CHAPTER SEVENTEEN: Planning and Development at Rim Village: 1886 – present G. False Starts and Potential Resolution: 1978-1988

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]

The location of the septic leachfield serving the cafeteria figured prominently in an investigation of six caldera springs during the summer of 1987. The ensuing report connected high nitrate concentrations found in one of the springs to the leachfield and strongly suggested that the NPS consider alternative approaches for treating human waste on the rim. [124] The report also justified the phasing of planned construction in the supplement to the DCP. The connection of new and existing facilities to the Munson Valley waste water treatment plant was given top priority in the anticipated funding for a Rim Village redevelopment package. [125]

The draft supplement to the DCP was issued for public comment in October 1987. It listed four alternatives for redeveloping Rim Village. Common to all of the alternatives was removal of four comfort stations and the Community House, while the Kiser Studio and Sinnott Memorial were to be retained. The disposition of the lodge was the key to all of the alternatives; this ranged from complete rehabilitation in the first alternative to demolition in the fourth alternative.

Alternative I would provide for an 80 room Crater Lake Lodge to be open only in the summer, and would be included in a total Rim Village redevelopment package estimated at $25.5 million. Alternative II drew from the Kenkel and Frazier schematic study including a rehabilitated original lodge with restaurant and exhibit space, open only in summer. A new all year lodge with 90 rooms would occupy a site near the cafeteria. This lodge would be three stories with a winter viewing area. The site was chosen in the 1984 Fletcher, Finch, Farr, and Ayotte study. This package was estimated to cost $33.5 million. Alternative Ill was similar to Alternative II, but differed in that rustic lodging and dining would be provided in the Crater Lake Lodge in the summer while a new lodge would have 60 rooms. This package was estimated to cost $33.3 million. Alternative IV called for a new all- year lodge with 90 rooms in an estimated package to cost about $28 million. All four alternatives showed a separate interpretive center to be constructed near the site of what had been the cafeteria and in proximity to the new lodge. Several newspapers called for a fifth alternative that would have the old lodge rehabilitated for year-round accommodations. [126]

Public hearings were held on the supplement to the DCP in Klamath Falls, Medford, Roseburg, and Portland from January 25 to 28, 1988. The historic preservation community strongly favored Alternative I, while the NPS chose not to select a preferred alternative. During the hearings the NPS stressed that a final decision was not limited to the four alternatives. [127] This would allow Regional Director Charles Odegaard the latitude to combine elements from several alternatives for a final decision on the DCP once the public comment period closed February 5,1988.