This is the third of four Public Lands Blog posts that examine the topic of national parks in Oregon. Part 1 explored Oregon’s one success in establishing a national park. Part 2 discussed multiple failures to establish additional national parks in the state. Part 3 examines both successful and failed attempts to expand Crater Lake National Park. Part 4 will look at the potential supply and demand for additional national parks in Oregon and the political challenges and chances.
Map 1. Crater Lake National Park boundaries in 2020. Source: National Park Service.
There is nothing so American as our national parks. . . . The fundamental idea behind the parks . . . is that the country belongs to the people, that it is in process of making for the enrichment of the lives of all of us.
—President Franklin D. Roosevelt
No new national park proposal in Oregon has made it past the finish line since the establishment of Crater Lake National Park in 1902. Oregon’s only national park has had two very modest additions since then, in 1932 and in 1980 (Map 1). This has not been for lack of effort on the part of the National Park Service.
Over the century, the National Park Service sought to take Forest Service land and vice versa. What was really scary was when the National Park Service offered to give existing park land to the Forest Service in exchange for other Forest Service lands. The National Park Service was willing to give away forests for rock-and-ice scenery. Fortunately, it never happened.
Figure 1. Looking eastward across Diamond Lake to Mount Thielsen. While not part of Crater Lake National Park, Mount Thielsen was established as a wilderness area in 1984. Source: M. O. Stevens, Wikipedia.
Grand Expansion Hopes Dashed
The official history of Crater Lake National Park recounts the numerous attempts made by the National Park Service to enlarge the park during the first half of the twentieth century:
From the 1910s to the 1940s the National Park Service initiated a series of efforts to expand the boundaries of Crater Lake National Park. The primary purpose of these efforts was to enlarge the park to provide recreational opportunities and park facilities for visitors away from Crater Lake itself, and thus curtail or eliminate development that would mar the scenic and scientific qualities of the lake. A secondary purpose of the proposed expansion was to create an enlarged game preserve to protect the wildlife of the region. The focus of the expansion efforts was the Diamond Lake-Mount Thielsen-Mount Bailey region to the north of the park and the Union Creek-Upper Rogue River Valley to the west. [emphasis added]
Figure 2. Looking westward across Diamond Lake to Mount Bailey. Source: Oregon Wild.
If the first National Park Service director, Stephen Mather (Figure 3), had heard of something in the area, he was for making it a national park (my kind of guy). In his first annual report in 1917, he advocated including the Diamond Lake region in the park. In addition, Mather recommended including the Lake of the Woods region about 20 miles south of the park. The official history states that “while the area had not been investigated by representatives of the National Park Service, it was ‘known to be an exceptionally beautiful region and valuable for scarcely anything besides park purposes.’” Unfortunately, Lake of the Woods never was included in the park and has long lost any national park quality that it had.
Figure 3. Stephen Mather (1867–1930), the first director of the National Park Service (1917–1929). Source: Marian Albright Schenk, Wikipedia.
But the National Park Service under Mather wanted more national park land at Crater Lake and was willing to trade lands in the park that could be logged and grazed for Forest Service land that was highly scenic but had commercially valuable logs or forage. The official history explains:
In 1926 the Park Service focused its efforts on Crater Lake National Park expansion by submitting proposals to the President’s Coordinating Committee on National Parks and Forests. The committee had been established to investigate and make recommendations regarding transfer of lands between the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service. In August the committee held hearings regarding Crater Lake expansion in Klamath Falls, Diamond Lake, and Medford. The Park Service recommended three extensions to the park boundaries—areas that were of outstanding scenic and recreational value that would relieve the park of administrative burdens that were “fast becoming critical.” The three extensions were:
1. DIAMOND LAKE EXTENSION: The proposed extension is in general accord with the McNary Senate bills, but reduces Senator McNary’s proposed extension by 36 square miles. This extension would bring the Park boundaries one mile north of Diamond Lake and would include Mounts Thielsen and Bailey. Area embraces approximately 83.5 square miles.
2. UNION CREEK EXTENSION: This is an extension westward that includes a portion of the headwaters of the Rogue River; to secure the immense recreational opportunities of the Union Creek area; to secure gravity water supply; and to provide an all-year Park headquarters of vital importance to administration. Area embraces approximately 34 square miles.
3. KLAMATH EXTENSION: A small extension southward, worked out on the ground with the Forest Supervisor, to secure mutually advantageous positions. Area embraces approximately 3.8 square miles.
The Park Service also proposed the elimination of three areas from the park. The three areas contained valuable timber, grazing tracts, and private inholdings that were a source of irritation to park administration.
These areas were:
1. NORTHEAST AREA: Designed to eliminate 12 square miles from the northeast section of the present Park, an area containing a very valuable stand of mature yellow pines, very accessible, contiguous to timber now being marketed under Forest supervision. Immediately marketable yellow pine in this area is estimated by Forest Service officers at 100,000,000 board feet.
2. NORTHWEST AREA: To eliminate 18 square miles of timber and grazing desired by the Forest Service. Also desired by them to improve the administration of the Crater National Forest by giving access to sources of streams, and a better topographical boundary.
3. SOUTHEAST AREA: Eliminate approximately 13 square miles of valuable timber land contiguous to Forest timber now being marketed. It also eliminates private holdings that embarrass Park administration.
All told the proposals provided for a total extension of the park boundaries of some 118 square miles and eliminations totaling 43 square miles for a net enlargement of 75 square miles. [emphasis added]
Figure 4. The upper Rogue River runs through a narrow basalt channel. While not in an expanded Crater Lake National Park, the river segment is a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Source: Gary Halvorson, Oregon Archives.
Unfortunately, the proposed expansions never occurred. According to the official history, this was “as a result of continuing opposition by the Forest Service.” Fortunately, the proposed deletions never occurred either, for the same reason.
Figure 5. Union Creek at Oregon Route 62 (also known as the Crater Lake Highway). Union Creek should be added to the Upper Rogue Wild and Scenic River. Source: Finetooth (Wikipedia).
The First Modest Addition
What did happen is that in 1932, 1.5 square miles of the proposed 3.8-square-mile Klamath Extension on the park’s southeastern boundary was added to the park, the so-called panhandle addition. The National Park Service director at the time, Horace Albright (Figure 6), said, “The purposes of this extension are to secure for the Crater Lake National Park a more attractive entrance amid fine yellow pine forests and to secure a more available water supply for park purposes.” The Forest Service was quite hostile to the expansion, though it was at the cost of a mere 973 acres of its domain.
Figure 6. Horace M. Albright (1890–1987), the second director of the National Park Service (1929–1933). Source: George A. Grant, National Park Service via Wikipedia.
The National Park Service finally ended its “embarrass[ment]” about private inholdings in the park by buying them in 1940 and 1941 (Map 2). While not technically an “addition” to the park, the elimination of the private lands within the boundary was certainly additive.
Map 2. Private lands in the southeastern corner of the park (shown in this 1906 map) were returned to public ownership by 1941. Source: National Park Service.
The Second Modest Addition
The other addition to Crater Lake National Park was in 1980. Senator Mark Hatfield (R-OR) (Figure 7) said this upon introduction of 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 straight-lined 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. [emphasis added]
Figure 7. Mark O. Hatfield (1922–2011), US senator from Oregon (1967–1997). Source: Wikipedia.
While expanding the park by including Forest Service lands being recommended as wilderness, the Hatfield bill left out 8,000 acres of the latter to accommodate snowmobiles and logging.
In 1982, Congress returned 480 acres of the addition to the Rogue River National Forest after it was discovered to have a “live” (under contract) timber sale.
In 1988, while not expanding the park, Congress expanded the protections of the park against geothermal development adjacent to the park. Congress amended the Geothermal Steam Act to define the entirety of the park as a “significant thermal feature” that must be protected from geothermal harm.
For More Information
• Harlan D. Unrau, Administrative History: Crater Lake National Park, Oregon (Volumes I and II) (National Park Service, 1987). Chapter 17 by Stephen R. Mark, park historian in 1987.