As part of its report the committee printed a letter from Assistant Secretary of the Interior Nathaniel Reed to its chairman Henry M. Jackson on October 6. One paragraph of the letter concerned Crater Lake National Park:
This National Park may be technically open to location, entry, and patent under the mining laws of the United States. There are no unpatented or patented mining claims or locations within the park and, thus, there is currently no mining activity within the park. The Act of May 22, 1902 (32 Stat. 202) that established Crater Lake National Park stated that “Crater Lake National Park shall be open, under such regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe, to all scientists, excursionists, and pleasure seekers and to the location of mining claims and the working of the same.” However, the Act of August 21, 1916 (39 Stat. 522), provided that the Secretary of the Interior shall make rules for the protection of the property therein “especially for the preservation from injury or spoilation of all timber, mineral deposits other than those legally located prior to the date of enactment of this Act, natural curiosities, or wonderful objects within said park. . . . Since the Act of 1916 did not specifically repeal the mining languages in the 1902 Act, there is some confusion in the law as to whether Crater Lake National Park is open to mining activity. [29]
The bill was debated at length in the Senate on February 3 and 4, 1976, and after several amendments (none of which affected Crater Lake) were adopted it was approved by that chamber on the 4th. The bill was sent to the House where the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs submitted a favorable report with amendments on August 23. [30] After being amended (none of which affected Crater Lake), the bill passed the House on September 14. Three days later the Senate concurred in the House amendments, and on September 28 the bill was signed into law (90 Stat. 1342) by President Gerald R. Ford. [31]
8. An Act to Revise the Boundary of Crater Lake National Park in the State of Oregon, and for Other Purposes (94 Stat. 3255–December 19, 1980)
On February 20, 1980, Senator Mark O. Hatfield of Oregon introduced legislation (S. 2318) to revise and expand the boundaries of Crater Lake National Park. Hatfield noted in the Congressional Record that the bill was designed “to further protect a national park which houses the deepest and possibly the most pure body of fresh water in the United States. He went on to present a lengthy speech explaining the rationale behind his bill:
In contrast to most other natural lakes, Crater Lake has no influent or effluent streams to provide continuing supplies of oxygen, nutrients, and large volumes of fresh water. Thus, water entering the lake comes directly from rainfall or snowmelt and leaves by means of evaporation or seepage through fractures in the caldera wall. Its purity is thus highly susceptible to man-caused pollution, which would not be “flushed” by water moving through the lake.
Several other ecological communities of importance exist within the park. It is to these features that I address my concern. This legislation provides, through a moderate expansion of the park, protection for key natural features associated with the geological formations in the park. On the east, the boundary modifications would include the Sand Creek Drainage, a canyon which contains geological pumice formations commonly referred to as “The Pinnacles,” as well as Bear Butte, a significant scenic feature viewed from within the park. To the north, the proposed boundary incorporates the lower slopes of Timber Crater, and the Desert Ridge-Boundary Springs ecological units. Sphagnum Bog, an area to the west of the park, which exhibits a flora of mosses and herbs, is fed by Crater Springs. The proposal incorporates that spring, as well as the scenic Spruce Lake into the park. Just outside the southwest corner of the park is a unique area known as Thousand Springs. This feature also would be included in the park, if the Senate enacts this legislation.
Total acreage of the existing park is 160,290. My proposal would add approximately 22,890 acres to that figure, all of which are presently managed by the U.S. Forest Service. There is no private land involved in this proposal.
I might also note . . . that the major portion of this acreage was recommended last year by the administration for additional protection as wilderness through the Forest Service evaluation of roadless areas, known as RARE II . After intensive evaluation by myself and my staff, I agreed that these lands merit protection. However, because of their size and relationship to the geological features of the park, I believe it makes sense that these lands be managed by the National Park Service.
. . . a glance at the map indicates that the straightlined boundaries drawn 80 years ago did not follow the ecological features of the land area, but simply carved a rectangle to assure protection of the lake. If we were to draw boundaries today which reflect natural ecological features related to those in the existing park, I believe they would clearly follow those proposed in this legislation. . . . [32]
