James S. Rouse Oral History Interview

Interviewer: Stephen R. Mark, Crater Lake National Park Historian

Interview Location and Date: At the residence of James Rouse in Mount Vernon, Washington, September 18, 1997

Transcription: Transcribed by Renee Edwards, August 1998

Biographical Summary (from the interview introduction)

James S. Rouse served as Park Superintendent at Crater Lake from 1978 to 1984. He brought a varied background to this assignment, one that combined operations with planning. This helped to insure successful initiation of what are now on going programs in lake research and historic preservation, but also included a significant expansion of the park in 1980.

The following transcription is derived from an interview that has its origin when I met Mr. Rouse at the Crater Lake Lodge dedication in 1995. Two years passed before I could arrange to meet him at his residence in Mount Vernon , Washington. Lauren Huffman, who worked with Rouse during the 1970s in the Pacific Northwest Regional Office, joined us for a portion of the interview. His questions and comments for Mr. Rouse are in italics, whereas mine are in bold. Some correspondence and additional biographical information can be found in the park’s history files.

Materials Associated with this interview on file at the Dick Brown library at Crater Lake National Park’s Steel Visitor Center

Taped interview 911. File includes correspondence, notes from interview (assisted by Laurin Huffman), and photo. Portrait in park photo file.

To the reader:

James S. Rouse served as Park Superintendent at Crater Lake from 1978 to 1984. He brought a varied background to this assignment, one that combined operations with planning. This helped to insure successful initiation of what are now on going programs in lake research and historic preservation, but also included a significant expansion of the park in 1980.

The following transcription is derived from an interview that has its origin when I met Mr. Rouse at the Crater Lake Lodge dedication in 1995. Two years passed before I could arrange to meet him at his residence in Mount Vernon , Washington. Lauren Huffman, who worked with Rouse during the 1970s in the Pacific Northwest Regional Office, joined us for a portion of the interview. His questions and comments for Mr. Rouse are in italics, whereas mine are in bold. Some correspondence and additional biographical information can be found in the park’s history files.

Stephen R. Mark

December 1998

Let’s begin with your personal and professional background.

You asked where I was born and raised. I was born in Nelson, Nebraska, on a farm, five miles from town. Following high school I went to Kearney State Teachers College and then served three years in the Army. While in the Army I became really interested in a career such as the one I chose in the National Park Service. This was because of experience I had with the German people, and seeing their appreciation for nature and the out-of-doors. I selected Colorado State University to prepare me for a career in the National Park Service. I have a degree in forest recreation.

Was Colorado State a ranger factory at that time?

Yes, I heard it called that because of the number of graduated employed by the National Park Service and the [U.S] Forest Service. I checked out schools on my own that offered what I wanted. I narrowed it down to Colorado State University, which was then called Colorado A&M, and Michigan State University. In looking at both programs and what they prepared their graduates for, I chose Colorado State because it seemed to be geared more towards wildlife and national park management. Michigan State aimed more toward urban, state, and county parks. I like the wild land concept, so I took Colorado State.

Did you consider a career in forestry?

Colorado State had a degree program in Forest Recreation. This was developed by Professor J.V.K. Wagar, who oddly enough did not have a Park Service background, but was kind of a Bob Marshall type. He had written many articles in the Journal of Forestry and was a wilderness philosopher, if you will. He had written to the National Park Service inquiring what kind of curriculum best prepared people for a career in the agency. That developed into the forest recreation program and so that is how I wound up going to school there.

How did your first experience in park areas inspire you to pursue a career in the NPS?

Well, as I believe I said before, my inspiration probably came from my time in Germany. Meeting and chatting with forest meisters, and visiting the Alps excited me. That would probably have been my inspiration. Having grown up on a farm, I had not visited a national park. My family had heard about Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, and Rocky Mountain. We just did not travel that much. My first visit was right after my discharge from the United State Army. I was already enrolled in Colorado State University, and I drove up to Rocky Mountain National Park to look it over.

Did your brother follow the same course?

Well, he was younger, and I probably had a fair bit of influence on him. Homer started out first at Nebraska University, then had a tour in the Army. I probably saturated him with correspondence of how enjoyable my experience in the NPS was, so he was eventually bit by the bug. He transferred to Colorado State and he took the same curriculum, same professor, same  program and started out at Rocky Mountain Park, too. We had very similar background.

Did Rocky Mountain lead to Sequoia/ Kings?

I was a seasonal at Rocky Mountain during my three years at Colorado State. My first permanent assignment was at Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks.

That would have been in the mid 50’s?

Yes, I graduated in 1957, so ’55, ’56, ’57 were summers spent at Rocky.

 You weren’t the law enforcement-oriented then?

I was law enforcement-oriented to the extent that I wanted to see that the responsibilities were carried out, but not to the extent of sacrificing interpretive programs.

Has that been a knock on I & RM programs?

Only because of the individuals running the program.

It is still that way?

Yes. It will be no better nor more successful then the individuals who are placed in that type of organizational structure. If you’ve got that kind of an organization you must carefully screen to be sure that the people placed in those positions understand and can foster a working relationship that can make it [I & RM] work. And it can.

Did you have some planning duties in your job at Theodore Roosevelt?

Yes. I did because we [the NPS] were in the early stages of the wilderness review in national parks. I was directed to make some initial wilderness recommendations from the field to send to Washington. Theodore Roosevelt had just completed their master plan before I got there. My brother Homer had been at Theodore Roosevelt just before me as field ranger. He had an assignment, since the chief ranger and superintendent told him to work with a planning team led by Frank Hirst. The team finished a master plan which had been approved by the time I got there. So I was very appreciative of the plan and working hard trying to implement it.

From Theodore Roosevelt I went to Washington, D.C. in 1966 to assume duties in a job called Park Planner, Resource Management, as part of an effort to redirect planning activities. At that point in time the NPS had principally landscape architects in planning. As Director, George Hartzog declared that the NPS needed to get people in planning with operational experience in various fields. Whereas I was a resource management ranger type, they brought in an interpreter, a historian or two, and an engineer who had been in the field. That developed into this team that worked for Ed Peetz in Arlington’s Roslyn Building (7).  From there the master plan teams went out of their projects. Ed Peetz developed a team depending on the needs of the area. If it was one that had resource management concerns, and/or heavy ranger concerns I was brought in to be on the team.

Did you have contact with the science program?

We, as a team, sought out science. It was just developing at that point to have greater influence on planning and management. Science had its own sphere in which it operated, and we had to tap into them, since they were not integrated on the team at that point in time. These planning efforts, and I am taking about the period of 1966 to 1969, we did not hold public meetings. We sought out certain groups, as in the case of Natchez Trace Parkway. We met with state highway people, but we had to do it. The public involvement we have come to know the last two decades, however, wasn’t there at that point in time.  It wasn’t until NEPA pushed us that we got into it and it’s good. I believe Laurin mentioned another factor, the Vietnam War. The questioning of government decisions became more popular, especially if they were made arbitrarily without the public playing a role. Our American citizenry was saying HEY, hear us, we have a voice. They were clamoring, so public involvement became a provision in NEPA.

Were you involved in Washington with setting up wilderness hearings, or was that later on?

Yes and no. Ed Peetz was the head of the planning division. The plans that I was working on were for the Natchez Trace Parkway, and the Foothills Parkway, and Guilford Courthouse. In the Foothills Parkway around Great Smokies, there was wilderness planning going on, but we were not involved with it. I worked on the planning for the Buffalo River since this was a new area proposal and a big deal. We were carving out something new and that probably was one of the more enjoyable studies. Jay Bright, Rich Gamberdini, and I were on the team. We had some legislative direction as to the size of the area. I can recall haggling with Jay Bright, who was our team captain. He and I labored mightily over some bits of real estate when we had something like a ceiling of 95,000 acres. I wanted a particular little canyon that had some beautiful white oak, but Jay was intrigued with a cave or two. It worked like this, “I’ll give you this if you’ll give me that.” I think I got that particular oak canyon within the boundary of Buffalo National River.

Did the planning team pull in other folks if they found they needed some specialized knowledge?

I can cite a case in the Fort Matanzas/Castillo de San Marcos/Fort Caroline study. There were three of us, Rock Comstock, myself, and an architect. I had studied Fort Caroline’s history a little, but I am not a historian. Nevertheless, I became deeply interested in history, probably due more so to my planning experience in Washington. I discovered our boundary had within it as small pond about the size of two or three football fields. It was called Spanish Pond and it was so named because the Spaniards who went up from the Castillo de San Marcos at Saint Augustine to Fort Caroline in an effort to wipe out the French Huguenot colony. They camped there the night before they went to Fort Caroline, so the pond is historically significant. Outside the boundary, private interests were building homes and wanted to capitalize on the scenery. But the mosquitoes were a problem to those residents. They turned to the county where Jacksonville is located for control of mosquitoes. The Park Service was standing by, not really doing anything. One of the plans the county had in the mill was to come in with some kind of big equipment and get into the pond. Mosquitoes breed when you have a shallow shore line, so as the water recedes, the mosquito breeding occurs. If you had a rather steep bank to contain the water you won’t have that exposed shoreline. This would reduce the breeding population, so the county wanted to go in with big equipment. The pond would have this more vertical water edge, but at the cost of completely changing its character. I didn’t like that, so I went to some experts, such as an entomologist from Florida State University, and asked their opinion. Then I went to the regional director in Richmond and told him that a historical site should not be disturbed. At any rate, I won my case with the regional director but very much displeased the superintendent to think that I would go over his head. The question you asked was do you seek outside sources, and I use that event to illustrate how we operated.

So it wasn’t a closed system?

No. The door was always open and we sought out our own expertise and guidance. We always did that. If there was any kind of question, we wanted to seek out experts. We were also encouraged to use the library to back our conclusions with research.

Were there one or several factors that led you to locate in Seattle?

We may have talked about this off the tape. At that particular time the NPS was planning to establish the Pacific Northwest Regional Office (8). John Rutter and others were looking for some staff people from various disciplines. They seemed to need somebody of my general qualifications and I was asked if I was interested.

 How did the new Seattle office work with the one in Portland? Were the Portland folks assigned only to Oregon projects?

I recall a gentleman’s name, Ed Arnold. We worked on the master plan at Fort Vancouver. That’s probably the last time I recall Ed having a part in a project. I remember going to his retirement party. I think there was somebody else down there, but can’t think of his name.

Dan Burroughs?

I remember Dan, but I don’t remember much about him, or ever working with him.

They [The Portland Office] were pretty much tied up with planning in the Columbia River Gorge and other cooperative projects. They were involved with the external stuff more than in park planning or operations.

This was in part more of a convenience. Rather than have them move to Seattle, the NPS gave them some studies and other duties. I remember I went to Ed’s retirement party. I was the only one from the regional office that went down to Portland for it.

Before we went on tape, we talked about the cluster office. There was also the concept that we would have an office in every state. A lot of its success depended on the personality in the office and how they could develop contacts.

There was a directive from Hartzog that every state would have somebody designated as a key man for a period of time. I remember wearing that hat for Oregon. Ernie Borgman did it before me. In Idaho it was Paul Fritz. He’d send the regional office news releases and things like that, as well as meet with elected officials and other public land managers.

If you were far away from state capitals it was of questionable effectiveness. In some states such as Idaho, where we did not have a national park, we ended up with Nez Perce [National Historical Park.] (9)

Paul played a key role in coordinating our planning efforts for the Thousand Springs, City of Rocks, Sawtooth, and Hagerman Fossil Beds proposals. Don Campbell and I from our regional office, and a planning team from Denver, also worked with those projects.

Did you coordinate any of the wilderness hearings?  I know Crater Lake had some in early 1971.

My role there was to arrange for an official recorder, and to see that public notices got published in local papers. I had to make copies of these and see that they were a part of the record. I also arranged with the hearings officer to make sure that he was available and that the meetings were on his calendar, along with dates and places. I was kind of behind the scenes individual, one who collected the record and had it put together, including the preparation of the final recommendations that were sent to Congress.

Did you attend the hearings?

Oh, yes. I attended all of them. At that time I think there were two designated hearing officers for the NPS. I knew both of those gentlemen very well. One was John Preston, who had been the superintendent at Yosemite. At our meeting for Mount Rainier, John Preston served as hearing officer. This was a goodwill gesture to John because he was formerly superintendent at Mount Rainer. He also served at the North Cascades and Crater Lake hearing when we went there. Of course, the Regional Director, John Rutter or the Deputy Regional Director, Ben Gale, also sat at the head table and officially presided by introducing the hearing officer. When we went up to Alaska for hearings on the wilderness proposal for Glacier Bay and Katmai, meetings were held in Juneau and Anchorage. The other gentleman, John Davis, served as the hearing officer of those (10). We didn’t have hearing on Mount McKinley and Denali National Park while I was there. That came later.

Were you involved in Washington with setting up wilderness hearings, or was that later on?

Yes and no. Ed Peetz was the head of the planning division. The plans that I was working on were for the Natchez Trace Parkway, and the Foothills Parkway, and Guilford Courthouse. In the Foothills Parkway around Great Smokies, there was wilderness planning going on, but we were not involved with it. I worked on the planning for the Buffalo River since this was a new area proposal and a big deal. We were carving out something new and that probably was one of the more enjoyable studies. Jay Bright, Rich Gamberdini, and I were on the team. We had some legislative direction as to the size of the area. I can recall haggling with Jay Bright, who was our team captain. He and I labored mightily over some bits of real estate when we had something like a ceiling of 95,000 acres. I wanted a particular little canyon that had some beautiful white oak, but Jay was intrigued with a cave or two. It worked like this, “I’ll give you this if you’ll give me that.” I think I got that particular oak canyon within the boundary of Buffalo National River.

Did the planning team pull in other folks if they found they needed some specialized knowledge?

I can cite a case in the Fort Matanzas/Castillo de San Marcos/Fort Caroline study. There were three of us, Rock Comstock, myself, and an architect. I had studied Fort Caroline’s history a little, but I am not a historian. Nevertheless, I became deeply interested in history, probably due more so to my planning experience in Washington. I discovered our boundary had within it as small pond about the size of two or three football fields. It was called Spanish Pond and it was so named because the Spaniards who went up from the Castillo de San Marcos at Saint Augustine to Fort Caroline in an effort to wipe out the French Huguenot colony. They camped there the night before they went to Fort Caroline, so the pond is historically significant. Outside the boundary, private interests were building homes and wanted to capitalize on the scenery. But the mosquitoes were a problem to those residents. They turned to the county where Jacksonville is located for control of mosquitoes. The Park Service was standing by, not really doing anything. One of the plans the county had in the mill was to come in with some kind of big equipment and get into the pond. Mosquitoes breed when you have a shallow shore line, so as the water recedes, the mosquito breeding occurs. If you had a rather steep bank to contain the water you won’t have that exposed shoreline. This would reduce the breeding population, so the county wanted to go in with big equipment. The pond would have this more vertical water edge, but at the cost of completely changing its character. I didn’t like that, so I went to some experts, such as an entomologist from Florida State University, and asked their opinion. Then I went to the regional director in Richmond and told him that a historical site should not be disturbed. At any rate, I won my case with the regional director but very much displeased the superintendent to think that I would go over his head. The question you asked was do you seek outside sources, and I use that event to illustrate how we operated.

So it wasn’t a closed system?

No. The door was always open and we sought out our own expertise and guidance. We always did that. If there was any kind of question, we wanted to seek out experts. We were also encouraged to use the library to back our conclusions with research.

Were there one or several factors that led you to locate in Seattle?

We may have talked about this off the tape. At that particular time the NPS was planning to establish the Pacific Northwest Regional Office (8). John Rutter and others were looking for some staff people from various disciplines. They seemed to need somebody of my general qualifications and I was asked if I was interested.

 There are a couple aspects of wilderness planning I am wondering about in reference to Crater Lake. One is the one-eighth mile boundary corridor and the other being a motor nature road that was planned for what is now a trail to Union Peak.

I think I can explain about those. Both preceded the wilderness planning at Crater Lake. The very first wilderness recommendation that went to Congress was for Petrified Forest (11). The second was Craters of the Moon. I think they were about a week apart. In the case of Petrified Forest, the Park Service felt that we needed a zone along the fenced boundary whereby the rangers could operate patrol vehicles—a buffer if you will. This is because people frequently went into the park from adjoining land and removed petrified objects. The law enforcement concern was pretty critical there, so we painted a dark picture to the congressional committee in Washington. Of course, the Wilderness Society and Sierra Club did not like that idea. They wanted wilderness clear up to the boundary. The committee saw a benefit to the Park Service in having this zone that could be used to help protect and manage the wilderness. There you have the idea established, but I don’t know if they still have non-wilderness zones at Petrified Forest now.

At Crater of the Moon I am not sure that the boundaries of it are fenced, but the buffer concept was applied by the Park Service. The wilderness that the Park Service was trying to advance would be an area that is “pure”, and free of man-made intrusions. This would be where a person could expect to realize an experience free from adverse influences. The Park Service thought a one-eight mile management zone could help.

Let me back up just a little bit. Prior to this, the Park Service was required to prepare a land classification map in our planning. This goes back to the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission chaired by Laurence Rockefeller (12). They recommended that there be these various management zones, consisting of six classes. Number one was high density public use and facilities. Two was less used than high density, but still with easy public access. Three was not for vehicle use except for what management might deem as necessary. Four was unique natural feature like a spring or a geyser. Five was wilderness. Six was historic, if I remember my zoning correctly. We had to develop these maps in our planning (13). So you had this zone 3 land around the wilderness, where the public could not drive their vehicle, but management could, if necessary. Management would use that zoning for protection, according to this philosophy. We had non-wilderness enclaves if a facility could not be removed. That leads us to North Cascades and Crater Lake, since planning for wilderness took place at roughly the same time (14). It might sound idiotic, but the draft proposal had a one eight mile management class 3 zone all the way around North Cascades National Park. If there was an established wilderness next to the park boundary, however, our wilderness boundary would eliminate the buffer, and, in those cases the management or buffer zone was not applied.

But not land that was simply under RARE I or II? (15)

That’s right. Otherwise we had to have this non-wilderness buffer zone around it. Therefore the one you saw at Crater Lake appeared in the era when we were directed to show it that way. But some of the public was screaming. The Sierra Club came unglued. The Wilderness Society opposed it. This was resolved by the North Cascades planning, which was under a two year directive to complete a wilderness review and master plan. When the final recommendations reached the Senate, the North Cascades wilderness recommendation went to Frank Church’s committee. What is key about Church was that he was the only remaining senator who had worked on that legislation for the establishment of the Wilderness Act. Church was also from Idaho and a strong supporter of wilderness. He looked at this and declared it was not in the minds of the legislative people and planners who developed the Wilderness Act. He directed the National Park Service to go back and eliminate that one-eight mike management zone and reconsider these non-wilderness enclaves, with facilities such as campfire circles, pit toilets and/ or small wells that might be used for wildfire management. He was trying to tell the NPS to get off this pure wilderness position. We had to change our plans accordingly and that’s why you would have seen the difference in the draft master plan for Crater Lake.

As for the motor nature roads, I don’t know. I suspect that somewhere, in one of George Hartzog’s field inspections, he may have been at some park area where a superintendent showed him a one way motor nature road. I don’t know where that might have been, but he came back all excited about it. George told planners every park has got to have a one way motor nature road, and this was taken literally, so we had to plan accordingly. We had to sit down and see where in the heck we could put a one way motor nature road, usually by converting a backcountry fire patrol road. One became rather obvious, so they marked the Grayback Road. Prior to that time it had been a two way road. Another was identified at Union Peak, and that is why those two roads were designated. We caught heck from the Wilderness Society and the Sierra Club. At one congressional wilderness hearing some senator really shot us down on one way motor nature road as being in conflict with our “no roads in wilderness policy.” I remember going to Crater Lake in 1970 or ’71 and questioning this Union Peak Motor Nature Road as it was in the proposal (16). I drove my vehicle over it and found that a family car had difficulty. I started near Annie Spring and went out that way. Somewhere in the last mile or so there was quite a hill. I remember having a difficult time negotiating it, since it had formerly served as a  backcountry access road and been used by rangers in pickups or four-wheel drives. I think there had been a facility out there several years earlier. We’re talking about ’71 or ’72, when we were coming up with this wilderness recommendation. We were required to deal with this matter of old facilities such as patrol cabins. George [Hartzog] had decreed that we were not going to have wilderness that had man made facilities in it (17).

Before we made our first draft proposal the park eliminated half a dozen old facilities (18). One they were out of there, the cabins never even showed on the plan. As for this one way motor nature road, I came back to the regional director very much opposed to it. I said, “Hey, we can live with the Grayback Road but we don’t need this one. By eliminating that [the Union Peak Motor Nature Road] we can have a larger wilderness, and get more friends and keep heat off of us. Furthermore it would be a heck of a thing to maintain. I could go on and on.” Anyway, he bought it and our plans were changed.

 Were you thinking about the route of the Pacific Crest Trail?

Yes. The Pacific Crest Trail goes through that zone. Did you know that the planners proposed rerouting the Pacific Crest Trail up to the rim?

They did?

Yes. It was to go to Rim Village and then north between Rim Drive and the edge of the caldera.

We did the reroute in 1994.

The trial is up there? It is no longer on that old backcountry road?

The old one is an alternate route for stock, but the walkers can go around the rim. There is a new trail behind Watchman. I didn’t know about this previous plan.

Oh, yes, it was in the original plan. They were going to abolish the western lower route. It didn’t make sense to have a one way motor nature road on the PCT. It was a service wide thing that was imposed on our planning.

What year did that concept of the one way motor nature road start getting pushed?

It must have been in 68’ or ’69. I was a planner in Washington at that time. Another major concern was the capacity of an area to sustain certain number of people. We became more and more concerned how many people could come in to an area to camp and experience it. This had to be formulated in the plan. I remember working on the recommendation for the carrying capacity at Buffalo River. That was when I spent many a day trying to come up with some kind of formula that would be understandable by those who might read the plan. I remember slaving away, trying to figure out how many canoes would be acceptable under our standards. How many people in a canoe, how many in the party? Would they accept another party within sight of them or not? The campground was easier to work with since you could figure out how many campsites per vehicle. I think that carrying capacity eventually died as a mandatory item in park planning. I wouldn’t, however, be surprised if it doesn’t come up again.

They had numbers based on somebody’s perception of how they thought carrying capacity should be figured. A Japanese tourist might see it totally different. We started getting grilled on these things, such as what an ecosystem can sustain. Scientists came in and said we have no baseline data. Of course, all this didn’t recognize how we might harden the site and whether that made a difference about how many people it can carry, or even if we could confine them to those areas.

They also get caught up with this nebulous quotient of visitor experience. Look at Old Faithful. People accept multitudes around there. But if you go out to say, the Stehekin Valley of North Cascades, there you don’t expect a multitude around you. What number would be acceptable? It might be different for you than it is for me, so that is difficult issue. The Forest Service is going through this right now in their analysis of trail use in established wilderness.

 We are still wrestling with the same thing. Backcountry permits and the use of natural resources are not often based on the carrying capacity of the ecosystem. Perceptions and expectations are really hard to document, especially if you want anything that is defensible in court.

Exactly.

There seemed to be a swift response by the NPS to snowmobiles. Was it because of this baby boomer interest in wilderness?

Yes. Snowmobiling activity skyrocketed around the same time. The outdoor industry pushed it and people responded. We really didn’t have too much of a problem in Rainier because of the terrain and it was somewhat the same thing at Olympic. Yellowstone has a little problem. At Crater Lake, people looked and saw all the snow. I couldn’t help but perceive that the four-wheel drive backcountry vehicle crowd switching to snowmobiles in the winter. I’m also associating the backcountry hiker wilderness user being the cross country skier and snowshoeer. When you analyze those two clienteles, they have a different social and economic background.  Here we are as the land management agency encouraging recreationists to see and enjoy our natural wonders, so both groups contend they have a right to do so. The Park Service has long supported the idea or concept of going lightly on the land. We’ve been reluctant to endorse four-wheel drive vehicles, only putting roads in where it is necessary to get from point A to another significant feature or point of interest at point B, while trying to minimize the environmental impact.

As for snowmobiles, I remember the wilderness hearing at Crater Lake where a Friends of the Earth gentleman from Eugene advance the idea that at Crater Lake you could declare the whole park wilderness in winter. He advocated two wilderness, one in summertime and one in winter. In the winter the entire park would be considered wilderness except for Munson Valley and Highway 62. Well, some people laughed at him, but he and others were opposing the snowmobile. The snow mobiles screamed “no, no, no.” They had been going through the East Entrance and the North Entrance, so they wanted access to the rim. We had this built in controversy brewing, so I participated in advising the regional director along with the superintendent at that time. It was a rather strong position to take, limiting access to the North Entrance, but you had the concentration of snowmobiles at Diamond Lake. While I was superintendent at Crater Lake this resurfaced. Again, the snowmobile group came out and argued long and hard. I remember taking a tour with the leaders of the local snowmobilers. Roger Rudolph, the chief ranger, and I participated (20). What’s that highway that goes from Klamath Falls to Medford?

That would be 62.

No, no south of there.

Highway 140.

Yes, we started down at 140 and came up to Crater Lake, skirted the south end of the park, and looked at the East Entrance. I took them up the East Entrance so they could say that I had been there with them and looked at it. We then went along the east boundary on a snowmobile route.

 But that wasn’t established route for them.

No, it wasn’t, but they wanted it.

They explained that to your successor, but were very hurt that it was shut down.

He [Robert Benton] didn’t have to shut it down.

It was already shut down by your order.

Four of us went up to Sun Notch so that they could be assured that I had, in fact, covered it. They didn’t like armchair decision making, you know. We went back and then up north along the east boundary to Diamond Lake, and to the rim from the North Entrance and back. We maintained snowmobile access as it was (21).

So you didn’t snowmobile from Munson Valley to Diamond Lake on the Rim Drive?

From Munson Valley up the road? Oh, no. That was in their [the snowmobile supporters’] plans. The route that I accompanied them on was what I just explained. Roger Rudolph was with me and we had dinner over at Diamond Lake with the group. In fact, I have a slide from somewhere on the east side of me and my snowmobile and the leader of the snowmobile club down on his hands and knees. I can’t remember his name, but the background was Mt. Scott, and it was all in fun.

So Rutter had made that decision before you were down there?

Yes. The only deviation from established access was for rescue and we would call on them. We had an incident concerning a snowmobile that went over the rim on the north side, so we posted a sign that said do not go beyond this point.

Yes, we still have that one.

He bailed out just as it went over. The snowmobile went down there about 80 yards or so before it finally came to rest. Lucky the guy survived. He managed to jump off and out of the way. We finally charged him and sent him a bill for the removal. We used a winch to help retrieve that snowmobile, and that helped us further justify restricting access.

How did planning for rehabilitation of Park Headquarters come about?

As you well know, the project around headquarters, the upgrade of seasonal quarters, and even Steel Circle developments are something where the regional director set priorities and are somewhat limited by funding that might be available.  When money is available even NHPA could sometimes be twisted around. What I’m trying to say is that various factors enter into this. Sometimes striking when the iron is hot pays big dividends. Priorities for maintenance funds or whatever are meshed with other parks within the region. Sometimes you almost feel like some other park is getting all the money, especially when I think back to Crater Lake and those seasonal quarters. That Sleepy Hollow project just kept being kicked down and we kept trying to push for replacing those seasonal quarters. It was really gratifying to me to finally see that come to pass. The need was recognized, but it was slow in coming.

I’m trying to remember who was ram-rodding historical preservation in the regional office (22). I ‘d like to take some credit, but I can’t take that much praise. We were trying to preserve some of those building, especially that dormitory at headquarters. Early in the planning phase some studies come into play. Don Peting headed one study at the University of Oregon (23). They came down and did some studies about the tail end of my tour as superintendent. I was involved in doing some of the initial  programming for that project. As for the specifics of some of the designs, I went up to Portland one time to meet some architects—Zaik/ Miller, Di Bennidetto. I went to review some plans, especially for the remodeling of the interior of the Administration Building. I played a role in trying to facilitate the project. Other disciplines entered the picture, and they probably had more influence than I did.

 How did planning for rehabilitation of Park Headquarters come about?

As you well know, the project around headquarters, the upgrade of seasonal quarters, and even Steel Circle developments are something where the regional director set priorities and are somewhat limited by funding that might be available.  When money is available even NHPA could sometimes be twisted around. What I’m trying to say is that various factors enter into this. Sometimes striking when the iron is hot pays big dividends. Priorities for maintenance funds or whatever are meshed with other parks within the region. Sometimes you almost feel like some other park is getting all the money, especially when I think back to Crater Lake and those seasonal quarters. That Sleepy Hollow project just kept being kicked down and we kept trying to push for replacing those seasonal quarters. It was really gratifying to me to finally see that come to pass. The need was recognized, but it was slow in coming.

I’m trying to remember who was ram-rodding historical preservation in the regional office (22). I ‘d like to take some credit, but I can’t take that much praise. We were trying to preserve some of those building, especially that dormitory at headquarters. Early in the planning phase some studies come into play. Don Peting headed one study at the University of Oregon (23). They came down and did some studies about the tail end of my tour as superintendent. I was involved in doing some of the initial  programming for that project. As for the specifics of some of the designs, I went up to Portland one time to meet some architects—Zaik/ Miller, Di Bennidetto. I went to review some plans, especially for the remodeling of the interior of the Administration Building. I played a role in trying to facilitate the project. Other disciplines entered the picture, and they probably had more influence than I did.

Was the closing of the Klamath Falls office a big factor in the administrative people coming back up to the park, since they needed office space?

It was a factor but not all that important. Under the Klamath Falls group, the administrative assistant was in Klamath Falls and our personnel specialist would not have been a personnel officer. Those administrative forms were processed through the Klamath Falls office. Prior to my arrival, Crater Lake was under the I & RM concept. They finally moved away from that but there was an interpretive specialist in Klamath Falls that assisted the chief ranger, who was chief of I & RM (24). The interpreters were getting short changed under that kind of program, so this eventually split into two separate programs, under a chief of interpretation and a chief ranger (25).

Natural resource management was just beginning to come on the scene and was being recognized Service wide. I was very strong on natural resource management and so we were recognized as being a park suitable for adding a resource management trainee to our staff (26). We were able then to get John Jarvis. We almost had a fight with Bill Dunmire, who was superintendent at Carlsbad Caverns. Jarvis hadn’t been there a year yet, but because this was a special program just being initiated, Bill had to go along with it. We got Jarvis without facilities to accommodate him, such as suitable quarters and office space. The thing that started the ball rolling toward closure of the Klamath Falls office was the realignment of the regional boundary. Lava Beds was placed in the Western Region, and no longer reported to the Klamath Falls group (27). Klamath Falls just served Crater Lake, Oregon Caves, and John Day Fossil Beds.

How many people were in the Klamath Falls office? Did closure affect more than a couple of people?

Closure made some people choose to retire or relocate. Jeff Adams, for example, chose to retire. He stayed on as a kind of consultant for awhile. The interpretive specialist moved on, and when he did, they never filled his job. Jim Blaisdale then moved to the regional office as wildlife biologist. They brought the administrative officer up to Crater Lake (28). Ernie Borgman was offered a position in the regional office if he wanted it, but he chose to retire (29). I wish he hadn’t, because he was so young. Ernie could have accomplished much more. Russ Dickenson expected that Ernie and I could make things work (30). I would spend time once a week in Klamath Falls with Ernie. I would make it the day that the Rotary Club met in Klamath Falls.  Quite a distance, and my travel there probably raised some eyebrows since here was this superintendent driving all the way into Klamath Falls to go to a Rotary Club meeting. But I was also working with Ernie and the group. I was also encouraged, and could see the need, to foster and promote external relations that had not been the best.

 Wasn’t there encouragement for all superintendents to get involved with Rotary and other community organizations at the time?

Yes, we were urged to become involved with, and participate in, neighboring communities. I had been in Rotary when I was at Colorado National Monument. It is a good way to cultivate an image with the public. It probably has some of the employees saying that I’m wasting my time, but it pays off-it gets you know and it gets the park known.

We had these remote parks with no outside contacts. I think we needed to go beyond the superintendent, and in some ways Rotary isn’t sufficient, but it was at least a first step. A good way to get those contacts going.

In some areas it is easier to connect with the outside than others. Take the superintendent at Olympic, for example. He can just swing into that mode real easy. Here at North Cascades it is relatively simple. I was able to bring John Reynolds in and introduce him, so it wasn’t long before he was active (31). I also got Bill Paleck involved in Rotary here (32). It pays dividends.  When it comes to public support why, hey, the public can feel warmer toward you. Another advantage is that we’re not dropping our plan on them cold turkey like we used to do when we made the decisions in-house. We are communicating what our mutual needs are on a regular basis in trying to work together. It’s much easier to get them to help you when you are friends, at least acquaintances.

Was there any thought about a friends group at Crater Lake while you were superintendent?

The first I heard of “friends” or something like this, was while I was at Crater Lake. But this was something that was initiated at Santa Monica Mountains in California, where it was probably resulted from budget constraints. At least that is where I first heard of such a thing. They felt they needed more money to do some of the projects that they wanted to get done. I think they initiated a catalog where people could donate so much money for a particular cause and it would be used for that purpose. Some of us looked at it with some skepticism, going out to the private sector. It seemed to catch on at the Golden Gate, but we didn’t really see much of it in this region until a little later. I know they have a friends group at Crater Lake now and it is probably working very well. This is something that came of age. While I was there, there were people who I made a special effect to contact because of their known interest and past support of Crater Lake. It wasn’t for any particular funding but just to gain their support and keep them informed. They expressed many years of interest and concern- – but not as an organization body, the climate wasn’t quite right yet. As far as external bodies, there was just the NHA board.

 I’d like to back up to when you were appointed superintendent of Crater Lake in 1978. What were the circumstances behind that?

Okay! Well, I think we have covered a little bit of the background with the group office in Klamath Falls. During that period, of course, there was the water system fiasco that got national attention. Out of that grew some special project and funding for improved water and sewage utilities at Crater Lake. We gained a water treatment specialist for testing the water system. We also acquired a water lab which you probably still have going. We even gained a full time nurse on the staff.

Oh really!

Yes, as a result of that sickness. When I arrived there, employees were taking advantage of having a full-time nurse on board. The nurse happened to be the wife of one of the equipment operators. That was very convenient, but it was a result of a reaction to the Water Crisis. There was some good that came out of it, with increased employee morale. They’d come a long way, but there were some other things that weren’t moving along as fast as we would have liked.

Was that one of the reason why Russ Dickenson sent you down there (33)?

Part of it perhaps, yes. Again, this was kind of a programmatic thing. It wasn’t just me and Frank Betts, who was the superintendent of Crater Lake at the time. Frank was kind of anxious to have another bone to chew on, so to speak. There was a employee morale. They’d come a long way. But there were some other things that weren’t moving along as fast as we would have liked.

Was that one of the reasons why Russ Dickenson sent you down there (33)?

Perhaps that was it, yes. Again this was kind of a programmatic thing. It wasn’t just me and Frank Betts, who was the superintendent of Crater Lake at the time. Frank was kind of anxious to have another bone to chew on, so to speak. There was a superintendent at Mount McKinley who was looking for a different climate. I had not been aggressively seeking a new position at that point. Russ was aware that my interest lay in a full time park management position. There was a kind of four way deal which Russ arranged that came about through a series of phone calls to all four of us in one evening. It allowed for Dan Kuehn, superintendent of Mt. McKinley, to replace me in my role at the regional office. I would be going to Crater Lake while Frank Betts would be going to Mount McKinley. There was another individual involved, but that part of the four way dual didn’t work out. This just included the three of us, so it didn’t involve applying for the job. Everybody seemed to be pleased with these moves.

It was just a lateral transfer?

Yes. It gave everybody a little bone to chew on, rather than being due to anybody’s deficiencies or something like that. I think it was good for the health of the Park Service in general.

Did you have some priorities that you wanted to go after right away?

I was very familiar with the park objectives, as I explained earlier, because I had worked with several park superintendents and Ernie [Borgman] in developing management objectives as Crater Lake, but also at Oregon Caves and John Day Fossil Beds.

 Was the general management plan something that you were directly involved with?

At that point in time we did not have a GMP. We were still living under the old master plan approved in 1974, I believe. I felt there was a need for a master plan or a GMP update.

One was approved in 1977 under Frank Betts.

Okay, but it didn’t address enough things. I felt the need for a new one. I was told we just had one and  it is too soon. I felt a need for a new GMP, I really did. We

Was it difficult to orchestrate CPSU studies?

Frank and I did all we could to encourage research programs. One of the things that I had grown increasingly concerned about was the lack of sound scientific data based on the ecology of Crater Lake itself. There had been a lot of people who had done studies of the lake, yet what piqued my concern was an article that compared large bodies of water like Lake Tahoe with Crater Lake (35). These big bodies of water have thermoclines, though I may not have the right term. The zones or strata in these lakes are somewhat stable, and I don’t remember  the depth of distance, but something like the upper 500 feet is such that it just stays constant and the strata below that, the next 80 feet or 100 is a different zone and stays stable. But there wasn’t enough solid scientific evidence to support this theory. There was also the concern about geothermal activity. Was the bottom of Crater Lake completely dormant, or is something still going on? There just wasn’t enough information. USGS was already doing some work in the park, and they found an ideal space to study.

Under Charlie Bacon?

Yes, Charlie was on site at that time. I had this growing concern about the lake and the lack of knowledge to really be basing long range management decisions. We had been concerned about the effect of an oil spill, or the loss of a boat in the lake, or a fuel line break. There was a time when the concessionaire offered row boats for rent on the lake. With  the wilderness program, I thought there was going to be a lot of  clamor and concern about the boats being there. That was one of the things that surprised me as wilderness coordinator. When we got to Crater Lake, I fully expected the Wilderness Society and Friends of the Earth to come out screaming, “Get those boats off the lake,” but that wasn’t the voice that we heard, and it surprised me. The public seemed to accept those boats on the lake.  I don’t know if you heard Jeff Adams comment about it.

Oh, yes!

His opinion of the lodge, being something about a wad of gum on the Mona Lisa. But back to my everlasting concern, the purity of that lake and the lack of sound knowledge. When this matter of legislative adjustment of boundary was in process, one of the my early Park Service friends, Clay Peters, called me. He was in Sequoia and Kings Canyon at the same time I was, about 1960. Clay worked in the House of Representatives as the park and recreation advisor to the chairman of the House committee on National Parks (36). He was aware of Senator Hatfield’s proposal to adjust the boundary. Clay and I were on the phone quite a bit and I stressed to Clay, “Can we get some studies on this lake?” I’m pretty sure I talked to our research scientist, Jim Larson (37). I’m sure he knew that Clay and I were talking, so Clay was able to put a requirement in the legislation. We now had a ten year study to try to gain more knowledge about the lake. It may have come about without my conversations but they certainly didn’t hurt. I was glad to see that come to pass, but I never did get to see any of the reports.

I can show you those.

I like to see them. I also attended some evening programs that Charlie Bacon gave exclusively to the park staff.

In going back to the boundary adjustments, we talked about Rare II being thrown out of court (38). Was the park expansion something that Senator Hatfield’s office initiated?

Well, yes. The senator concluded that the Forest Service would have unmanageable small tracts of wilderness under RARE II. That would not be of any value to them other than as wilderness. It would also cause an extra administrative burden for them. If these small tracts were next to the park boundary, and if they were going to be preserved as wilderness anyway, why not have them managed as part of the national park? He directed the supervisors of the three national forest around the park to meet with the Park Service. The park superintendent and three supervisors of the adjoining forest were to get together to recommend those lands in the area under study that would be suitable to be added to the national park. We met and there was some give and take. The supervisors were very knowledgeable and cooperative.

Ernie Borgman participated in this, too, didn’t he?

No, this was after Ernie retired. At any rate, it worked out pretty satisfactorily as far as I was concerned. I felt good about the resources that we were able to get into the park the ones we chose not to include. We may have missed a few good ones. There was, I think, a compromise on the southwest side. If you look at the boundary, there’s a diagonal line that goes from one corner to another. I remember when we were working on wilderness planning, part of the requirement was that the boundary that you developed has to be a manageable unit that you can describe. The preferred boundary of a wilderness would be natural terrain features, a hydrographic divide, a ridge, a stream or something like that. If that is not possible, then a second choice would be from known survey points. The natural terrain features were the preferred way, whereas a contour line on a topographic map was the least desirable. The only way I could get a manageable boundary in the particular case was to go from one section corner to another half section or something. That’s the reason for the diagonal but for the rest of the boundaries, we tried to work along natural terrain features.

Was the CPSU study of Sphagnum Bog helpful to make the case for all of it being inside the park?

I didn’t refer to it (39). We talked earlier today about these various land classifications.  Planners and park staff probably defined the area of Sphagnum Bog as class four, which has unique natural features. I had the judgment of others to fall back on for that being of value and I knew there was some adjacent to the park. I wanted to get as much as I could for a buffer.

That section east of the Pinnacles is very nice to have.

I went down the canyon as far as I could. That road closure at  the East Entrance occurred in about 1972 or 1973. It wasn’t in the master plan, because the 1968 plan still had the four entrances: north, east, south, and west. The East Entrance got very little travel, but there was a question of staffing it when the planning team was considering the one-way rim drive.  How would that fit into the scheme of things? Would the people who wanted to go out the East Entrance would have to go all the way around, or could they go across from the south to the East Entrance? We realized why there was so little travel- it was because the state maintained the little spur road for only about four miles. It was a maintenance headache for them. By closing it they could eliminate that road from maintenance, and it was agreeable with us. I  don’t know who initiated that idea, but it was a win-win situation for everyone.

Were they also concerned about elk and potential poaching?

It helped our protection program to by not having to worry about that access. It was a good move and we were glad to see it.

Late in your superintendency you wrote a memorandum about two way travel on Grayback if part of the East Rim Drive were closed.

Okay, that rings a bell!

I was interested because you had corresponded with Francis Lange, the landscape architect (40).

I think he was the guy that made the sign at Vidae Falls.

I met him.

So did. I suspect it was probably a service wide move to try to reduce maintenance of park roads. I remember now we were directed to look at the feasibility of closing the road from Cleetwood Cove to Sun Notch.

Kerr Notch or Sun Notch.

It concerned that whole east side, as I vaguely recall. If we did that, it would be reasonable to convert the Grayback Road into a two way route.

 Yes, and an optional loop, if you will. Fortunately we never had to go that way. That’s the last segment where you have to do snow removal. They felt we could reduce our budget quite a bit if we didn’t have to maintain it .

Did you meet Mr. Lange as a result of that CCC reunion (41)?

I made an extra effort to find any CCC alumni. This is just coming back to me now, I believe he was living some place in California.

Yes, Vacaville.

That is it. I don’t believe he came up for that event. I tried to generate a good bit of  publicity and I was hopeful that we would get more people to turn out. I remember that he came up and he told me about the sign that we still have at Vidae Falls. He is the only one that I recall of the CCC alumni.

I was reading some of the annual reports that were done during the time that you were superintendent. One had to do with the onset of computerization. How did that go?

As far as the first steps the Park Service was taking with computers, I think they had some hotshot’s computer salesman that sold them a bill of goods. One idea was that they would be able to have the same kind of computers in the regional office as in the various park offices, and thereby have a link to the monthly balance of funds.  Computers were envisioned mainly for budgets at that initial stage. I was all for anything that could streamline them, but this entailed Mount Rainier, Olympic, and us getting a special kind of computer that matched what the regional office had. At that point we had to dedicate on room for the computer, and assure that it was smoke free and had outside ventilation. We had some administrative staff who smoked, and at that time smoking wasn’t regarded as taboo.  We had the non-smokers quite adamant about the smokers bothering their health, so I had a little tizzy going. The smokers were the one that would be using computers at that point in time, so the room had to have this special ventilation. The computer system didn’t realize the potential we had expected in getting results that first year, but within a few short years it began to be more productive (42). With the establishment of our resource management program, things began to come of age. We were then able to get better computer systems and modems.

Was the power line project related to computers?

Not necessarily. We had a generator. Before the power line was placed underground there were many times when we didn’t have electricity, so we had to kick up that generator (43). Many of the park residents had electrical appliance problems that resulted from the power surges. Having a reliable source of power was something we needed to survive in this modern world. I’m sure they’ve got that pretty well solved by now. We were constantly working with the power company. Does the park still have a full time electrician?

Yes, or at least we try to cover those duties on a full time basis. Where did you live in Steel Circle when you were superintendent?

There are three little garages (44).

So that has been pretty constant.

I think it has.

What where the main things that you emphasized in trying to improve living conditions at Crater Lake?

We tried to have a good strong community activities in the school building. In fact, when I first visited Crater Lake in my regional staff position, they still had a school at  Crater Lake. That was convenient for the employees that had kids there. Without a certified teacher and probably other factors, kids had to ride the bus to Chiloquin.  Another little problem that came about relating to housing was required occupancy. About the time that I came on the scene all the employees were living in the park under required occupancy. Some GAO report said that is not necessary for all the people to be required occupants, but I think we were making special allowances after that water fiasco. About the time I got there the clamp down started on this required occupancy. We had to go through quarter’s appraisals, an evaluation program, and all.

Did you have a policy so that employees could bid for housing?

No. We tried to have housing based (as much as possible) on position and family needs, so it was flexible. We didn’t have the bidding process they had in Yellowstone and some of these other parks. It worked okay. With the tightening of the screws on required occupancy, I remember it got down to only four positions. In the mean time, the rent kept being jacked up higher and higher. We had to deduct for invasion of privacy, on the basis that some people would come into our residential area at various times. The remote location counted a lot. GAO was watch dogging this, and it  seemed to be pinching our people. We tried to put our emergency response guys out near the front of Steel Circle. In case of an emergency, the people would come in and contact them first.

The quarter’s situation became quite a concern. Families with kids had a real problem with the distance to school. It handicapped them when they got into high school and wanted to participate in extra curricular activities. I remember granting Pat Smith, the chief of interpretation, permission to live in Klamath Falls because he had two boys in high school.

He had to commute every day?

We made an arrangement that he could stay in the park during the week but the housing situation is awkward with kids in school. The Prospect school situation developed after I left. During my last year or so, there was a family sending their kids to Prospect, but I think they were riding down on their own. I hope things are working okay now. Housing has improved, especially in the new Sleepy Hollow. Would you believe that one Easter Sunday morning, at that time we had a record for snow on the ground, there was close to 22 feet on the ground (45). You can imagine how high it was on some of those flat roofs in Steel Circle (46).

That was the record year, 1983.

I called on all employees to help us that Easter. We had our crews out and people on the roofs shoveling snow. The sun was out, but here we were shoveling frantically when people elsewhere were picking up Easter eggs. What an experience!

You also asked if Jarvis or Forbes had any difficulty integrating with the protection rangers. Both of them had been rangers, and I tried to foster rangers being resource management oriented too. They worked together hand in glove.

Did you attend those early meetings for the lake project? I know some of them took place in Corvallis.

Yes! In fact I had them out to my house. See, I had a home in Corvallis (47). Yes, we had people there from a number of institutions. It was a very good meeting. We were getting things started, so I attended. I can’t remember who initiated it, but it was something that we felt would be essential to the research program having credibility (48).

Were there problems with Oregon State having been selected as sort of a host institution? I knew Doug Larson lost out as principal investigator to Gary Larson.

The news media somehow got a hold of Doug. He suggested that there might be pollution from the sewage lagoon below headquarters. The news media contacted me and I tried to explain the situation. I was convinced that this was not the case. Well, the reporters didn’t stop at that. They went back to Doug and said that the superintendent doesn’t agree. He came back with something like that is a crock of  baloney. Forbes might have come in my office when I was getting a call from one of  these reporters and I said, “Well, you can contact USGS if you want to. I’m not disputing what Mr. Larson with might be, but I’m soundly convinced otherwise.”  At any rate, Doug had done some very good research, but it wasn’t in the same direction that we were going in the ten year program. He probably felt like he was left out. I remember a meeting with Jim Larson. We felt that the way Doug was oriented was not the course we believed was needed for Crater Lake.

I have a question about union representation. Was that a complicating factor in the park operations?

It became that. I can’t give you the particular date. It was probably about 1982.  This came about when we selected a carpenter to come on board. I tried extremely hard to talk with people coming to Crater Lake to let them know the living conditions, and what it was like in the winter so that there wouldn’t be any surprises.  There was a non-Park Service man coming to the park from Veterans Affairs. He was a qualified carpenter and I guess the best that the register had to offer. He wasn’t there long before he started agitating other employees as to the value and benefit of them having a union. He couldn’t understand why there wasn’t an employee union all ready in place. To his way of thinking, management would just run roughshod over employee right without a union. This appealed to maintenance employees, so contact was made with a union group in Portland. I met with the union leader (49).  Unions were being pushed in a number of park areas at the time. The managers and those who work with them needed to have training in collective bargaining, so the department set up some training programs. We selected various employees to complete this training course. I attended a week long seminar in Denver on collective bargaining. We worked things out and a contract was drawn up. I can’t remember which union it was, but we worked out some kind of an agreement (50). I don’t think we had any problems after that.

Did it only cover the maintenance employees?

Yes, nobody else got in on that.

 Did the visit by Director Whalen result in any operational changes?

He came out to welcome me. That’s the only time he was there. I had not taken my place at Crater Lake yet, but I met Whalen and we stayed overnight in Crater Lake Lodge. Whalen spoke to the press at the Sinnott Memorial. After that I was introduced to the crowd. We toured the Rim Drive. The next day we went to Klamath Falls and flew to John Day.

For their park dedication?

Probably.

That was August 1978.

Okay, it all ties in. I had been pretty involved with John Day at that point, so I went along (51). I came back to Seattle, then moved to Crater Lake. Whalen’s appearance was simply public relations, introducing me to the public.

One of the changes you noted in your first annual report was that the YCC program had improved.

They were using the building you have as offices for a dormitory and took their meals in the Messhall.

Their numbers were far greater in those days… today it is only five or six kids.

Yes, it was a popular thing that had some presidential endorsement. YCC coordinators worked with the park staff, usually the maintenance chief and the chief ranger. Resource management people worked to develop projects for the YCC folks.  They were not supposed to be doing things that would mean eliminating position that was funded under maintenance or rangers. They focused on projects that you otherwise couldn’t get done. It wasn’t difficult to come up with projects. They worked with our maintenance staff and in resource management doing revegetation. They also did trail work. It was a good program.

Were there other employees that ate in the Messhall in addition to them?

Just the YCC!

A question about interpretation, that being the John Wesley Hillman portrayal.

I really thought that was great! We had Marion Jack and a few other rangers do it. He taught in the schools down in Jacksonville, I believe. This was already an established program. I don’t know whether Frank Betts gets credit for it, or whether he just endorsed it, but it was in place. Marion used this stock and we paid him rent for the horses. We worked out a site where he could keep them. His stock was available to us for backcountry use when we need them.

 Were the stock kept in Sleep Hollow?

Yes. I remember this mounted ranger bit. About 1960 at Sequoia and Kings Canyon, the NPS realized the benefit of having a ranger on horseback as opposed to a vehicle. I was the one selected to try that type of program in the Giant Forest or Lodge pole area. At that point in time I didn’t have the little radio to carry with me. Our radio was in the vehicle. When I was on my horse, and I grew up on a farm riding horseback, it was a pleasure for me. I enjoyed that aspect of it, but I felt somewhat lost without that radio. As a patrol ranger, I felt that radio was an important tool that I needed.  It served a good purpose in patrol of the campground and I realized that. I liked the Hillman program at Crater Lake. It was very helpful for interpretation if  John Wesley Hillman arrived at the rim on horseback, but it also lended a medium to reach the people and they liked it.

Was the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980 a factor in getting the seismograph?

I think we had one in place when Mount St. Helens erupted. I remember seeing the waves on it. It did pique a great interest from out staff, especially our interpretive program. I have to tell you about a little wrinkle on that. Within a couple weeks of the first eruption we got a call from FEMA (52). They understood that we had a street sweeper and were calling because there was a great need for some of these sweepers in cities like Yakima and Portland that had ask fallout. What can you say? We had to declare it available, so they came and got it. We didn’t see it again until something like October or November. When it was brought back, the bearings were just shot.  The ash had just chewed them up. We lost that puppy and I don’t know if we ever replaced it or not. That was our contribution to the Mount St. Helens ordeal.

To close out the Crater Lake segment, I wanted to ask you about the successes during the five and a half years were there. Also, what things disappointed you the most?

I see the boundary adjustment and the working relations I had with the Forest Service, connections through my friend Clay Peters, as foremost. He was in a key position working on the drafting of the legislation that helped bring about the park expansion.  I feel good about that. I’m thinking of long term benefits to the park. Working with external interests was another accomplishment. Getting resource management programs off the ground that helping our interpretive programs makes really good progress. I really had nothing to do with the historic studies, but was pleased to see them come along. It is a thing that I very much support.

Probably the biggest disappointment has been the old lodge. I didn’t go along with the public who felt the lodge was such a great cathedral and all that. It was nothing but an old barn that developed without any sound planning. It grew up like Topsy.  After its torn and tattered history, especially with all the safety and fire concerns, my feeling was that it served its purpose. It probably never should have been built there in the first place. A visitor doesn’t need to turn over in his bed and look out the window to see the lake. Paying $120 per night is a luxury I don’t think we can afford. It’s just out of place. A visitor’s experience should be that of having the sensation of that John Wesley Hillman did when he first saw the lake. It isn’t looking over and seeing this ugly old lodge, nor should it be looking down and seeing boats fluttering around on the lake. To appreciate that pristine jewel that it is, a visitor should be able to come up to the rim and see nothing but crystal blue water, Wizard Island, and that’s all. And, of course have the feeling, WOW. That is my biggest disappointment. I know that there are probably many in the Park Service who feel somewhat like I do, but it’s surprising how many people think it is the Windsor Castle. Another disappointment was that we directed to turn the operation of  Mazama Campground over to the concession (53). Is it still concession operated?

Yes.

I hated to see that happen. Maybe I’m an old traditionalist, but I felt that it was just giving them too much. I was very much in favor and did some site planning for the campground store down at Mazama. This was part of an effort to remove that function from the rim. For overnight lodging, I strongly encouraged something down in Munson Valley rather than at the rim. There is room in Munson Valley. In fact there is space where you go down below headquarters about two miles in the vicinity where the old dump used to be (54). That could be a place suitable for lodging. They could put up some interpretive plaques and scale models of the lodge at the rim for people to look at, so they could understand what was once there. But we chose to go another way, I guess. I was down for the dedication and it looks nice (55). When I left Crater Lake I began to think they’d put a scale model of the old lodge around my neck because of all the headaches I had with it. At one point we had to put external fire escapes there.

 I remember the one on the east side of the building.

We had to go into an elaborate smoke alarm system and spent tons of money on that darn thing. I made the decision that they could no longer have fires in that mammoth fire place in the Great Hall.

Yes, I remember the sign.

I had to put it up because the chimney had deteriorated so badly that the smoke was billowing into rooms upstairs. That didn’t win any popularity contests. They’ve got the fireplace reconstructed now.

What was the relationship of Oregon Caves when you were superintendent? Did you provide any direct assistance to the monument?

Yes and no. Going back to the cluster office period, the group provided budgetary oversight, administrative personnel, and interpretive assistance to John Miele and Dick Sims (56). Then there was a period after Ernie retired that the group office was still functioning. I was there in a coordinating role and it was maybe a two day a week job. Then Oregon Cave became completely independent, so we backed off (57). I left a standing offer to provide any assistance that they needed and to just to give us a call. It was on that basis, but that type of assistance wasn’t incorporated into the organizational chart.

We still provide direct assistance to them with budget and in a few other ways.

I think there were a couple of times that we sent somebody over there for a while. On a couple of other occasions they wanted some assistance, but most of the time they operated on their own. They liked being independent.

I had a couple questions on the plan that you helped to finish at the Oregon Caves. In the draft there was a holding area about three or four miles up the road, on Highway 46. What led to that?

I’ll have to take the blame or credit. Bruce Black might have been doing the Oregon Caves master plan draft and I can’t remember who else. But they were gone from the scene and John Rutter said, “Here, do it.” At that point in time, the planning process was to the point where we were to have public meetings. I hammered out of final plan, a revised draft, I guess it was. We went down and held a meeting in Cave Junction.  Ben Gale and I flew to Medford and drove over to the monument. We had a meeting and not too many people showed. We discussed it, and it was the concessionaire who had some questions. Christianson, I believe his name was.

Out of that came this final, with endorsements from John Rutter and Ben Gale (58). My idea, rather than having a holding area up the road some distance and having visitors wait at a place with nothing to do, was to have some place in Cave Junction. You would come in and register at the parking lot in Cave Junction. They could then say we can accommodate so many cars and it’ll be such and such a wait. Whoever is operating the station at Cave Junction could say, “Okay car such and such you may go.” In the mean time there are things for people to do and see in Cave Junction. This would help the Chamber of Commerce and maybe go hand in hand with the Forest Service by indicating what recreational opportunities there are in the area. But all of this is contingent on communications, so they had to establish a system that would make this thing work (59). The big problem that prompted these plans was the overcrowding in the parking area on real busy days (60). That was the big problem, as stated in the master plan draft. There wasn’t room for an overflow and you had people stacked up on that road, so you had a problem. I’m not surprised that it never happened, did it?

There is an Illinois Valley Visitors Center. The Park Service helps staff it now.

That’s good. It is what I envisioned. Let me add this… about the time of the North Cascades master planning, the director ordered planners to look at other means of  transportation beside the automobile. Tramways were proposed for North Cascades, but I knew that a bus system wouldn’t quite work at Oregon Caves. Planners have since focused on the parking problem.

 Footnotes:

1. Located in Giant Forest.
2. Later called Albright Training Center.
3. The Field Operations Study Team, in existence from 1966 to 1968.
4. The park naturalist series (GS-452) was abolished in 1969 and resumed wit ha new classification system that included park management or rangers (GS-025) and technicians (GS-26).
5. Park divisions called Interpretation and Resource Management were generally headed by Chief Rangers.
6. This problems led to the rebirth of interpretative divisions in many parks by the late 1970’s.
7. Office of Resource Planning under Peetz’s direction from 1966 to 1969.
8. The Pacific Northwest Region started as a “district” of the Western Region in 1968, and achieved full regional status in 1969.
9. Authorized in 1965, established in 1970. Fritz was superintendent at Craters of the Moon National Monument from 1966 to 1974.
10. Superintendent at Sequoia and Kings Canyon when Rouse worked there.
11. Then a national monument.
12. They published a multi-volume report with recommendations in 1962.
13. Zoning appeared in master plans of the time, and later (in modified) as part of general management plans.
14. North Cascade National Park, along with two national recreation areas, was established in October of 1968.
15. The U.S. Forest Service conducted its Road less Area Review and Evaluation twice, first in the late 1960’s and then in the mid 1970’s.
16. It would have meant driving on the present route of the Pacific Crest Trail from Highway 62 to the PCT junction with the Pumice Flat Trail.
17. Hartzog was director from 1964 to 1972. The facility may have been the Red Blanket Patrol Cabin.
18. All but one of the backcountry patrol cabins built in 1933 and 1934 were demolished.
19. Animal Unit Months, used in calculating grazing fees.
20. Rudolph was chief ranger from 1981 to 1983.
21. Restricting it to the road connecting Diamond Lake with the North Junction, in line with the regional director’s decision in 1974.
22. The most closely associated with the Crater Lake projects were regional office staff members, T. Allen Comp [Chief of Cultural Resources], Stephanie Toothman [Regional Historian], Laurin Huffman [Historical Architect] and Dan Babbitt [Chief of Design in Maintenance Division].
23. Peting’s historic preservation class developed a number of design scenarios for preservation and use of the Munson Valley Historic District, and completed their report in 1984.
24. This was John Davis, who assisted Jim Wiggins and then Dan Sholly until 1978.
25. Sholly went from being chief of I&RM to chief ranger in 1978, when Pat Smith was hired as the chief of interpretation.
26. The first position is resource management belonged to Mark Forbes, who was hired in 1978. A resource management training program was authorized by Congress in 1981.
27. This took place in 1974.
28. Jack V. Houston.
29. Borgman was the group superintendent and retired in March 1980.
30. Rouse’s predecessor, Frank Betts, largely refused to work with the group office.
31. Jim Rouse concluded his career at North Cascades as assistant superintendent. John Reynolds was superintendent at that time and is presently regional director in San Francisco.
32. The current superintendent at North Cascades.
33. Dickenson was regional director in Seattle from 1977 to 1981.
34. 34)
35. Raymond C. Smith, et al., Optical Properties and Color of Lake Tahoe and Crater Lake, Limnology and Oceanography 18:2 (March 1973) pp.189-199
36. This took place in 1982.
37. Regional Chief Scientist in Seattle.
38. That took place in 1979.
39. Susan Seyer’s thesis on the area, reformatted into a CPSU report with assistance from Jerry Franklin.
40. Park Landscape Architect from 1934 to 1939.
41. A number of recognition ceremonies were held in 1983 at Crater Lake and elsewhere because of the 50^th anniversary of the Civilian Conservation Corps.
42. The park’s first computers were made by Wang.
43. Crater Lake has been served with outside power since 1929, but with overhead lines until 1983.
44. Building #227.
45. The record was set officially on April 1, 1983.
46. Prior to 1991 all the roofs in Steel Circle were flat with the exception of Building  #17.
47. Where his wife most often resided while their two daughters attended Oregon State University.
48. The first meetings took place in 1982.
49. The American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1042.
50. This took effect in 1984.
51. The John Day Fossil Beds required extensive National Park Service planning efforts prior to its establishment and during the first few years after authorization. Rouse played a key role from the regional office in facilitating the monument’s planning process.
52. Federal Emergency Management Agency.
53. This took place on a “trail basis” In 1983, and was finalized for the life of the concession contract in 1986.
54. The so-called summer dump. This area excluded from wilderness recommendations until 1993.
55. This took place in July 1995.
56. Sims was superintendent of the monument from 1971 to 1973, while Miele served in that capacity from 1974 to 1985.
57. Oregon Caves was officially independent from 1982 to 1985.
58. The master plan of 1975.
59. Until 1984 all the monument had was a radio phone through a toll station.
60. Annual visitation peaked in the 1970s at roughly 200,000.

 

Other pages in this section

• Crater Lake Centennial Celebration oral histories
• Hartzog – Complete Interview (PDF)
• Jon Jarvis
• Albert Hackert and Otto Heckert
• Hazel Frost
• James Kezer
• F. Owen Hoffman
• Douglas Larson
• Carroll Howe
• Wayne R. Howe
• Francis G. Lange
• Lawrence Merriam C.
• Marvin Nelson
• Doug and Sadie Roach
• John Salinas
• Larry Smith
• Earl Wall
• Donald M. Spalding
• Wendell Wood
• John Lowry Dobson
• O. W. Pete Foiles
• Bruce W. Black
• Emmett Blanchfield
• Ted Arthur
• Robert Benton
• Howard Arant
• John Eliot Allen
• Obituary Kirk Horn, 1939-2019
• Mabel Hedgpeth