. The study considered the question as to whether it was wiser to make rather extensive structural and layout improvements at the existing park headquarters or to construct these needed facilities at a more suitable location. Related to this question was the wisdom of removing administrative activities to any new headquarters site. As described in the report, the problem facing park management was:
When a site was selected for Park Headquarters, Crater was a summer-season operation. For some 8 or 10 years past (assuming the present War emergency to be temporary) the winter activity and use of the park has grown, and will probably continue to grow. Buildings, facilities, and circulation roadways were not designed for winter operation under an average winter snowfall of forty to fifty feet, or for snow clearance by mechanical means during winter. This winter-use places an unanticipated strain on structures even above the normal strains under such snowfall, until several structures of the utility area are described as “about to fall” and “beyond repair.” Water lines, not designed for winter, cause heavy maintenance. The job of mechanical snow removal is huge. . . . It has been found desirable to keep a gradually increasing number of men in the park for winter operation, and also to provide some facilities for winter visitors. As a consequence, the lack of good winter buildings has become acute, and the job of snow clearance almost impossible. With increased summer use, a shortage of both utility and residential buildings has developed.
Accordingly, Davidson and Waterhouse observed that it had been proposed to construct six utility and residential structures at park headquarters. These buildings included: Utilities–Machine Shop and Utility Building, Snow Equipment Shed, Cold Storage Plant; Residential–Assistant Superintendent’s Residence, Chief Clerk’s Residence, Apartment House (approximately 8 units). In line with previous master planning for the park, it had been decided that before investing funds of that magnitude the utility area must be redesigned to provide winter operations with less mechanical difficulty and physical hazard, eliminating most or all of the existing utility buildings which were approaching the limits of their usefulness.
Davidson and Waterhouse submitted three alternatives concerning the headquarters site issue. One plan proposed removing the utility area to the nearby “baseball field at the lower end of the existing headquarters utility area and converting the existing utility area space to residential uses. A second plan proposed keeping the utility area where it was, razing all buildings except the bunk and messhall and warehouse and constructing larger structures better suited for winter operations. The “baseball field” would be used for winterized residential structures. This residential area would be tied to the existing area of 8 cottages and 12 two-room cabins which was to be replaced by more modern residences. A third alternative proposed removal of the utility area and park administrative headquarters to the south entrance of the park. This new development area would include a road maintenance yard, utility area, twenty-two residential units, an administration building, a club or assembly house, and a bunk-and-mess building. After assessing the merits of the three plans, the authors concluded:
