A draft DCP was issued for public comment in February 1984. The preferred alternative called for expansion of the cafeteria building that would house approximately 58 lodge rooms, dining facilities, and an interpretive center. This lodge/cafeteria complex would be connected to the Munson Valley waste water treatment system. Adaptive use for an artist-in-residence program was discussed for the Kiser Studio, while the rental cabins and Community House were slated for removal. Commercial development in Munson Valley was to be limited to the eventual replacement of the concessioner’s employee dormitory at Rim Village. [107]
Public meetings were held to review the DCP alternatives in Klamath Falls, Medford, Roseburg, and Salem during March 1984. Although the scope of the DCP was the entire park, the disposition of the Crater Lake Lodge elicited the most comment. Possible adaptive uses for the lodge were given in the document’s appendix. These possibilities were explored as separate, but parallel issues to the environmental consequences of providing lodging in the park. Public sentiment was generally supportive of the preferred alternative and there was acceptance of the basic assumption shared by all alternatives that future lodging would not be provided in the Crater Lake Lodge. The public expressed a desire, however, that some use be found for the building. [108]
A final decision on the DCP was promised for June, but problems with the document began to surface in the public comment period. Not only did critics want a thorough analysis of alternatives to demolishing the building, but they were upset over the Historic Structure Report being based on what it would cost to make the lodge “first class” accommodations. [109]
In concluding the section on adaptive use of the lodge, the draft DCP stated:
The high cost to renovate the lodge for limited use, the uncertainties over the long-term stability of the site, and management objectives to reduce development on the rim indicate that ultimately the lodge should be removed. Before any decision is made, alternatives for financing renovation and continued use will be further explored, public comments will be given full consideration, and formal consultation procedures with the state historic preservation officer and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation will be conducted. [110]
When the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) was consulted, it recommended that it would be unwise to predicate a decision to demolish the lodge on a management policy which calls for the removal of development from the vicinity of primary park resources. The ACHP also cited the need for a Preliminary Case Report (PCR) on the lodge in order to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The PCR was to provide a detailed account of replacement and retention costs for the lodge, and to organize these costs into options that were to include a relatively modest “rustic” standard of accommodations.
Nevertheless, on June 26 NPS Director Russell Dickenson reversed his previous endorsement of the preferred alternative in the draft DCP. He said that all development should be removed from Rim Village except for an interpretive center in the cafeteria building and further stated that continued use of the Crater Lake Lodge contradicted current NPS policy to remove nonresource-related facilities from prime resource areas. [111]
When the decision was announced by Regional Director Daniel J. Tobin, Jr., in late July, a wave of protest erupted in Oregon’s newspapers. The Historic Preservation League of Oregon was especially vocal in finding fault with the analysis of rehabilitation costs for the lodge. [112] The outcry prompted a request by Oregon Congressman James Weaver to include the lodge question on the agenda of a House Interior Subcommittee on Public Lands and National Parks, for a hearing on September 11, 1984.
Director Dickenson answered Weaver’s questions at the hearing and agreed to get a second cost estimate for rehabilitating the lodge, this time from architects and engineers not in federal service. Weaver also urged Dickenson to seek extensive public comment and the advice of historic preservation groups before any decision is made to demolish the lodge. [113] During the period between the hearing and the initiation of the second cost estimate, the Portland architectural firm Fletcher, Finch, Farr, and Ayotte was chosen to do a study of alternative sites for a new lodge. [114]
