The uncertainty over the old lodge left the actions common to all alternatives in the draft DCP suspended. In Rim Village, this meant that the removal of the rental cabins and the connection of all facilities to the Munson Valley waste water treatment system could not go ahead. To rectify the situation, an interim DCP was prepared and approved in May 1985 so that work on noncontroversial projects could proceed. [115]
The interim DCP also made mention of the second cost study for the lodge, which would require from six to nine months to complete. A contract for $144,000 was awarded to the Portland-based firm of Broome, Oringdulph, O’Toole, Rudolf and Associates (BOOR/A) on June 25, 1985. [116] The BOOR/A study was to provide information on the feasibility of rehabilitating the lodge for “rustic” accommodations. This was defined as “the economical repair and/or replacement of defective building elements to meet code and operational requirements for use of the facility in its current configuration.” The study was to contain costs for both a 20 and 40 year life cycle. Completed in March 1986, it included a landscape inspection report, snow load study, food service equipment report, a study of vegetation changes affecting the lodge, and a wind tunnel test report.
The study of vegetation change was authored by architect Alfred Staehli, a historic architect who had done previous consulting work in other national park areas. [117] Staehli mapped the historic pattern of vegetation to show that the addition of the building’s annexes in 1923 changed the snow drifting pattern. Staehli showed that this change, not slope failure, eventually caused the terrace on the lodge’s north side to slump off. [118]
The findings of the BOOR/A study confirmed earlier Denver Service Center findings that the lodge had a poor initial structural design, had always provided meager accommodations, and would require major rehabilitation. Rehabilitation even to “rustic” standards would require complete replacement of the electrical system, most of the mechanical system, and major structural renovation. The costs associated with either the “first class” or “rustic” standard of accommodation differed mainly in their treatment of the Great Hall section of the lodge. Also discussed was the option of removing the annexes and keeping the original part of the building as a summer restaurant and interpretive display area. It was estimated that rehabilitation costs for this option would be about half of what full rehabilitation would cost. [119]
In March 1986, Oregon Congressman Bob Smith announced that NPS Director William Penn Mott was considering a proposal to remove the annexes. Smith said that Mott wanted to get a reaction from various groups about the idea in order to work out a compromise. [120] In July 1986, Mott made an unannounced visit to the lodge which led to the preparation of a third cost estimate by the Denver Service Center. Using the BOOR/A “rustic” approach and the NPS “first class” estimate, a “combined option” scenario was generated for a rehabilitated lodge with annexes. Issued as a working draft in October, this estimate was about midway between the two prior cost studies. It assumed a post-rehabilitation total of 82 guest rooms, whereas the “rustic” standard planned 108 and the “first class” standard had 56 rooms. [121]
In March 1987, Denver Service Center historical architects Craig Kenkel and Craig Frazier examined cost data from the BOOR/A study and the “combined option” to obtain figures for two scenarios involving the lodge without annexes. The first, an interpretive display with dining facility, was estimated to cost between $3.3 and $3.7 million in Fiscal Year 1991 net construction costs. The second scenario, rustic lodging with dining, would run between $4.5 and $5 million. [122]
The Kenkel and Frazier schematic study allowed work to begin on constructing alternatives for a supplement to the suspended 1984 DCP. A draft document was cleared for printing in July 1987. Its focus was various combinations of lodging in the park and contained four alternatives. In all of the alternatives, lodging was to be limited to a maximum of 160 units in the park total with a maximum of 90 units at Rim Village. Costs of the alternatives were higher than previous estimates. This was because they were based on replacement of the cafeteria with new lodge facilities. The Denver Service Center specialists were convinced that a remodeled cafeteria would not function well and cited wind tunnel tests as evidence that the building would complicate the design for winter use of Rim Village. [123]
