I 29.86/4:AC 1
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
Cultural Landscape Report
for the Historic Hiking Trail System
of Acadia National Park
Historic Hiking Trail System, 2003 Western Part of Mount Desert Island
Produced by
National Park Service
Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation
Legend
~| Existing marked, maintained trails
I Historic trails no longer marked
|J Roads and carriage roads
I I Acadia National Park lands
Approximate wale {mil**}
, ©
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
Cultural Landscape Report
for the Historic Hiking Trail System
of Acadia National Park, Maine
Prepared by
Christian S. Barter Margaret Coffin Brown J. Tracy Stakely Gary J. Stellpflug
Illustrated by
Sarah E. Baldyga
Project Manager
Jim Vekasi
Contributors
Brooke Childrey Peter Colman Carl Demrow Judith Hazen Connery David Goodrich Laura Hayes Charles Jacobi Keith W. Johnston
David Kari Lester Kenway Courtney LaRuffa Lauren G. Meier David Salisbury James Schissel Lee Terzis Heidi Werner
Funding provided by
National Park Service Cultural Resources Preservation Program National Park Service Fee Demonstration Program Friends of Acadia
Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation National Park Service, Boston, Massachusetts, 2006
Acadia Trails treatment Plan
The Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation promotes the steward- ship of significant landscapes through research, planning, and sustainable preservation maintenance. The Center accomplishes its mission in col- laboration with a network of partners including national parks, universities, government agencies, and private nonprofit organizations. Techniques and principles of preservation practice are made available through training and publications. Based at the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site, the Center perpetuates the tradition of the Olmsted firms and Frederick Law Olmsted's lifelong commitment to people, parks, and public spaces.
For more information, contact:
The Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation 99 Warren Street Brookline, MA 02445 www.nps.gov/oclp/
Acadia National Park
McFarland Hill Headquarters
P.O. Box 177
Bar Harbor, ME 04609
www.nps.gov/acad/
Friends of Acadia
43 Cottage Street
P.O. Box 45
Bar Harbor, ME 04609
www.friendsofacadia.org
Publication Credits: Information from this publication may be copied and used with the condition that full credit is given to the authors. Appropriate citations and bibliographic credits should be made for each use.
Layout: Brian P. Graphic Arts, brianpgraphics@adelphia.net
ISBN 0-9779833-1-5
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Acadia trails treatment plan: cultural landscape report for the historic hiking trail system of Acadia National Park, Maine / prepared by Christian S. Barter ... [et al.] ; illustrated by Sarah E. Baldyga; project manager, Jim Vekasi ; contributors, Brooke Childrey ... [et al.]. p.cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index
1. Acadia National Park (Me.) 2. Trails — Conservation and restoration — Maine — Acadia National Park. 3. Landscape assessment— Maine — Acadia National Park. 4. Landscape protection — Maine— Acadia National Park. I. Title: Cultural landscape report for the historic trail system of Acadia National Park, Maine. II. Barter, Christian, 1969- III. Vekasi, Jim. IV. Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation. (U.S.)
F27.M9A24.2006
974T45 — dC22
2006040031
Cover Photo: Acadia Trails crew installing rustic arched bridge on the Jordan Pond Path, 2003. Photograph by Peter Travers.
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS vii
INTRODUCTION ix
SECTION 1: TRAIL FEATURE SPECIFICATIONS 1
CHAPTER 1: ROUTE 3
A. Alignment 4
B. Views 15
CHAPTER 2: VEGETATION 21
CHAPTER 3: TREADWAY 29
A. Bench Cuts 30
B. Causeway 37
C. Gravel Tread 48
D. Stone Pavement 54
E. Unconstructed Tread 63
CHAPTER 4: DRAINAGE 69
A. Culverts 71
B. Subsurface Drains 87
C. Side Drains 90
D. Water Bars 95
E. Water Dips 101
CHAPTER 5: CROSSINGS 103
A. Bogwalks 104
B. Bridges 110
C. Stepping Stones 131
CHAPTER 6: RETAINING STRUCTURES 141
A. Checks 142
B. Coping Stones 147
C. Retaining Walls 155
D. Log Cribs 171
CHAPTER 7: STEPS 177
CHAPTER 8: IRONWORK 199
CHAPTER 9: GUIDANCE 217
A. Blazes 219
B. Cairns 223
C. Directional Signs 230
D. Informational Signs 238
E. Scree 243
F. Wooden Railings and Fences 246
G. Trail Name 248
CHAPTER 10: MONUMENTS AND ASSOCIATED STRUCTURES 255
A. Monuments 256
B. Associated Structures 268
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
SECTION 2: INDIVIDUAL TRAIL SPECIFICATIONS 277
#15 Schiff Path 279
#39 Jordan Pond Path 289
#48 Jordan Cliffs Trail 303
#127 Ship Harbor Nature Trail 311
#349 Homans Path 321
SECTION 3: REFERENCES 333
Bibliography 334
Appendix A: Terminology 335
Appendix B: Trail List 345
Appendix C: Trail Naming Justification 355
Appendix D: Sound Masonry Practices/Stonecutting 366
Appendix E: Sample Trail Inventory 369
INDEX 375
FOREWORD
A century ago, visitors to Mount Desert Island scaled granite peaks to enjoy breathtaking ocean views, and strolled leisurely through verdant stands of spruce and fir. These experiences were made possible by intrepid trail builders who used wood, iron, earth and stone to create a system that was unequalled in its scope and workmanship. Acadia National Park owes its very existence to the people who had the inspiration and foresight to protect this magnificent network of walking paths and the surrounding land for all to enjoy. When the park was formed in 1916, the first superintendent, George Bucknam Dorr, spoke eloquently of the need to protect the land:
By taking the opportunity given to us by the richly varied topography of the island, by its situation on the border between land and sea, by the magnificent begin- ning made, and the government's cooperation, we can do something now whose influence will be widely felt.
With the completion of this Cultural Landscape Report, we continue to honor the legacy of trail stewardship that began with Dorr and others so long ago. This project was truly a collaborative effort, and it is with deep gratitude that I recognize our partners, the Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation and Friends of Acadia.
In addition to recognizing the contributions of the past, this comprehensive document also looks to the future. The report has both documented existing con- ditions, and also provided a treatment plan for sensi- tive rehabilitation, an effort that is already underway. It will serve as a blueprint for maintaining the mag- nificent trails at Acadia for many years to come. The Acadia Trails Forever program makes this rehabilita- tion possible, and provides for the continued care of the trails in perpetuity. Future generations will surely benefit from these extraordinary efforts.
Sheridan Steele Superintendent Acadia National Park
I would also like to thank our very professional trails crew at Acadia, now recognized nationally for its expertise in utilizing rehabilitation techniques, and commend Chris Barter, Margie Coffin Brown, Tracy Stakely, and Gary Stellpflug and numerous contribu- tors for their dedication to this project. Many local organizations and individuals generously contributed historic photographs and maps, allowing this cultural landscape report to serve as the most in-depth record of the history of the island's trail system.
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This project was funded by the National Park Service Cultural Resources Preservation Program (CRPP), the National Park Service Fee Demonstration Program (Fee Demo), and Friends of Acadia. The guidelines presented here were devel- oped through the combined efforts of staff at Acadia National Park on Mount Desert Island, Maine, and the Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation in Brook- line, Massachusetts. Project direction was provided by Jim Vekasi, Chief of Maintenance at Acadia. Primary authors for the document include Christian S. Barter and Gary J. Stellpflug, from Acadia's trails program, and Margaret Coffin Brown and J. Tracy Stakely, his- torical landscape architects with the Olmsted Center. Sarah E. Baldyga, also with the Acadia trails program, illustrated the document.
Many individuals assisted in the preparation of this report by providing narrative text, specifications, sketches, and photographs. Thanks to the following contributing park service staff, interns, and interested individuals: Brooke Childrey, Peter Colman, Judith Hazen Connery, Carl Demrow, David Goodrich, Laura Hayes, Charles Jacobi, Keith W. Johnston, David Kari, Lester Kenway, Courtney LaRuffa, Lauren G. Meier, David Salisbury, James Schissel, Lee Terzis, Lauren Laham, and Heidi Werner. Thanks to Jim Vekasi, Charles Jacobi, H. Eliot Foulds, and Chris Ste- vens for reviewing initial drafts and making substantive comments for the document's improvement. Special thanks to Paul F. Haertel, former Superintendent of Acadia National Park, and W. Kent Olson, President of the Friends of Acadia, for their continued support of trail preservation efforts at Acadia and the work of the Olmsted Center.
Historical information used in this document and in other phases of planning for Acadia's trail system was obtained from numerous sources. Thanks to the following contributing repositories, agencies, and individuals for their assistance: Bar Harbor Historical Society— Ed Garrett and Deb Dyer; Bar Harbor Village Improvement Association — Les Brewer and Phil Cunningham; Friends of Acadia— W. Kent Olson and Maria Major O'Byrne; Harpers Ferry Library; His- toric American Engineering Record; Jesup Memorial Library in Bar Harbor — Nancy Howland; Maine His- toric Preservation Commission — Earle Shettleworth, Jr. and Kirk Mohney; Maine State Archives — Roy Wells and Ed Wheaton; National Archives — Helen Engle; National Park Service Northeast Museum Ser- vices Center — John Maounis and Liz Banks; North- east Harbor Library — Robert Pyle; Northeast Harbor Village Improvement Society — Dan Fait; Seal Harbor Library and Village Improvement Society — Deborah Burch; Trails of History — authors Tom St. Germain and Jay Saunders. The document was edited and indexed by Jane Crosen. Page layout and production was pro- vided by Brian P. Graphic Arts.
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
INTRODUCTION
In accordance with National Park Service (NPS) policy, the Cultural Landscape Report (CLR) serves as the primary supporting document to guide the treatment of a cultural landscape and is required before a major intervention. This report represents the second volume of the CLR for the Historic Hiking Trail System of Mount Desert Island. It articulates a strategy for the long-term treatment and maintenance of the trails within the boundaries of Acadia National Park (NP). While the first volume of the CLR focused on the history and significance of the overall trail system on the island, this volume focuses more specifically on the 103 marked, maintained trails within the park, which extend over 118 miles (see Appendix B).
This volume is the culmination of several years of research, analysis, field inventory, and documentation necessary to synthesize voluminous information about the island's extensive trail system. The fundraising ini- tiative "Acadia Trails Forever," a partnership between the NPS and Friends of Acadia, has raised $13 million of private and federal funds to implement treatment and maintenance work through an endowment for the trail system. This document will help guide the efficient and appropriate use of these funds to protect park resources and ensure the highest-quality hiking experi- ence in Acadia NP.
This introduction first summarizes projects completed to date that serve as the foundation for the treatment guidelines, including the research and analysis con- ducted for the first volume of the CLR, the trails crew inventory, field documentation, the nomination for the National Register of Historic Places, and the closely associated Hiking Trails Management Plan. Addition- ally, the overall treatment philosophy and approach to be applied to the trail system is presented here.
Acadia's trail system has a unique history, with layers of significance from several historic periods and con- tributing groups. Some trails have features that are well preserved to a particular era with little or no alteration,
while other trails include an assortment of features dating to different periods and builders. Examples of work from local village improvement associations and societies (VIA/VIS), the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), and the NPS may all exist on the same trail.
This complicated development pattern calls for thoughtful consideration of the appropriate treatment approach. Through the development of the CLR, the goal for treatment of the trail system is to maintain the character and integrity of the system as a whole while preserving the unique qualities of each individual trail. It is extremely important that the implementation of treatment guidelines not create a homogeneous trail system with little differentiation between trails. Additionally, the guidelines should not establish an unrealistic treatment approach that calls for the reha- bilitation of every individual trail feature and would be impossible for the park staff to implement and main- tain. Instead, there should be a balanced approach that addresses the system's integrity, individual trail charac- ter, and acceptable levels of rehabilitation and mainte- nance that can be sustained by the park. This is no easy task, given the layers of history of the trail system, the number of character-defining features present on each trail, and the costs of individual trail rehabilitation and continued maintenance.
Early discussions in the development of this report examined various treatment options for the trail sys- tem. One suggested approach was to group the trails into two categories — highly crafted memorial trails, and "Acadia Style" trails. The highly crafted trails would include approximately fifteen of the most highly constructed trails on the island, like the Beachcroft Path (#13) or Emery Path (#15). These trails would essentially be restored to their original constructed appearance and then maintained through a high level of effort. All other trails in the system would be main- tained to a slightly lower standard. Trail features would be identified that fit within a predetermined "Acadia Style," based on building techniques and materials used during the park's historic periods. These features
Acadia Trails Treatment plan
would be available for use on any trail, regardless of its individual history. It was soon understood that adherence to this approach would be detrimental to the character and integrity of the trail system. The indi- vidual character of each trail would be sacrificed for the convenience of a more uniform rehabilitation and maintenance plan.
After much discussion, consultation, and active participation among Acadia park staff, the Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation (OCLP), the Maine State Historic Preservation Commission, and other interested parties, a more sound methodology was developed and is presented in this volume of the CLR. A general treatment approach has been chosen that focuses on rehabilitation of Acadia's trails in a way that preserves individual trail character as well as the character of the overall system of trails while address- ing the park's maintenance concerns.
To facilitate this approach, trail features common to the whole system are identified and the unique character of each individual trail is addressed. Sec- tion 1 of this document presents specific feature types such as bridges, iron rungs, and steps. Each feature is identified and described with construction specifica- tions where applicable. Similar to the "Acadia Style" approach described above, the features have been identified as having historic precedent at the park for the VIA/VIS or CCC periods. However, unlike the previous approach, every feature type is not deemed appropriate for use on every trail. In Section 2, indi- vidual trails are examined to determine their original character, their layers of development, and which of the identified trail features from Section 1 are or are not appropriate contributors to the trail's individual character. Treatment guidelines are provided address- ing appropriate feature types to use during rehabilita- tion of that particular trail. Although every individual feature on a trail is not addressed, guidelines are established for each trail based on its unique character and development, allowing rehabilitation to proceed in an informed manner.
Trails that have an extensive individual history and numerous built features, like the highly crafted memo- rial trails, will be covered in a high level of detail and will be held to more exacting rehabilitation standards to ensure their character and integrity are not dimin- ished. These trails typically have more thorough historic documentation, providing a sound foundation for guiding their treatment. However, all trails in the system, whether highly crafted or not, will still main- tain their individual character since only features that are appropriate to the trail's historic precedents will be recommended for use. This approach will maintain diversity in Acadia's trails while still allowing room for the inevitable change that is needed to address present trail concerns such as resource protection, increase in visitor use, and level of maintenance.
In many cases, relevant information on trail features and characteristics are drawn from trails that are no longer marked, outside park boundaries, or actively maintained by the Seal Harbor VIS or Northeast Harbor VIS. Due to the large land area, treatment specifications are presented as narrative guidelines for feature types and individual trails, rather than a detailed treatment plan for each section of trail. The narrative guidelines articulate the historical context, character-defining features, and the parameters for rehabilitation of the trail based on contemporary issues, constraints, and operational needs. The guide- lines are phrased as recommendations, in recognition that each individual trail section will present a different set of issues.
The intended audience for this document includes individuals who are extremely familiar with Acadia's trails and are involved in the planning process as well as those who may be unfamiliar with the trail system and/or trail construction in general but may be involved in future trail rehabilitation efforts. As a result, this document relies heavily on graphics to complement and enhance the narrative. Numerous photographs and sketches are included to clarify the text, illustrate historic and existing conditions, and provide examples of both acceptable and unacceptable usage of specific trail features.
Introduction
TERMINOLOGY
Each trail included in this study is assigned a num- ber that corresponds to key maps and an associated database. The currently maintained trails, most of which were present during earlier historic periods, are numbered to correspond with a database and work log used by the trails maintenance program. The trails on the east side of Mount Desert Island are numbered between 1 and 99, and on the west side in the 100s. Trails numbered in the 200s are located on other park lands at Isle au Haut and Schoodic Peninsula. Trails on Mount Desert Island that are no longer marked have been assigned numbers in the 300s, 400s, 500s, and 600s according to "path districts" defined at the turn of the century by the Joint Path Committee of the village improvement associations and societies illustrated in Drawing 3. For example, the Royal Fern Path (#305), which is not currently marked, has been assigned a number in the 300s because historically it was located in the Bar Harbor Village Improvement Association path district. During the development of the park's Hiking Trails Management Plan, additional new routes were proposed and given numbers in the 700 series.
1-99 East side Mount Desert Island, marked,
maintained trails 100s West side Mount Desert Island, marked,
maintained trails 200s Park trails not on Mount Desert Island
(Isle au Haut and Schoodic) 300s Bar Harbor VIA path district historic trails 400s Seal Harbor VIS path district historic trails 500s Northeast Harbor VIS path district historic
trails 600s Southwest Harbor VIA path district historic
trails 700s Proposed new trails as listed in Appendix 2
of Hiking Trails Management Plan
The numbering system is encoded with some informa- tion about the location and management of each trail, but it is not correlated with the trail's construction period. The park maintenance staff established the 0-99, 100s, and 200s numbering system in the 1950s, at
a time when many trails were closed or renamed. As a result, many trails are composed of sections that date to different periods. For example, the lower end of the Beachcroft Path (#13) is overlaid by earlier sections of the Wild Gardens Path (#354 and #18), and the upper end is actually the Black and White Path (#326), which originally extended from Beaver Dam Pool to the sum- mit of Champlain Mountain. Some explanations are included in the individual trail data in the appendices. More detailed individual trail histories and descrip- tions are part of the rehabilitation guidelines, as shown in the five examples included in the second section of this cultural landscape report. The trail numbers should thus be used to cross-reference tables, maps, appendices, maintenance records, and the associated database.
The terminology for trails has changed over the time period of this study. Prior to automobiles, all roads were for walking and were referred to as roads, lanes, paths, or passes. During the late 1800s "sidewalks" referred to paths along roads while "wood paths" extended into the more remote parts of the island. Most new routes built by the path committees of the village improvement societies were naturally referred to as paths, such as the "path up Newport Mountain" and the "Ladder Path." Some twentieth-century VIS path maps also defined "broad graded paths" with a double red line for major routes such as the Asti- cou Path. Paths on which horses were allowed were referred to as "bridle paths." The term "trail," associ- ated with pioneer wagon routes in the nineteenth century, became popular for recreational routes in the twentieth century. Early use of the word is associated with some of the steeper routes, such as the "Precipice Trail." Under National Park Service management, the term is attached to most of the routes, such as the "Ladder Trail." At present the only routes to retain the name "path" are the endowed memorial trails and routes that are no longer marked. When appropriate, names designated at the time of path construction will supersede subsequent spelling alterations. For exam- ple, the current "Beachcroft Path" was erroneously called the "Beechcroft Trail," and the "Jesup Path" was the "Jessup Path."
Acadia trails Treatment plan
Changes in the names of the mountains have also created confusion. The park's first superintendent, George Dorr, renamed mountains in 1918 to highlight the island's history during the period of European exploration. For example, Newport Mountain was renamed Champlain, Dog Mountain became St. Sau- veur, and Green Mountain became Cadillac. Conse- quently, many of the summit trail names were changed. A more detailed discussion of trail names is found in Chapter Nine. Throughout this volume present-day names are used. For example, the Jordan Pond Path was once referred to as the Jordan Pond Loop Trail and the Long Pond Trail has also been referred to as the Great Pond Trail. Where clarification is needed, alternate names are placed in [brackets].
OVERVIEW OF SITE HISTORY, EXISTING CONDITIONS, AND RELATED PROJECTS
The content of the first volume of the Cultural Land- scape Report is summarized below in order to describe the foundation for the treatment guidelines. Related projects including the inventory of trail features, field documentation, and preparation of a nomination for the National Register of Historic Places are also described.
History
The earliest trails on Mount Desert Island (MDI) were probably Native American canoe carry trails between lakes. In the 1760s, English colonists settled in protected coves and widened some Native Ameri- can routes for cart paths. New roads were higher and drier and linked inland farms and logging camps with coastal ports. In the late 1700s, settlement increased and roads were extended across the island, connect- ing distant villages. The island's tourism budded in the mid-1800s when dramatic paintings by artists of the Hudson River School drew an increasing num- ber of summer travelers to see and write about the island. Pedestrian excursions and mountain climbs were essential components of an island visit. Popular destinations included Schooner Head, Great Head, the summit of Green [Cadillac] Mountain, Sargent Moun-
tain, and Beech Cliffs. Early visitors scrambled up the lower sections of mountains as best they could until they could walk easily across bare rock ledges to the summit. By 1850 climbers could follow a rough road up Green [Cadillac] Mountain built to the summit station of the United States Coastal Survey.
After the Civil War, technological advances in ship- ping, travel, and communications contributed to a postwar boom in tourism. Mount Desert Island attracted some of the country's most influential fami- lies, who transformed the landscape that had epito- mized the American wilderness into a summer resort. Individuals who would later contribute greatly to the path system first came to the island during this period, including Charles Eliot, Edward Rand, George Dorr, and Waldron Bates. A series of guidebooks printed in the 1860s, 1870s, and 1880s described popular des- tinations on the island, including walking routes to mountain summits and other scenic places. During this time tourists created the framework of the existing trail system. Trails departed from village roads, winding through the woods and along streams to mountain ridges and summits. By the 1880s these trails were well worn, with some marked by cairns. Some of the most popular early trails had extensive built features, such as retaining walls and gravel tread on the Shore Path (#301) in Bar Harbor and rustic wooden bridges on the Duck Brook Path (#311). Pond-side trails were less common, as boats were typically used to cross water bodies such as Eagle Lake and Jordan Pond.
A perceived loss of American wilderness in the late 1800s led to a greater interest in preserving scenic areas. The deplorable conditions of American cit- ies and rapid growth of railroad suburbs prompted citizens to seek ways to improve their communities. As a result, civic-minded individuals initiated land preservation programs and "village improvement societies." Mount Desert Island summer residents and local businesses, heavily invested in the spectacular scenery of the island, feared that its natural beauty would be lost to overdevelopment, indiscriminate logging, railroad lines, and the urbanization from which they sought refuge. These concerns led to the
Introduction
formation of the Hancock County Trustees of Public Reservations and village improvement societies in Bar Harbor, Northeast Harbor, Seal Harbor, and South- west Harbor. Individuals interested in walking paths also worked cooperatively through the Joint Path Committee of the village improvement societies. One of the lasting contributions of this civic movement was a carefully constructed, privately funded, island-wide path system from the villages to protected natural areas. A memorial path system, initiated with the nam- ing of the Waldron Bates Memorial Path (#525) along Chasm Brook and the placement of a plaque at Cadil- lac Cliffs in 1910, expanded under the leadership of George Dorr, as many of the founding members of the summer cottage community were laid to rest. Friends and fellow members paid tribute to the deceased by funding the construction of a trail, placing a commem- orative plaque along it, and endowing the trail with a maintenance fund in perpetuity. Highly crafted trails, such as the Beachcroft Path (#13) and Kane Path (#17) were endowed. At the same time rigorous rung trails constructed under the direction of Rudolph Brunnow, such as the Precipice Trail (#11) and Beehive Trail (#7), were funded by donations and dues to the Bar Harbor VIA in the 1910s.
The establishment of the Sieur de Monts National Monument in 1916, which later became Lafayette National Park in 1919 and Acadia National Park in 1929, ushered in a new era for the island's path system. When established, the 5,000-acre park contained a small fraction of the island- wide trail system that by this time covered over 200 linear miles. The village improvement path committees continued to be very active, maintaining and building elegant new trails on both private and federal property. This was beneficial to the new park since it had limited staff and funds for maintenance. Expansion of Rockefeller's carriage road system, construction of a park motor road sys- tem, and changes in the names of mountains sparked protests from path users and village improvement path committees. Concurrently, the construction of new summer cottages and the inflow of money to the island began to decline. Many of the activities of the village improvement path committees were suspended during
American involvement in World War I. After the war, new trail construction resumed yet not with the same fervor, as path committee members felt the system complete. Memorial path construction continued during and after World War I. Six trails were endowed between 1924 and 1930, including the A. Murray Young Path (#25) and Gorge Path (#28).
Federal work programs in the 1930s created as part of President Roosevelt's economic recovery plan contrib- uted to the expansion of the trail system. Unlike the trails built by the local village improvement societies that radiated from villages, paths built by federal work crews were laid out within the park boundaries and in conjunction with new visitor parking areas, roads, picnic areas, swimming areas, and campgrounds. With these new facilities, the park became increas- ingly separated from the surrounding villages and connector trails. Like the village improvement trails, those built by federal crews were of high quality due to the tremendous amount of "man-days" of physi- cal labor, use of mechanical equipment, and carefully prepared designs by park service landscape architects and engineers. Trails built by the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) included the Ocean Path (#3) and Otter Cliff Path (#340) along Ocean Drive, the Perpendicular Trail (#119), Long [Great] Pond Trail (#118), and Beech Cliff Ladder Trail (#106).
During World War II there was little use or mainte- nance of the trails. In the first two decades after the war, park visitation increased dramatically, but trail use did not. This nationwide trend was attributed to the romance of auto-touring and camping. With new park roads and campgrounds at Blackwoods and Seawall, Acadia was an ideal motoring destination. Trails in close proximity to the roads and parking areas, such as the Ocean Path (#3), received the greatest use. Visitors rarely used the Recreational Development Areas on the island's western side at Pretty Marsh, Pine Hill, and Oak Hill, or the trails associated with them.
As a result of the park motor roads, facilities, and maps, there were in effect two trail systems. The first, located within park boundaries, was represented on
Acadia Trails treatment Plan
park maps and used by visitors. The second was the preexisting path system built by the village improve- ment path committees and known by residents. Through time the second system became increasingly obscured. By the 1940s, many long-term members of the path committees were no longer able to tend the trails and many lost their homes in the 1947 fire. As a result, most maintenance responsibilities were trans- ferred to the park service. With a limited crew and budget, the park concentrated on trails that received the heaviest use. In the 1950s the park closed trails that were seldom used, in poor condition, ran parallel to other paths, or led walkers onto private land. A few new trails, such as the Ship Harbor Trail (#127), were built between 1956 and 1966 as part of "Mission 66," a program initiated to celebrate the fiftieth anniver- sary of the NPS and modeled after the 1930s work programs.
Trail use remained low until the 1970s when there was a nationwide resurgence in recreational walking. With a limited budget and personnel, park maintenance crews struggled to keep up with the increased trail use. Persistent problems included trail erosion caused by heavy foot-traffic and confusion caused by trail closures and inconsistencies between trail guide maps and signs. In the 1980s and early 1990s the trails main- tenance program benefited by being administratively separated from other park maintenance programs, and by the assistance provided by annual cooperative work crews from the Acadia Youth Conservation Corps (AYCC), Friends of Acadia, Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC), and Maine Conservation Corps. With a trail maintenance program endowment from Friends of Acadia donations and park funds, these treatment and maintenance guidelines will set standards for the trails program in the new millennium.
Existing — Trails Inventory and Field Documentation
Although trail documentation had been underway at the park since the mid-1980s in the form of trail feature inventories, photographic documentation of the MDI trail system's existing conditions for development of the Cultural Landscape Report began in 1997, with
additional photo-documentation completed by the staff of the Acadia NP trails program in subsequent years. Many of these photographs are incorporated into the treatment plan. These investigations found that much of the original stone- and ironwork carried out by the village improvement societies and the CCC is still evident. Most wood construction, however, has decayed and been replaced once or several times. Most trails have been altered by high use, which has caused erosion of tread, widening, and the dislocation or loss of built features such as steps and coping stones. The CLR provides a brief summary of the existing condi- tions of built features and landscape characteristics; however, the best records are kept by the Acadia NP trails maintenance program. For each trail that is actively maintained, a computer database lists the location, number, type, and condition of built features on each trail. This inventory serves as the baseline information for work logs and field projects.
Of the 270 miles of historic trails included in the CLR, approximately 118 miles are currently marked and maintained by the park, while 107 miles within the park are no longer marked or are overlaid by roads. Some 15 miles of trails that extend beyond park boundaries are maintained by local village improvement societ- ies, while 30 miles are no longer marked. The park's marked trail system extends over all major peaks on the island, along lake shores, streams, and the rocky coast. Trails range from flat shoreline paths to cliff climbs with rungs and ladders up nearly vertical faces, rising in elevation from sea level to 1,530 feet on the summit of Cadillac Mountain. Of the marked, main- tained trails, 63 percent ascend mountains to ridge- lines and summits, 29 percent lead walkers through the woods and along pond shores, and 8 percent are coastal trails. There are approximately 85 miles of marked trails on the east side of the island and approx- imately 30 miles on the west side. The most remote trails are on the north side of Western Mountain.
The park receives approximately three million visitors a year and most experience some part of the hiking trail system. In developing the HikingTrails Manage- ment Plan, park planners classified the maintained
Introduction
trails according to difficulty and found 3 percent very easy, 15 percent easy, 52 percent moderate, 22 percent difficult, and 8 percent ladder trails with very steep inclines and sharp drop-offs. Certain trails receive the greatest use due to their proximity to parking areas such as on Cadillac Summit, scenic features such as Bass Harbor Head Light, and cultural centers such as Jordan Pond. The trails program estimates that 21 per- cent of the trails receive high use, 47 percent receive moderate use, and 32 percent receive low use.
Historical Significance of the Trail System — Nomination for the National Register
To develop appropriate treatment guidelines, an important step was to determine the historical sig- nificance of the trail system, particularly since it is the oldest and most extensive of the park's three historic circulation systems of trails, carriage roads, and motor roads. Understanding the significance of the trail system from a local, state, and national perspective involved a separate study as part of a multiple-property listing for the National Register of Historic Places. This study found the historic trail system of Acadia National Park eligible for the National Register as a historic district for its significance during the period of 1867-1942 in the areas of community planning and development, conservation, recreation, and landscape architecture. A nomination for the trail system was drafted in 1999.
The influence of the village improvement associa- tions and societies (VIA/VIS) of Mount Desert Island is described in the context statement "Community Development and the Origins of Acadia National Park." In building the trails, the VIA/VIS groups made the scenic resources of Mount Desert Island acces- sible to residents and other recreational users. The system is also significant for the VIA/VIS construction and design style as described in the context of "Rustic Design— The Picturesque Style." The trails built by these civic organizations display superior craftsman- ship in construction techniques that are indicative of the picturesque style, including the creative use of materials like stone for cairns, steps, ramps, bridges, walls, and drainage features; wood for bridges, signs,
railings, benches, and structures; and iron for rungs, ladders, and bridges. Additionally, the trails evidence the careful selection of routes to provide access to natural features including interesting rock formations, water bodies, forested lowlands, and dramatic island vistas.
Additional significance for the system is described by the subtheme "Rustic Design in the National Park Service" for trail work accomplished during the New Deal federal and state work programs, including the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), Civil Works Administration (CWA), and Works Progress Adminis- tration (WPA). Through these programs, several trails were built or rebuilt, which exemplify the rustic design style popularized by NPS architects and landscape architects during this period. The paths increased accessibility for public enjoyment and were built to harmonize with the natural setting using local materi- als. The system reached its peak size in 1942 during the New Deal work.
Integrity of the Historic Trail System
Integrity is the ability of a historic resource to evoke its appearance from the historic period of significance. For the Acadia trail system, an evaluation of integrity was conducted as part of the National Register nomi- nation described above for the historic period of 1867 to 1942. An understanding of the aspects of integrity inherent in Acadia's trail system is critical in the devel- opment of treatment and maintenance guidelines to ensure that historical significance is not diminished as a result of treatment actions. Seven qualities of integ- rity were evaluated, including location, design, setting, feeling, association, materials, and workmanship.
Location refers to the place where the trail system was constructed and the alignment of individual trails. Although many of the hiking trails on the island are still marked and maintained and retain their original route, the extent of the trail system and the number of trails marked and maintained has diminished since the historic period. The system was reduced, begin- ning in the 1940s, with the disuse and abandonment of trails outside the park that connected to island villages
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
or individual residences, and in the 1950s, with the closure of trails in the park. A few trails or sections of trails have changed their route since the historic period. Reasons include the construction of motor roads, carriage roads, changes in water level due to beaver dams, and connections to new park facilities. In most cases the overall character and intent of the trail has been retained.
Design refers to the aesthetic choices made in the form, plan, and style of the trails network, the con- scious layout of trail route, its winding or straight character, its width, its relationship to scenic, natural and cultural features, and the choice of materials and methods employed to construct the trails. As described earlier, the trails within the system are significant as examples of rustic design in the picturesque style car- ried out by the VIA/VIS and rustic design work by the NPS. Most of the original trail routes are still evident with some exceptions as described in the previous paragraph. Most scenic, natural, and cultural features that were part of the original trail design remain, such as lakes, summits, and rock formations, with the exception of cultural features like the Building of the Arts, Russian Tea House, Green Mountain House, Sea- side Inn, and other hotels. Trail width has been altered in many places from the high volume of foot traffic and poor maintenance, but with rehabilitation work, improved maintenance, and/or the addition of certain trail features, foot traffic could be better contained.
Setting refers to the physical environment of the trail system. As initially conceived and constructed, the trail system allowed people to transcend on foot from the populated villages and busy wharf areas into the pris- tine wilderness in the heart of the island. The construc- tion of the motor road system and carriage road system substantially dissected many natural areas, though much of this occurred during the historic period. More recently, heavy use of the trail system has changed the natural setting to one that is shared with many other people. The closure of many village connector trails altered the experience of transition from village to wil- derness. Current work in progress to reestablish village connector trails and management strategies to disperse
trail users will enhance the integrity of the trail system setting.
Feeling refers to the expression or historical sense of a particular period. The VIA/VIS constructed and named trails, then prepared maps, guidebooks, and signs to direct people to the natural wonders, historic sites, and cultural attractions of Mount Desert Island, such as Cadillac Cliffs, Sieur de Monts Spring, and the Jordan Pond House. Similarly, the CCC constructed trails to connect park facilities with scenic areas. Today the trails offer the same experience, or feeling, that they were originally designed to provide. One exception, however, is the use of automobiles. During the historic period, most visitors came to the island by boat or by train then boat and stayed for a week, month, or longer. The island was experienced largely on foot or by carriage. Today the island is accessed and traversed primarily by automobiles and most hiking experiences begin by parking at trailheads. Although the automobile has impacted the island in significant ways, the trails, natural attractions, and destinations remain relatively unaltered and retain their ability to evoke feelings traditionally associated with Acadia's system.
Materials are the elements and supplies used to construct the trails, including stone, iron, and wood. Much early stone work, from the turn-of-the-century VIA/VIS work to the 1930s CCC work, has survived intact. Stone steps, culverts, bridge abutments, cop- ing stones, and stone-lined or terraced tread surfaces have endured with little or no maintenance in certain areas. Original stone cairns can still be found on many of the summit trails, especially those that are no longer marked and maintained. A large amount of ironwork, including ladders, rungs, railings, and retaining pins, still exists on many trails. Some iron has been added or replaced and is compatible with the historic material. Woodwork, including bridges, benches, and signs has required frequent replacement. With each replace- ment the style and method of construction has evolved with available technology. Perhaps the most notable change in the trails over the past hundred years is the condition of the tread. Due to high use, most trails
introduction
are extremely compacted, and in some places the width has increased over time to as much as 10 feet. In eroded sections the trails continue to widen as hikers instinctively walk around rough spots and exposed roots. These have been exposed by the combination of foot-traffic, water, and soil erosion. Extracting gravel fill from nearby borrow pits, a practice used by the VIA/VIS groups and the NPS up until the 1970s, has not been done in the past two decades, although the Trails Management Plan allows limited reestablish- ment of this practice. For extensive rehabilitation, a mix composed of small aggregate gravel, similar to that used for the carriage road surface rehabilitation and compatible with the historic tread, is transported from off-island sources. When transporting gravel is not fea- sible, split log bridges or "bogwalks" are constructed to cover low areas in need of rehabilitation. The tremen- dous increase in use has posed the greatest threat to the historic materials and is the greatest challenge in developing appropriate treatment guidelines.
Workmanship refers to the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular period. In the process of devel- oping treatment guidelines, park staff studied and documented the multiple styles of workmanship found on the trail system. With a forty-year period of peak trail construction, there were many hands involved in trail construction, including federal work crews and four VIA/VIS organizations. Notable differences in methods of construction, tools used, and durability are described in the histories and specifications for feature types. For example, the method of step building ranged from loosely stacked, uncut stones to carefully laid, cut, and pinned steps supported with coping stones. The higher level of workmanship has generally proved more durable. The highly crafted character of many trails is still evident, though in some cases years of heavy use and natural conditions have caused erosion of tread, slipping of stones, and decay of woodwork.
Association refers to the direct link between historic persons and events and the historic property. The trails built by the VIA/VIS groups were built in association with their respective villages of Bar Harbor, Northeast Harbor, Seal Harbor, and Southwest Harbor. The trails
themselves, with associated structures and plaques, are physical evidence of the historic trail system and its builders and stewards. The integrity of the system has been diminished by natural conditions and the impacts of heavy use, which have resulted in loss of tread mate- rial, displacement of steps, dismantling of cairns, and loss of signs. The need for cyclic repair has resulted in new signs, repaired and resurfaced trails, and replace- ment bridges.
In conclusion, Acadia's trails retain a high level of integrity for their historical significance. As treat- ment and maintenance guidelines are followed, every effort should be made to retain or enhance these seven aspects of integrity. The last section of this introduc- tion, which outlines the treatment approach and phi- losophy, contains a list of recommendations that will ensure historical integrity is preserved.
Historical Characteristics
The analysis carried out in the first volume of the CLR contains a description of broad categories of landscape features and qualities that are central to the character of the trail system as a whole. Characteristics include natural systems, spatial organization, land use, cultural traditions, circulation, topography, views, vegetation, structures, and small-scale features. For this volume of the CLR, additional analysis was given to individual trails to determine the most significant character- defining features that provide trails with individual character and contribute to the overall character of Acadia's trail system. This analysis has resulted in an emphasis on many small-scale character-defining features like drainage systems, crossing structures, and trail signage. However, the features discussed under the broader categories, like topography, veg- etation, and views, are also addressed. The treatment guidelines identify appropriate methods and materials that will enhance rather than diminish all character- defining features that have been identified for the trail system.
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
HIKING TRAILS MANAGEMENT PLAN
A separate but closely related report is the HikingTrails Management Plan, completed by the park in Febru- ary 2002. This document sets the overall direction for managing trails and hiking in Acadia NP, with actions to be carried forth over the next twenty-five years. The plan establishes goals for protecting park resources and providing high-quality visitor experiences, identi- fies issues related to protecting these values, and describes the preferred management alternative. In early stages of the plan's development, four possible alternatives were considered for management of Aca- dia's trail system. The first alternative was no action; the second, rehabilitation with emphasis on protecting natural resources; the third and preferred alternative, rehabilitation to protect natural and cultural resources; and the fourth, rehabilitation with emphasis on pro- tecting cultural resources. For each alternative, issues were examined, actions were prescribed, and environ- mental impacts were identified, leading to the selection of the preferred alternative. The following treatment issues are addressed primarily in the Hiking Trails Management Plan, although some are also discussed in this report.
• Size and configuration of the trails system
• Opening or closure of trails in large undeveloped areas
• Source of construction materials
• Beaver management in relation to flooded trail sections
• Vegetation management at vistas and along trail corridors
• Trail impacts on threatened and rare species, species of concern, and sensitive communities
• Trail disturbance to wildlife
• Trail and trail use impacts on water quality
• Trails with severe erosion
• Trails through wetlands
• Unauthorized abandoned trail maintenance and unauthorized new trail development
• Social trails
• Diversity of visitor experiences
• Providing trails for hikers with special needs
• Public transportation
• Connector trails
• Dogs on trails
• Helping visitors choose appropriate trails to hike
• Maps and information
• Educating visitors about history of the trail system
• Leave No Trace education
• Trail system sustainability
Additionally, several issues are addressed conceptually in the HikingTrails Management Plan but are covered in more detail in this report. These include:
• Preserving the historic character of the trail system
• Level of rehabilitation or priorities for trail rehabilitation
• Trail names, signs, and markings
• Keeping hikers on trails by guidance, barriers, and ranger patrols
The list above highlights the complexity of decisions relating to the trail system. Ideally the Hiking Trails Management Plan and the treatment and maintenance guidelines presented in this report will work hand-in- hand to provide clear direction for all trail manage- ment and maintenance issues.
Introduction
TREATMENT PHILOSOPHY AND APPROACH
The treatment guidelines that have been developed provide a long-term strategy for the care of Acadia's historic hiking trail system. They are intended to reinforce NPS tradition and its philosophical basis for the sound stewardship of cultural landscapes as outlined in "NPS 28: Cultural Resource Management" (1997) and The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes (1996, hereafter Secretary's Standards). The management goals for the trails established by the General Management Plan: Acadia National Park (1992) and the Hiking Trails Management Plan provide the framework for the preparation of these treatment guidelines. Issues and treatment alternatives have been evaluated through a series of meetings with park staff, in consultation with the Maine State Historic Preservation Commission, and a working group of experts from several organiza- tions. The process of recommending a historic preser- vation treatment approach included consideration of four possible alternatives: preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction. Rehabilitation was selected as the recommended treatment approach for the hiking trail system as justified below.
Treatment Alternatives Considered but Not Recommended
Preservation focuses on the maintenance and repair of existing historic materials and retention of a property's form as it has evolved over time. A preser- vation approach would prescribe the maintenance of trail features as they currently exist. It would allow for the replacement of existing features in kind, yet would not permit the addition of new features necessary for the increased use of the trails, such as the addition of more durable treadway on damaged woodland trails. A preservation strategy would lead to further degrada- tion and unsafe conditions on many trails.
Restoration is undertaken to depict a property at a particular time in its history, while removing evi- dence of other periods. A restoration approach would
require depiction of the trails to the period of sig- nificance of 1890-1942, defined in the draft National Register nomination. The implications of selecting a restoration treatment would require the obliteration of all trails built after this time, including several Mission 66 trails and the reopening of many trails that lead outside of the park onto private land. The goals set forth in the General Management Plan and Hiking Trails Management Plan — to create new connectors and loops, protect natural resources, and make the trail system sustainable — make the restoration approach inappropriate.
A reconstruction approach applied to the trail sys- tem would only be appropriate if the trails had been destroyed or if the pre-trail system landscape was determined so significant that its recreation was critical to the interpretive mission of the park. Reconstruc- tion is a rarely selected treatment alternative and is not applicable to Acadia's trail system.
Justification for Treatment — Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation as an approach for the treatment of historic properties allows for compatible use of a cul- tural landscape through repair, alterations, and addi- tions while preserving those portions or features that convey its historical, cultural, and architectural values. Rehabilitation acknowledges the need to meet con- tinuing or changing uses through alterations or new additions while retaining the property's historic char- acter. This treatment approach was deemed to be most appropriate due to the exponential increase in hikers, the need to provide safe, clearly marked trails, and the importance of protecting fragile natural resources. Rehabilitation is also the most consistent with the goals and direction of the General Management Plan and Hiking Trails Management Plan. The Maine State Historic Preservation Commission concurs that this is the preferred treatment approach for the trail system. The Secretary's Standards provides the following stan- dards to apply to a rehabilitation strategy for the trail system.
XIX
Acadia Trails treatment Plan
• Each cultural landscape is recognized as a physi- cal record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features from other land- scapes, are not undertaken.
• Changes to a cultural landscape that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.
• Deteriorated historic features are repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deteriora- tion requires repair or replacement of a historic feature, the new feature matches the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Repair or replacement of missing features is sub- stantiated by documentary or physical evidence.
• Additions, alterations, or related construction do not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the cultural land- scape.
• New work is differentiated from the old and is compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing of the landscape.
GENERAL TREATMENT PRINCIPLES FOR THE TRAIL SYSTEM
The trail system on MDI has a history of expansion and reduction over time, but for more than a century there has been an underlying vision that the trails allow access to and enjoyment of the island's wonderful nat- ural scenery. Before any modifications are made to the trails or to adjacent constructed features such as roads and buildings, changes should be carefully evaluated for their impact on nearby trails and the trail system.
The treatment and maintenance guidelines in this document are based on an understanding of the significance and integrity of the trail system and its character-defining features. However, once the repair strategy for individual sections of trails is determined, it is advisable to evaluate the overall or cumulative effect of these changes to ensure that both the trail section and trail system retain the features, materials, and feeling that define the significance of the system. The following is a list of general principles that, when
adhered to, will enhance the character and integrity of the historic trail system.
• Preserve as much of the historic trail system as possible. Replace in-kind or rehabilitate historic features such as steps, bridges, walls, ladders, rungs, drainage, tread, markings, memorial plaques, and other historic trail features.
• Maintain historic names and trail routes, with their winding or straight character, where possible.
• Reroute trails only where necessary, and try to retain the character and design intent of the trail.
• Retain original trail width where possible and allow for rehabilitation work to guide and contain foot traffic on designated trails.
• Protect associated scenic, natural, and cultural features that are part of the attractions and desti- nations of the trail system, including rock forma- tions, vegetation, water bodies, views, buildings, structures, developed areas, plaques, and monu- ments.
• Preserve the original choice of materials and meth- ods used to construct the trails.
• Prevent further dissection of natural areas by new roads or trails to maintain the wilderness setting of the trail system.
• Preserve and rehabilitate village connector trails to preserve the feeling of hiking from a village into wilderness.
• Encourage public transportation to reduce auto- mobile use and enhance the island experience.
• Use modern construction materials and methods that reduce material and labor costs and enhance durability where they are not visible or do not detract from the historical character.
• Use historic methods or contemporary methods that produce the same level and style of work- manship.
• Preserve association with the four villages - Bar Harbor, Northeast Harbor, Seal Harbor, and Southwest Harbor.
• Preserve association with park recreation areas and facilities.
• Preserve associated historic structures and objects, such as the memorial plaques.
• Protect associated archeological resources.
Introduction
FORMAT FOR TREATMENT AND MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES
There are two major sections contained in this report. Section 1 includes ten chapters identifying and addressing feature types currently or historically pres- ent on the trail system, such as bridges, culverts, tread materials, and monuments. Each chapter contains definitions, historical information, specifications, and maintenance guidelines for the feature type. Section 2 addresses individual trails in the Acadia system. The trails' historical development, character, current use levels, and condition are discussed and used to develop recommendations for trail rehabilitation and identify appropriate features for use on the trail. The two sections are designed to work together as trail work is implemented. During early work planning, the individual trail documentation in Section 2 will recom- mend appropriate features for use on the trail, and as construction begins, information on feature specifica- tions, actual building techniques, and maintenance concerns can be obtained from the detailed informa- tion in Section 1.
Research and planning for individual trails was still underway concurrent with the development of this report, and as a result all trails currently in the Acadia system were not included in Section 2 of this docu- ment. It was decided to include these five examples of individual trail documentation to illustrate how the planning process will work and how the individual fea- ture information provided in Section 1 will be utilized as individual trails are evaluated and rehabilitated. It is anticipated that as trail planning continues, all trails within the park will be documented to the level of the five examples presented here.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
The development of rehabilitation guidelines for Aca- dia's trails, consistent with the Secretary's Standards, is aided by several historic documents:
• The Annual Reports of the Path Committees of the Bar Harbor VIA, Northeast Harbor VIS, Seal Harbor VIS, and Southwest Harbor VIA contain reports on the construction, maintenance, and addition of features on individual trails. Within the Bar Harbor VIA 1906 report, Waldron Bates's "General Instructions for Work on the Paths" are particularly useful in understanding early trail features.
• Historic photographs from the Acadia NP archives; the National Archives in Waltham, Massachusetts, and College Park, Maryland; Bar Harbor Historical Society; and the Maine State Historic Preservation Commission in Augusta.
• CCC guidelines and reports including the three volumes of Park and Recreation Structures, edited by Albert H. Good in 1938; Civilian Conservation Corps Field Training: Construction of Trails, pre- pared by Guy Arthur in 1937; and Standards for Trail Construction, prepared by Chief Engineer Frank Kittredge in 1934.
• Trail maintenance guides produced by the Appalachian Mountain Club, Student Conserva- tion Association, National Forest Service, and National Park Service.
XXI
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
Winding steps on the Beachcroft Path, a memorial path constructed in 1915, then rebuilt and endowed in 1926.
SECTION 1:
Trail Feature Specifications
Acadia Trails treatment Plan
SECTION 1: TRAIL FEATURE SPECIFICATIONS
Section l includes ten chapters providing detailed descriptions of types of trail features, including route, vegetation, treadway, drainage, crossings, retaining structures, steps, ironwork, guidance, and monuments and structures. The following information is provided for each feature type.
Definitions: The composition and function of each feature is defined, including distinctions between similar features. Definitions for all features are also consolidated in Appendix A.
Historical Use at Acadia: A brief history describes how, when, and sometimes why a feature was intro- duced to the island's trail system. Sources of informa- tion include documents, photographs, oral histories, and field examination. Trail construction techniques are summarized for the following eras:
Pre-VIA/VIS (pre-1890) VIA/VIS (1890-1937) CCC (1933-42) NPS/Mission 66 (1943-66) NPS (1967-Present)
Historical Characteristics: A distillation of the essential characteristics of the features that contribute to the trail system's historical appearance is provided. Whether, and how, these characteristics should be preserved or rehabilitated is addressed in the sections that follow.
Treatment Issues: As part of this project, a working group, composed of park staff and experts from several organizations, evaluated trail features in the field to discuss what historical features define the character of individual trails; they also identified key issues relat- ing to rehabilitation. These "treatment issues" — such as safety, vandalism, impacts related to high use, and resource protection— that affect the historic character, rehabilitation, and maintenance of trail features, are the crux of this treatment plan and lead directly into treatment guidelines and specifications.
Treatment Guidelines: Guidelines on how trail fea- tures should be rehabilitated are based on sensitivity to the historical characteristics of features balanced with current issues, constraints, and operational needs. For some features, such as stepping stones, the recommendations are straightforward — preserve the historic methods of construction and appearance. For others, new methods and materials are recommended while still maintaining the historic appearance. For example, the use of perforated-pipe subsurface drains instead of historic stone French drains is recom- mended. Although both types of drains absorb and redirect water from the treadway, the historic stone drains tend to clog and create maintenance problems. Some treatment recommendations are based on clear physical evidence and historical written and photo- graphic documentation, such as the specifications for Bates-style cairns and signs. The construction of other features is more difficult to discern, such as the first use of steps in the trail system. In these cases, field analysis in the form of trail archeology has aided the develop- ment of specifications. Many treatment guidelines have been influenced by the relationship of increased trail use to the sustainability and maintenance of historic construction methods. For example, to ensure visi- tor safety, bridges constructed to be compatible with the VIA/VIS style of construction require the use of larger-diameter cedar railings and posts than were used historically.
Specifications for Rehabilitation Construction:
Detailed specifications are provided for the size and type of materials, their placement, and related rehabili- tation construction tools and techniques.
Routine Maintenance: For each feature, ongoing maintenance requirements are specified to ensure long-term preservation.
Fig. 1-1 The routes of many of the trails at Acadia were laid out to provide outstanding hiking experiences over varied terrain and allow the opportunity for magnificent views. Here, hikers in the 1940-50s enjoy the scenery and view along a currently abandoned route to the Bubbles.
CHAPTER 1:
ROUTE
A. ALIGNMENT
B. VIEWS
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
CHAPTER 1: ROUTE
Some Acadia trails began as expedient routes to desired locations, while the design of others carefully led hikers along interesting routes through spectacular scenery. The characteristics of routes are described under two categories:
A. Alignment
B. Views
Early nineteenth-century trails, including many of those in the Acadia system, tended to have a direct, destination-oriented alignment, such as to a sum- mit or shoreline. However, highly crafted VIA/VIS trails built in the late 1800s and early 1900s generally followed more interesting routes, leading to rock formations, attractive woodland areas, and views of distant island scenery (Fig. 1-1). Trails designed by the CCC maintained a similar focus, but also emphasized hiker comfort and trail sustainability, resulting in more evenly graded routes with switchbacks.
In some areas, views that were once open are now obscured by vegetation. Logging in the nineteenth century and the great fire in 1947 resulted in an open landscape. Although the CCC carried out some vista clearing and forest thinning, these practices are now discouraged to protect the island's natural resources.
Understanding the builder's intent in constructing the trail and selecting control points aids in maintaining the trail. Where trail sections are in poor condition, and rerouting is considered as a solution, an under- standing of the original route and its control points is essential. In some cases, rerouting may be necessary as a temporary measure until a section of trail can be properly repaired. Rerouting may also be considered as a more permanent solution for some trails. In all cases, the location of the historic trail and all reroutes needs to be carefully documented.
A. ALIGNMENT
DEFINITIONS
The alignment of a trail refers to its placement on the landscape. When laying out a trail, a number of differ- ent alignments are possible between two points.
Significant locations along the trail are called control points. These may include stream crossings, summits, ridges, cliffs, passages, views, and/or significant vegeta- tion. The ending points of a trail are called destination points. A hub is a central location at which a number of trails converge by design.
Trail alignment can generally be classified into two major categories. Alignments that proceed directly from one control point to another by the most expedi- ent approach are called direct alignments. Trails that are engineered to follow a less direct path between control points are called designed alignments. Designed alignments are primarily used to preserve the structural integrity of the trail, achieve a desired trail aesthetic, or maintain a certain grade.
The alignment of Acadia's trails can be further sub- divided into different route types. Although a trail may include several route types, the overall trail will usually be defined by a predominant type. A ridge-line route is a direct alignment following the top of a ridge, usually running from the base of a mountain to the summit. Nearly all north-south-running trails at Aca- dia are ridge-line routes, like the Cadillac Mountain North Ridge Trail (#34). A fall-line route is a direct alignment ascending straight up the fall line, the line representing the flow of water. Examples include the Pemetic Mountain Trail (#31) and the southern por- tion of the South Bubble Trail (#43). A sidehill route travels perpendicular to the fall line at some elevation along the side of a hill. This type of route is usually achieved by bench construction, such as the Pond Trail (#20), and may be either a direct or designed alignment. A switchback route is a designed alignment
Chapter 1: Route; a. alignment
Fig. 1-2 Streamside route on Maple Spring Trail (#58).
made up of sections of sidehill route linked by rever- sals in direction in order to achieve a desired grade. A standard type of western construction, switchback routes can be found on most memorial and CCC trails including the Emery Path (#15) and the Beech Moun- tain South Ridge Trail (#109). A varied woodland route is a direct alignment traversing different kinds of terrain primarily through a wooded area, such as the Canada Cliffs Trail (#107), or along a spring or stream, such as the Maple Spring Trail (#58) (Fig. 1-2). A lowland route can be either a direct or designed align- ment that follows the bottom of a contour, or traverses a low, flat, or water-side area. Examples include the Jesup Path (#14) and Jordan Pond Path (#39).
Each different route type is also associated with certain construction techniques. Fall-line routes are gener- ally unconstructed, but may contain steps, checks, and cribbing. Sidehill and switchback routes have benching and retaining-wall construction. Lowland routes may include causeways and stepping stones.
Variations in alignment can also be described by how a trail responds to small-scale features in the landscape such as boulders or groups of trees. Alignments that are small-gesture tend to move around these features, resulting in many small direction changes on the trail. Many of these winding paths are unconstructed or minimally constructed, such as the South Bubble Trail (#43). However, small-gesture alignments are also used on some constructed trails, such as the Orange and Black Path (#348), primarily as an aesthetic choice.
Fig. 1-3 The terminus of the Jordan Pond Carry Path (#38) at the north shore of Eagle Lake. This trail may have originally served as a portage route between water bodies.
Alignments that are large-gesture tend to maintain the integrity of longer stretches of straight lines or curves, or to maintain evenly spaced turns or switchbacks in spite of landscape features. Most highly constructed trails, such as the memorial paths, the Jordan Pond Path (#39), and the CCC trails, are large-gesture.
HISTORICAL USE AT ACADIA
Pre-VIA/VIS
The earliest footpaths on the island, established by Native Americans, were primarily utilitarian in nature. Hunting, canoe portage, and seasonal migration routes traversed the landscape by the most direct, flat route, such as the Jordan Pond Carry Path (#38) (Fig. 1-3). With the arrival of Europeans, many of these paths were widened to become cart paths, and subsequently roads.
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
Fig. 1-4 Part of the Valley Trail's (#116) origin as a cart path can be seen in its width and linear character.
For the most part, Europeans settled along the coast, relying heavily on fishing, lumbering, boatbuilding, and trade for their subsistence. Inland paths were necessary for lumbering and agriculture. These routes tended to be direct, traveling along natural benches, up moderate slopes and through saddles where the grades were reasonable for a cart. Although most of these routes are now roads, some remain as part of the trail system, including the eastern half of the Valley Trail (#116) which was originally an early cart path (Fig. 1-4).
Fig. 1-5 The Bear Brook Trail (#10) was an early route later stabilized with trail features like these stone and wooden crib steps.
Recreational travelers, artists, and writers that came to Mount Desert Island in the 1840s and 1850s were eager to ascend the mountains. They chose the most direct routes from their accommodations, mostly in Somes- ville and Eden [Bar Harbor]. They followed cart paths, livestock trails, drainage paths, animal paths, and scrambled across open ledges to reach the summits. Eventually, they established trodden routes and began marking them with piles of stones. The routes of the Bear Brook Trail (#10), the South Bubble Trail (#43), and the eastern half of the Beech Mountain Loop Trail (#113) are examples of early direct routes that were later stabilized and became maintained trails from the 1920s through the 1990s. Summit routes like these tended to be ridge-line or fall-line routes (Fig. 1-5).
When summer communities were established in the 1880s, most rusticators arrived by boat. Village paths and cross-island paths allowed people to walk between communities and to popular destinations such as along the shore and to the Jordan Pond House. The Shore
Path (#301) in Bar Harbor, the Asticou Path (#49), and the Seaside Path (#401) were some of the earliest main- tained paths, used by people of all walking abilities, in all types of dress. These routes were direct, being destination-oriented, used lowland or sidehill routes to maintain flat treadway and easy grades, with long straight and gently curved sections.
Village Improvement Associations/Societies
With the establishment of the Bar Harbor VIA in 1890, the Northeast Harbor VIS in 1897, the Seal Harbor VIS in 1900, and the Southwest Harbor VIA in 1914, the path committee chairmen and members became trail designers. Each society also hired path superin- tendents who oversaw construction and maintenance. Some devoted chairmen, such as Waldron Bates, may have served in all capacities. New paths were proposed, laid out, and constructed annually and described in the VIA/VIS reports. Trail descriptions offer insights into the control points selected in laying out the route. Early trails were relatively simple, with
Chapter 1: Route; A. Alignment
Fig. 1-6 One of important features along the route of the Potholes to Eagles Crag Trail (#343) are these natural potholes in the ledge rock.
many traveling along natural benches, up saddles, and along ridges, such as the Bracken Path (#307), Black and White Path (#326), and Deer Brook Trail (#51). As interest in path construction grew, and the skills of path builders improved, new trails were built to lead walkers to views and interesting rock formations. For example, Waldron Bates laid out trails through rock slides, underneath overhangs, along cliffs, and near natural features. Examples include the Giant Slide Trail (#63), the Eagles Crag Loop (#27 and #343), and the Gorham/Cadillac Cliffs Trail (#5). These early Bar Harbor paths tended to be varied woodland or fall-line routes with small-gesture alignment that was respon- sive to the rugged landscape (Figs. 1-6 & 1-7).
The Dorr system of trails in Bar Harbor was the best funded of the VIA/VIS trails, especially as the practice of constructing trails in the memory of deceased loved ones came into vogue. These memorial trails, originat- ing from a trail hub at Sieur de Monts, ushered in the highest level of construction to date. Highly crafted stone work allowed trails to follow alignments which had not been possible earlier and make the trails com- fortably walkable for the clientele which had funded them. The classic Dorr alignments (Homans Path, #349, Kurt Diederich's Climb, #16, Emery Path, #15, and Beachcroft Path, #13) are large-gesture switchback routes through talus slopes and across cliffs. They required nearly continuous construction of stone steps, stone paving, retaining walls, and ironwork. As opposed to the earlier, direct routes to the summit,
Fig. 1-7 A group of early hikers enjoying the Cadillac Cliffs on the Cadillac Cliffs Trail (#5).
these designed alignments luxuriate in the ascent, take long, flat stretches through rock slides, switch back at stunning viewpoints, and reach for control points such as clefts in the rocks, overhangs, and waterfalls (Fig. 1-8). This was to become the standard of alignment and construction technique that later builders would struggle to duplicate.
Simultaneously, Rudolph Brunnow was aligning trails that also required extensive construction to achieve, but were substantially different from Dorr's align- ments. Brunnow tended toward small-gesture align- ments, taking many tight turns rather than sweeping moves through the landscape. None of Brunnow' s alignments could be called switchbacks, though none are exactly direct either. Brunnow also was the first to take direct routes up vertical cliff faces, using iron rungs and ladders to ascend the Precipice Trail (#11) and Beehive Trail (#7).
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
Continuous trail construction created several trail hubs during the VIA/VIS period that provided easy trail access as well as gathering places for visitors of all types, not just trail users. Major hubs included Sieur de Monts Spring, the Building of the Arts, the Cadillac Mountain Summit, and the Jordan Pond House, the major hub of the Seal Harbor trail district.
The signature alignment of Seal Harbor trails included large-gesture, lowland and sidehill routes. However, early in the period, many small-gesture, direct align- ments were developed. Some of these required large- scale construction to be achieved, such as the Jordan Cliffs Trail (#48) and the Pemetic Mountain Goat Trail (#444).
As the period progressed, John Van Santvoord and Joseph Allen laid out trails along the coast, and access- ing nearly every stream, hill, ridgeline, and interesting rock formation to provide Seal Harbor summer guests
with various loops. Nearby rock formations serving as trail control points included Tilting Rock, the Day Mountain Caves, Bubble Rock , and Jordan Cliffs (Figs. 1-9 & 1-10). The Van Santvoord Trail, the only memo- rial path in the Seal Harbor district, follows an align- ment that is a unique hybrid. Its woodland sections are varied woodland routes, while its steep, highly constructed areas are switchback staircases in the style of Dorr's memorial trails, which probably served as a model. At the end of the VIA/VIS period of trail con- struction, sidehill alignments over ledge that depended on pinned logs and ironwork were constructed on the Bubbles (Fig. 1-11).
As Acadia's trail network expanded, an increasing number of trails were without a specific destination other than to lead walkers through different areas and connect with existing trails. Examples include the Black Woods Trail (#440) and Day Mountain Caves to Pond Trail (#424). After the summer hotels closed
Fig. 1-8 The route of the Homans Path (#349) takes the hiker through this unique rock formation.
Fig. 1-9 A control point along one of the early Seal Harbor VIS trails was Tilting Rock. This image shows the rock circa 1900. In 1922, the rock was toppled by vandals, but it was reset soon after by members of the Seal Harbor VIS.
Chapter l: Route; A. Alignment
in Seal Harbor, it is not surprising that many of these routes fell into disuse.
Northeast Harbor and Southwest Harbor align- ments never achieved the sophistication represented on the Bar Harbor trails. They tended to be direct, small-gesture alignments of fall-line, ridge-line, varied woodland, and occasionally lowland route types. The Northeast Harbor VIS built many trails around Schoolhouse Ledge and to Eliot Mountain and Sargent Mountain to provide multiple loops. Routes followed ridgelines, streams, and natural benches below rock formations. Most are still marked and maintained by the Northeast Harbor VIS (Fig. 1-12). The Southwest Harbor VIA path system was the least developed. Many of the surviving routes are from earlier agricul- tural use, logging, and mid-1800s recreational trails. As a result, many of the trails are direct ascents.
Civilian Conservation Corps
Trail routes added by the CCC connected visitor use areas, such as parking, picnic, and swimming areas, with remote scenic locales, such as pond shores and mountain summits. Two major hubs were devel- oped where hikers could park their cars and access a number of trails — the south end of Long Pond and the Beech Mountain parking area. As with all of their work, the CCC took an orderly and well-documented approach to aligning and constructing trails:
Construction should not be started on a trail until the line has been flagged through to its destination (or to a definite control) and approved. This approval should be from all of the Branches which may have an inter- est in its construction. These branches will include the landscape architect who is in charge with utiliz- ing the scenic features and blending the trail with the landscape; the engineer who is concerned with the problems of construction; the forester whose duties involve the protection and propagation of natural cover; the geologist who will assist in locating the trail so as to take advantage of geographic and geologic features and protect them from destruction; and the wildlife technician in whose care the zoological and botanical values are entrusted.
Fig. 1-10 The South Bubble Trail (#43) passes by Bubble Rock, giving hikers a close-up view of the natural formation.
Fig. 1-11 The South Bubble Cliff Trail (#451) was a steep, sidehill alignment along ledge with pinned log supports.
Fig. 1-12 The Asticou Hill to Little Harbor Brook Trail (#517) is a Northeast Harbor woodland trail that passes these ancient ocean-carved cliffs on its way from the summit of Eliot Mountain to Harbor Brook.
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
Fig. 1-13 The CCC used string to lay out the route and finished grade of their new trails, as shown at the construction of the Ocean Path (#3) at Otter Cliffs.
Fig. 1-14 Completed section of path shown in Fig. 1-13. The CCC emphasis on maintaining an even grade is evident in this newly completed section of the Ocean Path (#3) at Otter Cliffs.
Nearly all CCC trails at Acadia consist of sidehill alignments, with many containing switchback sec- tions. Most of these trails were constructed as bench cuts in accordance with CCC guidelines. This allowed them to maintain a more consistent grade on trails like the Long Pond Trail (#118), Perpendicular Trail (#119), and much of the Ocean Path (#3) (Figs. 1-13 & 1-14). However, it is interesting to note that where the construction ends on trails such as Beech Mountain West Ridge Trail (#108), Long Pond Trail (#118), and Perpendicular Trail (#119), the alignment reverts to fall-line, otherwise avoided by the CCC. This is evi- dence that these trails were not intended to be left as they are today.
NPS/Mission 66
The few trails that were added during the Mission 66 period were built under guidelines similar to those issued during the CCC period. However, one of the goals of Mission 66 was to enhance visitor use and "enjoyment-without-impairment." During Mission 66, trails were added to give access to outstanding features, particularly for interpretive purposes. A new trail at Anemone Cave (#369) was one example.
The interpretive development at Anemone Cave will be unique in showing through aquaria and other means some of the richly varied life of the sea. Elsewhere will be roadside signs and trailside signs and markers and self-guiding nature trails to make known and interpret features of interest and importance to Acadia's Story.
Mission 66 trails contained routes intended to meet the goals of increased access in interpretation. Exam- ples include the Ship Harbor Nature Trail (#127) with its flat, wide trail corridor; the Anemone Cave Trail (#369) with its asphalt surfacing (Fig. 1-15); and the Beech Mountain Loop Trail (#113), a route over relatively easy grade that allowed access for equipment and supplies necessary to rebuild the Beech Mountain fire tower.
National Park Service
Since Mission 66, few new trail sections have been built in the park, and most of these have been reroutes of portions of existing trails. Of the new trails, all have
10
Chapter 1: Route; A. Alignment
been connectors to town, roads, or parking areas. The most significant new trail is the Great Meadow Loop, which incorporates sections of the abandoned Jesup Path (#14) and uses a similar lowland, direct, large- gesture alignment. The Western Mountain Connector (#616) is a newer multi-use trail on the western side of the island. It is a large-gesture trail that is largely out- side park boundaries and follows a varied woodland route.
In the 1970s, a number of historic trail segments were rerouted as inexpensive solutions to problems such as beaver flooding, access to parking, downed trees, or trail disintegration. In most cases, these reroutes are small-gesture, unconstructed, varied woodland routes, and do not necessarily match the character of the trail segments they replaced. Reroutes tend to take the fall line and rarely make use of switchbacks. For instance, a reroute of the Gorge Path (#28) travels straight up and straight down a hill rather than take a more sustainable and more evenly graded sidehill route. In another case, the turn at the far northern sec- tion of the Long Pond Trail (#118) was short-cut due to continued wetness. A portion of historic causeway was abandoned and the reroute constructed with bogwalk. Similar reroutes were done on the Kane Path (#17), Andrew Murray Young Path (#25), the Cadil- lac Mountain North Ridge Trail (#34), and the Bowl Trail (#6) (in the 1990s). All of these reroutes aban- doned historic stonework (causeway, stone paving, steps, stepping stones, respectively) in favor of varied woodland routes (Figs. 1-16 & 1-17). However, a 1994 reworking of a rerouted section of the Kane Path (#17) restored the trail's original character with the use of compatible stone pavement.
Additionally, two short sections of trail near intersec- tions were rerouted in the 1970s in order to make intersections contiguous rather than offset: the Gorge Path (#28)/Cadillac-Dorr Trail (#22) intersection and the intersection of the trails at Birch Spring. Neverthe- less, intersection work was not attempted park-wide and a number of offset intersections remain, especially in the Seal Harbor district.
Fig. 1-15 The route of the Anemone Cave Trail (#369) provided access to the shoreline cave. Originally, the trail led directly to the cave, as shown here. However, this section has since been removed, leaving only the upper portion of the trail route from a parking area to the edge of the rocky coast. Mission 66 crews paved the trail with asphalt, thereby providing easier access for visitors and enhancing opportunities for interpretation of a significant natural feature in the park.
HISTORICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ALIGNMENT
Pre-VIA/VIS (pre-1890)
Alignments were direct, using Native American paths, old cart paths, agricultural and lumbering paths, and open ledges. Routes through saddles between hills, direct ridge- line and fall-line routes were predominant.
VIA/VIS Period (1890-1937)
Many trails led to communities or hubs. Types of align- ment varied greatly. Sidehill, switchback, and large- gesture alignments were introduced to constructed trails.
CCC Period (1933-42)
Alignments were predominantly large-gesture, sidehill routes, often with switchbacks. Some alignments reverted to direct, fall-line routes at the ends of constructed work. All trails led from parking areas.
NPS/Mission 66 Period (1943-66)
Alignments were easily accessible, relatively short, with an emphasis on interpretation and self-guided nature trails.
NPS Period (1967-Present)
Few new trail sections have been developed. Reroutes have been established for a number of reasons and gener- ally used direct, fall-line, and varied woodland routes.
Acadia Trails treatment Plan
TREATMENT
1. Reroutes and/or Trail Closures
Issue: Several alignment types are vulnerable to adverse impacts causing a consistent need for trail maintenance or rehabilitation. Fall-line alignments have considerable erosion as water is following the same path disturbed by foot traffic. Lowland align- ments often acquire standing or running water, depending on the trail grade, as well as exposed roots and eventually trail braiding as hikers seek higher ground. The use of historic alignments may also negatively impact adjacent natural resources, such as endangered or threatened species. However, the majority of these vulnerable routes are historic and a change in alignment may impact a trail's integ- rity. Rerouting trail sections with historic work may separate evidence of that work from the main trail and leave it inaccessible to hikers. Also, while trail con- struction techniques can solve many problems, often trails with vulnerable alignments have an uncon- structed character as their defining feature, and the addition of constructed features may not be appropri- ate. When, if at all, should new alignments, reroutes of trail segments, or closure be recommended?
Treatment Guidelines: Since the alignment of a trail is a crucial part of its historic character, reroutes or clo- sure of trail segments should be considered carefully, and other options should be exercised whenever pos- sible. No reroute will be approved without the consent of Acadia resource management and the State Historic Preservation Office. The following factors should be evaluated prior to deciding to reroute.
Reroutes or trail closing may be considered if:
• Important natural resources, such as rare spe- cies or water quality, are severely threatened or currently being damaged by the use of the present route and a more sustainable route is identified.
• The present route is not maintainable and/or is subject to repeated damage from landslides, flood- ing, or other circumstances.
• The trail crews cannot practically get enough material to the site to rehabilitate the trail, such as in the case of very deep gullies or sunken treadway away from stone and soil sources.
• The trail is to be made accessible under ADA guidelines and the correct grade cannot be achieved on the present route.
Reroutes should be avoided if:
• A substantial amount of important, character- defining historic work exists on the route or seg- ment in question.
• The current route is the only viable route to reach important historic control points
• The current route is the only viable route that does not threaten important natural resources.
• Any viable new route will eventually develop the same problems as the present route.
2. Offset Intersections and Trailheads
Issue: At some trail intersections, trail ends do not line up at opposite sides of the trail or road they cross. Trailheads are often located near, but not at, the park- ing areas intended for their use. This can cause hiker confusion, or parking in unwanted locations.
Treatment Guidelines: Offset intersections are a character-defining feature of some alignments, and should remain as a historic characteristic of these trails. Guidance features (signage, cairns, etc.) should be improved to alleviate hiker confusion. Reroutes, or the addition of short segments of trail to align intersec- tions, should only be considered if there is an issue of hiker safety (such as at dangerous road crossings) or if a high volume of hikers are consistently getting lost and improved guidance does not alleviate the problem. More latitude can be given to rerouting trail ends to align with parking areas, but the criteria listed above for trail reroutes should be followed.
3. Beaver Dams
Issue: High water caused by beaver dams has flooded trail tread, made trails difficult or impossible to tra- verse, and obscured historic work. Beavers cannot always be moved, for logistical or legal reasons, and
12
Chapter 1: Route; a. alignment
when beavers remain in an area, water levels often can- not be restored to pre-beaver levels.
Treatment Guidelines: The management of the beaver population is addressed in the Hiking Trails Manage- ment Plan, which states:
When beavers impound water and threaten trails, the NPS will first attempt to manage water levels by install- ing fences around culverts and pipes through beaver dams. This work will be prescribed and supervised by the park wildlife biologist. If those efforts are not suc- cessful, further management actions such as rerouting the trail and adding structures such as boardwalks will be considered on a case by case basis; actions will also include an assessment of the cultural significance of the trail. Beavers will be moved to other areas if open habitat is available. Beavers will be euthanized only when other attempts have failed or are impractical and when the trail segment affected is a highly signifi- cant cultural resource. Before developing new trails or opening abandoned trails, the NPS will consider potential effects on beavers so that negative effects can be reduced or eliminated.
As discussed above, each case of beaver flooding should be examined independently to determine the best course of action for the affected resource.
they may not be abandoned in the foreseeable future. It is impossible to predict how long it will take beaver to leave a given site, and a solution is still necessary in the interim. The longer a beaver dam remains intact, the more that surrounding habitats adjust and there- fore greater disruption to the environment may result if the dam is eventually removed. As stated above, euthanasia of the beavers would be the last resort if all other options are unsuccessful and the affected trail is of significant cultural value.
Mitigation efforts should also be performed on the trail itself, in conjunction with a selected method of beaver control. If efforts to lower the water level by beaver control are unsuccessful, the trail alignment may need to be altered. Depending on the significance of the trail, it could either be closed entirely or partially rerouted. The preferred procedure for a reroute would leave the existing trail route and historic features where they are and construct a new segment of trail above the high-water mark with compatible features. This will maintain the integrity of the historic trail, even though the original route will be underwater and not accessible to hikers. If the beaver population even- tually moves and the water level recedes to previous levels, the original trail route should be reestablished and the rerouted section obliterated.
There are several actions and considerations involved with removing the beaver and/or their dams. Interfer- ing with beaver activity, including removal or reloca- tion, may be prohibited by law in certain situations. Further, if existing beaver are removed, new beaver may simply move in to attractive areas, so a substantial commitment of resources needs to be made to keep any area "beaver free." Beaver "foolers" (pipes under a beaver dam allowing water to pass through) could be installed. This would result in a lower water level, and though this may also be regulated it will not work in all situations. Beavers can often find the end of the pipe and dam it up, resulting in the need for consider- able maintenance of "foolers" by park staff. Another option is to wait for the beaver to leave the area and then destroy the dam. Most beaver dams are eventually abandoned; however, some sites are so attractive that
SPECIFICATIONS FOR ALIGNMENT
Once control points are identified, a number of general principles must be taken into account when choosing an alignment for a reroute.
1. Do not follow streams or lakesides closely.
2. Avoid wet areas.
3. Keep grade reasonable. A grade of less than 10 percent should be a target. Grades of greater than 20 percent should be rare, and will usually require extensive construction.
4. For drainage reasons and for maintenance of grade, avoid following the fall line; trail should angle across the fall line. This is less important if the trail is on ledge.
13
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
Fig. 1-16 Historic stepping stones on abandoned segment of the Bowl Trail (#6) flooded by beaver activity.
5. Keep water crossings to a minimum. Cross water- courses high (where they are shallower) and use natural crossings if possible. Constructed cross- ings (bridges, etc.) should resemble those on the rest of the trail in character and placement.
6. If possible, locate the trail on ledge, or on the most inorganic, stable soils.
7. Generally choose long, climbing turns over switchbacks.
8. If switchbacks are to be used, avoid "stacking" switchbacks in many tight turns. Instead, gain grade with longer stretches of trail. Choose natural barriers, such as boulders, large trees, or thick veg- etation to switchback around and accelerate the grade at the switchback to discourage hikers from taking off-trail shortcuts.
9. Entrances to abandoned portions of a trail should be obscured.
10. Historic work on an original alignment should be stabilized and left intact.
11. Eroded or disturbed sections of an old route should be checked if necessary and revegetated.
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE
Through annual inspections, the condition of sensi- tive natural and cultural resources and safety concerns should be monitored. Adverse conditions may require consideration of temporary or permanent closure or rerouting.
Fig. 1-17 Reroute of flooded segment of the Bowl Trail (#6) shown in Fig. 1-16 located farther away from the edge of the pond. Bogwalk was installed to traverse wet, muddy areas. However, this feature is not in keeping with the historic stepping stones that are present on other sections of this trail.
14
Chapter 1: Route; B. Views
B. VIEWS
DEFINITIONS
A view is an expansive or panoramic prospect offered by a broad range of vision, which is naturally occurring or deliberately contrived. Views of island and ocean scenery are central to the layout and configuration of the trail system.
A vista is a controlled prospect of a discrete range of linear vision, which is deliberately contrived. Typically associated with constructed landscapes, one could argue that Acadia's trail system through expansive natural landscape scenery does not contain vistas. Sev- eral sections of highly crafted trail, however, were laid out deliberately through rock formations, to enhance one's experience of discrete natural features.
HISTORICAL USE AT ACADIA
Pre-VIA/VIS
Spectacular views of mountain, ocean, and lake scen- ery have lured tourists to Mount Desert Island for centuries. In the early 1800s, artists from the Hudson River School captured dramatic views on canvas, which drew an increasing number of summer travel- ers to see and write about the island. In travel guides, engravings, and photographs produced in the 1860s and 1870s, views from the mountain summits and views of interesting rock formations along the coast were most often documented. During the 1800s, most of the island's lower hills and valleys were logged or used for agricultural purposes, creating open trails with distant views (Fig. 1-18).
Village Improvement Associations/Societies
With the development of a marked and maintained path system, the VIA/VIS groups formalized a network of paths to led hikers to scenic views (Figs. 1-19 to 1-21). Though far beyond the villages, this work fit within their mission to "preserve and develop the nat- ural beauties of the place, and to enhance their attrac- tions, by such artificial arrangements as good taste and
Fig. 1-18 1875 view from the summit of Flying Mountain (#105) looking south over Fernald Cove and Southwest Harbor.
Fig. 1-19 This circa-1920 postcard shows the view from Huguenot Head into Otter Creek Gorge, on the Beachcroft Path (#13).
Fig. 1-20 Historic view south from Saint Sauveur Mountain (#102), circa 1920.
15
Acadia Trails Treatment plan
Fig. 1-21 Historic view toward Somes Sound and Echo Lake from Beech Cliff, circa 1920.
HISTORICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF VIEWS
Pre-VIA/VIS (pre-1890)
Extensive logging and agriculture left open viewsheds that were both appreciated and documented by many artists and writers.
VIA/VIS Period (1890-1937)
Many trails were constructed to access scenic views and rock formations. Diminished logging, protection, and regrowth of woodlands obscured some viewsheds.
CCC Period (1933-42)
The CCC undertook extensive understory removal, or "woods cleaning," along trails to open up views. Outlook shelters were constructed at picnic areas.
NPS/Mission 66 Period (1943-66)
The fire of 1947 eliminates most woodland on eastern por- tion of island, opening expansive views and resulting in diminished maintenance of woodland trails and outlooks.
NPS Period (1967-Present)
Most of the park is wooded with views primarily from the summits. Development of adjacent lands has affected views park-wide.
science may suggest." The VIA/VIS path committees also became increasingly interested the island's geol- ogy. Trails to such places included the Potholes Path (#342), marked in 1896 and 1907; the path to Tilting Rock (#423), marked in 1901; and the Cadillac Cliffs Trail (#5), built in 1906. Waldron Bates, Bar Harbor VIA Path Committee chairman from 1900 to 1909, was particularly active in the construction of trails to view rock formations and water features. Following Bates, Rudolph Brunnow, who constructed the Orange and Black Path (#12/348) in 1913, and George Dorr, who constructed the Homans Path (#349) in 1916, selected routes that led through rock formations, with work accomplished by Andrew Liscomb, the superintendent of paths for the Bar Harbor VIA. By selecting a winding route, constructing steps through fissures, and placing arch stones, the trails contain a sequence of views and vistas, both natural and contrived. Statements by the path committee chairmen amplified the enthusiasm of path builders to construct over 250 miles of trails to and through scenic areas, such as by Frank Damrosch in 1911.
There are still scores of beautiful views, and interesting trails, which should be made accessible to our summer residents, and these will be made available as rapidly as the funds at the disposal of the committee will permit.
In VIA/VIS path committee reports there is no docu- mentation of intentional clearing of vegetation to create views. The trail system was built on private land, however, and was susceptible to logging. Some trails were temporarily obscured when tracts of land were logged. Although logging opened up views, the VIA/ VIS, in alliance with the Hancock County Trustees of Public Reservations and the island's water companies, were opposed to the cutting of forests and sought protection for tracts of land for aesthetic and sanitary purposes. The shift from an island economy based on tourism rather than logging and agriculture resulted in the reforestation of much of the island, obscuring some viewsheds. With federal protection in 1916, the island's trail system became part of a national system of landscapes protected for spectacular scenery.
16
Chapter 1: Route; B. Views
Fig. 1-22 This 1932 plan for the Cadillac Summit Loop Trail (#33) identifies specific lookout view spots along the trail route.
Civilian Conservation Corps
Further expansion of the trail system, under the direction of Park Superintendent George Dorr, took place in consultation with the NPS Landscape Divi- sion. Trails were added to the network that allowed an increasing number of motorists to enjoy scenic areas by relatively short hikes, such as the Cadillac Summit Loop Trail (#33), designed in 1932 and constructed in 1933. The CCC carried out additional construc- tion between 1933 and 1942. Routes were laid out in advance on paper with designated outlook points (Fig. 1-22). The CCC also enhanced views into and through woodlands along the sides of trails by clearing brush, dead wood, and lower branches, such along the path around Lakewood (#309), near Anemone Cave (#369), and along the Ocean Path (#3) (Figs. 1-23 & 1-24). This practice would later be viewed as damaging to the landscape ecology. Also at this time, extensive clearing was done to create viewsheds from the carriage and motor roads and picnic areas. This type of clearing was not undertaken on the trail system, which became increasingly wooded.
NPS/Mission 66
Mission 66 trails focused on short trails over relatively easy hiking terrain through scenic areas, such as the Anemone Cave Trail (#369) and Ship Harbor Nature Trail (#127). Like earlier periods, vegetation clearing was emphasized for carriage and motor roads but not for hiking trails. The fire of 1947 dramatically opened up views on the eastern portion of the island, whereas the western side of the island became increasingly wooded. Views associated with the picnic areas on the western side of the island disappeared as the areas were seldom used and not maintained.
National Park Service
With limited logging for over a century, most trails at lower elevations travel through woods with limited views occurring only at rock slides and on ledges. Areas burned in the 1947 fire are now fully wooded with stands of birch and poplar. The park does not cut vegetation for trail views. Trails over ledges are very similar in character to when they were built, while mountains without summit ledges provide only limited
17
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
Fig. 1-23 The CCC used both coping and retaining walls along the stairs at the edge of the overlook at Otter Cliffs and on the Ocean Path (#3), view in 1937.
|
1 |
- i |
1 |
" |
Hi m^ ■lit'"--" !3n*"- - |
• |
|
-* |
Fig. 1-24 The CCC often cleared vegetation from the trails to provide opportunities for observing surrounding views, as well done here on the Ocean Path (#3), circa 1937.
Fig. 1-25 View from the Precipice Trail (#11) toward Frenchman Bay in 1995.
views. Currently, there are some visual intrusions into the park's viewsheds, including the largely expanded Jackson Laboratory, several new homes along the coast, and a water treatment plant and dump in South- west Harbor (Figs. 1-25 & 1-26).
TREATMENT
1. Maintaining Character
Issues: Many views, some of which were historically maintained, have been lost due to vegetation growth. However, identifying historic views is difficult, and maintaining them requires the cutting of vegetation off-trail, not currently an approved practice.
Treatment Guidelines: Current research indicates the number of identifiable historic views associated with the trail system is minimal. Possible historic views
should be verified through one or more of the follow- ing methods:
1. Search written records, such as a reference in a guidebook, or personal accounts from the historic periods.
2. Locate built structures that may indicate a view spot, such as historic benches, constructed wide areas in the trail, or constructed overlooks (Emery Path, #15).
3. Locate extant historic signs identifying overlooks.
4. Examine historic photographs.
Once an historic view is identified, a decision must be made whether or not to restore the view by clearing vegetation if it has become overgrown. The Hiking Trails Management Plan allows for the cutting of some vegetation in order to maintain historic views or vistas. Resource management staff should evaluate the impact of vegetation removal and will participate in the deci- sion to reestablish and maintain an historic view.
18
Chapter 1: Route; B. Views
Fig. 1-26 View from the Bear Brook Trail (#10) with The Jackson Laboratory dominating the viewshed in 1999.
SPECIFICATIONS FOR VIEW MANAGEMENT
ENDNOTES
Resource management staff and, where appropriate, the park arborist, will be consulted for specifications on how vegetation is to be treated and managed in order to establish and/or maintain a view (see Chapter 2).
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE
Once a viewshed has been reestablished through vegetation removal, it should be monitored on a yearly basis for vegetation regrowth. A cyclic schedule of vegetation pruning and/or removal should be devel- oped to ensure the view continues to be maintained (see Chapter 2).
1 Guy B. Arthur, Civilian Conservation Corps Field Training: Construction of Trails (1937), 2.
2 "Mission 66 for Acadia National Park," ca. 1956, Harpers Ferry, Box ACAD, B2.
3 According to law, rehabilitated trails will be built to accom- modate persons with disabilities if practicable, and if such modifications do not significantly impact the historic or natural character of an area. In some cases, portions of trails designated to be ADA-accessible will need to be rerouted to avoid obstacles or achieve the proper grade. ADA-accessible trails, and trails rehabilitated to ADA standards, will be built according to cur- rent legislation.
4 Hiking Trails Management Plan (United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 2002), 23.
5 Bar Harbor VIA 1892 Annual Report.
6 Seal Harbor VIS 1911 Annual Report.
19
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
20
Fig. 2-1 This image of the Potholes Path (#342) shows two aspects of vegetation on Acadia's trails. First, vegetation groupings, like this stand of pitch pines, are an important characteristic of many of Acadia's trails. And second, there has been an increasing loss of summit vegetation on many of the trails, as shown here by the exposed ledgerock along the unmarked trail route.
CHAPTER 2:
VEGETATION
21
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
CHAPTER 2: VEGETATION
Acadia's trails provide access to the diverse coastal, woodland, and alpine flora of Mount Desert Island. Appreciation without deg- radation of trailside vegetation is critical to resource protection (Fig. 2-1).
The Champlain Society, formed in 1880, cultivated an appreciation of the island's flora. The village improve- ment societies perpetuated this tradition in the 1890s and early 1900s by publishing nature pamphlets, discouraging the removal of plants, and by establish- ing nature trails. During the 1930s, the CCC carried out extensive revegetation projects using native plants, grown from collected seeds in transplant nurseries. Through the NPS/Mission 66 program, nature trails and educational efforts emphasized an appreciation of the island's vegetation. These efforts are carried forth to the present by the park's botany and resource management program, which replants eroded areas, eradicates non-native invasive species, and protects rare species. Additionally, the interpretation division educates park visitors concerning the area's vegetation.
Rehabilitation efforts on the trail system should work hand-in-hand with natural resource management to ensure that the longstanding association between trails and vegetation can remain mutually beneficial, providing opportunities to experience both resources without degrading either of them.
DEFINITION
Vegetation is defined as the total plant cover of an area, such as a forest, marsh, or meadow. In general, vegetation contributes to the character of the trail system at Acadia through the natural placement of individual specimens or plant communities. Although species type may have some influence on the trail aesthetic, through the unique visual character inherent with certain plants, it is overall effect of the presence or absence of vegetation along the trails that is the great- est contributor to trail character.
HISTORICAL USE AT ACADIA
Pre-VIA/VIS
For early European settlers, the vegetation on Mount Desert Island represented a commodity. Lumber mills occupied most coves and, in combination with fishing and shipbuilding, helped sustain the island's resource- based economy. Yet by the late 1800s, the thriving tourism industry voiced their opinion for preservation of the natural woodlands.
When the Champlain Society was formed in 1880, members actively inventoried and appreciated the island's native flora. The Society's stated purpose was the "study of the natural history of Mount Desert Island to complete lists of flora and fauna as far as possible."7 Edward Rand, then a Harvard University undergraduate, served as the director of botanical studies. Later, in 1894, Rand used his botany notes to coauthor a text with John Redfield entitled Flora of Mount Desert Island, Maine.
In his 1880 report for the Champlain Society, Rand wrote with great concern that summer residents were collecting many of the wild orchids and ferns for their properties. In 1900, when Rand became the first chair- man of the Seal Harbor Village Improvement Society Path Committee, he directed the construction of some new trails. Yet by 1903, he considered the system so extensive that no more trails were necessary "unless to meet some real need."8 Rand's successors did not share his opinion. After Rand resigned as chairman in 1907, many more miles of trails were constructed in the Seal Harbor path district. This dilemma of limited versus unlimited access to natural features and large contiguous habitats continues to the present day with the park's mandate to both protect resources and pro- vide visitor enjoyment.
Village Improvement Associations/Societies
Two of the first trails cut and marked by the Bar Har- bor VIA were the Royal Fern Path (#305) and Bracken Path (#307), reflecting the significance of vegetation
22
Chapter 2: Vegetation
Fig. 2-2 Early routes often passed groves of significant trees or individual specimens like this large hemlock on the Valley Trail (#28), 1999.
Fig. 2-3 As shown in this 1930s photo of the Anemone Cave Trail (#369), the CCC practiced vegetation clearing of understory growth along many of their trails.
to the organization. Trails were routed to take visitors past interesting vegetation, particularly groves of large trees, such as on the Gorge Path (#28), actively used since the 1870s, and the Hemlock Trail (#23), marked by the Bar Harbor VIA in 1895 (Fig. 2-2). While there were several botanists who summered on the island, the 1915 and 1928 path guides contain very little information on notable plants, perhaps to prevent the harvesting or damage of the island's unique specimens. Other publications offered such information, however, such as The Future of Mount Desert Island prepared by Charles Eliot, which contained a map of notable plants and plant communities.
In 1929 the Seal Harbor VIS constructed the island's first self-guided trail, the Jordan Pond Nature Trail (#463), consisting of over seventy labeled native plants along a marked trail. The trail began at the Jordan Pond House and extended west over Jordan Stream, then south to the Asticou Trail (#49).
Civilian Conservation Corps
Forest stand "improvement," fire hazard reduc- tion, and revegetation were a part of most CCC trail projects. To "improve" existing trails, stands of trees were thinned and pruned to open up views into the woods, nearby ponds, or distant valleys. This practice of woods cleaning involved removal of enormous amounts of understory vegetation, dead limbs, and ground logs (Fig. 2-3). To reduce fire hazards, most of the wood was burned in brush piles. While these forest management practices were deemed positive at the time, they were later viewed as highly disruptive to the landscape ecology of the area. It is also ironic that within ten years, the 1947 fire burned nearly a third of the forests on the eastern half of the island.
A separate CCC program involved the collection of native seeds and seedlings, which were planted or transplanted in three nurseries established near Kebo Mountain, Little Meadow Hill, and McFarland Hill.
23
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
Fig. 2-4 Trail on Cadillac Mountain in the 1930s before CCC seedling revegetation.
Fig. 2-5 The same trail as Fig. 2-4 on Cadillac Mountain in the 1930s after CCC revegetation and some vegetation growth.
Plants were then used to revegetate old road scars and abandoned quarries. Vegetation was also planted along new roads and trails. The CCC also covered recently constructed steps with moss and ferns to harmonize the new work with the surrounding landscape (Figs. 2-4 to 2-6).
NPS/Mission 66
With an emphasis on expanded visitor facilities during the Mission 66 era, there was less focus on large-scale vegetation clearing or planting than there had been during earlier periods. One exception was the eastern side of the island where the landscape was still recov- ering from the 1947 fire. Workers cut down thousands of scorched trees and left them lying on all the ledges of the burned area. These stumps and logs are still noticeable today. During the same period, the western side of the island was seldom visited and received little vegetative work. However, on the national level, the
NPS implemented numerous programs to develop self- guided nature trails to educate visitors about local flora and fauna. At Acadia, the Ship Harbor Nature Trail (#127) was constructed as such a trail.
National Park Service
In the late 1990s, Acadia's resource management staff began to work closely with the trails program. The staff has assisted with revegetation projects and provided expertise for problem solving, plants to use, and suc- cessful planting methods. They perform site visits prior to project initiation to investigate whether rare or endangered species will be disturbed by trail work, monitor sites for invasive exotic species and treat as necessary, and remain available for consultation on future projects. At present, native plant species are grown in the park's in-house nursery and native seeds are provided for use along trails.
24
Chapter 2: Vegetation
One of the most significant vegetation issues faced by the NPS is the trampling and loss of vegetation in summit areas. The dramatic loss of trailside vegetation, particularly in ledge areas, can be observed by compar- ing old and recent photographs (Figs. 2-7 & 2-8), or by walking along one of the lichen-covered trails that is no longer marked and maintained, but within park bound- aries, such as the Potholes Path (#342) (see Fig. 2-1).
HISTORICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF VEGETATION
Pre-VIA/VIS (pre-1890)
Lumbering was part of the island economy until tourism industry objected. Rare flowering plants were plundered by summer residents.
VIA/VIS Period (1890-1937)
Paths were built through scenic woodlands, but specific plants were rarely mentioned in path guides.
CCC Period (1933-42)
The CCC removed understory vegetation for views and fire management and planted native trees and shrubs grown in CCC nurseries.
NPS/Mission 66 Period (1943-66)
There was an emphasis on appreciation and education about vegetation on self-guided nature trails.
NPS Period (1967-Present)
The park emphasizes the elimination of non-natives and performs minimal cutting to clear trail corridors and view- sheds. Loss of summit vegetation is a major concern.
TREATMENT
1. Rare and Endangered Species
Issue: Many plant species within the park are consid- ered rare within the state of Maine, although currently none are so rare as to merit federal protection. Most of these rare plants are found in three ecological commu- nities that are considered sensitive to human distur- bance: mountain summits, seashores and islands, and wetlands. The proximity of many of the park's trails to sensitive ecosystems could lead to adverse impacts on protected species.
Fig. 2-6 Photograph taken by the CCC in the 1930s showing how their crews planted mosses and ferns on these newly installed steps on the Perpendicular Trail (#119) to soften the new stone work and blend it with the surrounding landscape.
m^ . U *
m
:'**£ ■■'• <jft\
|
2 jt ■ '£> ,: |
||
Fig. 2-7 This circa-1916 image of the Beachcroft Path (#13) shows the variety of vegetation along the trail, especially the low- growing summit vegetation, and a well-defined trail route.
|
ijiTrilytfiliMi |
|
|
■ ' ■ |
cjjw ' |
|
%§s?"^: |
|
|
HHH£Ml^ |
Eft*. - ■ |
Fig. 2-8 A 1999 photograph of the same section of the Beachcroft Path (#13) as Fig. 2-7 shows the dramatic loss of vegetation, particularly the summit vegetation impacted by the 1947 fire and widening trail corridor.
25
Acadia trails Treatment Plan
Treatment Guidelines: As stated in the HikingTrails Management Plan, "Preventing disturbance to park plants and animals, especially rare species and habitats, will be a major consideration in trail rehabilitation, maintenance, and use."9
3. Trailside Revegetation
Issue: Revegetation is often needed for disturbed sites after trail rehabilitation. However, there is a chance non-native species may also be introduced to the dis- turbed area through imported construction materials.
Vegetation should be monitored regularly to deter- mine the presence of rare or endangered vegetation on or near the trail system. If rare or endangered vegetation is found, trail closures and/or reroutes may be required to protect the remaining vegetation. Any decision in this regard should be made in cooperation between the park natural and cultural resource staff and will follow the guidelines established in the Hiking Trails Management Plan concerning the protection of rare species and habitats.
2. Trailside Vegetation Clearing
Issue: Periodic vegetation clearing along trails is needed to maintain the trail corridor and keep impor- tant viewsheds clear. However, trail corridors have often been cleared too wide in the past to maximize length of the clearing cycle. When areas are not cut often enough, growth is such that major clearing efforts are needed.
Treatment Guidelines: The Hiking Trails Management Plan provides general guidelines for trail clearing and for the rehabilitation of vistas, including limiting the width of clearing, addressing summit vegetation, and monitoring for exotic species.10 Most trails will be cleared in a manner that matches historic standards. However, vegetation on trails built by the CCC would not be cleared as extensively as was done historically. Generally, trails should be cleared on a three-to- five-year cycle to provide an adequate corridor and a high-quality visitor experience. However, they should be cleared more often if necessary, on a schedule that encourages light pruning rather than heavy cutting efforts. Vistas will be researched and documented, and the cumulative effects of clearing will be consid- ered before opening or maintaining vistas. Volunteers and new park service employees responsible for trail clearing will be provided hands-on training in proper clearing methods before undertaking trail clearing.
Treatment Guidelines: Revegetation of disturbed sites will occur. If possible, imported soil and gravel would be treated to prevent introduction of non-native plants through seed. Sites will be monitored for exotic spe- cies, and treated using an integrated pest management approach.
SPECIFICATIONS FOR TRAIL CLEARING
1. Corridor Height
Trail corridors will be cleared high enough for a hiker to walk through without touching overhanging limbs and brush, approximately 8 feet above grade. Allow- ance must be made for brush and limbs weighted down with rain or snow, and for the increased height of a snow-covered tread.
2. Corridor Width
The width of the corridor will vary with terrain and vegetation type, and will be highly affected by visitor use. "Front country" trails such as the Ocean Path (#3) or Gorham Mountain Trail (#4) that are traveled by many visitors who are often unaccustomed to hiking, should be cleared wider than trails less easily accessed, such as the Great Notch Trail (#122) or Grandgent Trail (#66). Some trails, such as the Jordan Pond Path (#39) along the east shore, shall be cleared to the historical standard if it is known, in this case four feet wide. With no exceptions will trails be cleared in such a manner as to encourage further erosion caused by trail widening or braiding.
Generally, a V-shaped trail corridor is desirable. Cut- ting the trail at ankle height to no more than 18 inches wide, and at shoulder height to approximately 3 to 3 Yi feet wide, gives the corridor this narrow V shape. This allows hikers ample room, while channeling hikers and limiting trail widening.
26
Chapter 2: vegetation
3. Cutting
All workers should be trained in proper pruning techniques. Low shrubs and small trees will be cut flush to the ground for aesthetic and safety reasons. Stumps will be cut squarely, leaving no pointed edges. If tree tops or lateral branches need to be removed, the situation should be carefully evaluated, as removal of the whole tree may be the preferred option. The use of proper pruning techniques will avoid leaving stubs or sharp points on pruned trees and/or limbs, ensur- ing tree health and hiker safety. All branches and cut debris will be removed from the trail and scattered completely out of view of hikers. Brush should not be left in unsightly piles.
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE
All trails will be monitored yearly for clearing. As men- tioned above, individual trails and trail sections will be cleared as needed, and all trails will be cleared on a cyclical basis, approximately every three to five years. Ongoing training should be provided for all new work- ers in corridor clearing, vegetation pruning, and debris removal techniques.
ENDNOTES
7 Edward L. Rand, First Annual Report of the Champlain Society (1880).
8 Seal Harbor VIS 1903 Annual Report.
9 Hiking Trails Management Plan, 23.
10 Hiking Trails Management Plan, 24.
27
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
28
•V-tS ^
-
IL «*
-£?-. -J&
■&*&m
J&*.
iSafr-
•
SitW^ti**.. ■
jjtoaBJSf**""
^MMSM*'
v:4 r.
■ . Cat:
1 &*^ ■■^JSfc :
Fig. 3-1 This circa-1916 photograph of a bench cut on the Beachcroft Path (#13) illustrates how the treadway enhances the overall trail character. Near the trailhead, the trail is highly crafted with almost continuous stone pavement along its sidehill route. As it approaches Huguenot Head and winds through a grove of trees, the character changes to a woodland walk, emphasized by a treadway surfaced with pine needles and other organic material.
CHAPTER 3:
Treadway
A. BENCH CUTS
B. CAU SEWAY
C. GRAVEL TREAD
D. STONE PAVEMENT
E. UNCONSTRUCTED TREAD
29
Acadia Trails Treatment plan
CHAPTER 3: TREADWAY
On Acadia's trails, as with other hiking trails, construction of the actual treadway is central to the trail's durability and longevity in the landscape. A well-constructed tread also improves accessibility and ease of walking, while the aesthetics of the treadway, whether gravel, stone pavement, or unaltered soil, influence how the overall character of the trail is perceived by the trail user.
A. BENCH CUTS
DEFINITIONS
A bench cut is a cross-slope treadway constructed by removing material from the slope to create a flattened surface.
This chapter discusses five types of tread construction methods and materials that have been historically used at Acadia:
A. Bench Cuts
B. Causeway
C. Gravel Tread
D. Stone Pavement
E. Unconstructed Tread
Providing a solid, obstacle-free tread has been an integral part of Acadia trail construction since the formation of the VIA/VIS groups in the 1890s, when well-dressed society men and women were using the trail system to access the natural environment (Fig. 3- 1). The high level of construction was perpetuated into the 1930s when the CCC adhered to rigorous stan- dards for the careful preparation of trail subgrade and tread. Many trails that have withstood one hundred years of use still retain evidence of early tread work. Others, particularly where drainage is a problem, are in poor condition and have extensive erosion, loss of tread material, trail widening, and exposed roots. This section offers guidelines on the appropriate tread con- struction methods and materials needed to rehabilitate and maintain trails and prevent further degradation of the trail system.
A bench cut may be a full bench, a half bench, or a three-quarter bench (Fig. 3-2). These terms refer to how much of the treadway is placed in the cut area and how much of it is placed in the fill area on the downslope side of the trail. A full bench consists of the trail corridor fully placed in the cut area, while a three-quarter bench has three-quarters of the tread in the cut, and a half bench has half of the tread in the cut and half in the fill. Cut and fill areas are graded to the angle of repose or internal friction of a stable slope according to the composition of the material. In Acadia, since natural slopes were altered so long ago, it is often difficult to tell which kind of bench was used on historic trails.
I &
Angle of repose
Full bench
Three-quarter bench
Half bench
Fig. 3-2 Detail of types of bench cuts.
30
Chapter 3: Treadway; A. Bench Cuts
A bench cut may have other features associated with it, such as side drainage, cross drainage, or stone paving, a coping wall, or retaining walls on either the uphill, downhill, or both sides of the treadway. These features do not define types of benches, but they should be referenced separately when used in association with benches, and built or maintained according to the principles of their own construction.
The use of bench cuts is closely related to choice of route. Bench cuts are usually an integral part of a route following the basic rules of route layout (see Chapter 1)— cutting across rather than following the fall line, avoiding crossing the crests of ridges or the bottoms of gorges, and staying high or wide of wet areas. Ascend- ing trails built according to these rules will use bench cuts and switchbacks. On the other hand, many of Aca- dia's trails go straight up the slope toward the summit, or follow drainage paths and ridges, and do not usually use bench cuts.
Bench cuts are a type of sidehill construction, but not all sidehill construction is defined as bench cut. Talus paving and pinned-log walkways are often sidehill benches but are not created by the removal of earth from a hill. Portions of woodland paths on which a trail has been trampled along the side of a hill do not usually leave a resultant "cut" in the earth substantial enough to be considered a constructed feature of any kind. Trail portions that follow natural benches, usu- ally along the bases of hills and cliffs or along stream banks, are also not considered bench cuts.
HISTORICAL USE OF BENCH CUTS AT ACADIA
Pre-VIA/VIS
Prior to the VIA/VIS path work, many trail routes took advantage of natural benches, but there is no evidence or documentation of any constructed bench cuts.
Village Improvement Associations/Societies
Most early VIA/VIS bench cuts were associated with trails which took a continuous cross-slope, neither gaining nor losing much grade. These trails include
the Jordan Pond Carry (#38), the Pond Trail (#20), the Seaside Path (#401), and the Wild Gardens Path (#354). All of these trails use at least some sidewall, historic scree, and/or coping. Two Bates trails, the Eagle Crag Loop of the Cadillac Mountain South Ridge Trail (#27) and the Ladder Trail (#64), included constructed benches along climbing turns (not quite switchbacks), foreshadowing the trail construction to follow. Both of these trails were highly constructed and used retaining walls to support much of the benched treadway.
The highly crafted memorial trails built under the direction of George Dorr in the Sieur de Monts Spring area introduced switchbacks to the system and associ- ated bench cuts. At this point, the delineation between bench cuts and talus pavement becomes confused, especially where benches have been paved with stones, and it is unclear how the bench was initially formed. Some bench cuts transition into and out of sections of talus pavement.
Nearly all the bench cuts used on highly crafted trails are retained with coping or retaining wall and surfaced with either gravel or stone pavement. For example, much of the Gurnee Path (#352) consists of long sections of bench retained with stone walls on the downslope side (Fig. 3-3). On sections of this bench work, drainage structures such as side drains and cul- verts are a part of the bench construction.
Fig. 3-3 This bench cut on the Gurnee Path (#352) is supported by stone retaining walls on the downslope side.
31
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
SWITCHBACK
Guard rai! orror.U wall to' fo IB' long and t*'K>2 high RocU wall may taper from ?' Hir^h flt f^rn to abou^ K)"at*ncl Toprevenv cro» cutting
ai vurns
Grade should b« slacked fo idflc within 6' of turn and *orn itae'f jho. d b« i«vei f af al' practicable
Fig. 3-4 CCC details for laying out a series of switchbacks on a bench-cut trail.
Fig. 3-5 A CCC bench cut with an outside retaining wall on the Valley Trail (#116). Note that the outslope is lost and the tread is wearing.
Civilian Conservation Corps
By design, a majority of the CCC mileage is sidehill construction, much of it consisting of bench cuts. The CCC introduced exacting standards for the construc- tion of switchbacks and bench cuts. They constructed most of their benches with outside retaining wall and/or coping stones and paved the resultant tread- way with gravel. The Perpendicular Trail (#119) and western half of Valley Trail (#116) are classic examples of this work. In addition, some sections of the Per- pendicular Trail (#119) and the Beech Mountain West Ridge Trail (#108) are bench cuts with side drains and culverts (Figs. 3-4 & 3-5).
NPS/Mission 66
Mission 66 bench cuts were designed similar to those of the CCC, though a standard trail width of 5 feet required a larger bench. Since Mission 66 trails were predominantly in easily accessible, high-use areas, the extent of bench cuts made during this era is less appar- ent. Of the few bench cuts that were constructed, most included outside retaining wall and were surfaced with gravel or asphalt (Fig. 3-6).
National Park Service
Since the 1960s, when deciding upon the locations of reroutes and new trails, sidehill routes needing bench cuts have rarely been chosen. Consequently, very few
32
Chapter 3: Treadway; A. Bench Cuts
':">!>kQ
*l°'t
%****
I'-O*
(
- 5' ltt*l I ft»»t
C k t
jili-
Fig. 3-6 This Mission 66-era cross-section of a bench cut design for the western half of the Beech Mountain Loop Trail (#113) shows a slight pitch on the trail with a side drain included on the uphill side.
sections of new bench cuts were created between the 1960s and 1990s. For instance, when the southern end of the Gorge Path (#28) was rerouted in 1974, the NPS chose a direct route that ascended and descended hills rather than going cross-slope and using bench cuts, which would have been much more durable.
While the associated features of old bench cuts, such as walls and side drains, have been sporadically main- tained since the 1970s, only since the beginning of the latest rehabilitation efforts in the late 1990s has main- taining the shape and integrity of bench cuts them- selves become a priority. As a result, many old bench cuts, such as on the Pond Trail (#20) and Valley Trail (#116), have eroded into gullies (Fig. 3-7). This situa- tion often creates an outside berm, preventing proper drainage and trapping water on the trail.
HISTORICAL CHARACTERISTICS
The character of bench cuts used at Acadia has been rela- tively consistent throughout the historic periods.
Pre-VIA/VIS (pre-1890)
No evidence or documentation of bench cut use has been found.
VIA/VIS Period (1890-1937)
Bench cuts were often used to traverse moderate side- slopes. On highly crafted trails, carefully constructed bench cuts were used in switchback routes. Bench cuts were associated with retaining walls, coping walls, steps, side drains, culverts, and gravel and stone paving.
CCC Period (1933-42)
The CCC made extensive use of bench cuts in switch- backs and to traverse moderate to steep sidehills. Bench cuts were used with retaining walls, coping walls, steps, side drains, culverts, and gravel paving.
NPS/Mission 66 Period (1943-66)
A few bench cuts were used in short runs, usually with outside retaining wall.
NPS Period (1967-1997)
No new bench cuts were constructed. Maintenance of old bench cuts began in the 1990s
33
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
Fig. 3-7 Eroded bench on Valley Trail (#116).
TREATMENT
1. Maintaining Character
Issue: Adding bench cuts to some trails introduces a visible element of construction and may add a feature that is not historically compatible with the trail.
Treatment Guidelines: Bench cuts, and their accom- panying features, are not historically appropriate for all trails and should not be overused. Bench cuts can be used on most VIA/VIS and CCC trails with a his- tory of constructed features. Bench cuts can also be sporadically used on less-constructed trails, provided the bench cut is carefully blended into the trail and the use of stone walls or other constructed features is minimized. For example, benches on woodland trails should be subtle, provide a narrow trail tread, contain no or few retaining walls, and use the excavated mate- rial from the cut side of the bench as the trail surface.
2. Erosion
Issue: Bench cuts that are not maintained become eroded gullies as the outside berm traps water on the trail.
Treatment Guidelines: If constructed and maintained properly, bench cuts are the least intrusive way of building a durable tread on sidehill trails. They are preferable to the scars caused by trails that follow the fall line and the gullying and erosion of sidehill trails that are not properly benched or outsloped. Main- tenance of bench cuts should be a priority, including establishing and maintaining the proper trail cross- slope and eliminating outside berms, to prevent trail erosion.
3. Natural Resources
Issue: Cutting roots to create bench cuts may endanger nearby trees and other vegetation.
Treatment Guidelines: The damage caused by cutting roots to create bench cuts is generally outweighed by the benefits of having a clear, non-eroding treadway that, in the long run, allows for healthy tree growth in the area. However, not all roots should be cut in the construction and maintenance of bench cuts. Roots judged essential to important trees should be left in place, and the route of the trail or height of the bench surface should be adjusted to accommodate them.
SPECIFICATIONS FOR BENCH CUTS
1 . Type of Bench
A full bench is the most durable kind of bench cut and is the preferred type for use. As the slope of the hillside increases, the necessity of the trail tread being solid earth is greater, so that a half bench is acceptable on a 1:1 slope, a three-quarter bench on a 2:1 slope, and a full bench necessary on slopes of 3:1 or greater (Fig. 3-8). When the proper kind of bench for the slope cannot be constructed, retaining wall must be built to hold the material added to the slope to complete the trail width.
34
Chapter 3: Treadway; A. Bench Cuts
2. Construction of Bench
In the construction of a new bench, the route should be staked to delineate the two edges of the trail cor- ridor. Bench width should be in keeping with the rest of the trail. The width for woodland trails ranges from 18 to 48 inches (Fig. 3-9).
In a full bench, none of the excavated material is used as trail tread. The material is used elsewhere. In half and three-quarter benches, the appropriate amount of excavated stone and soil is placed on the downhill side so that it creates the proper slope and is tamped until firm. Existing organic material on the trail is stock- piled, then is tamped and planted along the trail's out- sloped edge. If no retaining wall is to be built, stones pulled from the hillside can be set along the outside of the new tread material in a random fashion for reten- tion of the infill.
The bench tread should have an outslope of 1/2 inch per 1 foot. Where inside drainage is used, the trail may be crowned, outsloped, or insloped.
To prevent erosion, the bank on the uphill and downhill side of the treadway should be sloped to its angle of repose. This angle will vary, depending on the surrounding slope and the soil type, but the maximum slope is 1:1. Also, the outside edge of the treadway should be rounded over, rather than left as a sharp corner (Figs. 3-10 & 3-11).
3. Use of Retaining Wall
Outside retaining wall, which retains the treadway, is generally needed in the following situations:
• when more fill material is used to widen a treadway than is appropriate for the slope, or
• when soil is particularly loose and an angle of repose cannot be achieved
Inside retaining wall, which retains the bank above the treadway, should be used when a sustainable angle of repose cannot be reached.
Cut tlcpm .
A GOOD CROSS SECTION IN HEAVY CUT
SKETGH NO. 1
<"- Nttml tUt tkfm
FOR EASY SLOPES
SKETCH NO. 2
Fig. 3-8 CCC details for bench cuts illustrate the proper choice of bench type' — full bench for steep slopes as shown in Sketch No. 1, and half or three-quarter bench for more gradual slopes as shown in Sketch No. 2.
■ Suit lne»tinf top 4 tlafm
CuitJop*
tad Uocjtrof out
StttMhpt
Sukt JocttioM cut utd r™4*
STAKING IT OUT
SKETGH NO. 4
Fig. 3-9 CCC details for staking a bench cut.
35
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
|
cM |
i |
|
|
1 irate i |
\H& |
|
|
»\ |
hW |
|
|
'»^\ |
||
|
1 ; Ml ' |
||
|
Vuintl ktMB-1 by fr*t |
||
|
EROSION OF STEEP SLOPES |
||
|
SKETCH NO. B |
Fig. 3-10 CCC detail of erosion on steep slopes.
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE
1. All bench cuts should be regularly regraded to maintain the outslope. Uphill material that has slumped into the treadway should be graded onto the treadway.
2. Any berm along the outside of the trail edge should be removed.
3. Collapsing banks on either side of the tread- way should be regraded at shallower angles or, if this is not possible, retained with the proper kind of retaining wall.
4. All associated drainage, walls, and other structures should be maintained according to their specifications.
HievM bo flotunod
Sm No. 7
Should it roundod
POOR WORK
SKETGH NO. 6
Poorty finiihtd shpt
Pnpor shpo
A GOOD I0EA GONE WRONG
SKETGH NO. 7
Ljr, Pro for nunding
GOOD SLOPES
SKETGH NO. 8
Fig. 3-1 1 CCC details for the correct way to finish the slopes adjacent to a bench cut.
36
Chapter 3: Treadway; B. Causeway
B. CAUSEWAY
DEFINITIONS
A causeway is a constructed earthen treadway raised above the level of the surrounding area. A causeway is commonly used to provide a durable, dry tread through a wet, swampy, or meadow area. A causeway is often referred to as "raised tread." Causeways are usually constructed in conjunction with cross-drainage features like culverts, subgrade drainage, or subsurface drains to facilitate water movement across the trail. Without drainage, a causeway can be an obstacle to the flow of water through the landscape and may perma- nently alter the landscape and local habitats.
A walled causeway is a raised gravel or soil treadway supported on both sides with retaining walls. This feature has been also called a turnpike. Single-tier retaining walls on the sides of walled causeways are called sidewalls (Fig. 3-12). Sidewalls may be set "toast" style — upright and on end, "cake" style — flat, or "header" style — sloping towards the center of the trail.
A wall-less causeway is a raised gravel or soil tread- way, which is constructed without retaining walls. In a wall-less causeway, the subgrade edge sloped to its angle of repose serves the retaining function. The edge is often covered with soil and vegetation (Fig. 3-13).
A stone causeway is constructed primarily of stones and has an stone pavement, rather than graveled-over, surface (Fig. 3-14).
Log turnpiking is a causeway that consists of a series of gravel-filled log cribs laid continuously. Log turn- piking is not a historical feature at Acadia and is not a recommended treatment option for the Acadia trail system (Figs. 3-15 & 3-16).
Fig. 3-12 Historic walled causeway on the Birch Brook Trail (#429).
Fig. 3-13 The Jesup Path (#14), shown in circa 1916, was originally constructed with long sections of wall-less causeway.
Fig. 3-14 A stone causeway at the Jordan Pond Inlet on the Jordan Pond Path (#39).
37
Acadia Trails Treatment plan
Fig. 3-15 Prior to rehabilitation, the Jordan Pond Path (#39) contained many sections of log turnpiking. Fig. 3-16 shows this same segment with the addition of new walled causeway.
Fig. 3-16 Recently rehabilitated walled causeway on the Jordan Pond Path (#39) in section formerly treated with log turnpiking.
Fig. 3-17 This walled causeway on the Asticou Trail (#49) is still extant and in relatively good condition over one hundred years later.
HISTORICAL USE OF CAUSEWAYS AT ACADIA
Pre-VIA/VIS
Prior to the VIA/VIS path work there is no history of causeways in the Mount Desert Island (MDI) trail system. However, a number of raised roadbeds existed on the island, which may have served as models for the builders of causeways.
Village Improvement Associations/Societies
Beginning in the 1890s, VIA/VIS constructed trails with a stone rubble base and crowned gravel surface, creating the earliest versions of causeways at Acadia. This method was used for nearly all the "broad paths," including George Dorr's Bicycle Path (#331), the Red Path (Schooner Head Road Path, #362), and the Asti- cou Trail (#49) (Figs. 3-17 & 3-18). These trails aimed to provide an easy walking surface on long, direct routes, which naturally took them through much of the island's wet and boggy areas. The relatively flat routes allowed for the construction of walled and wall-less causeway.
The VIA/VIS used both walled and wall-less causeway, and combined them on several trails. This indicates that there was no single approach to the construction of causeway, even under the direction of a particular builder.
38
Chapter 3: Treadway; B. Causeway
A typical VIA/VIS causeway is 3 to 4 feet wide, has a consistent height of 6 to 12 inches from surrounding grade, and is laid in straight or evenly curving routes. Most are lined at least partially with coping stones and incorporate either graveled-over stone culverts, such as on the Schooner Head Road Path (#362), or open stone culverts like on the Jordan Pond Path (#39). Frequent "borrow" pits, still visible along their routes, demonstrate the massive quantity of material needed for the construction of causeways. Historic photo- graphs of the Jordan Pond Path (#39) attest to the high level of craftsmanship these trails achieved, providing an even, uniformly wide surface of gravel over a con- structed treadway.
Several historic stone causeways are extant in the trail system, including a stream crossing on the Jordan Pond Carry Spur (#40) likely built in the 1960s and a small bit of raised stone paving on the Asticou Trail (#49). The most substantial stone causeway in the system originated in about 1896, when the Bar Harbor VIA placed stepping stones across an inlet on the east side of Jordan Pond where the water is 2 to 4 feet deep.
Fig. 3-18 Schooner Head Road Path (#362), shown here in circa 1916, also used wall-less causeway to traverse wet areas on the trail route.
Fig. 3-19 An early photograph of the Jordan Pond stone causeway, circa 1920. Note the small rocks, narrowness, and unevenness of the causeway, which would not well accommodate today's number of users.
39
Acadia trails treatment Plan
Fig. 3-20 Circa- 1934 photograph of a hiking party on Jordan Pond stone causeway that shows the popularity of the area. Refer to Fig. 3-14 for a 1997 view of the causeway after NPS reconstructed and widened it.
Improvements in the 1920s and 1930s by the VIA/VIS path committees and the CCC altered the character to that of a causeway, with a piled channel of stones and flat stones laid across its top. By 1984, this causeway had deteriorated and was reconstructed by NPS crews (Figs. 3-19 & 3-20). The reconstruction incorporated larger, squarer stones than were originally used in the causeway, resulting in a wider and flatter tread than previously existed.
Some VIA/VIS trails built in the 1910s took direct routes through large wetlands, notably in the Sieur de Monts area. The Jesup Path (#14) and Stratheden Path (#24) both contain thousands of linear feet of wall-less causeway directly through the Great Meadow and to The Tarn that are still extant. Considering the size and consistency of this wetland, these two paths must have
required an unprecedented amount of material for their construction.
Civilian Conservation Corps
Like the VIA/VIS, the CCC moved extensive amounts of material to construct causeway trails in low-lying areas, including the Great Meadow Nature Trail (#365) and Long Pond Trail (#118). However, in other locations layout and design of CCC trails placed most routes in sidehill locations, avoiding low walks through boggy areas and only using causeway construction if truly needed. For instance, the majority of the Ocean Path (#3) is a walled bench sidehill construction, but in the few areas where it crosses lower, wetter ground, the CCC relied on wall-less causeway to keep the trail above the surrounding wet grade (Figs. 3-21 to 3-23).
40
Chapter 3: Treadway; B. Causeway
Also, some of the lower portions of the CCC trails' steep ascents contain causeway. For instance, the section of the Beech Mountain West Ridge Trail (#108) built by the CCC contains a 1,500-foot stretch of causeway, most of it walled on both sides with graveled-over stone culverts. The Long Pond Trail (#118), mostly walled bench, contains hundreds of feet of walled and wall-less causeway on its boggy northern end, part of which has been rerouted and replaced with bogwalk.
CCC causeway is nearly identical to VIA/VIS cause- way, with a continued preference for a 4-foot width. Apparently following the model of the early VIA/VIS builders, CCC crews opted for graveled-over stone culverts on nearly all their sections of causeway.
NPS/Mission 66
While Mission 66 crews did a great deal of gravel sur- facing, they built little causeway. It appears that only two short sections of wall-less causeway were built — portions of the Ship Harbor Nature Trail (#127) and the Anemone Cave Trail (#369). Both trails use steel pipe culverts, and the Anemone Cave Trail is surfaced with asphalt. Since the Mission 66 standard trail width was 5 feet, these causeways are wider than any of the preceding.
National Park Service
Between the CCC era and the late 1990s, very little causeway was built or repaired. During this period, a single causeway was completed by NPS crews in the early 1980s on a new trail connecting the Jor- dan Pond House to its overflow parking area. Gary Stellpflug remembers the construction as being "just mounded dirt" with no stone rubble subgrade, though this section of trail is still in good shape today. Also, as previously mentioned, the stone causeway near the southern end of the Jordan Pond Path (#39) was reconstructed in 1984 with modifications to stone size and overall width. Additionally, a new stone causeway was added to the Long Pond Trail (#118), near the southern end. However, this feature is out of character with this trail and should be removed (Fig. 3-24).
|
1 f .. M |
i |
|
\tM m |
|
|
i |
Fig. 3-21 CCC-constructed causeway on the Great Meadow Nature Trail (#365), shown in 1930s.
Fig. 3-22 CCC-constructed causeway on the Great/Long Pond Trail (#118), shown in 1930s.
I , , t JKM
Fig. 3-23 CCC-constructed causeway on the Ocean Path (#3), shown in the 1930s.
41
Acadia Trails Treatment plan
Fig. 3-24 This stone causeway on the Great/Long Pond Trail (#118) was constructed in 1993 by the NPS; however, it is out of character for this trail and should be replaced with walled or wall-less causeway.
Fig. 3-25 Header-style coping stones on the Jordan Pond Path (#39). The mason's line indicates the anticipated fill level for the final tread surface.
Maintenance techniques for repairing eroded, col- lapsed, sunken, or flooded causeway centered on the addition of contemporary features, rather than reconstructing the original treadway. Stone boxes, log turnpiking, and bogwalks were built in many of these areas, while others were not repaired at all. For instance, the Long Pond Trail (#118) was repaired by building bogwalks over the top of a portion of flooded walled causeway; log turnpiking was introduced to the east side of the Jordan Pond Path (#39) and replaced eroded wall-less causeway on the Ocean Path (#3); and over 1,000 feet of sunken wall-less causeway on the Jesup Path (#14) was repaired with bogwalks. Additionally, old gravel pits used in the construction of causeways were reopened occasionally to obtain the material used for filling log cribs or turnpiking.
In 1998, in an effort to restore a completely obliterated trail, NPS crews began building walled causeway on the east side of the Jordan Pond Path (#39). During the first year of rehabilitation, crews imitated the style of walled causeway on the Asticou Trail (#49). Stones were laid in a single tier along the outside of the tread- way, often "toast" style (set standing up). The stones were partially buried with the exposed side retaining the gravel tread. After a season, it was found that this works for large stones, stones set "cake" style (lying down), and those with more than half their height dug into the ground, but much of the other work began loosening, and some of it collapsed. On the advice of Dave Kari, an Acadia crew member who had built a number of walled causeways in Yosemite National Park, the style was altered slightly. Stones were laid "header" style (set vertically) , sloping in toward the center of the trail, with the length of the stone set into the trail and most of their volume buried by the trail surfacing (see "Specifications for Causeways"). In fact, the sidewall on the Schooner Head Road Path (#362) was later found to have been constructed in a like manner, with square paving blocks sloping in. The new Jordan Pond look is similar to extant sections of the old trail, with the occasional difference that some stones are less exposed. The old look was restored in large part by the use of a number of coping stones set completely outside the treadway (Fig. 3-25).
42
Chapter 3: Treadway; B. Causeway
NPS crews have also recently rehabilitated wall-less causeway on the Ship Harbor Nature Trail (#127) and Jordan Pond Path (#39), and they have constructed new wall-less causeway on the Great Meadow Loop (#70). The use of jute mat to hold soil and vegetation on the sides of the causeway has made construction of this feature easier and more durable (Fig. 3-26).
TREATMENT FOR CAUSEWAYS
1. Maintaining Character
Issue: Causeways may not be appropriate for use on all historic trails. Although the VIA/VIS and CCC relied heavily on them, the addition of causeways to paths with little construction alters the trail's character by widening the trail corridor. A wider corridor may not be historically compatible with the trail and may result in the loss of trailside vegetation or the relocation of other natural features.
Fig. 3-26 Wall-less causeway before gravel surfacing on the Jordan Pond Path (#39) in 2002. The sides are angled and revegetated to the grade line. Note the insloping culvert lintels between first and second grade stakes.
Treatment Guidelines: Extant causeways that are his- torically appropriate should be rehabilitated, repaired in kind, and extended as necessary. However, all work should be reviewed and approved by Acadia resource management staff (see #2, below). If the trail already
HISTORICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF CAUSEWAYS
Causeways have not changed much in character from their historic usage to the present. Minor alterations, such as the width increase during the Mission 66 era, may alter the character of individual trails slightly, but, overall, the character of causeways throughout the system has remained consistent.
Pre-VIA/VIS (pre-1890)
Roads were built with causeways; however, there is no evidence or documentation of causeway use on the earli- est MDI trails.
VIA/VIS Period (1890-1937)
Extensive use of walled and wall-less causeway for long sections of gravel-surfaced paths in low or wet, flat areas. The prevailing width for causeways was 3 to 4 feet. Cause- ways incorporated subgrade drainage, pipe, open stone, graveled-over, and log culverts as drainage. Pits were used for quarrying material for causeways.
CCC Period (1933-42)
Bench construction was preferred where layout would allow, but walled and wall-less causeways were used on several lengthy runs of trail through low, flat, and boggy areas. Causeway width remained at 4 feet, and graveled- over bridges, pipe culverts, and subgrade drainage were used. There was a continued use of pits for material.
NPS/Mission 66 Period (1943-66)
Causeways were rarely used. The few that were built averaged 5 feet wide, were surfaced with gravel or asphalt, used steel pipe culverts for drainage, and relied on imported material for construction.
NPS Period (1967-1997)
There was little or no repair to existing causeways until the late 1990s. At this time, causeways were reintroduced or rehabilitated on appropriate historic trails and used in some new locations. Standards for construction followed the appropriate historical standards of those above, with a slight modification of stone placement on the sidewalls.
43
Acadia Trails treatment Plan
possesses a significant number of constructed features, a causeway should be the first choice for VIA/VIS and CCC trail sections needing to cross wet or boggy areas. Causeways should not be added to trails with a historically unconstructed, woodland character, and a narrow trail corridor, as other crossing features are more appropriate choices. Walled causeway should be used when it is important to maintain a narrow tread or when the walls are considered necessary to deter hikers from stepping off the trail, otherwise wall-less causeway should be used. The few stone causeways in the system should be rehabilitated as needed, but no new ones should be added.
2. Natural Resources and Drainage
Issue: Causeways can act as dams, disrupting the hy- drology of the wetland by altering the natural motion of water and, perhaps, changing the overall ecosystem. The construction or rehabilitation of causeways is thought to pose risks to fragile wetland habitat in some cases.
Treatment Guidelines: Plans for rehabilitation, additions, or new causeway construction should be reviewed by Acadia resource management staff for approval. All work in currently identified wetlands, or potential wetlands, should satisfy state and fed- eral law and adhere to NPS policy. Work in areas not designated as wetlands should be subject to in-park approval. Minor rehabilitation to extant causeway, where such work neither disturbs the surrounding area, nor causes additional blockage to the movement of water, may be accomplished without such approval at the discretion of park management. Priority should be given to maintaining the proper amount of water flow through a causeway. If there is a need for addi- tional water flow, the appropriate historic drainage feature(s) like culverts and side drains should be used in conjunction with the causeway to achieve the desired rate of flow. If more water flow is required than can be achieved through the addition of drain- age features, then sections of stepping stones, bridges, or bogwalk should be constructed between sections of causeway. If a causeway is disallowed altogether, appropriate crossing features should be used for the
entire length of the affected area. Bogwalk may be considered if all other crossing features are deemed inappropriate. A trail reroute may also be considered.
3. Sidewall Durability
Issue: Many historic stones set along the outside wall of a causeway are vulnerable and may require frequent work to maintain the causeway's integrity. This is espe- cially true for stones set toast-style.
Treatment Guidelines: In general, header-style sidewalls (see Figs. 3-25, 3-27) should be the preferred construction technique for repair of causeways, allow- ing for a durable construction with stones of a manage- able size. However, when repairing or adding sections of causeway to trails where the extant historic style is substantially different visually from the header-style, compatibility with the original style is preferred while still maintaining the integrity of the new sidewall. Historic stones laid on the outside of the treadway that have collapsed should be reset or replaced with stones of sufficient size and of the correct shape so that a substantial portion of the stone is underground. The exposed portion of the stone should match extant work in stone size, color, and texture. New coping stones should be set completely outside the treadway at the trail edge with a frequency that matches the original trail (see Chapter 6 for coping stone specifica- tions).
SPECIFICATIONS FOR CAUSEWAYS
Specifications are only provided for the construction of walled and wall-less causeways, as the introduc- tion of new stone causeways to the trail system is not a recommended treatment option.
1. Walled Causeway (Fig. 3-27) Layout: A specific route should be chosen that allows for straight or gently curving trail and requires no dramatic changes in elevation. Sufficient room should be provided on either side of the causeway for the movement of water into the drainages or away from the trail. Stakes are set in pairs outlining both sides of
44
Chapter 3: Treadway; B. Causeway
Gravel is crowned
subgrade to 2" below grade
Rocks sloped in and largely covered by gravel
Gaps on
inside
chinked
High contact
Rocks 2" or more below ground
Fig. 3-27 Detail of a walled causeway.
the treadway. The corridor should be of appropriate width to accommodate foot traffic and conform to the standards of the trail. The line, which defines the height and width of the trail to the builders, is then attached to the stakes at the proper height above sur- rounding grade, gaining and losing elevation over the longest runs feasible. This height should be sufficient to accommodate anticipated drainage needs. Enough stakes should be used to maintain the shape of the curves; otherwise, finished wall will consist of discern- ible straight sections. During the building process, as a stake needs to be taken out in order to set stones, it should be replaced immediately with a stake not more than 2 feet away, so that the shape of the curve is not lost.
Excavation: All organic material should be removed from the trail corridor to a compacted base. Excavate wide enough to allow for the width of the treadway as well as the sidewalls. Wall stones and subgrade should be set in solid soil or on ledge.
ACAD NP-Baldyga/Barter
Sidewalls: Sidewall stones for single-tier walls can be surprisingly small if they are of the right shape to be set properly. Stones must be at least 3 inches taller, in the manner in which they are to be set, than the height of the causeway (i.e., a 1-foot-high causeway requires a sidewall stone of at least 15 inches height). Ideal wall stones are rectangular or triangular, with a "flare" at what will be the top outside edge of the stone, to ease contact with abutting stones. Round stones should be avoided, unless they can be sufficiently shaped to allow for high contact. Stones with protrusions or other minor problems that will prevent high contact can often be shaped with a hammer or other stone tool. Large stones can often be split in half with hand tools or a stone drill, leaving a flat top and sharp edges for contact points.
All stones but the largest (those of at least two cubic feet in volume) will be set header-style, with the longest portion of the stone set into the trail, the next largest part set vertically, and the shortest dimension contributing to the length of the wall. This allows for the maximum amount of weight per length of trail, and
45
Acadia Trails Treatment plan
makes the wall much stronger. Stones are set so that their tops touch the line near the outside edge of each stone but do not move the line up or in; some portion of the stone should always remain outside the line. In order to achieve this, and to "cradle" tread material between them, stones are set so that their tops slope in toward the center of the trail.
Sidewall stones must have contact with abutting stones at or above the height of the line. In some situations, a contact within 1 inch below the line is permissible. Once a point of high contact is achieved, contact else- where between abutting stones is not necessary, but gaps between them should be chinked. If more height is needed, the hole beneath the stone may be adjusted by adding crushed stone, but wall stones should never be set on crushed stone or shims that are exposed above the level of the surrounding ground or floor of side drainage, because these will slip out over time. When a row of sidewall stones has been set, remaining gaps between them should be packed with the largest stones possible. At this stage, wall stones should be sturdy enough to remain stable when hikers jump on them.
Treadway: The core between the sidewalls should be filled with stone to within 3 inches of the line height. Larger stones should be set first, then smaller and smaller stones should be broken in place to pack the core, and depress the overall level of the stone base to its settling point in the ground. This is the "subgrade" and will provide both a solid base for the treadway and drainage for seepage to travel under the treadway.
On historically graveled treadway, new gravel will be crushed stone as specified under "Gravel Tread" below. If gravel is an addition to a relatively uncon- structed trail, it may be local bank-run gravel, or the specified manufactured gravel mixed with local gravel or soil. The gravel is laid over the crush base so that it meets the line at the outside edge, and is crowned 1/2 inch per foot of width in the center of the cause- way after tamping (i.e., a 4-foot wide treadway will be crowned 2 inches). A vibrating tamper should be applied to the gravel surface to compact and harden
the gravel. The finished surface should be smooth crown with no dips or dimples. Care should be taken not to apply too much gravel, as it will work its way over the edges of the walls, spilling onto the surround- ing ground or into drainage channels.
Finished Dimensions: Finished walled causeway should be 6 to 7 feet wide, including walls, with a treadway width of 4 feet. A walled causeway should be at least 8 inches above surrounding grade at its edges and 10 inches above surrounding grade at the center of the tread.
2. Wall-less Causeway (Fig. 3-28)
Layout and Excavation: Wall-less causeway is laid out and excavated the same as walled causeway. However, the excavated area will be slightly wider, usually 6 to 9 feet. Without sidewalls to support the causeway, the stone rubble base will need to taper underneath the string line outside the treadway to its natural angle of repose; no steeper than 1:1 for crushed granite. Larger stones may be set along the outside of the rubble base to help retain it.
Berms: Two parallel berms are created by piling loam and soil along the outsides of the line, up to the height of the line, tapering to the ground at a 30 percent or shallower grade. Where possible, native sod or other vegetation should be planted in the soil. When sod is not available, loose soil can be held with jute mat, which will decompose as vegetation takes root in the soil and makes it "living wall."
Treadway: The resultant channel, between the berms on either side of the trail, on top of the rubble base, is filled with gravel (as specified in "Gravel Surface" section), which meets the line at the outside edges, and rises to a crown of 2 to 3 inches higher than the center- line of the trail.
Finished Dimensions: A finished wall-less causeway will be a total width of 6 to 10 feet to allow a finished tread width of 3 to 6 feet. The height of the crown of the causeway will be at least 12 inches above the sur- rounding grade.
46
Chapter 3: treadway; B. Causeway
Crushed rock subgrade is outsloped at 1:1 or shallower
Soil and vegetation planted over crush
Fig. 3-28 Detail of a wall-less causeway.
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE
1. All associated drainage features should be checked annually and kept open and clear.
2. The cause of any lost gravel should be identi- fied and remedied. Low contacts or loose stones should be fixed, plugged drains cleaned, and drains that cannot handle their loads should be replaced with sufficiently sized structures. Lost gravel should be recovered and put back on the trail surface.
3. Every year or more — depending on use, material used, and quality of construction — the crown should be reestablished by the addition of gravel, and any hollows that have developed in the tread- way should be filled. The rehabilitated surface should be tamped with a vibrating tamper.
4. Vegetation growing in the treadway should be removed, and any organic material in the treadway should be replaced with gravel.
5. Collapsed or eroded berms at the edges of wall- less causeways should be reestablished with the addition of new soil and/or vegetation.
Crushed rock subgrade is anchored below organic level
ACAD NP-Baldyga/Barter
47
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
C. GRAVEL TREAD
DEFINITIONS
some bridges and culverts, and is often supported by checks, coping stones, and retaining walls. Gravel tread may also be used by itself, as the surface of an otherwise unconstructed treadway.
Gravel tread is any treadway surfaced with gravel. Gravel is an inorganic material consisting primar- ily of stones smaller than % inch diameter. A surface aggregate of larger stone pieces is called crushed rock if it is crushed material, or pea stone if it consists of small, smooth pieces. The gravel used on Acadia's trails may be manufactured crushed material, or it may be bank-run — natural gravel made by streams or glaciers, quarried from streambeds (a practice no longer used at Acadia), from natural deposits, or from excavated pits.
Unconstructed trails that pass through gravel beds, or have eroded to a gravel sub-surface are not considered to have constructed gravel tread and are not discussed in this section.
Gravel tread is often installed in conjunction with other kinds of trail construction. It is a part of most causeway construction, much bench construction,
HISTORICAL USE OF GRAVEL TREAD AT ACADIA
Pre-VIA/VIS
Prior to 1890, all trail tread was unconstructed and constructed gravel tread was not used.
Village Improvement Associations/Societies
In the VIA/VIS period, gravel tread was used exten- sively in the Bar Harbor and Seal Harbor districts, very little in Northeast Harbor, and not at all in Southwest Harbor. Nearly all highly crafted trails used gravel on all or portions of the treadway, and conversely, nearly all trails treated with gravel were highly crafted. Early in the period, the predominant use of gravel was on the smooth, graded or "broad" paths that used side- hill or lowland routes to travel between destinations. About half of these are in the Seal Harbor district, mostly radiating from the Jordan Pond House. Similar
Fig. 3-29 The CCC usually installed rubble base under their gravel tread, work in progress in the 1930s.
48
Chapter 3: Treadway; C. Gravel Tread
Bar Harbor broad paths include the Schooner Head Road Path (#362), the Wild Gardens Path (#354), and possibly the White Path (#329). Later, smooth, graded trails treated with gravel included the Jesup Path (#14), the Stratheden Path (#24), and the Gurnee Path (#352). Segments of these trails were constructed with benches, causeways, or retaining walls, while other segments simply had organic material excavated and a gravel tread added. In the early 1900s on memorial trails, gravel was used to surface flat sections of climb- ing trails, often in short runs between stone steps.
Gravel was natural and local, either bank-run or quar- ried gravel. Gravel pits are extant near many of the graded trails, often within 20 feet of the trail. These pits range from 3 or 4 feet in diameter, such as the smaller pits on the Jordan Pond Path (#39), to 20 or more feet long, such as a pit near the Schooner Head Road Path (#362) and Red Path (#328). Some trails, including as the Seal Harbor graded paths, have many pits near them, often within a hundred yards of each other.
The large number and volume of borrow pits located near these trails attest to the volume of gravel tread used. Many gravel-surfaced trails required constant resurfacing because the proper trail construction and drainage were not in place to maintain the tread, or if drains were present, they were not adequately maintained. Subsequently, the surface has been lost completely from many trails and they currently con- tain many exposed roots, are often rutted, and/or are consistently muddy during wet periods. In other cases, drainage patterns were altered by road construction uphill of a trail, resulting in washouts in places where drainage features were not needed at the time of the trail's original construction.
Civilian Conservation Corps
The CCC constructed miles of gravel tread. Opting for a continuous constructed surface, the CCC consis- tently applied gravel to any sections of trail that were not stone paved or stepped. The exceptions are the unconstructed portions of the Perpendicular Trail (#119), Long Pond Trail (#118), and Valley Cove sec- tion of the Flying Mountain Trail (#105), all of which appear to be unfinished segments and not part of the
Fig. 3-30 Newly installed CCC gravel, photograph showing completed work in the 1930s.
49
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
original trail's design. The CCC provided drainage, but again, it was insufficient and/or not maintained. While some CCC gravel tread has survived, most has washed away or been seriously eroded and has not been replaced. Gravel washouts have been extensive on the Long Pond Trail (#118), Beech Mountain South Pudge Trail (#109), and parts of the Ocean Path (#3). How- ever, as opposed to many VIA/VIS trails, much of the CCC work contains a rubble stone base. In many cases, this base is still extant and only needs resurfacing and the maintenance or addition of drainage structures or checks (Figs. 3-29 & 3-30).
NPS/Mission 66
Mission 66 surfaced all trails with either gravel tread or asphalt. Due to poor construction and relatively few drainage structures, most of the gravel on Mission 66 trails has washed away.
National Park Service
In the NPS period, gravel tread was used sporadically as a technique for new construction, a method of reha- bilitating historic graveled paths, and a stop-gap for repairing washouts on trails where its use is inappro- priate. New construction using gravel tread include the Jordan Pond overflow parking lot trail in the 1970s and the Bass Harbor Head Light Trail (#129) in 1997 (Fig. 3-31). Rehabilitation of gravel tread was completed on the Ocean Path (#3) and Jordan Pond Path (#39). Stop- gap repairs using gravel tread were done on historically unconstructed sections of the Bowl Trail (#8) in 1994, but most of it has since eroded due to inappropriate construction.
Fig. 3-31 New gravel tread was installed by the NPS on the rehabilitated Bass Harbor Head Light Trail (#129) in 1997.
HISTORICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF GRAVEL TREAD
Pre-VIA/VIS (pre-1890)
There is no evidence or documentation for the use of gravel paving.
VIA/VIS Period (1890-1937)
Gravel paving was used extensively on the classic grav- eled, or "broad" paths that were relatively flat, destination oriented trails. It was also used in short runs on other highly constructed trails.
CCC Period (1933-42)
Gravel paving was the default mode of trail surfacing.
NPS/Mission 66 Period (1943-66)
Gravel paving was the default mode of trail surfacing.
NPS Period (1967-1997)
Gravel paving was used on a few short, highly used trails. Some historic trails were re-graveled with a non-local, engineered gravel. A few trails are inappropriately treated with gravel tread.
50
Chapter 3: Treadway; C. Gravel Tread
TREATMENT
1. Gravel Color
Issue: Historically, gravel was bank-run taken from nearby pits, and its color was the color of local stone surrounding the trail and used in its construction — ranging from gray to pink. However, the "carriage road mix" of gravel currently being used on trails is a manu- factured, basaltic, crushed gravel that is slightly bluish colored. This mix is different in appearance from surface stones in any part of the trail system, espe- cially pink granite. However, local pink granite is not available for use, and gravel manufactured of similarly colored granite is prohibitively expensive. Further, quarrying local bank-run gravel from pits is restricted in the park, and would not be practical.
Treatment Guidelines: Due to the above limitations, and the large quantities of gravel required, gravel used to resurface trails with traditional gravel tread will be non-local, crushed material that meets the specifica- tions identified below. It is acceptable to continue using the carriage road mix now being used as the color problem should be ameliorated over time by weathering and local materials such as pine needles becoming mixed with the surface. However, the preferred option would be to develop a gravel mix specifically for the trail system. Mixes with different colors should be investigated for compatibility with the native stone. If local pink gravel cannot be exactly matched or readily obtained at a reasonable cost, a gray or brown mix should be considered as a reason- able alternative.
2. Use of Gravel on Unconstructed Trails
Issue: Gravel is a more durable and hiker-friendly surface than an unconstructed tread which may have small obstacles, be soft, and hold moisture. However, the use of gravel will alter the appearance and charac- ter of traditionally unconstructed tread.
Treatment Guidelines: In the rehabilitation of uncon- structed trails, care should be taken to maintain the natural character of the treadway. The first choice for treadway material should be local gravel, preferably
with some soil content, which has been produced in doing trail work, or small amounts taken from local pits. According to park guidelines, "up to four cubic yards of soil, gravel, or stone per 50 linear feet of trail may be removed from natural areas near work sites for trail rehabilitation."11 However, if the amount of mate- rial needed exceeds these parameters, or if using local gravel is not feasible for other reasons, the imported gravel trail mix (or carriage road mix) may be used. If imported gravel will be used, it should be a thin coat mixed with local soil to blend it with the surrounding landscape and subdue the aesthetic appearance of a complete gravel tread.
3. Maintaining Gravel Tread
Issue: Gravel is a mobile material and will settle to the bottoms of slopes and often wash away if running water passes over it. Historically, not enough con- structed features, such as side drains or checks, were used to direct water flow and preserve gravel paving. Rehabilitating gravel tread to its original state without adding these features will often result in the quick loss of the gravel surface.
Treatment Guidelines: If gravel tread is to be restored, trail construction should be sufficient to ensure that the tread will be sustainable. Any area where gravel has washed out is probably in need of better construction prior to gravel replacement. New features should be compatible with historic trail features, and uncon- structed trails should be treated with appropriate features as described elsewhere in the this document. In general, subgrade drainage and/or subsurface drains should be used in all but totally dry areas. Elevated gravel paving should be constructed according to the specifications for causeways. Gravel paving on slopes over 5 percent (or any slopes with drainage issues) should contain checks, high-contact walls, or soil berms (whichever is most appropriate). Benches with gravel tread and ditching or inside drains should be used as necessary and appropriate.
51
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRAVEL TREAD
1. Gravel Mix
The following specifications were developed for the carriage road system. The mix contains 8 percent clay, which binds the mix for a durable walking surface. The specifications state that aggregate shall consist of hard, durable particles or fragments of crushed stone or gravel conforming to the following requirements and gradations:
|
Los Angeles abrasion, ASTM C131 and C535 |
50 percent max.* |
|
Fractured faces (one face) |
95 percent max.* |
|
Fractured faces (two faces) |
75 percent max.* |
|
Soundness loss, five cycles, ASTM C 88 (magnesium |
18 percent max.* |
|
Flat/elongated (length to width) >5 ASTM D4791 |
15 percent max.* |
|
* Based on the portion retained on the 3/8-inch sieve. |
Materials shall be free from organic material and lumps or balls of clay.
Material passing the No. 4 sieve shall consist of natural or crushed sand and fine mineral particles. The material, including any blended filler, shall have a plasticity index of not more than 6 and a liquid limit of not more than 25 when tested in accordance with ASTM D4318.
Aggregate shall contain a minimum of 5 percent clay particles but no more than 50 percent of that portion of mate- rial passing the No. 200 sieve size shall be clay. Inorganic clay to be used as binder shall conform to the following:
|
Passing No. 200 |
75 percent |
|
Liquid Limit |
30 min. |
|
Plastic Index |
8 min. |
The fraction of material passing the No. 200 sieve shall be determined by washing as indicated in ASTM D1140, "Amount of Material in Soils Finer Than the No. 200 Sieve." The fractured faces for the coarse aggregate portion (retained on the No. 4 sieve) shall have an area of each face equal to at least 75 percent of the smallest midsectional area of the piece. When two fractured faces are contiguous, the angle between the planes of fractures shall be at least 30 degrees to count as two fractured faces. Fractured faces shall be obtained by mechanical crushing. Grada- tion shall be obtained by crushing, screening, and blending processes as may be necessary. Material shall meet the following screen analysis requirements by weight.
|
Sieve Designation |
Percent Passing |
|
%inch |
100 percent |
|
>iinch |
90-100 percent |
|
No. 4 |
55-70 percent |
|
No. 40 |
20-30 percent |
|
No. 200 |
12-16 percent |
52
Chapter 3: Treadway; C. Gravel Tread
2. Excavation
The ground should be excavated below the organic level, usually about 6 inches deep. Large roots should be left, and large stones that will not protrude above the gravel surface may be left. Sod or duff pieces should be saved and used along the edges of the gravel where a berm needs to be constructed. If the area is damp or seasonally wet, but not wet enough to warrant the construction of causeway, then the ground should be excavated to mineral soil, at least 1 foot deep, to better stabilize the trail, and to provide room for subgrade drainage, as described below. The shape of the trail should be appropriate to the trail's design, and the edge of the excavation should be the exact desired edge of the trail.
3. Subgrade Drainage
In areas in which any amount of water will need to pass through the trail corridor, or where the ground is soft, subgrade drainage and/or subsurface drains should be constructed. Crushed stone or imported blown ledge material, as described previously for walled cause- way, should be applied to the excavated treadway to a height of 2 inches below the level of the surrounding grade and tamped until stable. If seepage is moderate rather than light, perforated-pipe drains should be considered.
The gravel surface should be smooth, with no dips or lumps. The surface should be packed with a vibrating tamper, which should be passed over every part of the trail surface at least once, or until the surface becomes hard.
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE
1. All associated drainage features must be checked and cleaned regularly, as gravel is particularly susceptible to washouts. If washout or excessive wear on slopes, is occurring, the reason should be identified, and the appropriate features (such as checks or dips) maintained or added.
2. Proper slope, crown, and outslope should be maintained by reshaping or replacing old gravel, or by adding new gravel as needed. Where pos- sible, reshaped gravel paving should be tamped. The maintenance schedule for reshaping gravel will vary based on use, drainage factors, and the desired appearance of the trail, but a typical inter- val between reshaping is five to eight years.
4. Applying, Shaping, and Tamping Gravel
Gravel is applied to the trail surface. The outside edges of the gravel surface should be even with the sur- rounding grade, walls, or berm. If the tread is elevated, as in causeway, or if the surrounding ground is flat, the gravel should be crowned and sloped at 1 inch cross- slope per 1 foot of trail width. For example, a trail that is 4 feet wide and is crowned in the middle will have 2 feet on either side of the crown and thus be 2 inches higher at the crown than at the edges. If the tread is to drain on only one side, such as in a bench or where there is an inside drain only, the tread should be sloped toward the drainage side of the trail (outsloped for a bench, or insloped for an inside drain) at % inch per foot of trail width. A trail that is 4 feet wide will be insloped or outsloped 3 inches.
53
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
D. STONE PAVEMENT
DEFINITIONS
A causeway with a stone pavement surface is called a stone causeway and was discussed previously in Sec- tion B of this chapter.
Stone pavement is a constructed, continuous stone treadway with individual stones, often called pavers, serving as the tread. Stone pavement used to traverse talus fields is called talus pavement. Stone pavement used to harden the surface of a soil treadway, typically on a woodland trail, is called tread pavement (Figs. 3-32 & 3-33).
Fig. 3-32 Talus pavement on the Champlain East Face Trail (#12).
Fig. 3-33 Tread pavement at Sieur de Monts, circa 1916.
HISTORICAL USE OF STONE PAVEMENT AT ACADIA
Pre-VIA/VIS
Prior to the VIA/VIS, there is no physical evidence or documentation of stone pavement on the trail system.
Village Improvement Associations/Societies
The early use of stone for tread is described by Wal- dron Bates in 1906 when workers under the supervi- sion of Andrew Liscomb were "putting large stones through wet places in the Witch Hole Path" (#313). Over the next ten years, the use of stone for tread increased dramatically for trails through wet places, especially rocky areas with heavy ice and seasonal water flow.
From the 1890s through the turn of the century, the VIA/VIS laid talus pavement to improve the western side of the Eagle Lake Trail (#42), the western side of Jordan Pond Path (#39), the Jordan Bluffs Trail (#457), and the Beech Cliff Trail (#625). Like early VIA/VIS Bates-style steps (see Chapter 7), the stones used as pavers on these trails were small. The lay of uncut flat stones followed the existing landscape rather than rearranging it, and stone pavement occurred in spo- radic, often short, runs.
During this same time period, stone tread pavement was also used on several other trails, with the Gorge Path (#28) and the Canon Brook Trail (#19) containing the most extensive examples. These trails were each endowed with maintenance funds years after their initial construction. Both were built by the Bar Harbor VIA at the turn of the century and improved in the 1910s and 1920s. Each follows a streamside route and is highly crafted. They contain stone pavement of small, uncut stones in a single row, laid continuously between runs of staircases and stepping stones (Figs. 3-34 & 3-35).
54
Chapter 3: Treadway; D. Stone Pavement
Nearly all the highly crafted trails built between 1913 and 1937 that either gain elevation or cross talus slopes incorporate tread or talus pavement, and most trails contain examples of both. The memorial paths, constructed under the direction of George Dorr, used long sections of stone pavement. Beginning with the Kane Path (#17), constructed between 1913 and 1915, larger stones were commonly laid as pavers. The Schiff Path (#15) and Gurnee Path (#352), built in the 1920s, have sporadic sections of large, square pavers set into a dirt treadway, while the Beachcroft Path (#13), rebuilt in the 1920s, contains nearly a half-mile of continuous stone pavement, much of it narrower tread through wooded sections of trail (Figs. 3-36 to 3-38). On this trail, unpaved sections are the exceptions, and it should be noted that these unpaved sections have suffered the greatest amount of erosion damage. Why certain sections were left unpaved is still somewhat of a mystery, but in general it can be observed that inclined sections were paved, while relatively level sec- tions were left with a gravel tread.
The talus pavement from circa 1910 through the 1920s is some of the most remarkable work the island. The wide, smooth, level walkways of Kurt Diederich's Climb (#16), constructed under the supervision of George Dorr, and the Orange and Black Path (#348— a section now called the Champlain Mountain East Face Trail, #12), built under Rudolph Brunnow's direc- tion, are two of the finest examples of stone pavement. Talus paved sections of these trails were constructed as scenic overlooks and impressive points of interest. Stones up to 30 square feet were used to construct a treadway between 6 and 10 feet wide, which was elevated 5 or more feet above the downhill side (Fig. 3-39). The East Face "horseshoe" is a 115-foot-long section of talus pavement evenly tracing a 90-degree arc. A widened place in the pavement once provided a patio for a stone bench, but this feature was destroyed by a rock slide in the 1970s.
During the 1920s, stone pavement continued to be used. On both the Andrew Murray Young Path (#25) and the Beachcroft Path (#13), new sections of stone
Fig. 3-34 VIA tread pavement on the Gorge Path (#28).
Fig. 3-35 VIA stone paving on the Eagle Lake Trail (#42).
55
Acadia Trails Treatment plan
Fig. 3-36 Tread pavement leading to a set of steps on the Emery Path (#15), circa 1920
Fig. 3-37 Talus pavement on the Beachcroft Path (#13), circa 1920.
Fig. 3-38 Tread pavement through a wooded section of the Beachcroft Path (#13).
Fig. 3-39 This talus pavement on a section of Kurt Diederich's Climb (#16) is one of the fine examples of VIA/VIS stone pavement in the trail system.
56
Chapter 3: Treadway; D. Stone Pavement
pavement contained pavers held in place with iron pins (Fig. 3-40). The circa 1930 section of the Jordan Cliffs Trail (#48) is perhaps the last major specimen of VIA/ VIS stone pavement; its use of larger stones, retaining wall, and iron pins sets it apart from the earlier stone pavement on the Jordan Bluffs Trail (#457) (see Sec- tion 2, #48 Jordan Cliffs Trail).
Civilian Conservation Corps
Stone pavement was used very little during the CCC era as they generally preferred other methods of tread construction. One method was the use of retaining wall and gravel tread for crossing talus fields. As discussed earlier, examples of this can be seen on the Long Pond Trail (# 118) and the Perpendicular Trail (#119). The CCC also relied on the use of steps and switchbacks for ascending grades, as on the southern end of the Beech Mountain South Ridge Trail (#114).
However, a few trails rehabilitated or constructed by the CCC did incorporate stone pavement. On the Per- pendicular Trail (#119), there is one 40-foot stretch of talus pavement. On the Ladder Trail (#64), hundreds of feet of Dorr-style tread pavement were rehabilitated or installed by the CCC (Figs. 3-41 & 3-42). Neither exception is surprising since Dorr directed CCC work on as park superintendent. Additionally, the CCC probably improved stone pavement in the major tumbledown on the west side of the Jordan Pond Path (#39). Records show they were working in this area, and blast marks and the use of larger, cut stones point toward the CCC rather than early VIS work.
NPS/Mission 66
There was no stone pavement built during the Mission 66 era. Gravel and asphalt were the predominant tread material used at this time.
Fig. 3-40 Pinned tread pavement on the Andrew Murray Young Path (#25).
Fig. 3-41 CCC tread pavement at the trailhead for the Ladder Trail (#64) in the 1930s.
Fig. 3-42 Stone pavement on the Perpendicular Trail (#119).
57
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
Fig. 3-43 A historic view of the talus pavement on the Kane Path (#17), circa 1916.
Fig. 3-44 A 1997 view of the same section of the Kane Path (#17) as Fig. 3-43. Note the change in water level and vegetation.
National Park Service
Since 1970, little stone pavement has been added to the system. There are two primary reasons for this. Install- ing stone pavement is one of the most labor-intensive construction techniques, and other tread options can usually be substituted at less expense. Additionally, historic stone pavement has proven to be extremely durable at Acadia. It generally requires very little repair, and most extant pavement on the trail system remains in good to excellent condition.
During the 1990s, sections of stone pavement were repaired in the talus fields on the Jordan Pond Path (#39) with mixed results and on small sections of the Beachcroft Path (#13) with better results. However, both trails are in need of more repair. In a misguided effort, over 100 feet of stone pavement was added to the Ledge Trail (#103), which is otherwise a woodland path. (During future rehabilitation, this pavement should be removed, and the tread replaced with a style that is more compatible with the woodland character of the trail.)
The most substantial, and the most appropriate addi- tion of stone pavement was a new section of talus pavement completed by the NPS in 1994 on a reroute of the southern end of the Kane Path (#17) along The Tarn. By 1975, the original route had become swamped by The Tarn's higher water level and was in need of rehabilitation. A reroute was constructed just west of the original. It began at the southern end of the original stonework and continued to traverse the talus slope toward a section of stone pavement on the northern end that had been installed in 1917. Attempting to provide an easier walking surface while adhering to the original character of the trail, the 1994 crew constructed 262 feet of new talus pavement, the length of this reroute. The new work adheres to the old standard, using large, often cut stones set adjacent to one another with a flush tread surface along a large- gestured route (Figs. 3-43 & 3-44). (Scree was added at a later date and should be removed since it is not historically compatible with the style of pavement, and it is not integral to the pavement's construction.)
58
Chapter 3: Treadway; D. Stone Pavement
TREATMENT
1. Maintaining Character
Issue: Stone pavement, although a durable tread alter- native, is not appropriate for all historic trails.
Treatment Guidelines: Stone pavement should only be used on appropriate VIA/VIS trails and the rela- tively few CCC trails where it was historically present. It is not recommended for use on trails with histori- cally unconstructed treadway. Extant stone pavement should be rehabilitated in-kind, and new, compat- ible sections may be added as needed. New sections of stone pavement may be added to VIA/VIS trails where it was not historically present, provided the trail already contains constructed features and the addi- tion of the pavement does not conflict with the overall character of the trail. When rehabilitating or adding new stone pavement, the appropriate style and period of construction should be followed. If there is trail- specific evidence of preexisting pavement of another type, the earlier type should be followed.
2. Stone Size
Issue: The smaller stones used in early VIA/VIS talus pavement are vulnerable as they are typically set directly on other stones and loosen over time, either from foot traffic or minor shifting in the talus.
Treatment Guidelines: Every effort should be made to rehabilitate early VIA/VIS work to its original state. However, smaller pavement stones that cannot be locked satisfactorily between other stones may be replaced with pavers large enough to remain intact. In many cases, deep stones with a surface size similar to historic work can be set as "pegs," thereby imitat- ing extant work while being well-anchored. When incorporating larger stones into extant or new stone pavement, care should be taken to ensure the larger stones do not visually detract from the overall charac- ter of the run of stone pavement. Maintain an overall appearance of smaller stone sizes by only relying on the introduction of larger stones when no other option is available.
3. Creep
Issue: Over a period of years, steeply sloped talus fields "creep" toward the base of a hill and slant outwards, negatively impacting talus pavement.
Treatment Guidelines: Creep is inevitable and cannot be slowed or prevented by construction or mainte- nance. Trails must be periodically rehabilitated to re-level talus pavement and repair collapsing walls. Repairs should be made as early as possible after "creep" is detected. If caught in time, pavers can often
HISTORICAL CHARACTERISTICS
The use of stone pavement evolved from no use prior to the VIA/VIS, to extensive use during the VIA/VIS period, moderate use during the CCC period, and no use in the NPS periods up until the rehabilitation era began in the late 1990s. As a result, the defining character of stone pavement at Acadia was set during the peak VIA/VIS years.
Pre-VIA/VIS (pre-1890)
No evidence or documentation has been found support- ing the use of stone pavement.
VIA/VIS Period (1890-1937)
Early VIA/VIS trails used stone pavement on a small number of trails. Tread pavement used small, uncut stones set in a single row on sloping treadway for extensive runs. Talus pavement used small, uncut stones in short, spo- radic runs, usually routed around objects in the landscape. Later VIA/VIS trails, particularly memorial trails, used larger, cut stone pavement and covered wider corridors, often two stones wide. Talus pavement often included paved overlooks.
CCC Period (1933-42)
There was some use of tread and talus pavement, but use of gravel treadway and switchbacks was more common.
NPS/Mission 66 Period (1943-66)
Graded gravel and asphalt treadway was commonly used, but not stone pavement.
NPS Period (1967-1997)
There was sporadic construction and repair of stone pavement with variable success.
59
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
be reset without extensive excavation or reconstruc- tion. If let go, pavers and wall can be lost or seriously compromised, requiring extensive repair work.
4. Pondside Routes
Issue: Pondside talus pavement is sometimes dislo- cated by rising water, typically resulting from beaver activity or ice.
Treatment Guidelines: When a section of trail is threatened by rising water from beaver activity, a man- agement decision must be made in order to address the issue (for general guidelines regarding reroutes, see Chapter 1). Possible solutions include installing a pipe drain, removal of the beaver, rerouting a section of the trail, closing a portion of the trail, or closing the entire trail. If the trail is to remain in place, pondside stone pavement should be rehabilitated using as much of the original design and material as possible. The addition of larger stones may strengthen the tread and reduce the deteriorating effects of rising water. If rerouting is
chosen, the new route should be sited well away from the anticipated high water mark. The extant stone pavement on the original route should remain in its original location and should be stabilized as necessary to slow or stop deterioration if possible. If stone pave- ment is used on the new route, additional stone should be brought in as needed to construct the pavement. Do not relocate historic material from the original route to construct stone pavement on the new route.
SPECIFICATIONS FOR STONE PAVEMENT
Specifications are provided for the construction of talus and tread pavement in the VIA/VIS styles only. The small amount of stone pavement completed by the CCC followed these earlier styles. Subsequently, rehabilitation work on these trails should follow the specifications for the particular VIA/VIS style appro- priate to the trail in question (Figs. 3-45 & 3-46).
Core is blocked beneath paving stones
Paving stones sometimes supported by retaining wall
Fig. 3-45 Detail of talus pavement.
ACAD NP-Baldyga/Baiter
60
Chapter 3: Treadway; D. Stone Pavement
1. Early VIA/VIS Talus Pavement
When planning out a new section, or extensively rehabilitating old section of early VIA/VIS talus pave- ment, large boulders, trees and other significant items in the landscape should not be removed, and the overall grade and shape of the landscape should not be altered.
Pavers can be of any size or shape, although they typi- cally should range in size from 1 to 4 square feet of tread surface. Pavers for any stone pavement (tread or talus) should be acquired from local stone that is compatible in color and texture with other stone on the trail. They may be uncut or cut stone.
Generally, pavers should be set in a row one stone wide, flush at the tops, either abutting or with small gaps. The overall trail width should be narrow at 1 to 2 feet in width. The gaps should be chinked with the largest stones possible, at or below the top surface of the pavers. Rarely will pavement stones be set side-by- side. However, if the prevailing style of work on a trail
contains side-by-side stones, this characteristic may be followed during subsequent work on that trail. Steps up and down are acceptable with no greater than a 10- inch rise. Level runs of pavement between steps should be at least 6 feet in length. Exceptions can be made to circumvent existing objects in the landscape. However, single pavers should not be set above surrounding pavement, requiring a step up and then an immediate step down. Very large stones in the trail's path or ledge may be used as trail surface if they provide a negotiable walking surface. These need not be completely flat or level.
When adding new pavers to existing work, pavers are set on and between existing stones so that they are solid and level, preferably having contact with pavers on either side of them. Shims and retaining wall are not used; however, stones may be aligned at the sides of the pavers to "pinch" them into place. Side stones should have a natural look rather than appearing as coping or retaining wall.
Sides packed with rock (coping often does not abut pavers)
Fig. 3-46 Detail of tread pavement.
61
Acadia trails Treatment Plan
2. Memorial Trails and VIA/VIS Talus Pavement
The following information generally applies to all memorial trails; however, detailed specifications are required for each memorial trail. Specifications for two memorial trails, the Schiff Path (#15) and Homans Path (#349), are provided in the "Individual Trail Descrip- tions" section of this document.
Generally, the VIA/VIS stone pavement on the memo- rial trails should have a more highly crafted appear- ance than the early VIA/VIS work. The entire section of talus pavement should be designed as a unit. The trail should be straight or in one or several engineered curves. The trail should be uniformly level or nearly level, or in stretches of 20 feet or longer of nearly level tread. Multiple pavers may be set side-by-side to achieve the desired trail width. Average trail width should be 3 feet; however, it may be as wide as 10 feet. Width may be uniform, or may conform to peculiari- ties of the landscape, or may widen periodically for "turnouts" or overlooks.
ous and the tops kept flush. Additional, smaller gaps are chinked to trail height.
3. VIA/VIS Tread Pavement
The early VIA/VIS pavers are set in the treadway on grades between 5 and 15 percent, typically along streamsides. Pavers are gathered from near the trail. They should be uncut, rectangular stones with a width of 16 to 24 inches. They may vary in length and should be at least 6 inches thick. Pavers are not usually set side-by-side, but in a row of single stones. The resul- tant paved treadway is usually 16 to 24 inches wide
The treadway is excavated to mineral soil, deeper if necessary to accommodate the depth of the pavers. Thinner pavers are set on a base of stone rubble so that they achieve grade, the others are set directly into soil. They span the width of the trail and only the tops should remain visible. Pavers should contact each other and gaps should be chinked at or below tread level to maintain a continuous tread surface.
The primary pavers should be large, rectangular stones with at least 4 square feet of surface area; smaller pav- ers may be worked in between them. They may be cut or uncut (as described above) and should be at least 6 inches thick; thicker if they are smaller than 4 square feet.
For highly crafted memorial trails, the trail width should be between 20 and 36 inches. Pavers may be set side-by-side to achieve width but not in a riprap or "random" lay pattern. The prevailing character should be one square stone following another. The pavers are often cut.
After measuring the thickness of the larger pavement stones, a base should be prepared. If elevation needs to be gained, the base should be constructed of rough- laid wall and backfill, following the rules of retaining wall building (see Chapter 6). The top course will be the pavers. If elevation gain is not needed, talus stones should be excavated and/or reset to create a solid base at the desired depth.
The largest pavers are set first, solidly on the base, using backfill and core-packing as necessary. Shims are not used. The pavers are set to the outside of the trail corridor so that their edges form the edge of the trail. These stones may have gaps between them. The gaps are later filled with smaller stones which may be cut or uncut. Contact between stones should remain continu-
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE
1. Check and repair any retaining wall holding up stone pavement.
2. Keep all associated drainage maintained and con- struct any new drainage necessary to ensure that the soil around tread pavement does not erode.
3. Check for loose stones in talus fields, especially smaller stones, and reset or replace as necessary.
4. Chink or rechink gaps between pavement stones.
5. Watch for "creep," and repair as soon as possible to prevent further deterioration.
62
Chapter 3: Treadway; E. Unconstructed Tread
E. UNCONSTRUCTED TREAD
DEFINITION
Unconstructed tread, also called natural treadway, is
a section of trail on which there has been no alteration of the landscape and no construction of a trail sur- face. An unconstructed tread consists of gravelly soil, exposed ledge, and/or organic matter, such as roots, duff, and moss, as is typically found on the forest floor (Figs. 3-47 & 3-48).
Of the treadway surfaces, ledge provides the most durable tread. In contrast, soil and organic matter on the forest floor are easily disturbed and quickly erode with even minimal foot traffic if compounded with drainage issues or slope. However, if foot traffic does not destroy the natural roots and duff, unconstructed tread is more durable than loose gravel; a healthy for- est floor is stable and will not easily erode.
constructed non-tread features, most commonly water dips and waterbars, sometimes ditching or coping stones. The tread does not contain structures that alter the landscape, such as retaining walls or relocated soil or gravel. For example, ditch and fill is considered a constructed feature.
HISTORICAL USE AT ACADIA
Pre-VIA/VIS
Prior to 1890, all trails in the system were uncon- structed tread, with the exception of the early cart roads. Routes were chosen that were accessible with- out the aid of constructed features. Trails traversed fragile areas, such as across the forest floor, presum- ably with some resource damage. Trail use was rela- tively light and erosion was apparently not a concern. The South Ridge Trail on Cadillac Mountain (#26) and the Great Head Trail (#2) are examples of early trails that are still predominantly unconstructed tread.
Many trails, especially trails established prior to 1920, are completely unconstructed. But even most of the highly crafted trails have sections of unconstructed treadway. These tend to be flat, woodland sections, or the upper portions of summit trails, where the grade levels off, the availability of stone lessens, or the tread becomes ledge. These sections of tread may contain
Fig. 3-47 Unconstructed tread across ledge on the Jordan Cliffs Trail (#48) near Sargent Mountain summit.
Fig. 3-48 Unconstructed tread through forest on the Norumbega Mountain Trail (#60).
63
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
Village Improvement Associations/Societies
More than 60 miles of trails with unconstructed tread existed on the island when the Bar Harbor VIA formed in 1890. VIA/VIS work focused first on new construc- tion, then on repair, resulting in a patchwork of trail work where some areas are highly constructed and others are almost completely unconstructed (Figs. 3-49 & 3-50). In many places it is impossible to tell whether an eroded treadway was once natural soil or quarried gravel surfacing. The presence of borrow pits, side- walls, and closed culverts can offer clues in some of areas to the presence of constructed tread.
Heavily used flat woodland paths, such as the Seaside Path (#401), demonstrate the VIA/VIS tendency to construct trails completely for comfortable walking, with walls and paving on even flat, stable areas. Some trails, such as the Champlain Mountain colored paths and the Potholes Path (#342), had short sections of
steps incorporated into long sections of unconstructed treadway. The Eagles Crag Path (#27) and the Canada Cliffs Cutoff (#632) contain both highly crafted work and unconstructed tread sections. Some pondside trails were carefully constructed by the VIA/VIS, such as the Jordan Pond Path (#39); others were not, such as the wet, low-lying route of the Lower Hadlock Trail (#502) (Fig. 3-51).
Some mountainside trails, such as the Van Sanrvoord Trail (#450) and the Upper Ladder Trail (#334), con- tain staircases in areas of modestly graded ledge which could have been left natural without posing problems to the hiker or the landscape. In contrast, many trails were left unconstructed, such as the Pemetic Mountain Trail (#31), Bear Brook Trail (#10), and Norumbega Mountain Trail (# 60). Many of these routes predated the VIA/VIS. With increased use, some sections of these trails have continued to erode (Fig. 3-52).
Fig. 3-49 Unconstructed tread across ledge near summit of the otherwise highly constructed Schiff Path.
Fig. 3-50 Steps with unconstructed tread and ledge on the Upper Ladder Trail (#334).
64
Chapter 3: Treadway; E. Unconstructed Tread
Even the most highly crafted trails, including the memorial trails built between 1913 and 1930, contain sections of unconstructed tread. For instance, the Schiff Path (#15) reverts to a natural ledge treadway once it reaches a modest incline over ledges near the summit. Yet, the nearby and parallel upper end of the Upper Ladder Trail (#334) has continued step con- struction through similar terrain. The Van Santvoord Trail (#450) showcases relatively short sections of highly crafted stonework between long sections of unconstructed tread. On many other VIA/VIS trails, such as the Orange and Black Path (#348) and the Precipice Trail (#11), constructed and unconstructed tread alternate. Some sections of unconstructed tread on highly crafted trails remain a mystery, such as a sec- tion on the Beachcroft Path (#13) and the upper end of the Homans Path (#349).
Many VIA/VIS trails that were marked as connectors or cut-offs, such as the Parkman Mountain Trail (#59) and Grandgent Trail (#66), had completely uncon- structed treadways. However, the majority of trails built by the VIA/VIS in the 1910s and 1920s contained substantial areas of constructed treadway. During this period, the VIA/VIS also added stonework to unconstructed trails, such as the 177 steps added to unconstructed tread on the Cadillac Mountain North Ridge Trail (#34), which had been relocated by the motor road, and extensive stonework on the Duck Brook Path (#311), which had been marked thirty years earlier.
On those paths that alternate between constructed and unconstructed treadway, two common characteristics are apparent. Ledge treadway was typically left as such, unless it was so steep as to require steps or ironwork. The choice to leave soil or gravel as the unconstructed tread was usually made in the higher portions of these trails, near summits, once the trail had climbed the steeper, rockier part of the route. This choice was perhaps due to the moderate overall grade or to a lack of suitable stone for steps or paving.
Civilian Conservation Corps
The CCC followed standards similar to those of the most highly crafted VIA/VIS trails. They fully con- structed nearly all treadway except ledge. The few non-ledge trail sections left by CCC crews as uncon- structed tread are such anomalies that they have been the cause of much speculation. On both the Perpen- dicular Trail (#119) and the Long Pond Trail (#118),
- 1
■ ' \*'<lJI: In
Fig. 3-51 The Lower Hadlock Trail (#502) contained unconstructed tread, and segments of it are currently in extremely poor condition.
Fig. 3-52 Unconstructed tread on the Norumbega Mountain Trail (#60) has continued to erode from increased use, leaving the trail corridor more than 10 feet wide in some places.
65
Acadia Trails treatment Plan
the treadway construction ends, leaving the upper quarter or so of the trail completely unconstructed. On the Beech Mountain West Ridge Trail (#108), a steep section of unconstructed trail is in poor condition with tread in a 1-foot-deep gully. It is possible that practical matters, such as distance from materials or the ending of a work project, resulted in these long sections of unconstructed treadway on otherwise highly con- structed trails (Figs. 3-53 & 3-54).
NPS/Mission 66
Mission 66 builders did not use unconstructed tread- way, preferring gravel or asphalt paving.
National Park Service
Beginning in about the 1970s, increasing use of the island's trail system resulted in heavy erosion of many pre-VIA/VIS trails with unconstructed tread. Stabiliza-
HISTORICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Pre-VIA/VIS (pre-1890)
All tread was unconstructed except early cart roads.
VIA/VIS Period (1890-1937)
Most established trails remained unconstructed. New trails were nearly completely constructed, but with unconstructed sections. Highly crafted memorial trails, contained sections of stonework and unconstructed tread. Unconstructed sections tended to be connectors and cutoffs or sections across ledges and summits.
CCC Period (1933-42)
Most trails were highly constructed, but sections appeared unfinished, perhaps because the work period ended before trail completion.
NPS/Mission 66 Period (1943-66)
All tread was constructed.
NPS Period (1967-1997)
Nearly every type of feature, both appropriate and inappropriate, was added to sections of unconstructed tread. Recently, an emphasis has been placed on drainage swales, checks, and fill as the preferred alternatives for rehabilitating eroded unconstructed treadway.
tion efforts introduced extensive log cribbing and log water bars, features that were not in keeping with the rustic stonework of the VIA/VIS and CCC. Beginning in the 1990s, the use of stone checks and stone steps served as more appropriate treatment for sections of eroded or gullied trails, such as on the North Bubble Trail (#42). High use of wet trails has also required construction of tread. Examples include ditch and fill
Fig. 3-53 A 1998 photograph of the upper section of the Perpendicular Trail (#119), which apparently was never finished by the CCC.
|
Ek 25 |
|||
|
aL ■'■■& • |
|||
|
i > |
1 -ZA |
^H \ W\ l |
Rgpisr |
|
; '.. |
■.«£'<* |
pr |
|
|
i |
■. U -1.L |
P %6 |
|
|
p. • |
m. |
||
|
j» 1 |
1 ^■-riH,;,; 1 |
||
|
S V f^^l |
|||
|
i 5P«*1 |
|||
|
■ |
/ |
■ |
|
|
! |
i \ |
Fig. 3-54 Unconstructed tread near top of Perpendicular Trail (#119).
66
Chapter 3: Treadway; E. Unconstructed Tread
sections on the Long Pond Trail (#118) and Western Mountain Trail (#120) and the addition of bogwalk over wet areas, such as on the west side of the Jordan Pond Path (#39).
Additions to the trail system and reroutes since the 1970s are predominantly unconstructed tread. Exam- ples include sections of the Andrew Murray Young Trail (#25) or the Gorge Path (#28), both of which replace sections of stone pavement. These decisions were due to lack of resources to either repair old work properly or build new trail in a like manner.
TREATMENT
1. Maintaining Character
Issue: Poor layout, poor drainage, and increased hiker use have caused the deterioration of much uncon- structed treadway. Most repairs to unconstructed tread alter character.
Treatment Guidelines: Once unconstructed tread is damaged or lost, it is difficult to retrieve without alter- ing its character. Preventive routine maintenance will alter character slightly but is often necessary to retain tread material. Built features must be added to raise tread through wet areas, to narrow widened sections of trail, or stop erosion. Bogwalk and ditch and fill are the preferred alternatives for saturated tread. A combination of checks, fill, and drainage dips are the preferred alternative for gullies. Other features, such as steps or log cribbing, can be used when they are necessary to preserve the trail. The goal is to minimize intervention of visible built features while maximizing the stabilization efforts.
2. Trail Width
Issue: With no or few constructed features, trail sec- tions with unconstructed tread may get as wide as 20 feet or more.
Treatment Guidelines: Definition of the trail cor- ridor is particularly important on heavily used trails and summit areas. Introduction of guidance elements,
such as cairns, boulders, log scree, or occasional sets of steps, as on VIA/VIS trails, will help to define trail width.
3. Roots
Issue: Tree roots are often exposed by tread erosion on unconstructed trails. They make the trail difficult to hike. However, large-scale root removal can kill a substantial number of trees. Further, tree roots are often the only stabilizing mechanism preventing the trail from eroding more seriously.
Treatment Guidelines: In dealing with erosion problems or exposed roots in unconstructed tread sections, a feasible solution that maintains the most natural character possible should be chosen. Roots can be left alone if they present no major problems to hikers or trail character. Select roots may be cut if they do not pose a serious threat to surrounding trees. Water dips and water bars should be added as neces- sary to provide proper drainage. Crush wall and tread surfacing with local gravel can be an excellent solution, combined with checks and water dips on slopes; this technique most closely resembles unconstructed tread. Log cribbing may also be an option in certain areas (see Chapter 6).
4. Reroutes
Issue: Poor layout compounded by high use has resulted in the deterioration of trail sections with unconstructed tread, particularly on pre-VIA/VIS summit trails.
Treatment Guideline: Reroutes may be considered in certain cases, as described in Chapter 1.
5. Unfinished Trails
Issue: Certain portions of unconstructed treadway on otherwise highly crafted trails appear to have been left unfinished; examples include the Beachcroft Path (#13) near the intersection with the Wild Gardens Path (#354), Homans Path (#349), the Perpendicular Trail (#119), and the Long Pond Trail (#118).
67
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
Treatment Guidelines: It is now a part of the historic character of these trails that portions were left uncon- structed. Therefore, in areas where no construction is needed, none should be done simply to create an historic scene. If trail work is needed to preserve tread, correct erosion, or address some similar concern, then those preferred methods for repairing unconstructed trail with the least impact, as outlined in the guide- lines above, should be the first choices of treatment. However, if there is a need for more substantial trail work, this construction should be done in a way that is historically compatible with more highly constructed sections of the trail. For example, if it is determined that stone stairs are needed on the unconstructed upper part of the Perpendicular Trail (#119), then the new stairs will be constructed in the style of CCC steps predominant on the lower section of the trail.
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE
1. Unconstructed treadway needs to be watched carefully for erosion damage, excessive wear, exposed roots, and trail braiding.
2. Water dips and water bars should be installed as necessary and cleaned regularly (see Chapter 4, Sections D and E).
3. A marked loss of material on trails of some grade will often require the installation of checks (see Chapter 6, Section A).
4. Roots should be cut or covered according to the treatment guidelines above.
5. If there are no outstanding problems, uncon- structed tread requires no routine maintenance.
ENDNOTES
SPECIFICATIONS FOR UNCONSTRUCTED TREAD
11 Hiking Trails Management Plan, p. 23.
There are no specifications for constructing uncon- structed tread. Repairs should be performed according to the guidelines above, and those features constructed as outlined in their respective sections of this plan. If extensive repairs are needed, consider a new route as discussed in Chapter 1.
68
Fig. 4-1 A large capstone culvert on the Schiff Path (#15).
CHAPTER 4:
Drainage
A. CULVERTS
B. SUBSURFACE DRAINS
C. SIDE DRAINS
D. WATER BARS
E. WATER DIPS
69
Acadia Trails treatment Plan
CHAPTER 4: DRAINAGE
Proper drainage is the most important aspect of trail construction, rehabilitation, or main- tenance because moving water is the greatest threat to the durability of the trail and its environment. The construction of any trail feature, especially the tread itself, must allow for drainage. Various character- istics such as location, slope, grade, and construction materials are crucial to effective drainage. In addition, five categories of specific drainage features are used at Acadia to direct the flow of water under, across or away from the trail. These include:
A. Culverts
B. Subsurface Drains
C. Side Drains
D. Water Bars
E. Water Dips
Most of Acadia's hiking trails were constructed with too little consideration of drainage in the trail layout and too few drainage structures. For the most part, these trails were built between 1890 and 1940 and have received relatively little drainage maintenance since then. Surviving trail sections generally contain solid rock construction like stairs and stone pavement, occur in naturally draining areas such as talus slopes or where running water is not an issue, contain raised tread through flat land, and/or receive relatively little hiker use. Trail sections in the worst shape are those that ascend the fall line with little stone construction.
This chapter provides guidelines for the use of different drainage features and specifications for their construc- tion. In deciding on the appropriate solution for a drainage issue, consideration should be given to sur- rounding topography, amount of water flow, and direc- tion of trail slope. Some general guidelines include:
• If water can be diverted without crossing the trail, a side drain or ditch may be used.
• If water must cross the trail and the flow is light, water can be directed across the trail surface using a water bar or dip, or by adjusting the cross-slope of the tread.
• If flow is heavy, water should be directed from one side of the trail to the other using a culvert, or over a durable surface such as stone paving or a rubble- lined drainage swale.
• If the trail crosses a narrow stream, a culvert may suffice. However, a large stream should not be treated with a culvert; here a bridge or other cross- ing feature may be needed (see Chapter 5).
• If crossing a stream with shallow banks, stepping stones should be considered for trails constructed by the VIA/VIS.
Fig. 4-2 A graveled-over culvert on the Kane Path (#17). The lintels were once completely covered with gravel and vegetation.
Fig. 4-3 A graveled-over culvert on the Ocean Path (#3).
70
Chapter 4: Drainage; a. Culverts
A. CULVERTS
DEFINITIONS
An open stone culvert is a culvert with stone sides and base whose top is open. Most open stone culverts have sides of single-tier walls, or even single stones, while some sides are small retaining walls (Fig. 4-5).
A culvert is a stone, pipe, or log structure built to carry water under or across a trail. Closed culverts have built sides, a base and top, and direct water under the trail, allowing for an uninterrupted treadway. Open culverts have built sides and usually a stone base, but no top, resulting in an interrupted treadway. Three types of closed culverts and two types of open culverts are used in Acadia NP.
A stepstone culvert is an open culvert with a stepstone placed between the sides to lengthen the width of the water passage. It may be simple, consisting of three large stones with a gap for water to flow through, or it may have sides that are built retaining walls. A water crossing with more than three stepstones in the channel is considered a set of stepping stones (see Chapter 5, Section C) (Fig. 4-6).
A capstone culvert is a closed culvert topped with one or more flat stones that also serve as the treadway (Fig. 4-1).
A graveled-over culvert is a closed stone culvert over- laid with a gravel treadway (Figs. 4-2 &. 4-3).
A pipe culvert is a closed culvert, the channel of which is a pipe or pipes set underneath the tread surface (Fig.
4-4).
Some large closed culverts are built in combina- tion with catch basins. A catch basin is a dry well or inlet, located where a ditch meets a culvert. The basin "catches" debris carried by fast-flowing water, pre- venting the debris from flowing into and clogging the culvert.
Fig. 4-4 A new 2002 pipe culvert on Jordan Pond Path (#39). The photo shows header stones before crush and gravel surfacing, which will completely cover the pipe. Note lintel stones meet grade line at outside edge.
Fig. 4-5 A recently constructed open stone culvert on the Jesup Path (#14) with walls of single stones. This is not an appropriate culvert style for a trail that historically contained graveled-over stone culverts and wooden bridges.
Fig. 4-6 A stepstone culvert on the Kane Path (#17).
71
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
Additionally, log culverts are currently extant in the park. Some of these are open culverts with log sidewalls and may have a stone-lined base. Open log culverts are not historic features for the trail system and are currently being replaced with stone and pipe culverts. Specifications for open log culverts are not included in this document.
Closed log culverts, composed of logs covered with gravel placed over log abutments, are historic features. They are classified in this document as small bridges with short spans. Often closed log culverts located in the park in the 1970s, only three currently remain on the Jesup Path (#14), Kane Path (#17), and Canon Brook Trail (#19). These may have been built by the CCC. The others have been replaced with small plank bridges. Specifications for these bridges are included in Chapter 5.
HISTORICAL USE OF CULVERTS AT ACADIA
Pre-VIAA/IS
Initially, most wet areas were crossed on pole bridges or the trail was rerouted. There is no evidence or docu- mentation of culvert use prior to the VIA/VIS era.
VIA/VIS
Beginning in the 1890s, Bar Harbor VIA path builders constructed "more permanent crossings for streams and boggy places."12 A number of trails built before 1900 have drainage features including closed and open culverts (Kane Path, #17; Red/Schooner Head Road Path, #362; Asticou Trail, #49; Jordan Pond Path, #39). Although some or all of these features may have been added later, it is likely that many of them were a part of the original construction, as the craftsmanship is indistinguishable from that of other original work of those trails.
The first trail to receive a constructed drainage sys- tem may have been George Dorr's Bicycle Path (#331) around Beaver Dam Pool. In 1899, four years after the trail was initially constructed, Dorr described drainage work:
The path, which had become badly washed by rains and worn by water dripping from the trees, has been resur- faced throughout its whole extent. Several additional culverts also have been laid across it with open catch drains leading to them, where surface water used to flow upon the path, so that there will be less washing in the future.13
In 1906 Waldron Bates also recommended that path builders "drain wet places or put in stepping-stones, or place cedar-pole bridges on the ground."14
Many trails constructed without adequate drainage systems were plagued by washouts and wet areas. These trails often required substantial reconstruction, particularly streamside trails such as the Jordan Stream Path (#65), heavily used trails such as the Seaside Path (#401), and cross-slope trails such as the Ox Hill Path (#420) in Seal Harbor. Culverts were used by the VIA/VIS, though mentioned only a few times in their annual reports. In fact, evidence on the ground suggests that some trails, such as the Red/Schooner Head Road
Fig. 4-7 A VIA/VIS pipe culvert on the Seaside Path (#401), located south of the Stanley Brook Bridge.
72
Chapter 4: Drainage; A. Culverts
Path (#362), were constructed with extensive drainage features (closed culverts and raised tread side ditches) very early in the period, perhaps before 1900. In 1937, A. Fitz Roy Anderson, chairman of the Bar Harbor VIA Path Committee, described annual maintenance including "reconstruction [of] bridges and culverts."15 In 1952 Robert DeRevere, president of the Seal Harbor VIS, reported for the Seaside Path (#401), "new culverts and gutters installed from the beginning of the trail to the Stanley Brook Bridge."16 These closed pipe culverts are still visible (Figs. 4-7 to 4-9).
On highly crafted trails such as the Beachcroft Path (#13) and the Ladder Trail (#64), many drainage problems were solved without culverts, while some were not addressed and are still in need of a solution. Features like extensive stone paving and steps were
used to withstand cross-trail flows of water and ice. However, the trails on Dorr Mountain apparently had excellent drainage, combining use of capstone culverts (Emery Path #15), graveled-over culverts (Schiff Path, #15, Homans Path, #349), and stepstone culverts (Kurt Diederich's Climb, #16) (Figs. 4-10 & 4-11). On the Jesup Path (#14) and Kane Path (#17) near the begin- ning of the Canon Brook Path (#19), small closed log culverts and large closed stone culverts were built (Fig. 4-12). These VIA/VIS culverts may have been reworked by the CCC, who carried out extensive repair work in the Dorr Mountain area. Unlike most small VIA/VIS closed culverts, the Gurnee Path (#352), completed in 1926, contains one of the largest graveled-over stone culverts in the trail system, with an opening 6 feet high and 2 feet wide, and an enormous capstone supporting the gravel tread (Fig. 4-13).
Fig. 4-8 A defunct VIA/VIS vitrified clay pipe culvert on the Seaside Path (#401), south of the Stanley Brook Bridge.
Fig. 4-10 A 1920 view of capstone culvert with walled side drain on the Emery Path (#15) constructed in 1916 by Bar Harbor VIA.
Fig. 4-9 VIA/VIS graveled-over culvert on the Asticou Trail (#49).
Fig. 4-1 1 A VIA/VIS or CCC graveled-over road culvert near the Jesup Path (#14) between The Tarn and Sieur de Monts Spring.
73
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
Civilian Conservation Corps
In the 1930s, graveled-over and capstone culverts were used extensively in CCC work to direct water under the trail from ditches on the uphill side. Construction methods were fully described in the CCC handbook for trail work (Fig. 4-14). On the Perpendicular Trail (#119), the CCC built their culverts as exhibition pieces, con- structing the sides with smooth-faced dry laid wall that
tied neatly into the retaining wall holding the treadway. The CCC then topped these culverts with massive, cut capstones that were left exposed as the treadway, and framed at the edges with large coping stones. These culverts were apparently modeled after the capstone culverts of the Emery Path (#15). Many of the larger CCC capstone culverts also included catch basins (Figs. 4-15 to 4-17).
Fig. 4-12 A VIA/VIS or CCC graveled-over road culvert near the Jesup Path (#14) between The Tarn and Sieur de Monts Spring.
v*v
r
"V h
V
DEPRESSION IN TRAIL ABOVE CULVERT
SKETCH NO. 20
Fig. 4-13 A VIA/VIS graveled-over culvert on the Gurnee Path (#352). This is one of the larger culverts on the trail system.
Fig. 4-14 CCC specifications for graveled-over culverts. Note "depression in trail above culvert," now termed a "dip" by the NPS trails crew and "ducks nest cut in bank," now described as a "side drain and catch basin."
74
Chapter 4: Drainage; A. Culverts
However, the predominant choice of culvert was the graveled-over stone culvert. These are extant on the Long Pond Trail (#118), Beech Mountain West Ridge Trail (#108), Valley Trail (#116), Beech Cliffs Ladder Trail (#106), Beech Cliffs Loop Trail (#114), and Ocean Path (#3).
After the CCC crews left, the closed culverts were often overlooked, not maintained, and consequently filled with organic matter and clogged. By the time the level of trail use and maintenance increased in the 1970s, many closed culverts were no longer functioning and are currently nearly completely obscured. Examples include graveled-over culverts on the Beech Mountain West Ridge Trail (#108).
NPS/Mission 66
Trails constructed during the Mission 66 period of the late 1950s and early 1960s typically used corrugated metal pipe culverts, which are still evident on the Anemone Cave Trail (#369), Ship Harbor Nature Trail
(#127), and Beech Mountain Loop Trail (#113) (Fig. 4-18). Culverts on these trails were covered over with asphalt or gravel. Insufficient headwalls, tread loss, and low maintenance have allowed frost to heave many of these pipes out of the ground.
National Park Service
Beginning in the 1970s, NPS built additional culverts, and replaced or removed existing culverts. Many closed culverts were converted to open culverts due to ease of construction and maintenance, such as on
Fig. 4-16 Located near the base of the Perpendicular Trail (#119), a small CCC graveled-over culvert now has underlying capstones visible due to loss of gravel. A catch basin (difficult to discern in the photo) is in the foreground and a coping stone is visible on far side of treadway.
Fig. 4-15 A massive CCC capstone culvert on the Perpendicular Trail (#119).
Fig. 4-17 Large capstone culvert on the Emery Path (#15).
75
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
the Long Pond Trail (#118). Since the mid-1990s, NPS has focused on locating and cleaning existing closed culverts. New closed and open culverts have been built using historical prototypes, such as on the Pond Trail (#20), and using new materials like steel pipes, as seen on the Jordan Pond Path (#39) (Figs. 4-19 to 4-21).
Note: To date, the use of plastic perforated pipes with geotextile material has been limited to subsurface drains and not typically used with culverts.
Fig. 4-18 This 10-foot-long corrugated pipe culvert, installed by Mission 66 crews on the Beech Mountain Loop Trail (#113), has been exposed by frost heave and tread loss.
Fig. 4-20 This repair of a washed-out section on the Pond Trail (#20) consists of a closed capstone culvert incorporated into a stone stairway. It was constructed by NPS crews in 1995.
Fig. 4-19 A stone-lined open culvert on the Long Pond Trail (#118). This culvert may have originally been a graveled-over stone culvert.
Fig. 4-21 A 2002 finished pipe culvert on the Jordan Pond Path (#39) in which pipe is obscured by insloping lintels and support rocks that are mostly covered with gravel. Lintels tie in to crush wall on one side and retaining wall on the other.
76
Chapter 4: Drainage; a. Culverts
HISTORICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF CULVERTS
Pre-VIA/VIS (pre-1890)
No evidence or documentation for culvert use has been found.
VIA/VIS Period (1890-1937)
Graveled-over culverts, open stone culverts, stepstone culverts, and closed log culverts were used. Vitrified clay pipes may have been included. On streams too large for culverts, stepping stones, bridges, and stone pavement were the preferred options.
CCC Period (1933-42)
Large closed culverts were often highly visible showpieces of dry laid stonework. Graveled-over culverts were also used.
NPS/Mission 66 Period (1943-66)
Corrugated metal pipes were introduced and used almost exclusively for new culverts.
NPS Period (1967-1997)
All types of culverts were used, although not necessarily in the right places or with the right construction techniques. The use of open stone and log culverts was predominant.
TREATMENT FOR CULVERTS
1. Maintaining Character
Issues: Historically inaccurate culvert styles have been added to many trails in an effort to ease installation, safety, and maintenance concerns. Some problems with historic culvert styles include:
• Closed culverts are more difficult to construct, locate, and maintain than open culverts.
• Open culverts can be tripping hazards for hikers. They also impede ADA accessibility.
• Some historic materials like vitrified clay pipes have not proven to be long-lasting, and are hard to find through local suppliers.
Treatment Guidelines: Culverts fall into categories according to type and era of construction. In order to maintain the trail system's historic character, the
appropriate culvert type should be identified for each situation. As a result, some maintenance and safety con- cerns will have to be addressed and concessions made. For example, given the historic predominance of closed culverts, their use will likely be increased, even though it will mean additional maintenance on the trail system. They are more historically appropriate and are less of a safety concern for hikers than open culverts.
Historic materials are preferred in new construction or rehabilitation; however, substitutions may be made for materials that are not exposed or easily seen by the average hiker. When constructing new VIS/VIS style pipe culverts, steel or other appropriate pipe materials may be used in place of the vitreous clay pipes.
SPECIFICATIONS FOR CULVERTS
Choosing which type of culvert to build and precisely how to build it should be based on three consider- ations:
• What is the appropriate era and/or builder of the trail?
• What is the historical character of other culverts on the trail?
• What are the topography and drainage conditions of the area surrounding the trail?
A VIA/VIS trail section with light to medium level of flow generated by either side drains or a narrow stream crossing, should be treated with a graveled-over culvert, a stepstone culvert, or an open stone culvert. A shallow VIA/VIS stream crossing that is too wide for a graveled-over culvert should be treated with stepping stones or a stepstone culvert. In cases where the stream banks are both steep and wide, a bridge may be needed (see Chapter 5).
A CCC trail should be treated with culverts in the style of its extant culverts. In general, stepped or stone-paved sections will use capstone culverts, and gravel-paved sections will use graveled-over culverts, or possibly pipe culverts. For example, the stepped
77
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
Perpendicular Trail (#119) contains mostly capstone culverts. New culverts added to the trail, or rehabilita- tion of existing culverts will follow this style. Similarly, graveled-over culverts are the preferred choice for gravel-paved sections of the Valley Trail (#116) since the majority of this trail's extant culverts are of this type.
not be disturbed, so the floor of the culvert should be at the level of the gully bed. Then the elevation of the trail, compared with the elevation of the gully bed, may dictate a wide, shallow culvert, or a deep, narrow one. But the wider the culvert the easier it will take water, and the less danger there will be of destructive cutting on the discharge side.
For CCC and VIA/ VIS trails reworked by the CCC, a catch basin may be added to large closed culverts, provided the construction of a catch basin is possible and will not substantially affect the character of the culvert or the surrounding area. In considering the addition of a catch basin, the relative need should be the deciding factor. Because of the difficulty of con- struction and maintenance, catch basins should not be used unless absolutely necessary. If the trail is in danger of being substantially damaged by the failure of a single drainage feature, or if there is a vulnerable tread surface protected by few drainage features in danger of receiv- ing large volumes of water with substantial debris, a catch basin may be needed. For instance, some large open stone culverts on the Jordan Pond Path (#39) protect yards of graveled treadway. These features are responsible for streams with substantial seasonal flow that regularly wash branches and small stones into the culvert opening. Catch basins are an appropriate con- sideration for use with these culverts.
While it is impossible to discern on Acadia's trails today, a common practice recommended in CCC literature may have been used at Acadia. A constructed treadway forms a slight dip over or near closed culverts, and to either side of open culverts. This directs water over the trail in a controlled way in the event of culvert failure.
General recommendations for culvert construction may be borrowed from 1937 CCC trail guidelines:
In gullies, nature has already determined the type of structure to be employed, which is a culvert big enough to carry all the water that comes down. The gully has already established a temporary balance between the scour of the stream and its bed. This balance should
There is no satisfactory information on the size of culverts required for different watersheds. The area of the watershed, the steepness of its slopes, the amount of natural impounding in its basin, the amount and kind of cover, and the condition of the soil, combined to absorb or shed water. The best practice is to judge as competently as possible from local conditions how large a drainage structure should be. It should not be less than one foot in width or height, to avoid choking.. . .
Established channels determine the location of culverts, and the amount of water to be served can be estimated with reasonable accuracy. Any depression, even one coming from a small spring, is the established drainage channel in that area. This can be proved by the absence of erosion, and the presence of cover, on nearby surfaces. The amount of run-off at flood stage can be estimated by lines of drift left by high water, scouring at the bases of tree, root systems exposed by scouring, fresh surfaces on rocks below old stain-bands, shrub- bery tilted down hill, and other signs.
The culvert must be large enough to carry flood water. And its floor must be at the level of the channel bed. These two factors determine the size and shape of the structure. Where there is any choice, the culvert should be wide, rather than deep. . . .
Preferably all culverts should be made of stone, using dry or mortar joints.... The ends of the walls should be flared, as a usual practice, to. ..prevent scouring by flood water. Care should be taken to keep the inside surfaces uniform and smooth, to prevent debris from catching. A culvert should extend a foot or two beyond the edge of the trail on each side, and the trail widened to the head walls of the culvert. The bottom of the culvert should slope not less than 3/8 inch per foot.17
78
Chapter 4: Drainage; A. Culverts
Specifications follow for the construction of specific drainage features.
1. Capstone Culvert (Fig. 4-22)
Historic capstone culverts are found on three VIA/VIS trails: the Emery Path (#15), the Schiff Path (#15), and the Homans Path (#349). Examples of CCC use are located on the Valley Cove part of the Flying Moun- tain Trail (#105), the Beech Mountain West Ridge Trail (#108), the Perpendicular Trail (#119). Capstone culverts tend to be bigger than most graveled-over culverts. The capstone culvert has a stone base, side retaining walls, and a capstone at the top serving as the treadway.
Dimensions: The area and depth of construction for the culvert is determined by the amount of water flow, the topography, and trail surface elevation. The total length of the culvert ranges from 4 to 6 feet (width of
trail plus coping stones, if coping stones are to be used). The height of the side retaining walls ranges from 1 to 5 feet. The typical opening for water flow is 2 to 3 feet wide by 1 to 2 feet high.
Construction: Sidewalls should be set 6 inches or more below the floor of the culvert to lock them in place. Sidewalls may consist of single large stones, or may be small retaining walls constructed of several stones. The faces of the walls on the inside of the culvert are vertical. The ends of these walls at the edges of the trail form 90-degree angles with the trail retaining walls, which are themselves usually battered. Wall courses should be interlaced at the corner. The size of the stone used in these walls varies widely. It is rectangular stone, often as small as 2 inches thick by 6 inches wide and long. However, such stones can share a wall with larger blocks 2 feet square. Sidewalls do not extend beyond the width of the capstone and any coping laid beside it.
If coping stones are laid beside capstone, place them on top course of side retaining walls ""
■ '" " . :•*
ACAD NP-Baldyga/Bariei
Fig. 4-22 Detail of a capstone culvert.
79
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
The top of the side retaining walls is at a height below the surface of the trail so that the capstone will be flush with the final surface.
The floor of the culvert is then laid between the walls. It may be "tiled" with flat-laid stones contacting each other, with the remaining gaps chinked, or it may be packed stone rubble. The floor of the culvert should extend into the drainage on both sides of the culvert so that it surrounds the edges of wall stones. On the downhill side of the drainage it should extend beyond the point at which scouring is likely to occur. Rubble culvert floors should be locked into place at their out- lets by stones set into the ground, the tops of which are flush with the top of the culvert floor.
VIS trails include the Seaside Path (#401), Asticou Trail (#49), Red/Schooner Head Road Path (#362), Jesup Path (#14), and Kane Path (#17). Examples of CCC use are located on the Ocean Path (#3), Valley Trail (#116), and Long Pond Trail (#118).
The graveled-over culvert has a stone bottom, retain- ing walls on its sides, and lintels and is intended to be under the treadway. There are two variations of graveled-over culverts in Acadia. Some use vegetation over the lintels at the edge of the treadway to retain low sidewalls and gravel. Examples of these culverts were used on the Red/Schooner Head Road Path (#362). Others have coping or insloping lintels at the edges to retain gravel, like examples on the Gurnee Path (#352).
A capstone spans the width and length of the culvert and sits level on the sidewalls. In some cases, this cap- stone is actually a step up as well as a culvert (Perpen- dicular Trail, #119). The average size of the capstone is 2 to 4 feet long and wide and 6 or more inches thick. However, the capstones on the Dorr Mountain trails are much larger; one is 10 feet long by 5 feet wide by 1 foot thick. In some cases, the top of a CCC culvert will be more than one stone. Capstones may be cut or uncut.
In some CCC capstone culverts, coping stones that span the culvert opening are set on one or both sides of the capstone. Typically the coping stones are not set on the capstone but, instead, on the sidewalls. The coping stone (s) span the gap in the trail retaining wall that is either the inlet or outlet of the culvert. There is no rule for whether culverts have coping stones on one or both sides of the trail, or for which side of the culvert a single coping stone should be placed. Where culverts are breaks in tall retaining walls, or in retaining walls that already have coping stones, coping should be set beside capstones so that they span the opening in these walls.
Dimensions: Area and depth of construction for the culvert should be determined by the amount of water flow, topography, and trail surface elevation. The total length of the culvert should be 6 to 9 feet, including the 1- to 3-foot extension beyond the edge of the treadway on both sides. The culvert opening ranges from 1 to 2 feet wide by 6 inches to 2 feet high. However, it may be as large as 6 feet high. VIA/VIS endowed paths such as the Jesup Path (#14) and Gurnee Path (#352), and CCC paths fall towards the larger end of this spectrum, while earlier paths contain the smaller-size culverts.
Construction: Sidewalls should be set 6 inches or more below the floor of the culvert to lock them in place. Sidewalls may consist of single large stones, or may be small retaining walls constructed of several stones. The top of the side retaining walls is at a height below the surface of the trail so that the lintel can be laid over them, and the coat of gravel over the lintels will be flush with the final surface. In other words, if 6-inch-thick lintels are to be used, and 3 inches of surfacing, then the wall height should be 9 inches below the finished grade of the trail.
2. Graveled-over Culvert (Figs. 4-23 & 4-24)
Graveled-over culverts are found on VIA/VIS trails with gravel treadway and on some CCC trails. Differ- ences in construction details for the two periods are noted in the specifications that follow. Relevant VIA/
The floor of the culvert is then laid between the walls. It may be "tiled" with flat-laid stones contacting each other, with the remaining gaps chinked, or it may be packed stone rubble. The floor of the culvert should extend into the drainage on both sides of the culvert
80
Chapter 4: Drainage; A. Culverts
so that it surrounds the edges of wall stones. On the downhill side of the drainage it should extend beyond the point at which scouring is likely to occur. Rubble culvert floors should be locked into place at their out- lets by stones set into the ground, the tops of which are flush with the top of the culvert floor.
Lintels are then spanned over the culvert opening so that they are laid with one side on each wall. They are set side by side, spanning the culvert length. Lintels average 1 foot wide and 2 to 3 feet long. Their thickness ranges from 3 inches for narrow spans to a foot or more
for wider spans. There should be no gaps between lintels that cannot be completely chinked closed. Gaps allow gravel from the tread surface to filter through. It is not necessary for the surface of the lintels to be flat, or at all even, as it will be covered with gravel. Some lintel stones may be rounded on top, or have protrud- ing pieces.
In a Gurnee-style culvert, the lintels set at each end of the culvert should meet the grade line similar to cause- way wall stones, slope inwards like pipe culvert headers (see below), and have good contact points on each side
End lintels slope in and are covered with gravel
Side retaining walls are locked below floor of culvert
ACAD NP-Baldyga/Baner
Fig. 4-23 Detail of a VIA/VIS graveled-over culvert, as was built on the Gurnee Path (#352).
81
Acadia Trails treatment Plan
so that they hold gravel. In Kane Path and Red/Schoo- ner Head Road Path (#362)-style culverts, the lintels set outside the trail need only be laid as the others, as they will be covered with 3 to 4 inches of stones, gravel, and vegetation.
then covered with soil and transplanted vegetation. Small stones may be laid along the outside of the revegetated top of the culvert to retain the material. Sod should be planted immediately in the vegetated area to ensure the retention of coping, soil, and trail material.
In Kane Path (#17) and Red/Schooner Head Road Path-style culverts, a single row of coping stones is placed on top of the top stones, framing the width of the trail and holding the gravel treadway. The VIA/VIS often used softball-sized stones. If abutting stones are used, each should be of a size compatible with other coping or sidewall on the trail. When possible, single long stones spanning the culvert width are recom- mended to increase durability. The length of stone will vary with width of culvert, but width and height of stone should be between 6 inches and 1 foot. Coping stones should be locked in place with smaller stones,
For CCC trails a dip should be constructed in the tread- way somewhere above the culvert, ideally several feet from it, so that water flowing through the dip doesn't destroy the culvert. Such a depression ensures that water flowing over a clogged or overstressed culvert will cross the trail above it, instead of traveling down the trail and washing out long sections of treadway. The dip dimensions are determined by the flow of water, the slope of the treadway, and the width of the drain- age. The width of the dip should exceed the width of the culvert beneath it by a foot on either side.
Area outside of trail edge over lintels is filled with soil and vegetated
ACAD NP-Baldyga/Barler
Fig. 4-24 Detail of a graveled-over culvert with vegetation cover, as was used on the Schooner Head Road Path (#362).
82
Chapter 4: Drainage; A. Culverts
Lintels are insloping and completely covered by tread
Single rocks or low walls at either side of pipe support lintels
Pipe is set in bed of crushed stone
Pipe is overhung by lintels and is obscured
Pipe sits on rock base
Fig. 4-25 Detail of a pipe culvert with stone headwalls.
3. Pipe Culvert (Fig. 4-25)
VIA/VIS and CCC pipe culverts appear in raised tread areas incorporating side drains. Pipe culverts serve the same function as graveled-over culverts. The pipe is protected and obscured at each end by a stone head- wall, which consists of a stone base, side support walls, and lintel. Usually in VIA/VIS pipe culverts the side retaining walls are single stones.
Dimensions: Dimensions are dictated by width of trail and amount of flow. Pipe diameter should be at least eight inches to facilitate cleaning. The ends of the pipe should be set back two to four inches from the out- side edges of the header walls in order to obscure and protect the pipe.
the pipe, but below the grade line so that the lintel will exactly reach the grade line when it is laid across them. The lintel is laid so that it slopes in, exactly reaching the grade line at the edge of trail. Lintel stones should com- pletely span support stones and have contact points on each side so that gravel is retained. Lintels that do not slope into the trail and become covered with surface materials do not stay in place. Support stones are held in place by abutting causeway stones, or in the case of wall-less construction, by stone rubble.
Rubble is packed around the pipe to secure it in place, and at least 6 inches of surface material is laid over the top of the pipe and over the insloping portions of the lintels, to prevent frost heave.
Construction: Stone rubble is laid in the drainage channel beneath the pipe. One pipe should be laid across the trail following the angle at which the water crosses the trail. Pipe culverts draining inside ditches should be laid perpendicular to the trail if possible.
At each end of the pipe, lintel supports and lintels are placed. The supports, or support walls, are usu- ally single stones laid on each side of the pipe, well below grade, header style, and sloping into the trail. The height of the support stones should be just above
4. Open Stone Culverts (Fig. 4-26)
Open stone culverts were used by the VIA/VIS to allow small and medium streams to cross trails, and to drain side drains. NPS has built a number of these features since the 1970s, not all of them in appropriate places. Original open stone culverts can be found on many VIA/VIS trails, including the Jordan Pond Path (#39), the Seaside Path (#401), Eagle Lake Trail (#42), the Jordan Pond Carry Path (#38), and Kurt Diederich's Climb (#16).
83
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
This type of culvert encompasses a broad range of individual styles, influenced by builder and era, but all are of the same basic design with a single channel, stone retaining wall sides, and open top creating a gap in the treadway. The sidewalls may be single-tier or multi-tier, and the floor may or may not be lined.
Dimensions: The culvert should extend the width of the trail. The culvert opening varies between 8 and 16 inches. Less than 8 inches clogs too easily and greater than 16 inches is difficult to step across. Historically, the depth of open culverts has varied greatly, from 8 inches to 3 feet. For rehabilitation, shallower channels are pre- ferred for visitor safety. They should average between 8 inches and 1 foot. Deeper channels should be avoided.
Construction: Single-tier walls may be built of stones set in various styles, including "toast" (standing up), "cake" (lying down), or "header" (set vertically, but with the greatest length of the stone extending back
into the trail). However, while historical examples exist, "toasf'-style sets are far weaker and are not recom- mended unless rocks are very large (over 3 cubic feet), and set halfway or more into the ground; "toasf'-style sets are never used in multi-tier walls. Wall footings should be set at least 3 inches below the floor of the culvert, and all retaining wall sides should conform to standards for retaining wall construction (see Chapter 6). In order to retain tread material, there should be high contact between stones at the top of the culvert side walls. Sidewalls should extend at least 6 inches below the surface of the culvert floor. Bottom courses should be set in solid soil or on a base of stone rubble. Outside edges of the culvert walls should usually be locked in place with large stones set deep in the ground, to prevent separation.
The floor of the culvert may be stone tiled, stone rubble, or earth and should be constructed the same as with a capstone culvert.
Culvert stones are set well below drain and culvert floors
Culvert stones are headers with high contact towards front
Outside culvert stones are supported by deep-set rocks
■ ACAD NB^Baldyga/Bailer
Fig. 4-26 Detail of an open stone culvert.
84
Chapter 4: Drainage; a. Culverts
|
■v * |
vm |
j» . .^^■■■i |
■ |
||||
|
Br "l^B |
|||||||
|
y0 ff. |
SI |
||||||
|
^v * jjj^B ' |
L • , |
''■£?•'■ |
|||||
|
MS |
j |
Q |
' |
||||
|
> |
'*^H |
I K 5 1 |
Fig. 4-27 Newly installed stepstone culvert on the Jordan Pond Path (#39)
5. Stepstone Culverts (Fig. 4-27)
Stepstone culverts are open stone culverts with two or more drainage channels separated by one or more stepstones. The addition of a stepstone or stones to the drainage path of a culvert allows for a substantial widening of the drainage path. For the purpose of clarity, drainage features with three or more stepstones between the walls at their edges will be considered stepping stones. Stepstone culverts are the rarest of the culvert types, but they appear on several VIA/VIS trails, including the Jordan Pond Path (#39) and Kurt Diederich's Climb (#16).
Dimensions: The length of the culvert should extend the width of the trail. The width of the opening is usu- ally greater than 16 inches. Any narrower width, and a stepstone is not usually needed as the open culvert can be easily traversed. The depth of the channel should be 8 inches to 1 foot.
have flat or nearly flat tops and are set level with one another and the culvert sidewalls. They may be set directly in the earth, on or between existing stones, or on built-up beds of stone rubble.
6. Catch Basins (Fig. 4-28)
As noted in treatment recommenda- tions, catch basins are not intended for use with all culverts. Generally, if the culvert opening is 18 inches or wider, a catch basin should be considered, particularly if there is heavy water flow laden with organic matter.
Dimensions: When catch basins are constructed, they should conform to the dimensions of both the culvert opening and the side-drain width (if a side drain is used). A catch basin serving a culvert whose opening is 2 feet wide and whose drainage ditch is 18 inches wide will be 2 feet by 18 inches. One foot square is a minimum size for catch basins, to allow for both effective trapping and clean- ing. An ideal depth is 6 inches below the surface of the drainage floor, though massive culverts may require more depth.
Construction: Construction of a catch basin should blend with that of the culvert and drainage. A stone- lined drain that empties into a stone culvert may have a catch basin. If so, it will have a square catch basin with four sides constructed of stone and a paved or crushed stone bottom. On the other hand, culverts that termi- nate at unlined ditches containing catch basins will have a single built side at the terminus of the culvert with a simple crushed-stone base.
Construction: For the construction of the culvert side- walls and floor, see "Open Stone Culverts" above.
The stepstones should generally follow the specifi- cations for stepping stones for stream crossings as described in Chapter 5, Section C. These stones vary between 1 and 6 square feet of stepping surface. They
Sidewalls should be constructed of single stones buried eight inches or more in the ground, though laid wall may be used for deeper catch basins. At their tops, catch basins should have high contact between stones to retain material behind them and keep the catch basin from silting in unnecessarily.
85
Acadia Trails Treatment plan
Catch basin walls have high contact and are set we below its floor
Culvert floor is laid stone set well below catch basin floor
Catch basin floor is laid or crushed stone
ACAD NP-Baldyga/Barter
Fig. 4-28 Detail of a catch basin.
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE
1. All types of culverts and associated inflow and out- flow drains should be cleaned annually and kept free of debris, soil, and stones. Culverts with stone bases should be scraped clean to the stones. Cul- verts with gravel or soil bases should be cleaned to the level consistent with drains flowing into them; care must be taken not to dig too deep, as this could expose and weaken the sides of the culvert.
2. Outflow drains should be cleaned and re-dug as far as necessary to ensure that water flows unimpeded from the culvert. Dams in outflow drains can cause water to back up onto the trail, or ice to freeze inside the culvert and destroy it.
3. Catch basins should be cleaned annually by remov- ing silt and gravel buildups.
4. Check for loose or collapsed stones in the sides and tops of culverts. Loose sidewalls should be rebuilt. Loose top stones can sometimes be shimmed, but will normally have to be relaid. In the case of graveled-over culverts, check the interior of the culvert for evidence of separation between the top stones. Failure in this area would allow gravel to fall in and clog the culvert. Repair as necessary.
5. For pipe culverts, reset pipes that have been lifted by ice and resurface the treadway.
86
Chapter 4: Drainage; B. Subsurface Drains
B. SUBSURFACE DRAINS
HISTORICAL USE OF SUBSURFACE DRAINS AT ACADIA
DEFINITIONS
A subsurface drain is a covered drain, also called a hidden or blind drain, that allows water to percolate alongside and/or under the trail. This type of drain can absorb large volumes of slow-moving, seeping water. Three types of subsurface drains are found at Acadia. The first two types, French drains and subgrade drain- age, are features used historically on the trail system. The third type, perforated-pipe drain, is a contempo- rary substitute for the French drain.
A French drain is a covered channel of stone laid underneath the trail surface or the surrounding ground. A French drain may run along the uphill side of the treadway and/or underneath the treadway, extending across to the downhill side of the treadway. The stones allow water to percolate through. This type of drain- age was used historically on the trail system. Over time, French drains may silt in and become ineffective.
Subgrade drainage is non-channeled subsurface drainage that moves through the subgrade of the entire length of trail sections. The subgrade is constructed of clean stone rubble that allows percolation through the trail beneath the surface of the treadway. For more information on this type of drainage, see Chapter 3, Section B and C.
Pre-VIA/VIS
There is no documentation or evidence of the use of subsurface drainage prior to the VIA/VIS era.
Village Improvement Associations/Societies
The first trail that included subsurface drains was likely George Dorr's Bicycle Path (#331) around Beaver Dam Pool. In 1901, six years after the trail was initially constructed, Dorr described revegetation of a bank "that covers a drain upon the western side and pro- tects the path from overflow by surface water from the higher ground above."18 On other later VIA/VIS trails, the treadway was improved by the construction of subgrade drainage under raised treadway. Water could then percolate into and under the trail surface. In such cases the entire section of trail functioned as a subsurface drain. Trails built in this manner include the Red/Schooner Head Road Path (#362) and Seaside Path (#401). This method is described in more detail in Chapter 3, Section B.
Civilian Conservation Corps
The CCC used French drains, both alongside and under the trail treadway, and subgrade drainage. Evi- dence of their work is found in historical photographs taken during the construction and reconstruction of the Ocean Path (#3) at Otter Cliffs and the Ladder Trail (#64). CCC stone drain work is also still evident on the Long Pond Trail (#118) and the Valley Trail (#116).
A perforated-pipe drain consists of sections of perfo- rated plastic pipe surrounded by gravel and wrapped in geotextile material. Perforated-pipe drains may run parallel to the trail on its uphill side, functioning as side drains, or they may cross underneath the treadway, functioning as culverts. Plastic perforated-pipe drains allow unimpeded flow of water with minimal siltation and are considered a preferable alternative to French drains.
NPS/Mission 66
Design drawings prepared for the construction of trails during the Mission 66 period indicate that sub- grade drainage was the only type of hidden drainage employed by Mission 66 builders, often in conjunction with side drains and pipe culverts.
National Park Service
NPS crews began to use subsurface drainage more consistently during the rehabilitation efforts in the 1990s. In 1999 the NPS trails crew installed the first perforated-pipe drains on the Jordan Pond Path (#39) to capture seepage from the slope above the pond.
87
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
This feature was also successfully used on the Great Meadow Loop (#70).
TREATMENT FOR SUBSURFACE DRAINS
1. Trail Erosion and Tread Saturation
Issues: Inadequate subsurface drainage can be a substantial threat to trail integrity. If the water is not adequately channeled from the trail or allowed to percolate underneath the trail, erosion, trail saturation, or other problems will result. French drains, although historically used on the trail system, are not effective for the long term. Siltation eventually renders them ineffec- tive, and they are difficult, if not impossible to clear out and maintain. Historically, subgrade drainage was not used frequently enough.
Treatment Guidelines: Subsurface drainage should continue to be used as the trail system is rehabilitated to protect the trails' structural integrity, prevent erosion, and eliminate tread saturation.
French drains are historic features on many trails, and should be preserved and rehabilitated as necessary. However, given their likelihood of failure, they are not recommended for addition to existing trails or new trail construction.
Perforated-pipe drains and subgrade drainage are the two features recommended for constructing new trails, or adding drainage to existing trails. Since these fea- tures are hidden underneath the trail, they do not inter- fere with the trail's historic aesthetic, yet still provide an effective solution to subsurface drainage problems.
HISTORICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Pre-VIA/VIS (pre-1890)
There is no evidence or documentation for subsurface drain use.
VIA/VIS Period (1890-1937)
Concealed French drains on the uphill side of the trail were used to capture cross-trail water flow in combina- tion with stone rubble under the treadway.
CCC Period (1933-42)
Concealed French drains on the uphill side of the trail were used to capture cross-trail water flow in combina- tion with stone rubble under the treadway.
NPS/Mission 66 Period (1943-66)
The use of subsurface drainage diminished as open ditches and pipe culverts were routinely used.
NPS Period (1967-1997)
Concealed perforated-pipe drains were first used in the system. Like concealed French drains, these were located on the uphill side of a trail to capture cross-trail water flow in combination with stone rubble under the tread- way.
SPECIFICATIONS FOR SUBSURFACE DRAINS
Specifications are provided for French drains and perforated-pipe drains. Construction of subgrade drainage is integral to construction of the trail's tread. See Chapter 3 for specifications concerning tread material.
Fig. 4-29 A circa 1935 photograph of a CCC rehab of the lower section of the Ladder Trail (#64) shows a rubble French drain being installed along the side of a staircase with coping retaining wall.
Chapter 4: Drainage; B. Subsurface Drains
1. French Drain (Fig. 4-29)
French drains were installed by the VIA/VIS and CCC using a technique similar to the description below.
The wet or boggy section of trail is excavated to create a channel underneath the trail approximately 2 feet below the treadway and 2 feet wide. The section is filled with stone rubble or coarse gravel. The drain should extend 2 or more feet in length on the downhill side of the trail, to provide more area for the water to drain. Larger stones are placed at the base of the drain with progressively smaller stones toward the surface and a final covering of tread material. Geotextile material may be used to cover stones underneath the final layer of tread material.
2. Perforated-Pipe drain (Fig. 4-30)
Perforated-pipe drains have been installed by the NPS trails crew on the Jordan Pond Path (#39) and Great Meadow Trail (#70) according to the following proce- dures.
A 4-inch-diameter, flexible plastic, perforated pipe and lightweight, non-woven, water-permeable geotextile material are the primary materials used.
New pipe begins where previous pipe turns to cross trail
In one type of application, the lengths of pipe are installed in a trench running alongside, or just under the edge of the trail. Depending on the volume of drainage needed, more than one pipe may be laid in the trench. Multiple pipes are placed directly adjacent to one another, or with a slight interval in between. The pipes may terminate at another drainage feature, like a culvert or stream that crosses under the trail, or the pipes themselves may cross under the trail, terminating on the trail's downslope side. When crossing under the trail, the pipe is simply bent to a 90-degree angle and directed to the other side of the trail.
In another, more common, application, perforated- pipe drains are used simply as cross-drains for seepage. In this case, the pipe terminates just beyond the edge of the trail on either side, as described below.
In either case, individual pipes or groups of pipes are laid into a bed of clean, crushed, or round stone between 1 and 3 inches diameter. The bed of stone should surround the pipe or pipes by at least 3 inches on each side. To prevent the pipe from silting, the entire bed of gravel and pipe is covered on the top and
ACAD NP-BaUytja/Bailw
Fig. 4-30 Detail of a perforated-pipe drain.
89
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
sides with geotextile material. Geotextile material is not needed underneath the pipe. At least 4 inches of material, either soil or gravel, should be placed above the geotextile to prevent frost heave and to hold it and the pipe in place.
Either end of the pipe may be buried in a bed of clean crush, tucked between stones of a sidewall or retaining wall, or protected by a header roughly like those used for pipe culverts. If the header is off trail, it need not conform to any grade line and will be easier to build. Crush that covers the end of a perforated pipe should not be revegetated as wall-less causeway is, but rather left clean, with only a good strip of sod used along the trail edge to retain gravel. Pipes should not terminate partway across the trail.
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE
1. Subsurface drains are often completely hidden, and the clues that reveal them to a crew six months after construction will often be gone a few years down the road. Therefore, careful logs must be kept of their locations for future maintenance.
2. Drains leading into and out of subsurface drains must be kept clean.
3. The ends of the pipes, which are all that are acces- sible, should be checked annually for clogs or frac- tures. Stones set in front of the openings should be removed for checking and cleaning, and then put back in place.
4. Standing water on the uphill side of a subsurface drain, or scouring of the trail above a subsurface drain indicate a problem underneath the ground. In most cases, stones obscuring the ends of the pipe can be removed, and a stick or tool handle used to clean out the pipe. If problems can't be resolved by cleaning, the drain must be excavated and the cause of the failure resolved. Possible rea- sons for failure include clogging, a crushed pipe, or insufficient pipe area for the volume of water.
C. SIDE DRAINS
DEFINITIONS
A side drain is an open drain that runs parallel to the trail and collects water before it reaches the treadway. The collected water runs parallel to the trail on one or both sides of the treadway, usually crossing or flowing under the trail through a culvert.
A side drain is generally located directly adjacent to the side of the trail and built as a part of the overall con- struction of the treadway. However, it may be located 10 or more feet from the trail, in which case it may be called "off-trail drainage." A side drain may be stone- lined, a simple earthen ditch, or the drainage path cre- ated by the construction of raised tread.
Three types of side drains are used at Acadia. Walled side drains and fully constructed side drains are fully or partially constructed of stone, while earthen ditches have no associated stone elements.
A walled side drain is a partially constructed drainage channel consisting of a stone wall on the side adjacent to the trail, and no construction on the side of the drain away from the trail. The stone wall may be a single or multi-tiered wall. The wall retains the tread and ensures the integrity of the drain. The floor of the drain may be flat-laid stones, packed stone rubble, or earth.
A fully constructed side drain is one in which both sides and the floor of the drainage are laid stone. The drain may have two vertical sides, like an open culvert, or be "V-shaped" (example on the Beech Mountain West Ridge Trail, #108) or "U-shaped" (example on the Emery Path, #15).
A ditch is a simple drain that collects and directs water adjacent or near the side. Ditches can be constructed more quickly, but are more susceptible to scouring and collapse. The practice of ditch and fill can be used to restore a wet area by ditching along one or both sides of the treadway to create drains, and using the excavated
90
Chapter 4: Drainage; C. Side Drains
material on the trail as fill, creating a raised treadway. Examples of this technique can be seen on the Western Mountain Trail (#120).
Off-trail drainage refers to ditches constructed away from the trail, sometimes as far away as 100 feet or more. These are generally used to connect tributaries or concentrate sheet flow into a single drainage path in order to reduce the need for side drains alongside the trail itself.
HISTORICAL USE OF SIDE DRAINS AT ACADIA
Pre-VIA/VIS
There is no evidence or documentation of side drain use prior to the VIA/VIS era.
Village Improvement Associations/Societies
Side drains of various types were included on many early VIA/VIS graveled trails. The Red/Schooner Head Road Path (#362) is a raised treadway. Though no ditches are now visible, regularly spaced culverts demonstrate the anticipation that sheet water would collect and run along the inside of the treadway. The Jordan Pond Seaside Path (#401) appears to have some walled side drains created by the raised treadway, and the Asticou Trail (#49) has sunken walled side drains with stone-lined bottoms (Fig. 4-31). These trails used side drains with culverts to drain water both perpen- dicular to and parallel with the treadway. There is also evidence of historic off- trail drainage on the Jordan Pond Path (#39).
Some later VIA/VIS trails used side drainage in con- junction with causeway, including the southern part of the Kane Path (#17) and the Jesup Path (#14). How- ever, there is little use of side drains on the stone paths, with a few notable exceptions, such as short sections of walled side drains on the Gurnee Path (#352) and Emery Path (#15), and the fully constructed "U- shaped" drain at the base of the Emery Path (#15). This features shown in a 1916 photo and is part of the trail's original construction, although it was once believed to be a CCC addition.
Civilian Conservation Corps
The CCC made extensive use of all types of side drains on nearly all their trails. The Perpendicular Trail (#119) uses walled side drains (Fig. 4-32). The Valley Trail (#116) and Ocean Path (#3) combine raised tread with ditching. The V-shaped drain was introduced to the system by the CCC, and the two examples of its use are on the Beech Cliff Loop Trail (#114) and the Beech Mountain West Ridge Trail (#108) (Fig. 4-33). It seems certain that the Valley Cove Trail (#105) had no side drains, or other drainage features except for two culverts. This trail and portions of the Long Pond Trail (#118) have been degraded due to the lack of drainage features, while the Perpendicular Trail (#119) has main- tained its integrity thanks in part to adequate drainage.
NPS/Mission 66
Mission 66 used ditching with raised treadway on the Ship Harbor Nature Trail (#127) and Anemone Cave Trail (#369).
National Park Service
Ditch and fill was used by the NPS crew in the 1990s to restore miles of chronically wet treadway. The result in many cases was a smooth, dry walking surface with effective side drainage on one or both sides of the trail.
Fig. 4-31 An original VIA/VIS side drain on the Asticou Trail.
91
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
Fig. 4-32 A walled side drain along a stone cliff face on the Perpendicular Trail (#119).
Water in the ditches is diverted away from the trail when possible, or else across the trail with stone water bars or open stone culverts. Trails rehabilitated in this way include the Western Mountain Trail (#120), the Cadillac South Ridge Trail (#26), the upper portion of the Long Pond Trail (#118), and Deer Brook Trail (#51) near the intersection with the Jordan Pond Path (#39) (Figs. 4-34 & 4-35).
Fig. 4-34 Ditch and fill work with an open stone culvert on the Long Pond Trail (#118).
Fig. 4-33 A CCC-era "V-shaped" side drain along the Beech Mountain West Ridge Trail (#108).
Fig. 4-35 Ditch and fill on Deer Brook Trail (#51) with tread constructed of material taken from the ditch. Sides of the ditch are sloped and the ditch (in foreground) has been angled properly.
92
Chapter 4: drainage; C. Side Drains
HISTORICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SIDE DRAINS
Pre-VIA/VIS (pre-1890)
There is no evidence or documentation for side drain use.
VIA/VIS Period (1890-1937)
Side drains and ditches were used in early VIA/VIS work. These were generally not highly constructed. Side drains were occasionally used on memorial or other highly- crafted VIA/VIS trails.
CCC Period (1933-42)
The CCC relied on highly constructed side drains and ditches to rehabilitate old trails and for new construction.
NPS/Mission 66 Period (1943-66)
Side drains and ditches were used with pipe culverts, but they were not highly crafted. Little effort was taken to preserve extant side drains during rehabilitation of older trails.
NPS Period (1967-1997)
Ditch and fill was the preferred type of side drain, with little or no use of highly constructed side drains or ditches. Exceptions included rehabilitation of preexisting historic work.
TREATMENT FOR SIDE DRAINS
1. Trail Widening
Issue: The addition of side drains widens the original corridor of a trail, and creates the need for culverts or subsurface drains to carry water across the trail.
widening of the trail corridor is an acceptable compro- mise to ensure the preservation of the trail's structural integrity.
However, in certain situations, the widening of the trail corridor that results from the construction of side drains is unacceptable, such as when important natural trail-side features, such as large boulders or trees, would have to be removed. In these cases, other options should be considered including off-trail drain- age, subsurface drainage, or durable tread such as stone paving.
2. Durability
Issue: Ditches and walled side drains without con- structed floors, though often historically accurate, can collapse or scour when subjected to heavy flows.
Treatment Guidelines: Existing historical side drains should be rehabilitated to retain the character with which they were built. However, in some cases extra construction is required. In general, stone bottoms should be restored or added to all side drains showing signs of collapse or scouring. This will prevent stones along the side from being undermined by moving water. In most cases, crushed rock can be pounded into the bottom of a drain to prevent scouring, and as the rock silts in it will be obscured and the drain will appear unconstructed. Native rock should be used for this application since some of it may be visible.
SPECIFICATIONS FOR SIDE DRAINS
Treatment Guidelines: In many places where they were never constructed, side drains are needed in order to rehabilitate and preserve graveled paths and other trails with a historical standard of uninterrupted treadway. The introduction of side drains, often by means of building a causeway, is considered the most acceptable drainage alternative for gravel paths whose drainage problems cannot be solved with dips. On the Long Pond Trail (#118), for instance, side drains will be a necessary component in the rehabilitation of many yards of washed-out treadway. Generally, the resulting
1. Walled Side Drains (Figs. 4-36 & 4-37)
The drainage path of a typical walled side drain should be at least 8 inches deep and 12 inches wide. Walled side drains may include either a wall with a single tier of stones, or a wall with multiple tiers.
Wall stones on the trail side of a side drain should be set well below the bottom of the drain, at least 3 inches, to withstand scouring. Walls should be built according to specifications for walled causeway described in Chap- ter 3, Section B. The contact between stones should be
93
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
at tread height or above to prevent gravel from washing out of the tread and/or silting the drain.
In walled side drains, the bottom is reinforced with either laid or crushed stone. If the drain is steep or car- ries an excessive amount of fast-moving water, checks should be added to the floor of the drainage to avoid scouring and the subsequent loss of sidewall (see Chap- ter 6, Section A ).
2. Fully Constructed Side Drains (Fig. 4-38)
V-shaped side drains consist of two, single-tiered stone walls set at a 1:1 slope so their bases come together at roughly a 90-degree angle, forming a V shape between the opposing stones. Flat, rectangular stones are rec- ommended. To avoid separation between stones, the bottoms of the stones in one wall should rest on the stones in the opposite wall. All stones should contact abutting stones at their tops. Joints between stones should be staggered with joints in the opposing wall.
Fig. 4-36 A walled side drain installed on the Jordan Pond Path (#39) along new walled causeway in 2001. Temporary wood planks cover the new open stone culvert.
Rocks overlap
ACAD NP-Baldyga/Barter
Fig. 4-38 Detail of a fully constructed "V-shaped" side drain.
Floor of drain is laid or crushed rock or checked soil
Fig. 4-37 Detail of a walled side drain.
Rocks are headers with high contact between them
Rocks are sloped in and largely covered by gravel
Wall locked below floor of drain
Subgrade to 2" below grade
94
Chapter 4: Drainage; D. Water Bars
Target dimensions for a V-shaped drain are 2 feet wide and 1 foot deep. An example of a V-shaped side drain can be seen on the Beech Mountain West Ridge Trail (#108).
D. WATER BARS
DEFINITION
U-shaped side drains consist of a shallow drain with a curved bottom that is reinforced by laid stone. The drain should be at least three times as wide as it is deep. The stones may be either square or rounded stones, but they should form a relatively smooth surface for the water to traverse, and should provide a continuous stone surface. Beware of excessive slope in the sides of the drain as small stones will fall easily into the drain bottom.
3. Ditches
The sides of a ditch should be sloped to avoid collapse with a batter no steeper than 1:1 slope. In loose soils, the sides should be dug at an even lower grade. In no case should the side of a ditch be vertical after construction. Due to the batter of their sides, ditches will always be at least twice as wide as they are deep. A typical size for a ditch is 8 inches deep and 16 inches wide.
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE
1. Clean all side drains annually. When cleaning, make sure to maintain the correct shape and not to eat away at the bottom corners of an unlined ditch. A ditch cleaned so that it has vertical walls will cave in. Likewise, make sure the bottom of a stone-lined side drain is not dug out so deep as to compromise walls partially buried beneath it.
2. Repair any dilapidated stonework in keeping with the specifications above.
3. If repeated scouring occurs at the base of unlined side drains or ditches, it is likely that the water flow is too heavy and moving too fast for an earthen bottom. Line the ditch or drain with crushed stone, or tile it with flat laid stones. The floors of graded drains that show signs of scouring should be treated with checks, just as a tread surface (see Chapter 6, Section A.)
A water bar is a structure consisting of a depression crossing a treadway which is reinforced by a log or row of abutting stones on the downhill side. The main func- tion of a water bar is to divert water that is flowing on a sloped treadway. Stone water bars consist of a row of abutting stones. Log water bars use a single log for rein- forcement. A backed water bar is a water bar "backed" or held in place by steps or checks constructed below it to help retain the water bar on steep grades (Figs. 4-39 &4-40).
Fig. 4-39 A recently constructed stone water bar on the Pond Trail (#20), located between the motor road and the Jordan Pond Path (#39).
Fig. 4-40 A series of log water bars on the Jordan Pond Carry Spur (#40).
95
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
HISTORICAL USE OF WATER BARS AT ACADIA
The history of water bars in Acadia is uncertain. In the
early 1970s, Acadia Trails Foreman Gary Stellpflug first
observed stone and log water bars on the trails, though
many have been built since then. These early water bars
possibly dated to three periods of construction, though
there is no historical documentation or
photographs to support this inference.
On several trails built by the VIA/VIS,
including the Pond Trail (#20), Jordan
Pond Carry Path (#38), and the Bowl
Trail (#8), there were stone water bars
appearing to be very old. They were
all similar in construction with small,
square stones set with flush tops. Some
of these features are still extant on the
Pond Trail (#20). Other VIA/VIS trails,
including the Asticou Trail (#49) and
Bernard Mountain South Face Trail
(#111), had log water bars, which may
have been added by the CCC or later
builders.
and '60s, when there was not much trail maintenance. Since 1990, most of these water bars, constructed with thin logs too short to span the treadway, and set at poor angles, have gradually been replaced with stone water bars. Many new water bars have been built, often on trails that previously had none, and nearly all of these have been stone. A contemporary alternative, water
Stellpflug found only log water bars on CCC trails, including the Long Pond Trail (#118) and the Beech Cliff Loop (#114). This observation is supported by Arthur's CCC trail construction manual, which contains specifications for the construction of log water bars (Fig. 4-41). Log water bars were also used by the Mission 66 crew on sections 2 and 3 of the Beech Mountain Loop Trail (#113), and in at least one place on the Ship Harbor Nature Trail (#127). However, it is impossible to determine how old these were in the 1970s, and, in the case of wood water bars, whether those in existence were replacements of original features.
Some of the log water bars observed by Stellpflug were poorly constructed and may have dated to the 1940s, '50s
C-lncorrect
D-Trail sifting up above the ytaterbreak Pitch too flat
E-Trail cutting out behind the waterbreak Pitch too steep
WATERBREAKS
SKETGH NO. 22
Fig. 4-41 CCC detail for log water bars or "waterbreaks." (#15), circa 1920.
96
Chapter 4: Drainage; D. Water Bars
dips, was introduced to Acadia in the late 1980s by the AMC, and dips have been increasing in number since, often as replacements for old log water bars.
HISTORICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF WATER BARS
Pre-VIA/VIS (pre-1890)
There is no evidence for water bar use.
VIA/VIS Period (1890-1937)
Stone water bars may have been used on a limited basis.
CCC Period (1933-42)
Log water bars were likely used. Specifications were writ- ten for their use.
NPS/Mission 66 Period (1943-66)
Log water bars may have been used.
NPS Period (1967-1997)
Log and stone water bars were used extensively, often in places where they were not historically appropriate.
TREATMENT FOR WATER BARS
1. Maintaining Character
Issue: There is uncertainty surrounding the earliest use of water bars at Acadia, and whether they are an appro- priate feature to use on the trail system.
Treatment Guidelines: Given the uncertainty sur- rounding the origins of Acadia's water bars, their use should be limited to trails where they will not adversely affect the historic character. The general rule of thumb is that water bars should not be added to trails that use other historic drainage features to serve the same purpose — for instance, side drains and culverts. For example, the character of the VIA/VIS-era Emery Path (#15) or the CCC-era Perpendicular Trail (#119) should never be confused by the addition of water bars. On the other hand, water bars may be used on trails without substantial character-defining features.
SPECIFICATIONS FOR WATER BARS
In deciding whether a trail has a reached the thresh- old beyond which water bars should not be added, the primary consideration should be given to extant drainage features. A trail whose only historical work is stone culverts is not a candidate for water bars, whereas a trail whose only historical work is a stone staircase, such as the Mansell Mountain Trail (#115), would be. Those trails with historical water bars should be reha- bilitated using water bars where appropriate. In such cases, care must be taken that new water bars resemble the old both in type (log or stone) and in the details of construction (Fig. 4-42).
On those trails where water bars have been deemed appropriate, but history has not dictated which type to construct, stone water bars will be the first option. Stone is more durable than wood, and closer in charac- ter to most of the historical features on Acadia's trails. The exceptional cases in which wood water bars may be added as a feature are those in which no stone is available within a circumference of 200 feet. This is not only because of the difficulties involved with the trans- port of stone, but because a stone water bar looks out of sync with nature in areas where trees and forest floor are the only natural features visible to the hiker.
The function of water bars is to collect water that is channeled in the treadway, and direct it away from the trail. To accomplish this, some amount of grade (at least 5 percent) is required for water bars to be functional, as they require the water to be in motion in order to redirect the flow away from the trail. Standing water problems cannot be resolved with water bars. On the other hand, water bars built on unconstructed trail with a grade over 20 percent will continually silt in and clog, or else erode away altogether. Such sections require that steps or checks be used in conjunction with, or instead of, water bars.
Since water bars and water dips (see below) both per- form similar functions— redirecting water that is using the treadway as a channel — a decision about which structure to build must often be made. Three factors
97
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
must be considered: (1) historical character, (2) desired walking surface, and (3) grade. Because they are more subtle, dips are often an alternative for trails on which history precludes the building of a water bar. Further, dips allow the maintenance of a smooth — even wheel- chair-accessible—hiking surface, while water bars create small steps for the hiker. However, dips are not an option for grades above 12 percent. On such slopes, they lose their shape more quickly than water bars and need additional maintenance.
On slopes where grade is more than 15 percent, backed water bars should be considered, especially in loose gravel or light soils.
After deciding a water bar is necessary and appropri- ate, the next question is exactly where to install it. The Student Conservation Association trail guide, Lightly on the Land, offers some good advice:
In determining where to place a water bar, select a site where travelers will be discouraged from going around the ends of the bar. A tree or boulder can be a good bar- rier. If no natural barriers present themselves, embed a few large stones near one or both ends of the water bar to direct traffic toward the center of the trail.19
CCC specifications said the following about placement and spacing:
The spacing of breakers cannot be determined by any rule, but there are three particular locations where they should be placed: (1) Where there is a depression or wash, the breaker should be set below, (2) On sharp curves, the breaker should be set at the uphill entrance of the curve; and (3) At changes in the trail grade, the breaker should be set just above the break in grade.20
The water bar consists of three elements: the bar, the apron, and the outlet ditch.
Gentle mound behind bar is flush with tops of rocks
High contact between rocks
Outflow ditch
Rocks at least 1 2" tall and buried at least 6" into ground; header-style is strongest (no toast)
ACAD NP-Baldyga/Barter
Fig. 4-42 Detail of a typical stone water bar.
98
Chapter 4: Drainage; D. Water bars
1. Bar
A general description water bar construction is given in the SCA trail-building guide:
Angled across the trail, the bar stabilizes the apron and serves as the barrier of last resort to redirect water that has not been turned from the tread by outsloping. The factors determining the angle of a water bar in relation to the tread are the grade of the trail and the velocity of the water that will approach the barrier. On gentle trails, a bar set at a 20 to 30 degree angle may be enough. On steeper routes where the speed of the water may wash out barriers embedded at shallow angles, bars may need to be set at angles of 45 degrees or more. The smaller the angle, the less material will be required to build the bar- rier and the easier it will be for travelers to step across. Water slowed by bars without much of an angle may drop silt against the barrier, while bars set at sharper angles may be self-cleaning because the water moves past them quickly enough to carry silt off the trail.21
Whether log or stone, when properly installed and graded, the top of the bar should be flush with surface on the downhill side of the water bar.
Stone Water Bar: The bar in a stone water bar is a row of abutting stones set in a trench at the appropriate angle (see above). The bar should be set into the back- slope on the uphill side of the trail at least 12 inches and extend at least to the edge of the treadway on the outlet side, where it meets the outlet ditch. The bar as a unit should sit about 2 inches above the level of the tread before it is trenched or backfilled; after building the dip, the bar should be at least 6 inches above the lowest point in the swale, and level with the highest point of the backfill behind the bar.
Each stone in the bar should have at least half of its mass completely buried, which means that each must be at least 12 inches in vertical height. Other dimensions may vary, as long as the combination of overall mass and sturdiness of set stones yield a row that does not budge underfoot, even when jumped upon by a large person. Stones should be set in their most stable posi- tion, which is with the main portion of the weight down and buried in the trench and with the weight low (in a
"cake" or "header" style) rather than upright ("toast" style").
Contact between stones should be as high as possible, and within an inch of the top of the bar. Low contact is not necessary, but gaps between stones at their bases should be chinked, and the chinks locked in with the gravel or stone at the base water bar.
Stones should be laid so water sheds well from one to the next as it moves from the top to the bottom of the water bar. Techniques to achieve this effect vary. The AMC depicts cake-style stones set with flush faces along the inside of the drainage, and thinner, toast-style stones set overlapping, like shingles on a roof, with the downhill side of the uphill stone overlapping the top edge of the one below it. Lester Kenway at Baxter State Park in Maine sets his stones so that the line of contact between each points back uphill, and does not worry about flushness between them, as water would have to turn in between the stones and actually flow uphill to get through the row of stones. Header style is also appropriate. All of these techniques have been used with success at Acadia, provided the other rules are followed.
The top of the bar should provide a walkable surface, which almost always results if the rules of high contact of stones are observed. The hiker should have at least one flat surface 12 inches wide to step on, and ideally, the top of the entire bar will be a single, fiat unit. Avoid tripping hazards caused by round stones without high contact, stones that slope dramatically to the front or back of the bar, and stones with vertical protrusions. As with a retaining wall, the area directly in front of and behind the bar should be packed with stone, rather than just filled in with soil that could erode and allow stones to loosen.
Wood Bar: The bar in a wood water bar is a single log, set at the appropriate angle, that extends at least 12 inches into the backslope, and to the edge of the trail or beyond it on the downhill side where it meets the outlet ditch. The log should be cedar, at least 8 inches in diameter. If it is not possible to key the bottom of
99
Acadia Trails Treatment plan
the log against a natural feature, a stone should be set in the ground at the end of the log to hold it in place. Staking water bars is not done at Acadia. On the water- shedding side, the dip in the water bar should expose between 4 and 6 inches of the total diameter of the log.
2. Apron
The apron is the dip on the uphill side of the bar that directs most of the water off the trail before it reaches the bar itself. The apron is funnel shaped, the top of the funnel being on the side of the backslope, and the outlet of the funnel being at the outlet ditch. The apron begins sloping toward the outlet ditch about 5 feet back from the bar, and reverses trail grade to slope up to the bar about a foot from it. Except in times of very heavy flow or poor maintenance, water does not travel along the bar, but down the bottom of the apron's dip to the outlet ditch. The total depth of the dip in the apron (measured from the top of the bar) should be between 6 and 12 inches, depending on the overall size of the water bar.
3. Outlet Ditch
The SCA describes the outlet ditch:
Complete the water bar by digging an outlet ditch from the low point of the apron far enough to assure that water will be carried away from the trail. Steep sides- lopes may not require ditches at all, while a water bar ditch on a moderate hillside may extend several yards or more. Cut each ditch wider than the blade of a shovel to facilitate easy maintenance in years to come. On steeper slopes, stones placed below the end of the ditch will dissipate the force of exiting water and help protect the downslope from erosion.22
The ends of outlet ditches should be graded into the landscape, not ended at a blockage or simply stopped so that there is a sudden step up at the end of the ditch; such terminations encourage blockage and backup that eventually can clog the entire drainage.
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE
1. Water bars should be cleaned annually, and, if possible, following severe storms. During clean- ing, the original, gradual funnel shape of the apron should be restored and the outlet ditch dug out as far as necessary to ensure that water leaves the trail and does not reenter. Care must be taken not to dig the apron too deep; the bar should never be fully exposed on the drainage side. Regrade the end of the outlet ditch so that water can smoothly exit. With soil tread trails, material dug from the ditch should be used to back up the water bar; in the case of gravel tread, only gravel from the apron cleaning can be used in the treadway. In any case, do not use material larger than 2 inches in diameter. Reshape the grade behind the bar.
2. Water bars that continually fill with silt should be reset at a steeper angle. Those that scour to the point of undermining the bar should be reset at a shallower angle.
3. For stone water bars, reset any loose stones.
4. For log water bars, check logs for rot, and replace them when they are no longer solid enough to retain the shape of the apron. The life expectancy for an 8-inch cedar log bar is thirty years.
100
Chapter 4: Drainage; E. Water Dips
E. WATER DIPS
TREATMENT FOR WATER DIPS
DEFINITION
A water dip is an angled depression in the trail that diverts water off the trail.
Dips add little to, and take little from, a trail's character. Just slightly more visible than subsurface drains, their subtlety is their most important asset in the way of character. If built correctly (long and shallow), they are virtually unnoticed by most hikers, and of little inter- ruption to the prevailing appearance of a trail corridor. They can also be incorporated into ADA trails.
HISTORICAL USE AT ACADIA
1. Maintaining Character
Issue: Water dips are not a feature associated with the
historical period for Acadia's trails.
Treatment Guidelines: Although not a historical feature, water dips are an appropriate feature for use at Acadia. When constructed correctly, water dips do not adversely impact a trail's historical character. Water dips are the least intrusive of the treadway drains, which include water bars and open culverts. Water dips should be the first consideration for those trails without an established feature for removing substantial amounts of water from the treadway. In particular, dips are an appropriate solution for mild erosion problems on graveled paths (such as the Ocean Path, #3, or the Jordan Pond Path, #39).
Water dips were introduced to Acadia's trail system in the 1980s by the AMC. In the 1990s, they were used extensively as a drainage technique on nearly every trail in Acadia, often as replacements for wood water bars.
HISTORICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF WATER DIPS
Pre-VIA/VIS (pre-1890)
There is no evidence or documentation for water dip use during any of the historic periods.
VIA/VIS Period (1890-1937)
There is no evidence or documentation for water dip use during any of the historic periods.
CCC Period (1933-42)
There is no evidence or documentation for water dip use during any of the historic periods.
NPS/Mission 66 Period (1943-66)
There is no evidence or documentation for water dip use during any of the historic periods.
NPS Period (1967-1997)
Water dips were first used in the 1980s.
Water dips should not be used if:
• The soil will not hold its shape, such as exception- ally rocky or clay-poor soil.
• The trail has a grade of greater than 20 percent.
• The flow of water, due to volume, speed, or a com- bination of the two, is sufficient to wash the dip out.
• The frequency and nature of foot traffic would flat- ten the dip before it could reasonably be rebuilt.
In any of the above cases, water bars, steps, checks, stone paving, side drainage, and rerouting may all be considered.
SPECIFICATIONS FOR WATER DIPS
The entrance into a water dip starts at the prevail- ing grade, and then the grade accelerates slightly toward the low point of the dip. The dip is angled slightly downslope to direct water off of the trail at a "spill point."23 The grade then is reversed, rising approximately 1 foot in elevation, and then resumes the downhill at the prevailing trail slope. Exact sizes and shapes of water dips will vary with terrain. However,
101
Acadia Trails treatment Plan
a good target is laid out in Hooper's handbook24 (Fig. 4-43). The entrance should be 10 feet long, the reversal in grade 5 feet long at a 10-percent slope. As in a water bar, a target angle for the depression should be 45 degrees and should be adjusted according to whether the dip silts-in (increase the angle) or scours (decrease the angle and/or replace with another type of drainage). Slopes into, out of, and back down the trail below the dip should be long and gradual in order to maintain the shape of the dip, provide ease of hiking, and remain visually unobtrusive.
The "spill point" should empty off the trail at a point where water cannot reenter the treadway, or should empty into an outlet ditch that will carry the water to a place where it cannot reenter the treadway.
ENDNOTES
12 Bar Harbor VIA 1891 Annual Report.
13 Bar Harbor VIA 1899 Annual Report.
14 Bar Harbor VIA 1906 Annual Report.
15 Seal Harbor VIS 1937 Annual Report.
16 Seal Harbor VIS 1952 Annual Report.
17 Albert H. Good, Park and Recreation Structures (National Park Service, 1938), 17-18.
18 Bar Harbor VIA 1901 Annual Report.
19 Robert C. Birkby, Lightly on the Land: The SCA Trail-Building and Maintenance Manual (Seattle: The Mountaineers, 1996), 132.
20 Guy B. Arthur, Civilian Conservation Corps Field Training: Construction of Trails (1937).
21 Birkby, 131-32.
22 Birkby, 132.
23 Birkby, 131.
24 Lennon Hooper, NPS Trails Management Handbook (Denver: United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, no date), 29.
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE
1. Water dips should be cleaned annually, and, if possible, following severe storms. During clean- ing, the original, gradual shape of the dip should be restored and the outlet ditch dug out as far as is necessary to ensure that water leaves the trail and does not reenter. Care must be taken
not to dig the depression too deep. Regrade the ends of outlet ditches so that water can smoothly exit. With soil trails, material dug from the depression should be used to back up the water dip, rebuilding the reversal in grade. Do not use material larger than 2 inches.
2. Dips that continually fill with silt should be rebuilt at a steeper angle. Those that scour should be reset at a shal- lower angle, or, if the flow is too great, replaced with water bars or another form of drainage. Those dips that flat- ten or are routinely overrun should, if already built properly, be replaced with another form of drainage.
TYPICAL DIP PROFILE
grade dips
DRAINAGE DIPS
OUTSLOPE-2X- TOPVIEW
Fig. 4-43 Detail of a typical water dip.
102
Fig. 5-1 The Bar Harbor VIA constructed many small gravel-surfaced bridges as stream crossings in the Sieur de Monts area like this one across Kebo Brook on the Stratheden Path (#24), circa 1916.
CHAPTER 5:
Crossings
A. BOGWALKS
B. BRIDGES
C. STEPPING STONES
103
Acadia Trails treatment Plan
CHAPTER 5: CROSSINGS
As one of the most essential and appealing features along a trail, crossings require careful attention to hiker safety and style of con- struction. At Acadia, three categories of features are used to cross streams, wet areas, and areas with fragile vegetation or difficult footing.
A. Bogwalks
B. Bridges
C. Stepping Stones
From the 1890s to the 1980s, the construction style of crossings shifted from aesthetics to durability. With a rehabilitation approach, the preservation of existing crossings or new construction will balance the need to retain historic picturesque and rustic crossings while providing for higher use. In some cases this will result in greater construction costs and increased mainte- nance. For example, natural cedar poles may be speci- fied for bridges rather than pre-cut, pressure-treated planks. The type of crossing is determined by the trail's historical character and current needs. Bogwalks are not historical, and are less durable than other features. However, they may still be the first choice for tra- versing boggy ground, especially in areas with many exposed roots, or where construction of other features would be detrimental to adjacent resources. Bridges have historically been used to cross large drainages with steep banks and remain appropriate additions to the trail system (Fig. 5-1). The use of stepping stones continues to be an option for crossing shallow streams, consistently boggy ground, or areas that are intermit- tently wet.
Note: Narrow stream crossings are often achieved with culverts, while longer sections of trail through a drainage may be a constructed causeway, as described in Chapters 3 and 4.
A. BOGWALKS
DEFINITIONS
A bogwalk is a wooden walkway providing a raised, even, and dry tread. It is used to traverse wet or boggy areas, eroded trail sections with many exposed roots, and areas containing fragile vegetation.
The walking surface of a bogwalk consists of one or more treadlogs. These have been milled flat on two sides, are laid parallel with the trail, and are supported on each end by a bedlog, or short log set perpendicu- lar to the trail. The bedlogs may rest directly on the ground, or may be supported by individual stones, or log piers.
Log piers are enclosed support structures built of logs and serve the same function as bridge piers: to support and elevate bogwalk between sections. Log piers are sometimes referred to as "log cribs," but should not be confused with retaining structures described in Chap- ter 6. A pier may contain three or four sides with the logs notched together, "Lincoln Log" style (Fig. 5-2).
A bogwalk bridge is a hybrid between a bogwalk and a bridge and is used to cross small streams. It differs from regular bogwalk in two ways. Bogwalk bridges are wider and generally contain three parallel tread-
Fig. 5-2 A bogwalk bridge supported by a log crib on the Pond Trail (#20).
104
Chapter 5: Crossings; A. Bogwalks
logs. They are also positioned higher above the sur- rounding grade and are supported by log cribs, stone abutments, or piers.
HISTORICAL USE OF BOGWALKS AT ACADIA
Stream Path (#65) where planks were used by the SHVIS (Figs. 5-3 & 5-4).
Civilian Conservation Corps
There is no physical evidence or documentation of bogwalk construction on CCC trails.
Pre-VIA/VIS
There is no physical evidence or documentation of bogwalks on trails prior to the VIA/VIS period.
Village Improvement Associations/Societies
When the Bar Harbor VIA began constructing trails in the 1890s they laid down "cedar-pole bridges" across wet areas. Path Committee Chairman Waldron Bates instructed workers to" [d] rain wet places or put in stepping stones, or place cedar-pole bridges on the ground."25
On many VIA/VIS trails the raised gravel treadway eventually washed away, leaving the original boggy trail base. On pondside trails, an elevated water level caused by beaver dams aggravated this prob- lem, or created a new one. These factors, coupled with increased foot traffic, resulted in extensive wet and eroded trail sections with compacted soils and exposed roots. Thus many pondside and woodland trails described by the VIA/VIS as offering scenic and easy walking became some of the most difficult and unattractive. Annual VIA/VIS reports suggest a prefer- ence for stepping stones and causeway solutions for these wet areas. Examples include the stepping stones on the Kane Path (#17), and the stepping stones, raised tread, and closed culverts on the Asticou Path (#49) and the Jordan Pond Loop Trail (#39).
The VIA/VIS later used corduroy tread and bridges (a tread consisting of continuously laid parallel logs). Outside park boundaries, the Seal Harbor VIS and Northeast Harbor VIS used different types of log crossings through wet areas as early as the 1930s or 1940s. Examples of this work appeared on the Upper Hadlock Trail (#501), where the NHVIS used a bog- walk similar to a corduroy bridge, and on the Jordan
Fig. 5-3 This bogwalk on the Upper Hadlock Pond Trail (#501), shown here in 1967, was likely built by the Northeast Harbor VIS in the 1930s or 1940s. This bogwalk is more similar to a bridge, with its stringers and corduroy decking, than it is to the contemporary style of bogwalk used in Acadia.
Fig. 5-4 This 1990s plank bogwalk (possibly 2-by-6-inch lumber) on private land on the Jordan Stream Path (#65) may be Seal Harbor VIS construction.
105
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
NPS/Mission 66
Bogwalks were not used by the NPS during the Mission 66 era.
National Park Service
Bogwalks as they exist within the park boundaries today were introduced to Acadia in the early 1980s by Trails Foreman Gary Stellpflug. He adapted the design from bogwalks designed by Lester Kenway in Maine's Baxter State Park. The bogwalks were first used on a reroute at the northernmost bend of the Long Pond Trail (#118). These were constructed in 1982 and were still extant at the time of this report. In 1988, extensive bogwalk construction began on the west side of the Jordan Pond Loop Trail (#39). Since the work in the 1980s, bogwalk has been used throughout the park as a solution to wet or eroded trails in flat areas and near ponds (Figs. 5-5 to 5-7).
In 1994, a bogwalk bridge was constructed on the east end of the Pond Trail (#20). Since that time, several of
Fig. 5-5 Log bogwalks, like these single-treadlog examples, were first introduced to the Acadia system in the 1980s to stabilize tread in wet areas on the Great/Long Pond Trail (#118).
Fig. 5-6 Bogwalks are an effective, easily constructed way to provide stable tread over wet or exposed root areas such as on the west side of the Jordan Pond Loop Trail (#39).
Fig. 5-7 Bogwalks are often installed to protect fragile vegetation, like this section surrounding The Bowl on the Beehive Trail, West (#8).
106
Chapter 5: Crossings; A. Bogwalks
these structures have been built throughout the park, ranging in size from a single span on the Jordan Pond Carry Path (#38) to an 80-foot-long bridge on the Beech Mountain West Ridge Trail (#108) (Figs. 5-8 & 5-9).
The first bogwalks in Acadia were logs "topped" with a chainsaw and ax, and set side by side on bedlogs or cribs. They were generally 8 to 10 feet long. Logs were notched flat at the joint and then spiked together. Later, larger logs were "ripped" with chainsaws into halves whose flat sides were used as tread. In the 1990s, logs were cut 16 feet long. The increase in span between supports led to a need for a log diameter of 16 inches or more. Also, spikes were driven through the sides of treadlogs in the middle of the run to connect and thus distribute load between the logs. Nonetheless, tread spans greater than 12 feet continued to break or sag.
The most recent evolution in the design of the bogwalk came full circle back to Lester Kenway, who now uses a modified bogwalk made of logs pre-milled on two sides. The advantages of the current method are:
• increased thickness resulting in additional strength and rigidity of the stringers,
• a subsequent extension in the longevity of the bogwalks, and
• faster, easier construction without a need for notching logs in the tread, bedlogs, or cribs.
HISTORICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF BOGWALKS
Pre-VIA/VIS (pre-1890)
No evidence for bogwalk use.
VIA/VIS Period (1890-1937)
On early trails, cedar-pole bridges were laid across wet areas. On most trails, stepping stones, stone paving, and raised tread were predominantly used to solve drainage problems. On later trails, corduroy bogwalks were occa- sionally used.
CCC Period (1933-42)
Bogwalks were not used.
NPS/Mission 66 Period (1943-66)
Bogwalks were not used.
NPS Period (1967-1997)
Bogwalks were used extensively in wet areas, over exposed roots, and areas with fragile vegetation, particu- larly through bogs and on pondside trails.
Fig. 5-8 A bogwalk bridge with stone supports on the Pond Trail (#20). This feature is a hybrid between a bogwalk and a bridge.
Fig. 5-9 A bogwalk bridge on the Jordan Pond Carry Path (#38).
107
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
TREATMENT FOR BOGWALKS
1. Maintaining Character
Issue: Bogwalks were not used consistently during the historic periods on Acadia's trails and may not be appropriate long-term solutions for crossing wet areas.
Treatment Guidelines: For non-historic trails, bog- walks are an appropriate long-term solution for cross- ing wet areas and eroded sections. They may also be used long-term on persistently wet or severely eroded sections of historic trails when there is no alternate solution that is historically appropriate and/or previ- ously in use on the trail. If another crossing feature is compatible with the trail's historic character, it will be used and the long-term use of bogwalk will not be considered.
8"-18" min. (see specs)
24" min
ACAD NP-Baldyga/Barter
Fig. 5-10 Detail of a bogwalk on bedlogs.
Gap between bogwalk sections <3" and sections are flush
3rd piece in bottom contains rocks and adds structural integrity
Height
necessary
to cross
area and
keep
bogwalks
level
Because they are by far the easiest and quickest remedy available for crossing wet and eroded areas, bogwalks may be used as temporary solutions on both historic and non-historic trails until an appropriate crossing feature can be constructed.
2. Maintenance
Issue: Bogwalk is a more high-maintenance feature than a stone structure. Since bogwalks are wooden structures, they need to be checked regularly for rot and structural damage and replaced cyclically.
Treatment Guidelines: When considering the use of bogwalks, maintenance and longevity are major con- cerns that must be included in long-range planning. If only used as a short-term solution, cyclic replacement of bogwalks should not be a concern, since the bog- walk will eventually be replaced with another feature type. However, if bogwalks are determined to be the best long-term solution for an area, then a schedule of periodic replacement in-kind should be developed.
SPECIFICATIONS FOR BOGWALKS
Bogwalks are constructed of milled white cedar logs. A typical section of bogwalk consists of two bedlogs or cribs (piers), overlaid with one or two treadlogs (Fig. 5-10).
Bogwalk bridges typically contain three treadlogs, and may be supported by log cribs, stone piers, or abutments (Fig. 5-11). Although the construction of bogwalks and bogwalk bridges is similar, some elements of bogwalk bridge construction are more closely associated with bridge construc- tion. For additional information, see "Bridges" in the following section of this chapter.
30" is typical
Cribs filled with rocks too large to escape
ACAD NP-Baltlyga/Batter
Fig. 5-11 Detail of a bogwalk on log cribs (or piers).
108
Chapter 5: Crossings; A. Bogwalks
Fig. 5-12 Bogwalks with bedlogs laid on stone, installed on the west side of the Jordan Pond Path (#39). These treadlogs have only one milled side. The preferred method is to mill two sides of the treadlog.
1. Treadlogs (Fig. 5-12)
The treadlogs are milled leaving a 4-inch-thick log, sawn on two sides, and a minimum of 8 inches wide on one good surface. The unmilled edges are left "live" with bark on. Width of walking surface should be at least 8 inches.
Treadlogs are spiked to bedlogs or cribs with 8-inch spikes or timber screws. Treadlogs should cantilever no more than 6 inches beyond their supports to avoid levering up or, as the wood deteriorates, breaking off.
The standard walking surface of a bogwalk consists of milled logs laid side by side with a flat surface facing up. For backcountry bogwalks, a minimum tread width is 10 inches. On front-country trails constructed to an easier walking standard, such as on sections of the Jordan Pond Path (#39) near the Jordan Pond House, bogwalks should be up to 18 inches wide. Bogwalks elevated more than 1 foot off the ground should have
Fig. 5-13 Bogwalk construction detail on the Pond Trail (#20). Stakes are no longer used to anchor bedlogs due to frost heave. Bedlog notching is not needed if the treadlog and bedlog are both milled flat on two sides.
a minimum width of 12 inches, and bogwalks elevated 2 feet or more should have a minimum width of 18 inches. The walking surface may be a single treadlog if that log is wide enough to meet the width standard, but generally two or more treadlogs will be needed.
On heavily used trails, parallel sections of bogwalk should be installed occasionally to allow hikers to pass each other without stepping off the tread. Frequency of parallel sections will be determined by the number of hikers.
The current recommended length for strength and durability is between 8 and 12 feet, though lengths may be shorter if needed. Lengths greater than 12 feet are not recommended, as rigidity is compromised over longer spans.
Ideally, bogwalks should have no cross-slope and a running slope of no greater than five percent. Gentle grades may be gained by stepping bogwalk sections where they meet, with no step between bogwalk sec- tions greater than 6 inches. Gaps between connected bogwalk sections should be no greater than 3 inches.
2. Bedlogs or Piers (Fig. 5-13)
The treadlogs are supported by individual bedlogs, stone piers or abutments, log piers, or a combination of these. Bedlogs are sections of the milled logs cut 30 inches long or greater and set in the ground per-
109
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
pendicular to the trail. The treadlogs are spiked to the bedlogs with 8-inch spikes or timber screws. Since both the treadlogs and bedlogs are milled flat on two sides, notching is not necessary.
B. BRIDGES
DEFINITIONS
Log piers are used either to elevate the tread or to provide a firmer base in areas where bogwalks might sink or shift. Piers are constructed with logs, stacked in alternating tiers, generally with four sides forming a box. Treads are spiked to the top two logs of a pier, which function as bedlogs. Piers should be filled with rocks to weight them down. To keep piers from riding up, a third cross-piece may be placed in the middle of the first tier. The spaces between tiers allow water to drain.
In past applications, bedlogs have been staked into the ground to keep the bogwalk from shifting out of place. However, this has not proven effective. The stakes tend to heave out of the ground during freeze/thaw cycles, causing the bogwalk to be displaced. Staking bedlogs is therefore unnecessary. The weight of the treadlogs on the bedlogs is generally sufficient to keep the bogwalk from moving. If needed, large stones can be placed on the bedlogs for added weight.
A bridge is a structure providing passage over an impediment such as a waterway, gully, or crevice. There are a variety of different components involved in constructing a bridge. These are defined below.
Elements that are used to support bridges include abut- ments, sills, piers, and/or log cribs.
An abutment is a stone or wooden substructure sup- porting the ends of a bridge. It may also act as a retain- ing feature, preventing tread material from sloughing into the stream or drainage.
A sill is the timber set perpendicular to the trail under each end of the bridge. Sills generally rest on top of the abutments and serve as a base on which the stringers rest. Sills are sometimes called sleepers.
Piers are support structures between bridge spans. They may be constructed of stacked stones, logs, or a combination of both.
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE
1. Inspect for decay and structural integrity. The longevity of a bogwalk is generally less than twenty years, so a cyclic program of replacement must be established.
2. If bogwalks have been moved out of place by ice or water, weight the bedlogs down with rocks or connect them with rock-filled cribs. Do not use stakes to anchor bedlogs, as frost heave will push the entire structure off the ground.
3. If the tread becomes slippery, roughen the surface with a chainsaw.
Log piers or cribs are enclosed support structures built of logs. They typically contain three or four sides with the logs notched together, "Lincoln Log" style. They can be used in single layers, for retention, or stacked in tiers and used to support bogwalk and bridges.
Structural elements of the actual bridge itself include stringers, decking, curbrails and/or handrails, and bracing.
Stringers are supporting beams that span the distance between abutments or piers. They support the decking and are usually made of cedar logs.
Decking describes the walking surface of the bridge. Generally, decking consists of milled cedar boards or logs laid perpendicular to the stringers. However,
110
Chapter 5: Crossings; B. Bridges
decking may also be simply one or more split logs laid parallel to the trail, forming a narrow footbridge. In this case, the split logs act as both stringers and decking.
Plank, or planking, is a decking type consisting of milled cedar boards. This may either be full- dimensioned lumber milled especially for a particular bridge, or it may be readily available lumber, such as five-quarter decking.
Corduroy decking is composed of cedar logs laid side-by-side, perpendicular to the stringers, giving the finished treadway a textured or corduroy appearance. The decking may be constructed of full-round logs or half-round logs.
Gravel surfacing is an addition to the decking that carries the gravel tread material right over the top of the bridge. It is constructed by installing a geotextile fabric over the decking, which is typically corduroy decking, and placing a 4- or 5-inch layer of gravel tread material on top.
Various types of railings and bracing are used with dif- ferent bridge types. Depending on the style of bridge constructed, one, none, or any combination of these features may be added.
A curbrail, or bullrail is a low barrier, usually not over 4 inches high, placed along the side edges of the bridge, parallel to the treadway. Typically a single log is used. This feature serves to guide walkers across the bridge. It often provides structural support and is required when gravel surfacing is used to retain the gravel tread.
A handrail is a waist-high barrier, to aid or guide walk- ers across the bridge. Individual situations may call for no handrail, a single handrail, or one on each side of the bridge. Handrails are supported by posts attached to the bridge decking, stringers, adjacent ground, or any combination of these. (Note: Handrails were also used at various locations without bridges, throughout the trail system. A short discussion follows the descrip- tion of individual CCC bridge examples.)
Fig. 5-14 A bridge constructed by the Youth Conservation Corps on the Jordan Pond Carry Path (#38) in 1987.
Fig. 5-15 Youth Conservation Corps bridge on the Beech Mountain West Ridge Trail (#108), built in 1997.
Ill
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
* -,«j.
- ^.'Jlg%~&
Fig. 5-16 Corduroy bridge at the Cold Brook Fish Hatchery.
Fig. 5-17 Plank bridge over Harbor Brook on the Asticou Trail (#49).
Fig. 5-18 Plank bridge on the Pond Trail (#20) at the junction with the Triad Pass Trail (#29), shown here in 1958.
Stepped-down railings are extensions of handrails at the ends of the bridge. These are typically placed at an angle, connecting the end of the handrail with the bridge decking, or the ground, several feet away from the base of the handrail post and the end of the bridge.
Bracing is used with the handrail structure to give it added stability. Diagonal bracing connects the top of one handrail post with the bottom of the next post. Two of these may be installed in one section of hand- rail, creating an "X" pattern. Outrigger bracing (out- rigging) gives lateral support to the handrail structure by connecting the top of the handrail with extensions of the decking that are cantilevered out from each side of the bridge.
Note: Some bridges are more appropriately described as closed wood culverts, due to their short length. However, for this document, they will be included in the "Bridges" section as their construction typically involves bridge features like abutments, stringers, and decking.
Figures 5-14 to 5-19 show a small sampling of the vari- ous bridges currently extant at Acadia. None of these examples date from the historic period of 1890-1942, but a few have features with historic precedents, like corduroy decking. Features typically associated with bridge construction are identified in the labels.
HISTORICAL USE OF BRIDGES AT ACADIA
Pre-VIA/VIS
The earliest photographs of footbridges on Mount Desert Island date to the 1870s. A rustic bridge with shade roof and seats over Duck Brook was built by the landowner. A second bridge may have also crossed Duck Brook (Figs. 5-20 & 5-21). Though the bridges did not last long in Maine's harsh winter climate, the photographic images were popular as souvenir post- cards. These bridges were built in the picturesque style espoused by Andrew Jackson Downing's Treatise on the Theory and Practice of Landscape Gardening, first published in 1841. Downing advocated for the con-
112
Chapter 5: Crossings; B. Bridges
Fig. 5-20 This rustic bridge with a thatched roof and seats over Duck Brook was built by a local landowner. The bridge was erected in the vicinity of a path later marked as the Duck Brook Path (#311), photograph circa 1870s.
Fig. 5-21 Rustic bridge, possibly constructed over Duck Brook, photograph circa 1870s.
Fig. 5-19 A bridge along the Great Meadow Loop (#70), constructed in 1999.
113
Acadia Trails treatment Plan
struction of man-made features, including rustic seats and thatched-roof shelters, to enhance the beauty of the natural landscape setting.
Village Improvement Associations/Societies
When the Bar Harbor VIA path work began in the 1890s, simple bridges constructed of cedar string- ers were laid through wet areas. However, ice easily dislocated these bridges in the winter. By the early 1900s, VIA/VIS path committee chairmen appeared to have a preference for stepping stones, "stone bridges" (which may actually have been capstone culverts), and trail reroutes instead of bridge construction.26 Some wooden bridges continued to be used, but these "rustic style" VIA/VIS bridges were still dainty compared to later bridge construction. Few images have been found of these early bridges, and it is unlikely that there were unified standards for bridge construction.
There is much commentary in the VIA/VIS path com- mittee annual reports about the frequent need for replacement and repair of bridges. In particular, the bridges for the path along Jordan Pond Stream (#65) required constant maintenance. A circa-1904 photo- graph shows one of several bridges along the path (Fig. 5-22). This bridge of thin cedar logs and cut planks may have lasted fifteen years, as the 1919 Path Report indi- cates that five new cedar bridges were built that year. Another VIS bridge, photographed circa 1908, was also built with a combination of rough cedar logs and cut planks (Fig. 5-23).
By the late teens there were a number of bridges with gravel surfacing, notably in the Sieur de Monts area (see Fig. 5-1). Some of these bridges had a span as short as 18 inches and were similar in size to culverts. Logs were either laid parallel to the treadway across the drainage, or perpendicular to the treadway on wooden stringers. The structure was then covered with gravel to match the existing tread surface. As of 2002, rem- nants of a few of these bridges remain in the Sieur de Monts area.
According to the annual reports, by the 1920s several wooden bridges were located on the Kebo Brook Path
(#364), Fawn Pond Path (#309), Cadillac Cliffs Trail (#5), Bracken Path (#307), and White Path (#329). However, none of these bridges are extant and no supporting photographs have been found.
In 1926 construction began on a large stone "rus- tic" bridge over the outlet on the north end of Lake Wood.27 The bridge was designed by noted landscape architect and summer resident, Beatrix Farrand and was built during the latter period of endowed and memorial trails, as a memorial bridge. The bridge was dedicated in 1929 as the "Kane & Bridgham Memorial Bridge."
After the 1920s there was little documentation of bridge construction, as most paths were turned over to NPS park maintenance and work programs including the CCC and Mission 66. Two of the last surviving VIA/ VIS bridges built during the 1930s may have been on the Maple Spring Trail (#58), which was photographed in the 1960s and removed in the early 1970s (Fig. 5-24), and the bridge at the north end the Jordan Pond Path (#39). This bridge was replaced by the NPS in 1983 with a slightly modified design that still stands. The original bridge was slightly shorter and smaller, as described in greater detail in "Specifications for Bridges."
The Seal Harbor VIS and Northeast Harbor VIA still build and maintain bridges on trails outside of the park. Most Seal Harbor VIS bridges are constructed of cut planks, whereas the Northeast Harbor VIS continues the tradition of rustic cedar pole bridges, including arched stringers, curved railings, and thin, full round saplings for corduroy tread. Northeast Harbor VIS president Dan Fait spent several years searching for two matching arched cedar poles (of downed trees) to serve as stringers for an arched bridge on a Northeast Har- bor trail (Figs. 5-25 to 5-28).
Civilian Conservation Corps
Similar to the individual approach for VIA/VIS bridges within the island's trail system, the CCC bridges built between 1933 and 1942 exhibited individual character and were built in the rustic design style. However, the CCC bridges adhered to some guidelines for "good
114
Chapter 5: Crossings; B. Bridges
Fig. 5-22 An early footbridge over the Jordan Stream on the Jordan Stream Path (#65), photographed in 1904.
Fig. 5-23 A bridge of cut boards and rough-hewn logs, shown in 1908, along the rocks near Seal Harbor built by the Seal Harbor VIS, circa 1908.
Fig. 5-24 This log bridge with a single railing, shown in 1961, was constructed possibly by the Northeast Harbor VIS over Hadlock Brook in a gorge near pulpit rock on the Maple Spring Trail (#58).
Fig. 5-25 This corduroy bridge was constructed in 1998 by the Northeast Harbor VIS below Asticou Gardens on the Asticou Brook Trail (#514). Rough split cedar decking is laid on stripped cedar log stringers and supported by stone abutments.
Fig. 5-26 This arched corduroy bridge with a single railing was constructed by the Northeast Harbor VIS circa 1998 on the Lower Hadlock Trail (#502). The cedar stringers are naturally curved logs, typical of trees found along pond shores or stream banks.
Fig. 5-27 This wooden bridge with cedar log stringers and plank decking on the Great/Long Pond Trail (#118), shown in 1968, may contain underpinnings of a CCC-era bridge.
Fig. 5-28 This corduroy bridge on the Lower Hadlock Trail (#502) has a single wooden railing nailed to adjacent trees. It was constructed in the 1990s by the Northeast Harbor VIS.
115
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
Fig. 5-29 A 1930s view of construction of a CCC corduroy bridge shows the installation of the stone abutments and three log stringers.
Fig. 5-30 The completed corduroy bridge with log curbrail and gravel over the decking photographed in the 1930s. Its smaller scale is typical of CCC work on the west side of the island.
Fig. 5-31 CCC crews working on a wooden bridge in the Great Meadow, circa 1930s.
practice and procedure" as outlined in Guy Arthur's 1937 CCC training publication Construction of Trails. These guidelines, or design standards, are also articu- lated in Albert Good's three-volume, 1938 publica- tion, Park & Recreation Structures. The book describes and illustrates footbridges with no handrails, a single rail, a single rail with a curbrail, and double handrails. Outrigger bracing is used for many, but not all, of the handrails.
At Acadia NP, historic photographs indicate most CCC footbridges were built with dry-laid stone abutments and cedar log stringers, decking, and handrails. Bridge construction style was diverse including flat cordu- roy bridges, arched corduroy bridges, split and whole log-decked bridges, bridges with curbrails, and bridges with double handrails and outrigger bracing. On many bridges the log decking was covered with gravel to provide an uninterrupted walking tread. Some bridges on walking paths were built with a treadway over 5 feet wide, to support fire control equipment, such as the
Fig. 5-33 CCC bridge near Sieur de Monts Spring with diagonal and outrigger bracing, circa 1930s.
Fig. 5-32 CCC bridge in Great Meadow with stepped-down railings and outrigger bracing, 1930s.
Fig. 5-34 An end view of the CCC bridge on the Great Meadow Nature Trail (#365) shows continuous gravel surfacing, circa 1930s.
116
Chapter 5: Crossings; B. Bridges
bridge over Great Brook on the Long Pond Trail (#118) and those in the Great Meadow.
In general, CCC bridges on the eastern side of MDI had larger structural members, with railings, braces, trusses, and the use of gravel surfacing. CCC bridges on the western side were often closer to the VIA/VIS style, with smaller members or arched stringers. Photos of bridges on the west of the island show no railings, braces, trusses, or gravel (Figs. 5-29 to 5-34).
NPS/Mission 66
No documentation has been found for Mission 66 period bridges.
National Park Service
By the 1970s, many park bridges were in extreme dis- repair. Trail crews began replacing bridges whenever possible. In 1986, a Youth Conservation Corps (YCC) project replaced seventeen bridges throughout the park. By the mid-1980s, all pre-1970 bridges had been replaced with new cedar log bridges. They were gener- ally uniform in design, similar to the bulky CCC style bridges. Construction was very simple, with stringers of 8 to 12 inches diameter laid across sleepers or rock cribs, and planked over with boards of varying dimen- sions (2-by-8 inches, 2-by-10 inches, etc.), depending where or when the bridge was built, and who built it. Some were full cut planks, some not. The material was spruce, sometimes pressure-treated, or redwood left- over from other projects. Few had railings, exceptions being three at Sieur de Monts Spring, one on the Long Pond Trail (#118), and one on Penobscot Mountain (#47) in the cliffs area (Fig. 5-35). A CCC-style bridge on the Precipice Trail (#12) had wooden railings, but these railings were replaced with galvanized pipe prior to 1974 (Fig. 5-36).
In 1982, NPS crews replaced a CCC bridge on the Long Pond Trail (#118). The CCC bridge was 5 feet wide and had no railings. The new bridge was constructed in the CCC style of bridges historically used in the Sieur de Monts area. The treads for the new bridge were split cedar logs approximately 8 inches in diameter, flat side down (Fig. 5-37).
HISTORICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF BRIDGES
There is no single style of bridge that is representative of each of the historic periods. On the contrary, each bridge reflected its builder and chosen materials. However, there are generalizations that apply to certain periods of construction. For example, the VIA/VIS bridges started out as dainty or fanciful representations of the rustic style. Through the period, the use of this whimsical character diminished, but the later bridges were still constructed with a high degree of skill and attention to detail. VIA/VIS builders traditionally relied on local rather than imported materials. By contrast, bridges constructed or rebuilt by the CCC on the island's eastern side typically used more substantial structural members and often included features like trusses, outrigging, and handrails. Like the VIA/VIS, the CCC used a variety of styles and sizes in their bridges. Bridges built during the same period on the western side of the island tended to be smaller, and some used curved stringers, emphasizing a different aesthetic.
Pre-VIA/VIS (pre-1890)
Rustic bridges were built by private landholders, in con- junction with some of the first summer estates.
VIA/VIS Period (1890-1937)
Typical bridges were constructed with relatively thin cedar stringers, planks, or 1-inch board decking, and often included handrails. Some were gravel surfaced.
CCC Period (1933-42)
Bridge styles included a mix of small corduroy flat and arched bridges, and large cedar log bridges with either curb or hand railings, outrigging, or trussed bracing. Some were gravel surfaced.
NPS/Mission 66 Period (1943-66)
No documentation has been found for the style of bridge construction used.
NPS Period (1967-1997)
Typically cedar stringer pole and plank bridges in the heavier CCC style were used, as well as bogwalk bridges. The 1970s and 1980s saw conscientious effort to standard- ize construction for ease of maintenance. Emphasis on historical precedence influencing bridge construction began in the mid-1990s.
117
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
Fig. 5-37 This corduroy footbridge on the Great/Long Pond Trail (#118) was constructed in 1982, replacing an earlier CCC bridge. This new bridge is 23 feet long, 30 inches wide, and has a 3 foot railing.
Fig. 5-35 Bridge with railing built by NPS in the 1990s along the Penobscot Mountain Trail (#47).
Fig. 5-38 This CCC-influenced log bridge was constructed in 1999 on the Great Meadow Loop. A side view of the bridge is shown in Fig. 5-19.
Fig. 5-36 A group of hikers in the 1950s on a wooden bridge connecting ledges along the Precipice Trail (#11). The wooden bridge railings were eventually replaced with iron. Notice the iron handrails along the edge.
118
Chapter 5: Crossings; B. Bridges
Between 1980 and 1990, approximately a dozen shorter, 4- to 6-foot-long bridges were removed throughout the park. Their abutments were reworked into open culverts or drainage dips.
The most recent bridge constructed in the CCC large- scale style was built in 1999 on the Great Meadow Loop, a new connector trail between Bar Harbor and the park. This bridge was constructed using CCC pho- tographs as a guide and incorporates split log decking, round-side up, and handrails on each side. The fin- ished construction generated discussion as to whether the tread surface is too uneven. Original CCC bridges of similar design contained a gravel surfacing over the log decking, with curbrails on each side to keep the gravel in place, resulting in a smoother walking surface. This detail was not incorporated into the new bridge, and a few other items, such as bracing, differ from CCC work, but overall, the CCC character is retained in this modern addition to the trail system (Fig. 5-38).
Park crews constructed three bridges along the eastern shore of the Jordan Pond Path (#39) in 2000 and 2001. These are 4 feet 8 inches wide, with 4 inches of gravel surface over split cedar logs on stringers. At present, these are the only gravel-surfaced bridges in the park imitating this early 1900s feature.
The only remaining bridges from before the 1970s are several small gravel-surfaced bridges that are actually more like closed culverts than true bridges. Approxi- mately four of these are located on the Canon Brook Trail (#19). There are also a few on closed sections of Stratheden Path (#24) and on the Jordan Pond Carry Path (#38). These bridges are in extreme disrepair and are generally unnoticeable to casual hikers.
At present there are approximately 128 footbridges in the park, averaging 8 feet in length, for a total of about 1,000 linear feet.
TREATMENT FOR BRIDGES
1. Maintaining Character
Issue: There were various bridge styles used through- out the trails' historic periods. VIA/VIS styles adhered to the taste of individual builders. The CCC was more standardized, but also used various styles in differ- ent park locations. This makes replication of specific bridges open to conjecture.
Treatment Guidelines: Maintaining a variety of historically compatible bridge styles is essential to preserving the trail system's overall character. This can be accomplished by careful consideration when reha- bilitating an existing bridge, rebuilding a lost bridge, or adding a new bridge. In any of these situations, first determine what is the most significant period of construction for the individual trail, and then choose a bridge style that is compatible with this period. His- toric photographs and other documentation should be used for reference.
For example, a trail that primarily reflects VIA/VIS features should contain bridges built to be compat- ible with the VIA/VIS style. Generally these types of bridges will contain rustic construction materials and maintain a relatively delicate or graceful appearance, as seen currently seen in the Northeast Harbor VIS District and Jordan Pond Path (see Fig 5-26 & Fig. 5-39). On a CCC trail, bridges should generally have a heavier feel, with larger members and more substantial construction, particularly on the eastern side of MDI. The bridge recently constructed on the Great Meadow Loop is a good example (see Figs. 5-19 & 5-38). CCC bridges on the western side of MDI tended to be smaller in scale, and more similar to the VIA/VIS style. Examples of this can be seen in the extant (though extremely decayed) bridges at the former Cold Brook Fish Hatchery near the outlet of Long Pond, as well as in historic photographs of the many small CCC bridges constructed on the Long Pond Trail (#118) (Fig. 5-40).
In many cases, a particular trail may have histori- cally been worked on during more than one period of construction. Although every effort should be made
119
Acadia Trails Treatment plan
to determine which period is most significant for the trail, and the appropriate style chosen, it is permissible to have some cases where more than one bridge style is present on a trail, as long as each is compatible with the trail's overall character.
2. Use of Bridges
Issue: In some areas, structures such as culverts have been added to replace bridges. Likewise, a few bridges have been added to the system where stepping stones or other features traditionally may have been used. These alterations may affect the character of any given section of trail.
Treatment Guidelines: Careful consideration should be given when choosing a crossing type. Stepping stones, bogwalk, or closed culverts may be the more appropriate choice for a particular location, depend- ing on the individual trail history, as well as the current usage. Maintaining the historically appropriate cross- ing feature is preferred. However, if the surrounding
Fig. 5-39 Gravel-surfaced bridge on Jordan Pond Path (#39), constructed in 2001.
Fig. 5-40 This historic image shows an arched CCC corduroy bridge near the Cold Brook Fish Hatchery on the Great/Long Pond Trail (#118) soon after construction in 1935.
conditions have changed drastically, then a new com- patible crossing feature may be substituted.
For example, if a bridge was historically used at a stream crossing, then a bridge is the preferred choice for modern use. However, if the stream is no longer as large, or is dry for part of the year, then stepping stones or bogwalk may be considered as an alternative to a bridge. The choice will depend on what feature types are most compatible with the trail's historic character.
3. Durability
Issue: Durability and structural integrity of all bridges is a concern. In particular, the more "delicate" bridge styles are prone to maintenance problems and need frequent replacement. Primarily, this is due to smaller pieces decaying more rapidly or failing from repeated stresses. These bridges often cannot accommodate increased hiker traffic in high-use areas because of the increased frequency of use and weight loads.
Treatment Guidelines: In order to meet structural requirements and maintain bridge durability, historic styles may be adapted with the addition of modern materials. For example, steel stringers may be added to some large bridges that sustain consistent heavy loads. Abutments may be reinforced with steel or concrete as needed. Pressure-treated lumber may be used for decking, railings, or other bridge members that do not come in contact with the ground (reducing environmental concerns about leaching). Some bridge modifications may also be necessary due to higher levels of use, such as the addition of handrails or other safety features. Generally, modifications can be easily made to most bridge styles in an unobtrusive manner without sacrificing historic character.
4. Sills versus Abutments
Issue: Most bridges in Acadia have their stringers placed directly on sills rather than stronger, longer- lasting, non-rotting abutments.
Treatment Guidelines: Most bridges are small and light enough to be placed on log or rock sills. To main- tain the character of Acadia's bridges, this practice
120
Chapter 5: Crossings; B. Bridges
should be continued. However, abutments should be considered in certain instances. If the stability of the bank is in question from vegetation loss, soil scour, or a historically high rate of erosion, a durable abutment should be built. If the bank slopes back such that a long span is required, constructed abutments may shorten that span. When tread repair necessitates a higher stringer than possible on existing banks, abutments should be used. Abutments should also be used in places where there is an existing historical abutment. If the construction of abutments will greatly alter the character of a trail or area, they should be only be con- sidered as a secondary choice if absolutely necessary.
the importance of using local material to achieve a "harmonious medium of structural interpretation." He advocates for the use of wood and stone rather than steel or concrete.29
For the selection and design of timber bridges, Good recommends simplicity in construction so as to blend with the natural surroundings and the use of either round or squared timber. Bridges of an open wood- truss type are discouraged, as are the construction of unnecessary trusses. Finishing touches to the bridge are paramount. Furthermore, he suggests variety in bridge construction, "avoiding the commonplace at one extreme, and the fantastic on the other."30
SPECIFICATIONS FOR BRIDGES
1. Location
At Acadia, bridges are typically constructed over streams in high-use areas, in areas frequented by inex- perienced hikers, over streams where an unimpeded flow of water is required, where there is a sharp dip in grade, where there is a gap between ledges, or to solve erosion problems, for example at the banks of a stream or gully. New bridges are also regularly installed as replacements for existing bridges, as most cedar bridges have an average longevity of approximately twenty years. Not all stream crossings require the use of a bridge. Stepping stones, culverts, and causeways are additional options that should be considered.
The CCC guidelines state, "foot logs and foot bridges are not recommended except where the stream is sufficiently large to justify them." Fords and stepping stones are the preferred alternatives in these situations. For locating and constructing footbridges, the guide- lines suggest using any natural formation available to make the structure fit the surrounding area, and using existing boulders or formations as abutments.28
Albert Good states there should be a clear necessity for construction of a bridge. For example, the crossing of dry ravines or gullies may require a bridge only in an intensive use area. He cautions against the construc- tion of flimsy or overly ponderous bridges and stresses
2. Structural Materials
All wood should be decay-free, fresh-cut Northern white cedar. For all bridge structural components that are visible such as railings and railing posts, remove splinters and jagged or sharp edges, rough knots, and sharp chainsaw or axe cuts. Do not use CCA (chro- mated copper arsenate) pressure-treated wood on park bridge or rail structures. However, treated woods approved by the NPS Integrated Pest Management Office are allowable for bridge members that do not come in direct contact with soil. Pressure-treated members must be visually compatible with the chosen bridge style.
Nails and bolts should be galvanized (or comparable non-corrosive material). Nail sizes vary with the materials joined, from a minimum lOd nail for 1-inch- thick boards, to 10-inch spikes for logs in abutments and stringers. All lag or carriage bolts should be 3/8 inch diameter or larger. To prevent splitting wood, pre-drilled holes are suggested for nails and required for bolts.
3. Abutments (Figs. 5-41 & 5-42)
It is imperative the abutments do not impede stream flow. They shall be constructed on stable banks, above high water, and far enough from streamside so as not to erode underneath and be undermined. The height above the stream depends upon the stream itself. Usu- ally, one can gauge high water by observing bank side
121
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
ACAD NP-Baldyga/Slellpflug
Fig. 5-41 Detail of stone abutment angles and placement.
Saddle Notch
Square Cut
Fig. 5-42 Detail of saddle notches and square cuts. Two adjoining logs should be cut or saddle- notched and spiked together for strength and stability when constructing log abutments.
ACAD NP-Baldyga/Stellpflug
scour or debris piles, and following the lay of the land for that area. Also consider the known history of a particular stream.
Natural rock formations, including existing boulders and/or ledge rock, are appropriate for use as abut- ments. They are preferred because they involve no alteration of stream flow or banks. Boulders larger than 2 cubic feet in size per stringer can also be used. If stringers cannot securely rest on natural surfaces, they should be pinned to the ledge with 3/4-inch steel.
If natural formations are unavailable, stone abutments are the preferred choice. The stone used should reflect the stone type, color, texture, and scale of those lying naturally within the stream itself. When constructing stone abutments, Good recommends using "pro- nounced horizontal coursing, breaking of vertical joints," and a "variety in size of stones — all the prin- ciples productive of sound construction and pleasing appearance in any use of masonry."31
Stone abutments are constructed using the best accepted drywall masonry techniques. This incorpo- rates large footing stones with a 1-cubic-foot minimum size, headers, packing, and large top tier coping stones, again, at least 1 cubic foot in size. The top-tier rocks may be flush with the tread surface in order to main- tain even height from bridge decking to trail tread. The footing tier should be 12 to 18 inches below minimum water level, or to ledge, to prevent undermining, and ends should turn and be constructed in excavations in the stream banks. This will prevent scouring. The SCA manual recommends an angle of 35 degrees to the stream flow, upstream, and 45 degrees downstream.32 In some instances it will be possible to build abutments above stream flow entirely, constructing a simple wall sufficient to support stringers and retain tread. This is suggested only for areas with stable banks that are not actively eroding. The style of rock construction should reflect the characteristics of the surrounding trail features or era.
Stone abutments are superior to log abutments due to longevity. However, log abutments may be used if
122
Chapter 5: Crossings; B. Bridges
necessary. For log abutments, care should be taken to ensure no high water undermining or scouring, incorporating the same angles as in stone abutments. Use cedar logs, at least 8 inches in diameter, joined with saddle notches and spikes. Header logs need to extend at least 3 feet into the stream banks. A single sill laid well above stream flow, on a small, intermittent stream, may suffice as an abutment for a bridge under 4 feet long. See Chapter 6 for more information on constructing stone retaining walls.
4. Sills (Fig. 5-43)
Sills are the logs supporting the ends of bridge's string- ers. They are set perpendicular to the tread. They are a minimum of 8 inches in diameter, and buried at least two-thirds into the soil or bank sides. They should be approximately twice the width of the bridges. Not all bridges require sills, as stringers can be set directly upon stone or log abutments. Often, in place of sills, stringer ends can be placed on rocks larger enough to support their weight.
5. Stringers
Most bridges are sufficiently sturdy with two string- ers of at least 8 inches minimum diameter. For longer spans, stringers need to be 12 to 18 inches in diameter. Bridges over 4 feet wide and 6 feet long, where "five- quarter" lumber (1 inch thick) is used as decking, may require three stringers. When placing the stringers, lay them with the crown, or bow, facing up. Notch string- ers as little as possible, as this compromises strength; if needed, notch sills instead. Stringers should be placed on abutments, large single rocks, crushed stone, or sills. Do not place stringers directly on bare soil. If there is a chance of high water, stringers should be pinned to ledge or otherwise attached to abutments so as not to shift at high water or with ice flow.
6. Decking (Fig. 5-44)
For milled planks, use full-cut 2-inch-thick planks, a minimum of 8 inches wide. IPM-approved pressure- treated wood may be used for decking. Planks should extend equally to the outside of each stringer, between 6 to 8 inches maximum to the outside of stringer cen- terline. Limit spacing between decking boards to 1 inch
Twice the width of the bridge decking
ACAD NP-Baldyga/Stellpflug
Fig. 5-43 Detail of sill sizing.
-. Gap is " 1/4" to 1"
2" full- L. cut lumber
5/4" cut
5/4" wood requires maximum 16" span between supports
^t---. Min. 6" \l log
Min 3"- \t — ^diameter
Three 8" or greater stringers
KHO NP-Baldrga/Stellptlug
Fig. 5-44 Details of various decking options.
123
Acadia Trails treatment Plan
in remote trail areas, and to 34 to Vi inch in high-use areas. To date, Acadia crews have used nominal, 2-inch full-cut redwood recycled from other park projects, as well as pressure-treated and untreated lumber.
Five-quarter decking may be used to capture the characteristics of the "delicate" VIA/VIS bridges. This material is typically 1 inch thick by 5 Vi inches wide. It may be either cedar or a pressure-treated spruce or pine that has been approved by the NPS Integrated Pest Management Office. If five-quarter decking is used, a third stringer is required any time the span between stringers reaches 16 inches or greater.
For unmilled decking, use half-round cedar at least 6 inches in diameter, or full-round a minimum of 2 inches diameter. Though some original bridges prob- ably had full-round decking as thin as 1 to 1 Vi inches in diameter, this is far too thin for practical application. Two-inch-diameter wood is suggested for VIA/VIS
and smaller CCC bridges. For the sturdier-style CCC bridges, larger 4- to 6-inch-diameter wood is sug- gested.
Where decking runs perpendicular to tread, decking ends must be cut to uniform length. With milled plank decking, bridge treads must be smooth with an even height, to prevent hazard.
Gravel surfacing can be applied to bridge decking. The decking should be half-round or full-round cedar for VIA/VIS or CCC appearance. Cover decking with a very thin, woven geotextile blanket, to stop silting of gravel fines through cracks in bridge decking. Curbrail sides must be installed along the bridge to contain gravel. Maintain even tread continuity from bridge surface to trail tread surface. A minimum of 4 inches of gravel should be applied. Because of increased weight, surface should not exceed 5 inches thick. A gravel- surfaced bridge should use three very solid stringers
Rounded post tops
Notched post and butt joint
Post may be buried into soil
30"-36"
ACAD NP-Baldyga/Stelipflug
'Handrails are typically needed if the bridge is 30"-36" above the grade.
'Handrails should be at least 3" diameter
'Posts should be at least 5" diameter
'Handrails should be at 36"-38" above decking
'Top of posts should be 38"-42" above decking, extending 2"-4" above handrail
'Post should be securely anchored to the stringers, bedrock, or buried in the soil.
'Handrails should be securely attached to posts with notching, lap joints, and spikes or carriage bolts
'Diagonal bracing may be used for added stability, depending on bridge style.
Fig. 5-45 Detail of bridge handrails.
124
Chapter 5: Crossings; B. Bridges
of at least 8 inches diameter up to 8 feet long. Longer bridge spans require stringers of greater diameter.
Some original gravel-surfaced bridges used log decking running parallel with the tread. Poles of 4 to 6 inches diameter were laid parallel, sides touching, on sills or abutments, and covered with gravel. This style rarely exceeded 6 feet in length. To replicate this form of bridge, use poles a minimum of 6 inches diameter.
7. Curbrails and Handrails (Fig. 5-45)
Curbrails are low beams or logs, typically less than 3 inches diameter, affixed to the edge of bridge decking. They provide both a visual and physical barrier to keep the hiker from stepping off the edge of the bridge when no handrail is present. They can also be used to add support to bridge stringers and decking. Nevertheless, curbrails are rarely used with standard decked bridges, but they are a necessity for gravel-surfaced bridges. The curbrail constrains the gravel to the bridge tread surface. Typically, curbrails used for this purpose are not over 5 inches diameter, since the gravel surfacing should be no thicker than this due to weight concerns.
Handrails are the more common bridge feature used for visitor safely. They should always be used if the bridge is located in a high-visitor-use area, like Sieur de Monts Spring. In other locations, handrails should be considered whenever the bridge-to-base distance exceeds approximately 36 inches. However, the bridge style and location should always be taken into consid- eration when the need for handrails is addressed. In some cases a broader bridge may use curbrails in addi- tion to handrails.
Weak or poorly secured handrails can be hazardous. Handrails should be sturdy enough to support the weight of a group of hikers leaning against the hand- rail. Historically, VIA/VIS handrails were often less than 2 inches diameter. However, modern handrails should be a minimum 3 inches diameter, notched into posts, and located approximately 36 to 38 inches above the decking. Connecting railing sections need to be attached to the posts with lap joints. Rails can be held to posts with spikes, allowing at least 4 inches
of penetration into uprights. However, carriage bolts through the posts and rails are preferred. Pre-drilling of the holes is recommended. Rough knots should be smoothed and ends rounded to ensure there are no sharp edges or splinters.
Handrail posts should be a minimum of 5 inches diam- eter and not more than 10 feet long. Post tops should be approximately 38 to 42 inches above deck level. Diagonal knee or interior truss braces may be installed to eliminate excessive rail or post shimmy, depending on the bridge style. End posts that are placed in the ground should be buried 30 to 36 inches. If the end posts cannot be inserted into the ground, they should be pinned to ledge and/or solidly nailed or bolted to stringers with 3-inch or larger lag bolts or carriage bolts. Posts can also be set directly upon decking, using a curbrail as added support for the post bottom. Post tops should be rounded over or bevel cut to shed water and snow. Smooth rough knots and round ends to ensure there are no sharp edges or splinters.
8. Ramps and Approaches
Tread and deck should meet at level even grade if possible. If this is not possible, cribs or stepping stones must be built to bring the tread up to deck level. Grade to bridge level must not exceed twelve percent. This should provide for easy, user-friendly approaches. Ramps should aesthetically fit the landscape and the bridge style.
9. Site Cleanup
The construction site should be picked up during and after completion of the work. Silt fencing should be installed during construction for erosion and sedi- ment control around the stream. If on-site materials are used, gather them from far enough away so as not to leave scars. Carry in materials to the site whenever possible. Clean up and restore the area after construc- tion. If an old bridge is removed, always carry out pressure-treated material for proper disposal. Haul other planks, such as stringers, far away from the site, and scatter and hide debris so it is not seen from the trail. Take into consideration seasonal foliage changes when hiding debris. Cut material into small pieces.
125
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
Never leave metal hardware; remove it from the site and dispose of it properly.
10. Bridge Examples
To guide construction of bridges in the VIA/VIS or CCC styles, several sample bridges that were histori- cally present or are currently extant are described below. Information is provided on the location, set- ting, materials, construction methods, and modifica- tions addressing modern safety issues and structural improvements to accommodate higher use levels.
VIA/VIS bridges:
a. 1904 cedar bridge over Jordan Stream (#65)
b. Circa-1908 cedar bridge along the Seal Harbor Shore Path (#427)
c. Cedar bridge on the Maple Spring Trail (#58),
d. 1983 VIS-style bridge on the Jordan Pond Loop Trail (#39)
e. Bridge remains on the Maple Spring Trail (#58) and the Amphitheater Trail (#56)
f. Gravel-surfaced bridge on the Stratheden Path (#24)
g. VIA/VIS stone bridge
CCC bridges: h. Cold Brook Fish Hatchery area i. Long Pond Trail (#118) j. Great Meadow/Sieur de Monts area
VIA/VIS Bridges
a. 1904 cedar bridge over Jordan Stream (#65)
(see Fig. 5-22). A bridge was chosen instead of stepping stones or a stepstone culvert for this medium-flow, year-round stream. Apparently there were no abut- ments for the stringers. In all probability the stringers sat directly on large rocks or sills. Site examination would suggest the necessity of abutments for stream- side protection. The stringers appear to be 4-inch- by-6-inch planks, which are sufficient for this short span. Eight-inch-diameter logs would also suffice for this structure. The decking is apparently 1 inch thick and provides sufficient support; however, the random spacing between the decking is unsafe. Replacement decking should be spaced with 1 inch between boards.
The railing is approximately 2 inches diameter and attached to supported posts. A present-day substitute would require 3-inch-diameter material to meet safety and durability needs.
b. Circa-1908 cedar bridge along the Seal Harbor Shore Path (#427) (see Fig. 5-23). A trail reroute or cliffside railings could have dealt with the technologi- cal problems of surmounting this crevice. Choos- ing a bridge allowed the VIS to vary and showcase construction methods along their trail, maintain the continuity of the relatively straight path, and increase the dramatic effect of the crevice. The abutments were natural ledges, and the stringers were held in place with iron pins. Some of the original pins can still be found. The 10-inch-diameter stringers were supported by knee braces, located approximately one-third the distance from each end. On this long span, the braces compensate for sag in the stringers, and reduce lateral movement. Careful examination suggests some form of plank running along the top of the stringers, which appears unnecessary. In constructing a similar bridge, 2-inch-thick decking and 3-inch-diameter railings and bracing would be the minimum needed for visitor safety. The suggested width of this bridge would be
3 feet.
c. Cedar bridge on the Maple Spring Trail (#58) (see Fig. 5-24). A bridge was located over the year-round stream on the Maple Spring Trail (#58), although it is no longer extant and no replacement has been con- structed. Remains of this bridge were discovered along the stream in 2000, including stringers, decking, and handrail It is likely the bridge was built by the North- east Harbor VIS, or it may have been constructed by some other group or individual copying the VIS style. The stream is very difficult to cross during high-runoff times, and a bridge should be reestablished at this site to allow safe stream crossing and protect the stream- side resource. Evidence indicates the abutments for the original structure included a low rock wall on the western end, with the eastern end of the bridge pinned to existing boulders. This is sufficient, providing adequate clearance for high water and construction
to eliminate undermining and scouring of the abut-
126
Chapter 5: Crossings; B. Bridges
ment on the western end. The original 7-inch-diameter stringers would need to be replaced with a minimum of 8-inch-diameter logs for improved structural stabil- ity. The original decking was full-cut 2-inch-thick milled lumber with no spacing, but a XA inch minimum spacing is needed. The width of the tread was adequate at approximately 42 inches. The original handrail was only 1 M inches in diameter and would need to be upgraded to 3 inches at a minimum. It had a downward curve at the ends, and this feature should be main- tained if the handrail were reestablished. Four upright posts, 6 inches in diameter, supported the handrail with additional support provided by 1- to 2-inch-diam- eter outrigger bracing. The posts were of sufficient size, but the bracing would need to be increased to 3 inches diameter. Note the single railing on the downstream side.
d. 1983 VIS-style bridge on the Jordan Pond Loop Trail (#39) (Fig. 5-46). At the northern end of Jordan Pond, a VIS-style bridge was built in 1983. Differences between it and the original bridge are illustrated in the size of construction members, the height above the water, the length of approach, and the larger abutment piers.
length. Decking planks are laid across the logs, parallel with the tread.
The diagonal bracing above the deck was replicated. It helps give firmness to the walking surface, support the weight of the arch, and it also serves as a handrail. A minimum of 4 inches diameter is necessary for the bracing logs. Another interesting feature is under the tread. Again copied from the original, there is diago- nal bracing between the stringers to lessen any lateral movement of the bridge. This bracing is similar to the trusses under historic covered road bridges. Given that the original design element used in the construction of this bridge have lasted over forty years, any subsequent replacement should remain as true as possible to these historical precedents.
e. Bridge remains on the Maple Spring Trail (#58) and the Amphitheater Trail (#56) In the trails inven- tory conducted in the 1980s, Gary Stellpflug docu- mented the decaying remains of a bridge on Section 3 of the Maple Spring Trail (#58). There was also a smaller, similar bridge stored under the Amphitheater carriage road bridge, likely from the Amphitheater Trail (#56). Nothing remains of either bridge.
The log crib piers are 5 feet square on the outside, with logs a minimum of 5 inches diameter logs. The piers sit approximately 40 inches above the lake bottom. The original stringers were single curved logs. Each stringer of the present bridge is made of two logs connected with a scarf joint in the center. This is sufficient, as long as the diagonal truss braces are maintained. The string- ers rise 8 inches from pier to center, with a span from sleeper to sleeper of 19 feet 3 inches. The weight of the arch is held by three construction members acting in conjunction— upright center bracing, diagonal bracing, and the use of the piers to stop the outward thrust of the arch.
The original decking was of l-by-6-inch boards. At present the decking is full-cut 2-by-10-inch planks. The original method of decking was imitated. Stringers were topped with 2 K2-inch half-round logs, perpen- dicular to the tread, spaced evenly along the bridge
Presently there is no crossing feature where the original Maple Spring bridge was located, and the replacement of this feature is appropriate. The original structure was a 3-foot-wide corduroy bridge, decked with closely spaced, cedar full-round logs that were less than 2 inches diameter. The logs were laid
Fig. 5-46 This wooden bridge was constructed in 1983 by NPS crews on the Jordan Pond Loop Trail (#39) at the north end of the pond.
127
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
Fig. 5-47 A CCC worker rolls gravel tread on a corduroy bridge on the Stratheden Path (#24) in the 1930s. Notice the stone abutments, corduroy decking, and curbrails, common features on many of the gravel surfaced bridges.
Fig. 5-48 The Kane & Bridgham Memorial Bridge was constructed between 1926 and 1929 at the outlet of Lakewood in Bar Harbor. Designed by noted landscape architect and summer resident Beatrix Farrand, the bridge consisted of large stone slabs set on stone piers. Photograph circa 1932.
Fig. 5-49 A 1997 view of the Kane & Bridgham Memorial Bridge showing the remaining pieces of the bridge. Rising waters from beaver activity along with ice damage have taken their toll on this structure, and at times it is almost completely submerged.
perpendicular to the trail tread. It is interesting to note the decking difference with the previously described bridge, suggesting different-style bridges, even on the same trail.
The bridge on the Amphitheater Trail (#56) was also corduroy, decked with small cedar full-round logs. It was approximately 8 feet long, narrow, with distinctly curved stringers. These were under 6 inches thick, the bare minimum for structural stability.
These two bridges probably had the appearance of the arched and flat corduroy Northeast Harbor VIA bridges on Lower Hadlock Trail (#502) and the Asti- cou Brook Trail (#514), or the long corduroy bogwalk on the Upper Hadlock Pond Trail (#501). (See Figs. 5-3, 5-26, and 5-28)
f. Gravel-surfaced bridges on the Stratheden Path
(#24) (Fig. 5-47, also Fig. 5-1)
Excellent examples of gravel-surfaced cedar bridges were located on the Stratheden Path (#24). On one bridge, the rock wall abutments were built to a height to allow continuation of tread grade and width. The bridge had 8-inch-diameter stringers. Full-round 6- inch-diameter logs were placed perpendicular to the tread, very tightly spaced. The entire wooden surface was covered with gravel. These bridges rarely had handrails. A 6-inch-diameter curbrail ran the length of the bridge, in order to contain the gravel. These speci- fications were typical for other bridges of this type and are suitable for modern usage, with the addition of geotextile material underneath the gravel.
g. VIA/VIS Stone Bridge (Figs. 5-48 & 5-49). In the 1920s, landscape architect Beatrix Farrand designed a granite bridge for the outlet of Lake Wood. Con- structed between 1926 and 1929, the bridge consisted of granite block abutments and piers, topped with granite block decking and curbrails. Though col- lapsed, most of the bridge pieces remain, and it could be reconstructed using some of the original materi- als. If the bridge is rebuilt, further research should be conducted to locate the original design drawings and specifications. This is the only known bridge of this
128
Chapter 5: Crossings; B. Bridges
type located in the park, and because of its uniqueness, it would be inappropriate to reconstruct a bridge of this type in any other location.
CCC Cedar Bridges
As previously discussed, CCC bridges showed similar diversity to the VIA/VIS bridges and encompassed a wide variety of styles. Examples of the variety of CCC work included stocky structures in Great Meadow and Sieur de Monts, small gravel-surfaced bridges in the same area, planked bridges like ones near Long Pond, and a delicate curved stringer bridge on Cold Brook.
Three examples from Acadia are presented here, providing an introduction on how future bridge work based on the CCC style might be achieved. For a broader discussion of the general design parameters of CCC bridges, refer to Albert Good's Park & Recreation Structures, Part I: Administration and Basic Service Facilities, pages 175-200.
j. Great Meadow/Sieur de Monts area (see Figs. 5-18 & 5-38). As previously stated, CCC bridges on the eastern side of MDI were typically stockier than CCC bridges built on the western side of the island. In the Great Meadow/Sieur de Monts area, bridges typically had substantial stone abutments, stringers composed of larger logs (up to 12-inch-diameter), with large upright posts and railings (up to 8 inches diam- eter). These bridges were firmly trussed with outrigger bracing, even though the bridge span was less than 12 feet. The decking was approximately full or half-round logs approximately 5 inches in diameter. These were covered with a layer of gravel contiguous with the trail tread surface.
In 1999, a bridge based on this CCC style was added to the Great Meadow Loop. Using historic photographs as a design reference, the bridge was constructed with brawny railings, stringers, and trusses. Although the original bridges of this type often were gravel surfaced,
h. Cold Brook Fish Hatchery area (Fig. 5-50, also Figs. 5-16 & 5-40). A historic corduroy bridge in the former Cold Brook at the Fish Hatchery was less than 4 feet wide. The stringers were curved cedar logs, and the deck was full or round cedar approximately 4 inches in diameter. Several other small corduroy bridges were found in this area. Typically, railings were not used with these bridges.
i. Long Pond Trail (#118 ) (Fig. 5-51, also Fig. 5-37). Two pre-1970s bridges were documented in the 1980s on the Long Pond Trail (#118) and have since been replaced. The first bridge, across the Great Brook, had substantial log abutments, a width of 5 feet, and 2-inch-thick decking. A smaller bridge was only 4 feet wide and probably also had 2-inch decking. It was supported by small stones. By the 1970s, neither of these bridges had handrails, although handrails may have been an original feature. Gary Stellpflug remem- bers both of these bridges being extremely rotted and hazardous prior to their 1982 replacement. There is an assortment of other small bridges on this trail, many constructed over original CCC stone abutments.
Fig. 5-50 A recently reconstructed corduroy bridge at the Fish Hatchery was built in the style of historic bridges on Cold Brook.
Fig. 5-51 Small CCC corduroy bridge on the Great/Long Pond Trail (#118) in 1935. The delicate style, similar to earlier VIA/VIS work, complements the gravel tread and coping stones.
129
Acadia trails treatment Plan
the current structure is not. However, if this is desired, it could be accomplished with the addition of geotex- tile cloth covering, curbrails, and gravel.
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE
1. Inspect bridges for decay and structural integrity. The longevity of a bridge is generally less than twenty years, so a cyclic program of replacement must be established.
2. Check abutments and piers annually for shifting, failure, or decay.
3. Check treads for decay and raised nails.
4. Check railings, particularly smaller railings, for sturdiness, splinters, and raised nails.
5. Clean out dams and jammed logs below the bridge, on piers and abutments, and along surrounding banks.
6. Grade the approach tread to the bridge so that there is little transition from the tread to the bridge deck.
7. Routinely clean debris and organic material from the tread surface.
8. Grade and maintain gravel surfacing.
9. Drain the treadway so water does not run onto the bridge.
10. Replace sills as needed to save stringer ends.
11. When replacing planking and decking, replace all boards on the bridge at one time, as opposed to just replacing the rotten boards. Bridge compo- nents are usually evenly aged, and as some compo- nents begin to fail, the entire structure may need replacing.
Fig. 5-52 A stream crossing was a typical location for stepping stone use by the early VIA/VIS trail builders. Shown in circa 1916, the stones cross a shallow stream over the dam at the outlet of The Tarn. These stream-style stepping stones proved to be a more durable option than a bridge, as they are still extant nearly ninety years later.
130
Chapter 5: Crossings; C. Stepping Stones
C. STEPPING STONES
DEFINITIONS
Stepping stones are stones set in a single row, a step- ping distance apart. They provide an elevated walking surface for crossing streams and wet areas. Stones usu- ally have a flat upper surface, are comfortable for step- ping, and are gapped, allowing water to flow through. Stepping stones that are placed in combination with sidewalls or abutments are described as stepstone cul- verts in Chapter 4. Stones that abut or are more than one stone-width across are described as stone cause- ways in Chapter 3.
Stream-style stepping stones, used at stream cross- ings, are made up of large blocks set level to each
■- -'V
- <*#
'<:--
P*' ' .£&£.
- „• "'SB
*m
■ r-' ' '-
■■■- '^:"";.
Fig. 5-53 It is unknown whether these stepping stones on the Eagle Lake Trail (#42) are original VIA/VIS work, but they reflect the style of VIA/VIS stepping stones used in boggy areas.
other, in a straight or curving line, with regular, sub- stantial gaps between. Any blocking used to elevate or stabilize a stepstone is set completely underneath the step, to allow the free flow of water. The large stone size resists movement by ice and water. Usually these steps are uniform in size, rectilinear, often cut, and set to exacting standards. Most wide, shallow streams were crossed in this manner. Streams with steep banks were often bridged, and narrow streams were often crossed with culverts (Fig. 5-52).
Bog-style stepping stones are used to traverse low, wet areas with standing water. They are denned structurally by smaller, more irregularly shaped and set stones. These stones are usually elevated slightly by setting them into a causeway of crushed or piled stone. Because water need not pass quickly through them, smaller stones are often used to fill the spaces between the stepping stones, and sometimes two or more step- ping stones in a row abut. Examples can be found the Eagle Lake Trail (#42), the Jordan Pond Carry Path (#38), and the Canon Brook Trail (#19) (Fig. 5-53).
HISTORICAL USE AT ACADIA
Pre-VIA/VIS
There is no evidence that stepping stones were used prior to the VIA/VIS trail work at Acadia.
Village Improvement Associations/Societies
Stepping stones were first introduced to the trail system during the VIA/VIS period of the late 1800s to early 1900s. Typically, stepping stones were a primary choice by trail builders for crossing wet areas and they were used frequently on many VIA/VIS trails, including the memorial trails.
Both styles of stepping stones were used. Examples of bog-style stones can be found on several trails, includ- ing the Asticou Trail (#49), Gorham Mountain Trail (#4), and the Bowl Trail (#6), Canon Brook Trail (#19), and Eagle Lake Trail (#42). Additionally, many step- ping stones added during later periods closely resem- ble this style of VIA/VIS work (Figs. 5-54 to 5-57).
131
Acadia Trails treatment Plan
Fig. 5-54 Although these original VIS bog-style stepping stones on the Asticou Trail (#49) have settled into the ground, the irregularity of stone sizes can still be discerned.
Fig. 5-55 These VIA bog-style stepping stones are located on on the Gorham Mountain Trail (#4).
Stream-style VIA/VIS stepping stones include the more substantial stones used at wide, shallow stream crossings, where the flow of water is constant. They are defined by larger blocks of stone, which were often cut, and set to exacting standards. This style of stones appears to have been the first choice for stream crossings by the VIA/VIS. This style of stepping stone accounts for nearly all the stream crossings of this era, excluding crossings where the banks of the stream are particularly steep. (Bridges and culverts were the alter- natives used when stepping stones were not feasible.)
This style of stepping stone was used on many of the endowed and memorial paths. One outstanding example was constructed circa 1915 at the outlet of The Tarn on the Kane Path (#17). These stepping stones are still in relatively good condition, but as the water level has risen, the stones have become less exposed than they were historically. Several other examples of this style of stepping stone can still be seen throughout the trail system. There are several on the Asticou Trail (#49), where some stones remain in place and others have been dislodged over time. A set can also be seen on the Andrew Murray Young Path (#25), although some of these stones have settled below the water level of the stream (Figs. 5-58 to 5-65).
Civilian Conservation Corps
Stepping stones were rarely used on CCC-era trails, and there are few extant examples of work from this period. On the Flying Mountain Trail (#105), a series of sixty-eight stepping stones is extant at the northern end of the trail. According to Trails Foreman Gary Stellpflug, these stones predate the 1970s. However, their construction is inferior to other CCC work on the remainder of the trail, indicating they may or may not have been a part of the original construction. Most of these stepping stones have been overlaid with bogwalk by the NPS Trails Crew (Fig. 5-66).
One documented example of CCC-era stepping stones is located on the Ladder Trail (#64). During the 1930s, the lower part of the trail was reconstructed by the CCC under the direction of George Dorr. Part of the
132
Chapter 5: Crossings; C. Stepping Stones
Fig. 5-56 These bog-style stepping stones on the Bowl Trail (#6) may be original VIA work.
Fig. 5-57 These bog-style stepping stones on the Canon Brook Trail (#19) are in the VIA/VIS style, but it is not known if these are original trail features.
Fig. 5-58 Miss Cottoriet and Miss Grant stroll on the Tarn stepping stones near the entrance to the Kate Path a year or so after the the stones' installation in ca. 1916. The water level is down slightly, revealing the actual size of the stones.
133
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
work included the installation of stepping stones over a small stream near the trailhead (Figs. 5-67 to 5-69).
In both cases, the CCC work did not vary significantly from the earlier VIA/VIS styles of stepping stone construction. They relied on the precedents set forth by earlier trail builders when choosing the appropriate construction style for stepping stones.
NPS/Mission 66
No Mission 66-era stepping stones have been found in the trail system.
National Park Service
From the 1970s to the 1990s, stepping stones were often used as a stopgap measure to cross wet areas on trails of any era. Such sections were usually con- structed of small, often round stones, stuck in the mud, and are almost always easily distinguishable from any historical work. More recently in 2002, large bog-style stepping stones were installed on the Jordan Pond Loop Trail (#39) to replace a section of small, inef- fective stepping stones along the northern beach area (Figs. 5-70).
Fig. 5-59 A circa 1916 view of the VIA large-scale stepping stones across the Tarn outlet. Note the even curve of the layout, and that the stones are equal to the width of the trail.
Fig. 5-60 A contemporary view of the Tarn stepping stones, looking west toward trailhead of Kurt Diederich's Climb (#16).
HISTORICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Stepping stones were predominantly used during the VIA/VIS periods, where the two styles of stepping stone construction originated. The characteristics of all historic stepping stones at Acadia can be traced to this period. Some sets of stepping stones were added during later historic eras, but generally other features like raised tread, bridges, and bogwalk were relied on for crossing shal- low streams and wet areas. All later additions of stepping stones are based on the historic VIA/VIS styles.
Pre-VIA/VIS (pre-1890)
No evidence of stepping stone use has been found.
VIA/VIS Period (1890-1937)
Stepping stones were introduced to the system. Two styles were generally used, one for boggy areas and another for crossing wide, shallow streams.
CCC Period (1933-42)
Stepping stones were rarely used and no new styles were introduced. Raised tread was used to cross wet areas, and bridges and culverts were used to cross streams.
NPS/Mission 66 Period (1943-66)
Stepping stones were rarely used and no new styles were introduced. Raised tread and culverts were used to cross wet areas.
NPS Period (1967-1997)
Stepping stones were used sporadically to cross wet areas and streams. No historic precedent was followed in the style of stepping stone used.
134
Chapter 5: Crossings; C. Stepping Stones
|
f i] li f~ * mil I* t 1 \T \ . |
i * |
|
|
Mb ^*1 Sir '•'^ |
||
|
jH^^^T |
lik^L^LVv £fp~- ' - '4khM |
|
|
fH ■^^H ' AH |
' |
Fig. 5-61 This circa 1920 postcard view shows original stream-style stepping stones on the Asticou Trail (#49) crossing Harbor Brook. These stones probably date to the trail's improvements by the Northeast Harbor VIS and Seal Harbor VIS in the early 1900s.
Fig. 5-62 By the 1990s, the set of VIS stepping stones shown in the previous image had been dislodged and were no longer However, some of the stones were recovered from downstream and incorporated into piers and abutments for this recently Ideally, the bridge should be removed and the stepping stones reset as they were originally.
in place, built bridge.
135
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
Fig. 5-63 Another set of original VIS stream-style stepping stones at a crossing on the Asticou Trail (#49).
Fig. 5-64 This set of VIS stepping stones on the Asticou Trail (#49) is one of the longer sets on the trail. Originally, the stones likely spanned the entire stream, but now a recently built wooden bridge crosses the water channel.
Fig. 5-65 Some of the original VIA stream-style stepping stones at this stream crossing on the Andrew Murray Young Path (#25) have sunk below the water level.
Fig. 5-66 Stepping stones on the Flying Mountain Trail (#105) could be from the CCC period. Bogwalk has been installed over the narrow, ineffective stones.
136
Chapter 5: Crossings; C. Stepping Stones
Fig. 5-67 A 1930s CCC photograph of a set of stepping stones installed across a small stream near the Ladder Trail (#64) trailhead during the CCC rehabilitation of the trail.
Fig. 5-68 The CCC stepping stones on the Ladder Trail (#64) shown in Fig. 5-67 as they appear today.
Fig. 5-69 A side view of the CCC stepping stones shown in the previous two figures.
Fig. 5-70 Replacement bog-style stepping stones installed by NPS in 2002. Note the even curve, level, flat tops, and crushed rock.
137
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
TREATMENT
1. Use of Stepping Stones
Issue: The predominant use of stepping stones occurred during the VIA/VIS period. There is no his- torical precedent for their widespread use throughout the system during other historical periods. This may limit their contemporary use.
Treatment Guidelines: The use of stepping stones will be dictated by historic precedent. The style chosen will be based on whether the location of the crossing is over a stream or an intermittently wet area. Existing or collapsed stepping stones will be rebuilt or replaced in kind if they are original features, or are historically appropriate additions to the trail. New stepping stones may be added to historic trails when trail history, func- tion, and builder indicate they would have been used. However, because of the problems associated with stepping stones, in wet areas in which causeways are a viable solution they will be the first choice (see Chapter 3). Stepping stones will not be used on trails on which there is no historical precedent for their use.
2. Hiker Avoidance
Issue: Stepping stones are more difficult to walk on than either raised tread or bridges. Hikers tend to walk around stepping stones if the surrounding area becomes dry, or otherwise easily traversed. This causes trail widening and braiding.
Treatment Guidelines: To lessen hiker avoidance of stepping stones, stones should be as large and flat as historical precedent and available stone allow. They should be spaced no more than 1 foot apart. Obstacles such as dead logs and rocks should be used around the stepping stones to discourage hikers from veering from the trail.
3. Constricted Water Flow
Issue: Stream-style stepping stones can hinder the flow of water in the drainage path. If debris is not cleaned out regularly, they can become dams. Silt may also build up behind stepping stones if flow is particularly strong. In some cases, this may cause streams to erode
the banks on either side of the stepping stones, widen- ing or changing course.
Treatment Guidelines: In several areas, stream- style stepping stones must be cleaned annually and after severe rainstorms. In some cases, historic step- ping stones may not be maintainable. If a stream is constantly changing course around stepping stones, other solutions must be sought for a crossing, even in the case of historic work. A bridge may be needed to span the stream, or one or two stones may need to be removed and that shorter gap spanned by a small bridge. This alteration should only be made as a last resort, as it will substantially alter the historical charac- ter of the trail.
SPECIFICATIONS FOR STEPPING STONES
All stepping stones must be set below organic soil on a firm foundation of mineral soil or rock. For individual stones, a hole is dug the size of the stone until mineral soil or rock is reached. For several stones in a long run, the whole area is excavated at least a foot wider than the average stone width, and crushed rock is used as bed in the excavated area.
1. Stream-Style Stepping Stones (Fig. 5-71)
Since this style of stepping stone is intended primar- ily for stream crossings, there should be no more than fifteen stones in each run. Large, rectangular, cut or naturally shaped stones of similar size should be used. They should be a minimum of 2 cubic feet in volume: at least 12 inches wide, 18 inches long, and 8 inches deep. Stones should be set in a uniform line, with a level treadway, and equal spacing between stones, ideally 12 inches.
The stones are set directly into the streambed or upon other base stones to achieve the appropriate height. Blocking under stepping stones should be completely under the stone to allow for maximum water move- ment; water flows not only between the stepping stones, but also between the footings.
138
Chapter 5: Crossings; C. Stepping Stones
All stones are centered and flush at tops
Blocking is contained under stones
ACAD NP-Baldyga/Barter
Fig. 5-71 Stream-style stepping stones.
Stepping stones vary in size and shape
Usually built on rock causeway
Subgrade anchored well below surface
__ -
Fig. 5-72 Bog-style stepping stones.
139
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
2. Bog-Style Stepping Stones (Fig. 5-72)
As a rule, these stepping stones are constructed on top of a bed of stone rubble or mounded soil tall enough to lift the stones at least 12 inches above the terrain. The rubble base is constructed like the subgrade of a wall- less causeway and should extend at least 6 inches into the ground, farther if the ground is soft, and extend beyond the sides of the stepping stones.
These stones should vary in size and shape, both between sets and within the same set of stepping stones. Stones should have between 1 and 6 square feet of stepping surface. Steps are generally gapped at regular intervals, up to 12 inches. Some stones may abut. Though usually not uniform in stone size, the set of stepping stones should be laid out in a straight or uniformly curving line, maintain a level treadway with flat or nearly flat stone tops, and generally form a line that is uniform in width, varying from 1 to 3 feet. Since these stepping stones are intended to cross boggy or seasonally wet areas, the runs can be much longer than stepping stones intended for stream crossings. Some extant runs of these stepping stones are over 100 feet in length.
ENDNOTES
25 Bar Harbor VIA 1906 Annual Report.
26 Bar Harbor VIA 1902, 1904, 1906 Annual Reports.
27 Bar Harbor VIA 1926 Annual Report.
28 Guy B. Arthur, Civilian Conservation Corps Field Training: Construction of Trails (1937), 15.
29 Albert H. Good, Park and Recreation Structures (National Park Service, 1938), Part 1, 175-76.
30 Ibid.
31 Good, Part 1, 175-76.
32 Robert C. Birkby, Lightly on the Land: The SCA Trail-Building and Maintenance Manual (Seattle: The Mountaineers, 1996), 198.
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE
1. Check for loose, shifted, or sunken stones. Rebuild footings and reset steps as necessary.
2. Cut out excess vegetation that may impede the flow of water between stones or obscure stones.
3. Clean out leaf dams and built-up mud if necessary.
140
Fig. 6-1 Retaining features on this section of the Schiff Path (#15) include retaining walls and coping stones. These elements hold the tread and steps in place, and provide guidance for the hiker, perhaps preventing a misstep off the trail. Photograph circa 1920.
CHAPTER 6:
Retaining Structures
A. CHECKS
B. COPING STONES
C. RETAINING WALLS
D. LOG CRIBS
141
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
CHAPTER 6: RETAINING STRUCTURES
F
our types of retaining structures are used at Acadia as essential elements of trail construc- tion and maintenance.
A. Checks
B. Coping Stones
C. Retaining Walls
D. Log Cribs
Each of these features serves a different type of retain- ing function. Checks are built into the tread and are buried at tread height. They hold back the tread mate- rial, preventing erosion and/or gullying of the trail surface. Coping stones are stones set at the edge of a treadway. They may be the top course of a retaining wall, or they may serve some retaining functions them- selves (Fig. 6-1). Coping stones also serve to delineate the edge of a treadway and guide hikers, as well as hav- ing aesthetic value. Retaining walls typically hold back soil on the uphill side of the trail, or retain the tread itself when used downslope of the trail corridor. They are often used with bench construction.
Note: Nearly all historic features on Acadia's trails are built of stone. Generally, stone is the most appropri- ate material to use in construction of new features or rehabilitation of existing features. However, in some cases log structures, including log checks and log cribs, may be used. For instructions on how to determine when log work is appropriate, see the last section of this chapter.
A. CHECKS
DEFINITION
Checks are rows of stones used to retain the treadway from moving in the direction of the trail on graded slopes. They are often used to rehabilitate an eroded area where the original trail surface has washed away and a gully has formed. The rows of stones are set perpendicular to the trail with high contact between them. The checks are backfilled with rubble and then covered with a top coat of tread material, or left exposed at the top. To prevent failure of the checks due to continued erosion or a lack of maintenance, the bottom of each check stone is placed at an eleva- tion below the top elevation of the preceding downhill row of check stones. The checks act as "hidden steps" underneath the tread surface, holding back, or "check- ing" the uphill fill material. In worst-case scenarios where tread material wears away and is not replaced, checks hold the remaining treadway in a series of flat terraces (Figs. 6-2 & 6-3).
Note: Log checks may be used in certain situations; however, these are usually constructed as log cribs and will be discussed in the last section of this chapter.
Fig. 6-2 Although a standard feature in other trail systems, particularly in the Western parks, checks have only been used at Acadia since 1995 when these were first installed on the Ocean Path (#3). The slope at this location is approximately 15 percent, and after five years there has been a loss of approximately 3 inches of tread material.
142
Chapter 6: retaining structures; A. Checks
HISTORICAL USE OF CHECKS AT ACADIA
The use of checks is a relatively recent introduction to the trail system and was not traditionally used during the VIA/VIS, CCC, or Mission 66 eras.
Historically, sections of woodland, oceanside, and summit trails built by the VIA/VIS and CCC were gravel surfaced, winding up and down gentle slopes. Many of these trails were located in areas where runoff was a continued problem, and often the trail itself was the only place for the water to travel. In the early days of relatively light trail use, there were fewer erosion problems, and gullies that did form were often left untreated. The native gravel tread remains on flat or very dry sections of trail without the need for retention features. Growing park visitation led to an increase in trail usage. The additional foot traffic resulted in a looser tread that was more susceptible to erosion. At the same time, a decrease in the maintenance of drain- age features was a major contributor to greater erosion of many of the trails, resulting in increased gullying and rutting. In an effort to curb the erosion problem, the use of stabilization methods, like log cribbing and log checks, was introduced to the trail system. The most recent feature added to mitigate the problem are stone checks.
TREATMENT FOR CHECKS
1. Trail Erosion
Issue: With current heavy trail use, inadequately installed or maintained drainage, and poorly placed or designed trails, sloped sections become increas- ingly unstable and susceptible to erosion. If left "unchecked," sloped tread can eventually become an eroding gully.
Treatment Guidelines: Although checks are not a construction method used during the pre-VIA/VIS, VIA/VIS, CCC, or Mission 66 periods, they are a rec- ommended addition to the trail system. With proper use and maintenance, stone checks are an effective trail feature for use in restoring and maintaining the
Fig. 6-3 This section of the Beech Mountain Loop Trail (#113) is a perfect candidate for the use of checks to reverse ongoing erosion and tread loss.
HISTORICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF CHECKS
Pre-VIA/VIS (pre-1890)
It is probable that no tread stabilization was needed due to relatively light use of trails and well-maintained drainage features. Tread stabilization was not incorporated into the design of gently sloped trails.
VIA/VIS Period (1890-1937)
Checks were not incorporated into the design of sloped trails.
CCC Period (1933-42)
Checks were not incorporated into the design of sloped trails.
NPS/Mission 66 Period (1943-66)
Checks were not incorporated into the design of sloped trails.
NPS Period (1967-1997)
Stone checks were introduced as increased use of trails and lack of maintenance of drainage features required extensive tread stabilization with retention features.
143
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
tread surface at its original grade, thereby preserving the historical appearance of the tread. Ideally, checks should be used on any grade greater than five percent on which a smooth, surfaced treadway is desirable; they can also be used with local fill material to restore gullies on any trail, including unconstructed tread.
SPECIFICATIONS FOR CHECKS (FIG. 6-4)
Checks are used to stabilize sloped sections of trail that have eroded or have the potential to gully. The use of checks, cribbing, or steps is especially important on trail grades when it is not possible to shed water from the trail surface through the use of drainage structures, like water dips or water bars. Checks may also be an option when it is desirable to maintain a continuous sloping surface without steps.
Checks can be considered a method of tread stabili- zation for grades of less than 20 percent. For greater grades and in areas where it is not critical to maintain an even slope, consider using steps or terraced steps as an alternative (see Chapter 7).
To determine placement of the checks, set a string line from the bottom of the slope to the top. This estab- lishes the uniform height to which the top of all checks will be set. Check stones will be set in rows across the treadway and extend into the embankment on each side of the trail a minimum of 8 inches. If there is no embankment, a retaining wall or a living berm (such as for "wall-less causeway") should be constructed to lock the checks to each other and to retain the tread. The top of the finished check should be a level, flat surface with contact between each stone within Vi inch of the check's top, and toward the front of the check. The top of the finished check should be level with and perpendicular to the grade string at that place in the trail.
Checks should be placed evenly along the trail accord- ing to the slope. The frequency of checks is deter- mined by the desired height of the risers that will result when the material has eroded to level behind each check. Each riser should be no more than 8 inches. The number of checks is determined by figuring the overall rise of a section of trail and dividing by the desired riser height. Distance between checks is determined
Typical gully before checks
Rocks set header-style
Contact is high
and tight
(within 1" of
surface)
Checks extend 1' min beyond treadway into bank or wall
ACAD NP-Baldyga/Bailer
Fig. 6-4 Details for the installation of checks
144
Chapter 6: retaining structures; A. Checks
by dividing the overall length of a trail piece by the number of checks to be constructed.
For instance, if a 6-inch rise (typical size) is desired on a 64-foot section of trail with an overall rise of 8 feet (96 inches), then to determine the number of checks, divide 96 inches by 6 inches, which equals sixteen checks. The distance between the checks will be the length of the section (64 feet) divided by the number of checks (sixteen), or 4 feet.
In all cases the bottoms of check stones shall be deep enough that they are firmly set into the ground and will not become exposed. The elevation at the bottom of a row of checks will usually be six to 8 inches lower than the top of the previous downslope row of checks. This will ensure that when erosion of the tread material occurs, the checks will not be undermined and the fill will continue to be held in place.
The ideal orientation of the stone is header-style, but cake setting may be used, and even toast if half or more of the stone is buried beneath the height of the next
lower check. High contact should be within 1/4 inch of the trail surface if a smooth gravel surface is desired, and within 1 inch in woodland settings; contact else- where between stones is not necessary. Lower gaps between stones are blocked, and checks are blocked and crushed firmly into place from both sides. The row of check rocks should be firmly squeezed toward the center from both ends, either by wedge rocks jammed between the end rocks and existing earth or rocks, or by large rocks (2 cubic feet or more) set deep in the ground at the edges of the checks, such as on the downhill side of a bench.
After checks are set, backfill on the upslope side with stone rubble to fill in the eroded trail section. Finally, cover the top of the rubble and checks with tread material.
Figures 6-5 to 6-8 show the installation process for checks and rehabilitation of an eroded tread on the Ocean Path (#3). The eroded tread is excavated to allow installation of the checks. A retaining wall is constructed, and the checks are installed with tight and
Fig. 6-5 Eroded trail section on the Ocean Path (#3) before check Fig. 6-6 Checks, wall, and rubble infill in place,
installation.
145
Acadia Trails treatment Plan
high contact points, at the original grade. The checks are backfilled with rubble, and the tread surfacing is installed to cover the checks and establish the desired new grade.
As shown in Figures 6-9 & 6-10 after approximately three years of use, the checks on the Ocean Path (#3) are becoming exposed as the gravel begins to wear away from the surface of the trail. Eventually, if left alone, this situation will create a series of terraced
steps along the trail. This may be avoided by a periodic application of gravel on the trail's surface to cover the checks and maintain the grade. However, even if this maintenance is not performed, these features will continue to serve their intended function of prevent- ing gullying, since material will erode no lower than to level with the check retaining it and the check stones, being locked in behind each other (if well built), can- not work out of place.
Fig. 6-7 Checks, wall, and rubble infill in place.
Fig. 6-8 Rehabilitated section of the Ocean Path (#3) with new tread.
Fig. 6-9 The Ocean Path (#3) rehabilitation, approximately three years after completion.
Fig. 6-10 After approximately three years, there is slight erosion of the tread, but no gullying is present on the Ocean Path (#3).
146
Chapter 6: retaining structures; B. Coping Stones
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE
B. COPING STONES
Without cyclic maintenance, including the replace- ment of lost surface material, trail surface erosion will eventually make "terrace steps" out of a section of trail that has been checked. However, if they are installed properly as described above, the checks will continue to retain the subsurface infill and maintain the integ- rity of the tread. If checks are spaced correctly, the experience of walking a gently sloping path will still be maintained on the terraced slope, unlike a section of trail with a staircase.
Routine maintenance tasks include:
DEFINITIONS
Coping stones are set along the edge of a treadway and protrude above the height of the tread surface. These stones may be laid on the top course of a wall or set partially into the ground. Coping stones are usually gapped, but sometimes abut. Coping defines the edge or edges of the tread, provides guidance to hikers, assists the integrity of retaining walls, and in some cases supports tread material, stone paving, or steps (Fig. 6-11).
1. Make sure checks remain firmly set into the trail.
2. Prevent "terracing" of the trail by adding a top- dressing of tread material over the checks as they become exposed from erosion of tread.
3. If the tread is eroding too quickly, or checks are not holding subsurface fill, reevaluate whether the slope may be too steep for use of checks and implement other options, such as terracing or steps.
Coping wall refers to any section of coping stones near or touching each other.
Piled coping is the same as scree (see Chapter 9, Section E).
Laid coping is a laid wall built along the trail above the level of the tread. Laid coping is similar to a stone fence (Fig. 6-12).
Fig. 6-11 Large and medium-sized coping stones defining the edges of the Stratheden Path (#24), circa 1920s.
147
Acadia Trails treatment plan
Coping retaining wall refers to a coping wall that aids in the retention of the tread material, holding the tread higher than the ground on the other side of the coping. A coping retaining wall may retain gravel, stone pave- ment, or soil (Fig. 6-13).
Note: The term "coping stones" is not typically applied to hiking trail systems. However, at Acadia there is extensive coping on some of the highly crafted trails that closely resembles the coping stone work used on the island's carriage road system. In some locations, it is likely that the stonework was carried out by the same crews, particularly where the trail and carriage road systems connect.
Fig. 6-12 Laid coping wall on the Perpendicular Trail (#119).
HISTORICAL USE OF COPING STONES AT ACADIA
Pre-VIA/VIS
Prior to the VIA/VIS path work, coping stones were used along roads to help guide horses and to keep breakaway carriages on the road. It is likely that its presence then served as the model for the use of cop- ing on the trail system. However, there is no evidence that coping appeared on the trail system until the 1890s.
Village Improvement Associations/Societies
The VIA/VIS used coping stones for both guidance and retention. Early in the period, stones tended to be uncut, varied greatly in size, and were set at irregular intervals. With the creation of the memorial trails, trail work in general became more highly crafted and cop- ing stones were more likely to be cut, uniform in size, and evenly spaced. However, there appears to be little consistency in the construction of these features and coping style often varied between VIA/VIS districts, builders, and differing terrain. Often a single stretch
Fig. 6-13 This section of coping retaining wall has larger coping stones atop a relatively small wall on the Asticou Trail (#49).
Fig. 6-14 This coping along ledge on the Upper Ladder Trail (#334) was likely constructed by Bar Harbor VIA in the late 1800s.
148
Chapter 6: retaining structures; B. Coping Stones
of coping wall might change from coping stones for guidance only, to coping retaining wall, to piled coping (scree).
Many of the staircases built by the VIA/VIS contain remarkable use of coping retaining wall. On the Upper Ladder Trail (#334), built circa 1896, coping retain- ing wall, with stones as tall as 3 feet, are set on ledge to retain steps, which are small in comparison (Fig. 6-14). Some of the coping stones are cut blocks. These may have been added by the CCC when the trail was improved in the 1930s. Smaller, less crafted coping was used with stairs on many other trails, including the lower portion of the Penobscot Mountain Trail (#47), which was improved in 1919, and the Asticou Trail (#49), improved in the 1890s and thereafter.
However, many staircases of the era, including some which are otherwise highly crafted, were built with- out coping. For example, many trails built under the direction of Waldron Bates had steps but no cop- ing, including the lower Eagles Crag Trail (#343), the Gorham/Cadillac Cliffs Trail (#5), and the Giant Slide
Fig. 6-15 A 1906 image of steps constructed without sidewall or coping stones on the Giant Slide Trail (#63).
Trail (#63) (Fig. 6-15). Similarly, trails built under the direction of Rudolph Brunnow in the 1910s on the east side of Champlain Mountain, such as the Preci- pice Trail (#11) and the Beehive Trail (#7), and several Northeast Harbor trails, such as the Maple Springs Trail (#58) and Hadlock Brook Trail (#57), do not use coping at all.
Nearly all the graveled paths were built with some coping. Stones pulled from the treadway to level the walking surface could be simply placed nearby in the coping wall. This technique was also used to cre- ate historical scree and on some paths, coping wall alternates with scree. On most trails the appearance of coping wall is directly correlated to the amount and type of stones in the landscape, such as on the Asticou Trail (#49), which travels through ledge and woods. Stones were used as coping retaining wall to retain the stone base and gravel surface. The effectiveness of these walls depends largely on the size and number of gaps between the stones; the more gaps, the less that is retained. A comparison of areas of coping retaining wall on the Jordan Pond Path (#39) bears this out. One of the most successful sections of coping retaining wall on a graveled path is on the Wild Gardens Path (#354), where continuous coping stones up to 5 feet long and 3 feet high retain a bench of crushed stone base and gravel paving.
The memorial trails constructed under the direction of George Dorr present the most remarkable use of coping with steps and stone pavement, though some contain no coping. The Kane Path (#17) and Kurt Diederich's Climb (#16), both begun in circa 1913, avoid coping even when the routes lead them through stone talus with suitable stones surrounding the tread- way. The Homans Path (#349), also begun in 1913, and subsequent Beachcroft (#13), Emery (#15), and Schiff Paths (#15), used coping extensively (Figs. 6-16 & 6-17, also Fig. 6-1). There was also inconsistent use of coping on graveled paths built under the direction of Dorr in the Sieur de Monts area. The Stratheden Path uses coping extensively, while the Jesup Path has none. Similarly, the Gurnee Path (#352) and Andrew Murray Young Path (#25), both completed in the 1920s, use
149
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
coping sporadically (Fig. 6-18). In the Seal Harbor VIS district, the Van Santvoord Trail (#450), completed in 1915, used coping only with its steps.
In general, the look of the coping reflects the look of the steps and walls on a particular trail. It is logical
Fig. 6-16 Large coping stones are used along the lower section of the Beachcroft Path (#13) to help define the trail sides.
that the largest coping stones and most highly crafted coping walls in the system were constructed during the same era. The coping stones on the Emery Path (#15) and the Homans Path (#349), which used large, cut stones for steps, walls and culverts, are prime exam- ples. The coping wall on these trails is constructed of large, rectilinear stones set at evenly spaced intervals. While the Beachcroft Path (#13) coping is generally medium-sized, the huge blocks at its base, up to 18 cubic feet, are also among the largest in the system, probably set there to discourage the cutting of switch- backs. Interestingly, the coping on this particular trail is set the most like a carriage road — deliberately and evenly spaced. Perhaps the 1926 date of this work, which was at the same time as much of the carriage road work, is a clue here. In keeping with the principle of similarity, the differently sized and shaped, uncut coping stones of the Gurnee Path (#352) are in keeping with walls built of the same type of stone.
Fig. 6-17 Evenly spaced coping stones on the Beachcroft Path (#13).
Fig. 6-18 Coping stones are used sparingly on the Andrew Murray Young Path (#25). Here they are used in conjunction with stone pavement.
150
Chapter 6: retaining structures; B. Coping Stones
Civilian Conservation Corps
As in the VIA/VIS period, the decision to use of coping by the CCC was determined on a site-specific basis. On CCC summit trails built in the 1930s, coping is used extensively with steps on the Perpendicular Trail (#119), but not on the Beech Cliff Ladder Trail (#106) (Figs. 6-19 & 6-20). Coping was also used on sections of the Valley Trail (#116) and the beginning of the Beech Mountain Loop Trail (#113) (Fig. 6-21). Of the
Fig. 6-19 The CCC regularly used coping stones along stairways on the Perpendicular Trail (#119). They serve several purposes, including adding structural stability to the staircase and providing a definitive boundary for the trail edges.
Fig. 6-21 Large coping stones marking a section of the Beech Mountain Loop Trail (#113).
Fig. 6-20 Coping stones define the edge of the this small CCC staircase on the Perpendicular Trail (#119), circa 1934.
151
Acadia Trails treatment Plan
graveled shoreline paths, the CCC work on the Ocean Path (#3) has the most extensive use of coping. Along different segments of the trail, coping stones were installed on the roadside as the trail parallels Ocean Drive, or on the ocean side of the trail (Figs. 6-22 & 6-23). In contrast, the Long Pond Trail (#118) has almost no coping on the mile and a half section of smooth gravel walkway along the pond. The CCC also added coping to earlier VIA trails. For example, they rebuilt the Ladder Trail (#64) and added coping.
The CCC likely used the memorial trail work as a model for their coping style. CCC coping closely resembles the stonework on these earlier trails. Cut regular stairs, wall, and walkway are paired with cut, regularly spaced coping, such as on the Perpendicular Trail (#119). Similarly, uncut, natural stonework is paired with natural, more irregularly spaced coping, such as on the Valley Trail (#116). The Perpendicular
Trail (#119) also contains laid coping wall on its steep, switchback sections. This may be the only example of laid coping in the trail system.
NPS/Mission 66
Mission 66 crews used coping in places, mainly along the outside edges of bench cuts, but not in every such case. A segment of trail along the Ship Harbor Nature Trail (#127) has sporadic coping. Some of this is comprised of large, discrete stones; some of unattractive, low coping retaining wall that may have once held some gravel. A 6-foot-high retaining wall on the Anemone Cave Trail (#369) is topped with large, attractive, continuous coping.
National Park Service
Since the early 1970s, NPS crews have replaced toppled coping with original or similar stones on some trails, such as the Beachcroft Path (#13) and the Ocean
Fig. 6-22 Coping stones newly installed by the CCC and Rockefeller's road crew between Ocean Drive and the Ocean Path (#3), circa 1934.
Fig. 6-23 Coping stones were also installed between the Ocean Path (#3) and the shoreline, photograph circa 1934.
152
Chapter 6: retaining structures; B. Coping Stones
Path (#3). They have also added coping to some trails, including those just named, on which coping was already present. Additionally, coping was added to nearly all new staircases, even where it did not exist historically, such as on the Precipice Trail (#11).
Scree was introduced by the AMC in the early and mid-1990s. Scree filled the role previously assigned to coping stones and many trails with and without historical coping were treated with scree (see Chapter 9, Section E).
TREATMENT FOR COPING STONES
1. Maintaining Character
Issue: The addition of coping stones to highly crafted trails may alter the trails' historic character if there is no precedent for coping stone use on those trails.
Treatment Guidelines: Coping will not be added to a highly crafted trail without historic precedent. Before the decision to add coping is made, other options should be considered for providing the needed guid- ance or retention for the trail.
HISTORICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF COPING STONES
Pre-VIA/VIS (pre-1890)
Coping stones were used occasionally on area roads.
VIA/VIS Period (1890-1937)
There was extensive, but inconsistent, use of coping. Coping was used along steps, gravel, and stone paving to guide and retain, but there were many examples of all these features without coping. Coping stones were typi- cally similar to other stonework on the same trail in terms of being either cut or uncut, of regular or irregular size, shape, and spacing. The most spectacular coping in the system appeared on some of the memorial trails late in the period.
CCC Period (1933-42)
There was extensive, yet inconsistent, use of coping. Stones were nearly always used with steps, sometimes with gravel tread. Laid coping wall was first used on the Perpendicular Trail (#119). Coping stones were typically similar to other stonework on the same trail — i.e., cut or uncut, regular or irregular size and spacing.
NPS/Mission 66 Period (1943-66)
There was occasional use of coping along bench cuts with stones resembling other stonework on same trail.
NPS Period (1967-1997)
There was some repair of toppled coping stones, and some new coping constructed on suitable trails. Coping was incorporated into all new staircases, regardless of precedent. Scree was introduced and used instead of cop- ing on several trails, including those originally constructed using coping.
2. Use of Coping Stones at Summits
Issue: On the summits, guidance measures like coping stone or scree are needed to prevent resource degrada- tion. However, there is no historic precedent for the use of coping stones on Acadia's summits.
Treatment Guidelines: To provide guidance, indi- vidual coping stones may be placed in key summit areas along unconstructed, or minimally constructed treadway. Stones should appear as natural as possible. They should be spaced unevenly, with at least 10 feet between individual stones or groupings of three stones or less, and the stones should be uncut and resemble stone from the area.
3. Use of Coping Stones with Staircases
Issue: The use of coping along stone steps helps keep steps from slipping by providing weight and friction, and by holding blocking in place underneath steps. Smaller slab-laid steps can benefit greatly from well- laid coping wall. Also, stone steps are a common place for hiker wandering off trail, as many hikers prefer the graded ground nearby to the steps. Coping walls dis- courage this wandering. However, many historic trails did not have coping walls constructed in conjunction with steps.
Treatment Guidelines: Coping will not be added to historical staircases originally constructed without it. Other methods will be found to support vulnerable slab-laid steps, such as rebuilding the supporting wall. For steps set in the ground, wall similar to coping may
153
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
be brought up to the sides to hold them in place, but may not protrude above the height of the steps. If such wall is out of character, it should be buried with soil. Concealed ironwork may be used to support steps or staircases that are susceptible to collapsing. This use should be carefully documented.
4. Coping Stones versus Scree
Issue: Hikers wandering off the trail route and the resulting resource damage are significant reasons to define treadway edges. Coping stones and scree are two options for this; however, unlike scree, coping stones were used extensively during the historic peri- ods. Scree may be more effective in completely defin- ing the trail edges, thereby keeping hikers on the path, yet it also alters the aesthetic character of the trail.
Treatment Guidelines: For areas where resource damage from trampling is likely, such as mountain summits, coping stones are the preferred alternative for defining the trail edges. However, scree may be considered in certain cases where coping or other options are not successful (see Chapter 9, Section E).
5. Trail Erosion
Issue: Because coping wall, by definition, is higher than the treadway, in many instances it can act as a barrier, keeping water from sheeting across the trail. This is a particular problem on bench cuts where the trail has a grade. A large volume of sheet water is trapped in the treadway and uses it as a drainage course, eroding the trail and creating a gully. This problem can be seen on many trails, including the Stratheden Path (#24), the Pond Trail (#20) and the Valley Trail (#116). Because there are no gaps at all to allow water through, con- tinuous coping is the most problematic wall type.
Treatment Guidelines: In most cases, adequate drain- age can be achieved without removing coping stones. Gaps between coping stones can be used as drains. Where coping wall is continuous, often drainage paths can still be constructed underneath coping stones. In many cases, the solution is to restore the height of the treadway, such that water sheets over lower stones in a coping wall. However, in those cases in which none
of the above is possible, and drainage is needed to preserve the integrity of a treadway, individual coping stones can be moved or removed to provide drainage passages. In such cases, the same stone, or a different stone, should be set in its place such that its top is flush with the treadway. In most cases, removed portions of a wall should be no longer than a single stone.
SPECIFICATIONS FOR COPING STONES
There are four general requirements that all coping must meet.
1. Coping stones must rise above the level of the treadway in order to be coping. If the historical work being reconstructed or imitated does not fulfill this requirement, it is not coping and should not be repaired as such.
2. Coping stones must be at the border of the tread- way, such that the inside edge of the stone corre- sponds to the outside edge of the treadway.
3. New or repaired coping must resemble the other coping of a given trail or trail section in regards to size of stone, shape of stone, whether stone is cut or uncut, type of stone, frequency of placement of individual stones, and type of coping wall. Because the character of coping is so trail-specific, crucial specifications for the construction of coping will be developed on a trail-by-trail basis in the indi- vidual trails section of this document.
4. Coping stones must be solid, so that they do not move when kicked, pushed, or stood upon.
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE
1. Check for gaps in coping walls and reset any tumbled coping stones. Replace missing coping stones according to specifications above.
2. In places crucial for the maintenance of trail drain- age, keep gaps between coping stones open down to the level of the treadway or floor of the drainage leading to them.
154
Chapter 6: retaining structures; C. Retaining Walls
C. RETAINING WALLS
DEFINITIONS
A retaining wall is any wall that holds one portion of ground higher than another. On a trail, a retaining wall may retain the treadway itself or the ground on the uphill side of the treadway. Retaining walls are used to retain a side slope that is too steep to be stable without retention. In general, retaining walls are found only on highly crafted trails on which they are used to maintain a specific grade or trail alignment.
Stone retaining walls in which stones sit on top of each other may be laid, rubble, fitted, piled, or some com- bination of these. Retaining walls in which stones are laid in a single row are called "single-tier walls." A new technique in use at Acadia is a combination of retain- ing wall and sloped crushed rock, called "crush wall."
A laid wall contains stones set beside and on top of one another to create a vertical or substantially vertical face (Fig. 6-24). The construction of laid walls uses established dry-laid stonework methods like maintain- ing tight contacts between stones, breaking the joints, and filling the core of the wall. The face of a laid wall may be smooth or rough. A laid wall with the stones set in even, horizontal rows is called a tiered wall. Laid walls are the strongest and most durable retaining walls, but also the most difficult to build properly.
A rubble wall uses stones that are set less carefully than in a laid wall. The joints in a rubble wall are not always broken and the face is irregular and contains gaps. A rubble wall depends on large stones and shal- low batter for durability (Figs. 6-25 & 6-26). Batter is the slope, or relationship of rise to run in the face of a wall. A wall that rises 2 feet tall and slopes back 1 foot from its foundation has a 2:1 batter. The steepest batter is vertical, whereas a very shallow-batter rubble wall
Fig. 6-24 A recently constructed laid retaining wall on the Ocean Path (#3) at Otter Point.
Fig. 6-25 An original rubble-laid retaining wall on the abandoned Gurnee Path (#352).
155
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
Fig. 6-26 The remains of an early VIA/VIS stone rubble retaining wall on the lower Eagles Crag Trail (#343).
Fig. 6-27 This circa-1890 image of the Shore Path in Bar Harbor (#301) shows the early use of both sidewall and laid retaining walls.
is 1:1, in which the face is a 45-degree angle from the vertical.
A fitted wall is a rubble wall constructed of stones that are simply fit into spaces left by existing stones in a talus slope.
A piled wall is the least structured retaining wall. It consists of a row or group of randomly piled stones that retain material. Piled walls depend on very shallow batter to maintain their position and are usually less than 3 feet tall to avoid collapse.
A stone retaining wall with a single tier of stones may be either a sidewall or a coping retaining wall; either of these may be referred to as single-tier wall.
A sidewall is a low, single-tier retaining wall that retains a gravel treadway. It is the type of wall used in conjunction with causeways (see Chapter 3, Section B) (Figs. 6-27 & 6-28).
Fig. 6-28 CCC side wall on the Long/Great Pond Trail (#118).
Fig. 6-29 A coping retaining wall and checks along a section of the Ocean Path (#3) that was rehabilitated by the Acadia trails crew in 1997.
156
Chapter 6: retaining structures; C. Retaining Walls
A coping retaining wall is a low, single-tier wall that both retains the treadway or steps, and rises above it to act also as coping wall (see the previous section, "Coping Stones") (Fig. 6-29).
A crush wall is a retaining feature that combines a foundation similar to that of a retaining wall with a top course like the edge of a wall-less causeway, including a cover of vegetation. This hybrid style is also called "root wall" because it is a way of retaining trail without destroying all the roots in an area. Crush wall is not an historical technique; however, because crush wall usually restores material to an eroded area and because it is largely obscured with vegetation, it has the appear- ance of historic bench cuts (Fig. 6-30).
Any laid or rubble wall in which the stones are set so that they do not penetrate the core of the wall is called a veneer wall. Typically, veneer walls have limited strength and are not suitable for trail construction.
Note: Retaining walls that are constructed of logs are discussed under "Log Cribs" later in this chapter.
Fig. 6-30 New crush wall constructed by NPS in 2002 through heavily rooted area on the west side of the Jordan Pond Path (#39).
HISTORICAL USE OF RETAINING WALLS AT ACADIA
Pre-VIA/VIS
Prior to the VIA/VIS there is no physical evidence or documentation for the use of retaining walls on Acadia's trails.
Village Improvement Associations/Societies
Beginning in the early 1900s many rubble retain- ing walls and a few laid walls were built by the Bar Harbor VIA under the direction of Waldron Bates. Contemporaries of Bates noted his skill for laying out a route "which makes quite easy passage through the wonderful rock scenery that had offered in the past almost unsurmountable obstacles to ordinary walk- ers."33 To achieve these routes, Bates used retaining walls as well as his famed steps, though much less often. Bates paths that were constructed with retaining walls include the lower Eagles Crag Path (#343) built in 1905 and the Cadillac Cliffs Path (#5) built in 1906. Following Bates's death in 1909, the BHVIA noted that the Cadillac Cliffs Path was the "best illustration of engineering skill in path making."34 Most of Bates's walls were rubble-laid. However, substantial sections of the Eagles Crag Path are supported with well-built, laid retaining wall, perhaps the first in the trail system.
Multi-tiered retaining walls were seldom used by early VIA/VIS builders. Trail routes tended to follow the landscape rather than alter it and there was little need for constructed retaining walls. Low, single-tier walls were sufficient to hold the tread in place. The broad paths, such as Schooner Head Road Path (#362) and the Asticou Trail (#49), made extensive use of sidewall and coping retaining wall (Fig. 6-31). In some places, such as the Jordan Pond Seaside Path (#401), low piled retaining walls were built out of stones pulled from excavation for the treadway.
In the few cases where more substantial retaining walls were required to achieve a route, the early builders preferred the use of single, large stones set as coping retaining wall over the use of multi-tiered wall. On the Wild Gardens Path (#354) a bench is retained on the steeper sections using a row of boulders up to 6 feet
157
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
Fig. 6-31 A classic example of original coping retaining wall on the Wild Gardens Path (#354) using large single boulders for retention.
Fig. 6-32 VIA/VIS laid wall on the Beachcroft Path (#13). Stones have shifted due to "stack bonds" (unbroken, or "running joints") and areas of the wall in which three or more rocks are stacked on top of each other without overlapping the abutting stones. The weight of larger rocks on top as a coping layer is probably holding the wall together. The rough face, with some rocks jutting out, others inset, is a typical characteristic of walls on this trail as opposed to the Emery (#15) or Gurnee Path (#352) on which the walls have relatively smooth, uniform faces.
long and 3 feet tall. Other examples of this technique can be found on the Jordan Cliffs Trail (#48) and at the original northern end of the Bear Brook Trail. How- ever, these trails contain sections of laid retaining wall as well, proving that the builders of these trails were familiar with the technique.
More extensive use of retaining walls and coping stones occurred on the highly crafted memorial and endowed trails built under the direction of George Dorr between 1914 and 1916. This work is still evident on the Beachcroft (#13), Emery (#15), and Schiff Paths (#15), which contain dry-laid retaining walls and large coping stones (Fig. 6-32), some of which are secured with iron pins.
During this period of VIA/VIS work, laid, rubble, piled, and coping retaining wall were all used. Dorr's endowed trails used the most laid retaining wall, but not the only tiered wall of the era. However, not all of Dorr's paths used laid wall. The Ladder Trail (#64) contained only single-tiered walls. The Homans Path (#349), the Beachcroft Path (#13), and the Emery Path (#15) have coping retaining, piled, rubble, and laid wall within a few hundred yards of each other. The Gurnee Path (#352) was constructed with hundreds of linear feet of laid retaining wall up to 20 feet high, and the Andrew Murray Young Path (#25) contained sporadic sections of low, laid wall. Both of these trails also made use of rubble wall, with the Gurnee Path (#352) con- taining examples of walls that are rubble at the bottom and laid at the top (Fig. 6-33). Brunnow trails used laid retaining walls mainly to support staircases and stone paving.
Of this era's laid walls, the style of construction was not consistent from trail to trail nor always within a trail. Emery Path (#15) retaining walls were con- structed of cut blocks laid in tiers to create a smooth face and consistent batter between 3:1 and 4:1. Walls on the Gurnee Path (#352) and Beachcroft Path (#13) were laid walls consisting of mostly uncut stone laid into a rough face with no discernible tiers. Nearly all the laid walls of this period had a course of coping stones on the top tier rising above the tread surface.
158
Chapter 6: retaining structures; C. Retaining Walls
These were gapped and regularly shaped, as on the Beachcroft Path (#13), or continuous and irregularly shaped, as on the Gurnee Path (#352) (see "Coping Stones").
Rubble walls, many of them fitted, were also widely used during this time. Generally, rubble walls accom- panied other less highly crafted features on a trail. An exception is Kurt Diederich's Climb (#16), which is among the most highly crafted trails, and contains many rubble-laid walls with a shallow batter. The stonework at the northeastern end of the Jordan Pond Path (#39) is fitted and rubble laid wall built into a talus slope with no regard to batter or face. It is likely this work was done in the 1910s. Rudolf Brunnow's trails also used rubble walls for retention. Although he generally relied on iron rungs and rails for his cliff- side trails, he did use rubble and fitted retaining walls when retention was necessary. The horseshoe section on the Champlain Mountain East Face Trail (#12) is supported by mostly fitted wall, with a couple of small sections of laid wall (Fig. 6-34).
Piled retaining wall was used in the later VIA/VIS period only to retain tread crossing moderately sloping ledge against the fall line. This use of piled retaining wall occurred on the abandoned lower portion of the Champlain Mountain East Face Trail (#12) and the upper section of the Beachcroft Path (#13), where it was supported by iron pins (Fig. 6-35).
Coping retaining wall was used extensively in this era to hold steps and stone paving, though numerous examples of each were also constructed without cop- ing. In the case of the Stratheden Path (#24), coping retaining wall was used in the same way as it was by the early VIA/VIS builders — to retain gravel tread. This may be the only example of this use of coping retaining wall during the later VIA/VIS period.
Civilian Conservation Corps
Very little CCC trail construction was done without the use of retaining walls. These features were often necessary because CCC trail design placed a premium on evenness of grade, wide bench cuts, and perma- nence of construction. Recommendations for the
Fig. 6-34 Fitted retaining wall built into the talus slope on the Champlain Mountain East Face Trail (#12).
Fig. 6-33 This retaining wall on the Gurnee Path (#352) is rubble at the bottom and laid at the top.
Fig. 6-35 Original VIA/VIS piled wall on the Beachcroft Path (#13).
159
Acadia trails treatment plan
construction of rubble walls were dictated in CCC construction standards: "Where necessary to retain material on steep slope, a dry random rubble wall may be built along the downhill side of the trail"35 (Fig. 6-36).
In addition to rubble retaining walls, the CCC also used laid walls and sidewalls along much of their gravel treadway. They did not use piled retaining walls. The decision to build rubble or laid wall seems to have been made according to two criteria. First, the vertical component dictated whether the shallower batter of a rubble wall was possible, and second, the visibility of the wall influenced its constructed appearance. More visible walls, such as those on switchbacks, tended to be laid, while those walls not visible from the trail were usually rubble walls.
CCC rubble walls are virtually indistinguishable from those of the VIA/VIS. However, CCC laid walls are noticeably different. They have a shallower batter with an average slope of 3:1, are often multi-tiered walls built of cut blocks or naturally square stone, and have smooth faces. CCC laid walls are uniformly high in quality, while their rubble walls vary in quality. CCC laid walls use a higher percentage of small stones than other retaining walls, with faces of 8 inches square or less.
NPS/Mission 66
Retaining walls constructed during Mission 66 fol- lowed specifications for earlier CCC work. However, relatively few trails were added during the Mission 66 period that required retaining walls, and the walls that were constructed by Mission 66 crews are generally lower in quality than work from previous eras. Some work remains; however, it is typically in a poor state of repair. Extant work includes sidewall retaining walls on the Ship Harbor Nature Trail (#127) and rubble wall on the Beech Mountain Loop Trail (#113) (Figs. 6-37 & 6-38). On the Anemone Cave Trail (#369), a 20-foot-long by 6-foot-high section of laid wall sits atop a rubble wall, recalling the style of the walls on the Gurnee Path (#352). Though not well constructed, this Mission 66 work remains in good shape. It contains a top course of large coping stones, up to 6 cubic feet in size. The weight of these stones has probably kept the wall intact (Fig. 6-39).
National Park Service
By the 1970s, the NPS trails crew was faced with a backlog of repairs to collapsed retaining walls and washed-out, eroded trail sections. From the early 1970s until the 1990s, many sections of retaining wall were repaired; however, styles of construction used were generally utilitarian with little emphasis on
Nalural Slope of Talus \
Dry Rubble Wall K"— 4- 2f4o3'-
TRA'.L SECTION ACROSS TALUS SLOPE
Notf: Provide tread by building out rather than by removing malarial
16"
Surfacing of WTS?Mf.i •.*>' I j Fine Material ) 001}
Clear inside comer ' *■ ■ ^
Leave no looae rocKs atthta poirrM
k I L_^
torn
Mini muni Base! 2 -0' .
•from inner bank.
Parapet to be constructed where condrhons require it Pouldors can be used in dry wall •nappropriara places
Slope V*: 1
Dry Rubble Wall
Obtain firm footing for wall.
/<^
Fig. 6-36 CCC specifications for rubble retaining walls on bench construction.
160
Chapter 6: retaining structures; C. Retaining Walls
historical accuracy. Most repairs consisted of resetting or replacing toppled coping stones. Log cribbing and log retaining walls were introduced as an expedient alternative to stone retaining walls (Fig. 6-40). New stone wall construction and repairs used only near- vertical, tiered laid wall of varying quality, regardless of surrounding work or historical precedent. Untiered, rough-faced, laid wall on the Beachcroft Path (#13) was replaced with tiered, smooth-faced laid wall in 1995, while a 6-foot-high vertical, tiered wall was built on the otherwise unconstructed Great Head Trail (#2). The majority of the retaining walls in need of repair were neglected.
Beginning in the late 1990s, more care was taken to duplicate previous or historically similar retaining wall work. There was an emphasis on learning and practicing the techniques of wall-building used during the trail system's historic periods. In 2000, the Aca- dia trails crew hosted two instructors for week-long courses in wall building and traveled to several other
work sites to trade knowledge and skills with other crews. To date, thousands of square feet of retain- ing wall have been constructed or rehabilitated in the appropriate style by the trails crew. The majority of these efforts have involved laid retaining wall, but work completed in 2001 included rehabilitating rubble and laid retaining walls on the Jordan Pond Path (#39) as well as constructing new crush walls (Figs. 6-41 to 6-44).
Fig. 6-38 Original Mission 66 rubble retaining wall on the Beech Mountain Loop Trail (#113).
|
RfiWlli |
ffiflfei,l |
|
|
-JPf] |
||
|
1 v* *i; : fam 1>4 " *w |
||
|
$|*g |
||
|
H&&£^< '«-; |
r ->■ ».i»Tk._.T »»."*• 1 "«BTi^BK>r - .W Hill |
Fig. 6-37 Original Mission 66 sidewall on the Ship Harbor Trail (#127).
Fig. 6-39 This Mission 66 retaining wall on the Anemone Cave Trail (#369) consists of laid wall upon a rubble wall base.
161
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
Fig. 6-40 Log features, like this log retaining wall on the Long/ Great Pond Trail (#118), have been introduced as a quick and cheap alternative to stone retaining walls, although they are not historically appropriate for the system.
Fig. 6-41 This laid retaining wall on the Beachcroft Path (#13) was rehabilitated by the Acadia trails crew in 1999.
|
*l9l |
|||
|
1 K.->"' jST |
M-- 1 tB sft ' |
^f*M |
|
|
W$ |
Fig. 6-43 Stone retaining wall construction on Jordan Pond Path (#39). The top course of stones are sloped in and set header-style with high contact, and the core is properly blocked.
Fig. 6-44 Stone retaining wall constructed in 2001 on the Jordan Pond Path (#39) to retain the uphill side of the trail which receives heavy water flow. The wall was built in conjunction with a gravel-covered stone culvert, side drain, and walled causeway.
Fig. 6-42 This rehabilitated laid stone retaining wall on a section of the Ocean Path (#3) was completed by the Acadia trails crew in 2000.
162
Chapter 6: retaining structures; C. Retaining Walls
HISTORICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Pre-VIA/VIS (pre-1890)
There is no evidence or documentation of the use of retaining walls prior to the VIA/VIS period.
VIA/VIS Period (1890-1937)
Laid, rubble, piled, sidewall, and coping retaining walls were used in conjunction with surfacing and step reten- tion. There was little use of multi-tiered retaining walls early in the period when larger stones in single tiers were often used. Later trails used multi-tiered laid and rubble walls. Craftsmanship was consistent with other contem- porary features with walls varying greatly in style and quality, but consistent to specific builders. Pile retaining walls were used to retain low benches and on ledgeside slopes.
CCC Period (1933-42)
Use of laid, rubble, and coping retaining walls reached its height of frequency and quality. Laid walls were generally tiered and smooth-faced. Laid walls were topped with a coping tier, either large single stones or a built wall above the treadway. The use of smaller stones increased, intro- ducing weakness into otherwise well-built walls. Rubble walls were used for expediency, while laid walls were used for steep rises, or when the wall is highly visible.
NPS/Mission 66 Period (1943-66)
The use of laid, rubble, and sidewall retaining walls attempted to follow previous work. However, much of the constructed work was of low quality.
NPS Period (1967-1997)
Little retaining wall construction or repair was accom- plished by the NPS. Work that was undertaken included replacing toppled coping, and the rehabilitation of walls with a single style of tiered, laid wall, regardless of histori- cal precedent. The mid-1990s saw increased attention to the importance of maintaining historic character and work.
1. Maintaining Character
Issue: The addition of a retaining wall can solve prob- lems of tread and embankment loss on sidehill con- struction. However, many of the trails that need this
kind of work are trails for which there is no precedent for building retaining walls.
Treatment Guidelines: When the use of retaining walls would have an adverse impact on the trail's character, other options should be considered. Other retaining structures may appear less out of character than stone walls. For short blow-outs, single large stones can be used, rather than many smaller stones laid into a wall. For shallow blow-outs and retaining problems, berms can be created with soil, or, when more retention is necessary on unconstructed trails, log cribbing can be used in some instances, if certain criteria are met (see "Log Cribs"). If the addition of a wall is the only solution for a trail on which there is no precedent for the use of retaining walls, the structure should be obscured as much as possible. For example, a slope can be riprapped or walled, and then covered with debris and soil to minimize the visual impact of an added constructed feature to the trail. In areas in which the amount of retention needed is minimal, there is plenty of footing space outside the trail, and enough crushable rock is available, crush wall is an effective, natural-appearing solution.
In some cases the functional need to protect a trail and the surrounding resources may outweigh adverse impacts to the trail's historic character. For example, the 1992 wall on the Great Head Trail (#2) is out of character but was the most viable solution to retain a trail route over a 7-foot-deep gulch. The addition of the wall not only preserved the route of the trail, it also discourages hikers from leaving the trail and follow- ing the gulch to the beach. In similar situations, careful consideration should be given to the impacts of all options on trail character and resource protection.
2. Structural Integrity
Issue: In some places, the type of wall originally built has failed, particularly rubble and piled walls. Replac- ing failed rubble and piled walls with laid walls would increase their stability but would be an alteration of a trail's character. Additionally, some signature charac- teristics of laid walls are structurally weak. The vertical walls on the Beachcroft Path (#13) would be stronger if
163
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
they had a batter. Shims used on the Emery Path (#15) walls and on CCC walls tend to wiggle out but are a part of the visual character. The small stones used to build entire sections of wall on CCC laid walls are eas- ily pushed out by frost, or can fall out after only minute shifts in a talus slope.
Treatment Guidelines: The historically appropri- ate type of wall will be used when feasible, with slight modifications as necessary to improve strength and durability. In general, drainage can be added to the treadway to take water and ice pressure from the wall. Larger stones can be used, and crucial stones can be set so that they are sturdy. On sloping ledge, pins can be used to hold key stones in the wall's base, but these should be hidden from view (see Chapter 8 on Iron- work). Where possible, ledge should be modified to create a level or insloping bench, in which case pins would not be necessary. New and repaired rubble wall should be constructed using an adequate amount of headers, with long stones laid with their length into the wall, and with increased batter. Such walls should resemble the historical wall but be substantially stronger. Shims and stones that do not penetrate into the face of the wall at least 8 inches should not be used. However, the historic appearance of a wall with shims and small stones can be achieved by setting long, nar- row stones with their lengths into the wall. Also, after a wall has been laid, small stones can be wedged into the openings of the wall face. These stones will provide the same visual appearance as shims, but not act as structural features in the wall.
3. Roots
Issue: In some areas, the amount of large roots that would have to be cut in order to establish a footing for a retaining wall would cause the death of large trees near the trail. This is especially the case in many lake- side and streamside areas, where a narrow corridor of trees lives between the trail and the water, exactly where a retaining wall needs to be placed.
Treatment Guidelines: Since log cribbing and crush wall can both be constructed in a way that leaves many large roots intact, these two options should be con-
sidered first. Due to the batter and material required, crush wall is usually only a tenable solution for reten- tion needs of 3 vertical feet or less, where there is 3 or more feet beyond the edge of the trail in which to put a stable footing. Because it is tied in horizontally, log cribbing can be built when there is no room for a footing, or when no stable soil or rock can be found. Log cribbing can also be built in a vertical batter and as high as is needed. In some cases, a laid wall can be constructed with its foundation stones built between large roots, but such a structure is usually weaker, and far more vulnerable to disintegration as the roots grow or rot away.
SPECIFICATIONS FOR RETAINING WALLS
1. Laid Walls (Figs. 6-45 & 6-46)
Excavation: The entire length and width of the retain- ing wall should be excavated at least 6 inches deep, until solid ground, free of organic material, is reached. The width of the base, and therefore the excavation channel, of a retaining wall should be at least one-third the height of the completed wall. The ground at the bottom of the excavated area should be level or sloping slightly toward the interior of the wall, never sloping out. When building a wall in water, such as for a bridge abutment, the excavation and the foundation should extend to ledge. If this is not possible, then excavation should go as deep as is practical.
Foundation: The foundation is the first tier of the wall, which is partially or fully beneath the ground. It should project 4 inches or more beyond the face of the main wall. At least 50 percent of each front foundation stone should be directly beneath the main wall; these stones should be at least 12 inches long in the direction perpendicular to the wall. Foundation stones should provide a flat, or slightly in-sloping, top surface on which to lay the main wall. In appropriate areas where foundations are laid on out-sloping ledge, iron pins may be used to secure the foundation (see Chapter 8). However, if ledge can be modified to form a level or in- sloping bench for foundation stones, that is the prefer- able, more permanent solution. Another technique for
164
Chapter 6: retaining structures; C. retaining Walls
ACAD' NP-Baldyga/Barier
Fig. 6-45 Detail of a laid retaining wall
Large stones used in top course
Most stones set header style, especially in top course
Long rock set header style, no shims used in face of wall
Stones break joints below and contact all abutting rocks
Header extends through core
Core is filled 80% with largest rocks that fit
Bottom course is set below grade; building stone or packed stone base extends at least 8" below grade
laying stones on outsloping ledge is to lay a foundation course of all tapering head- ers and key them behind any lip available in the surface of the ledge.
Wall Face: Stones should be chosen and laid so that an appropriate face is showing. If the desired face of a finished wall is to be smooth, then flat, even faces should show on each stone, and be flush at the fronts. If the face is to be rough, then rounded, sloping, or jagged faces can be used, and must be used at least part of the time. When a wall is being laid in water, the face should curve, or "wing back," into the embankment to protect it from water getting behind.
Long core rocks break joints behind wall face
Best-shaped rocks to pack core
ACAD NP-Baldyga/Barier
Fig. 6-46 Detail of a laid retaining wall in plan view.
Batter: The batter, or relationship of rise to run in the face of a retaining wall, should be determined in part according to the precedents of relevant historical work, as outlined, and in the specific requirements of individual trails. However, some general rules should be adhered to whenever possible.
A 3:1 batter (rise:run) should be used for walls that retain active slopes, or soils which carry large amounts of running or freezing-and-thawing water. A 4:1 batter should be used for walls that retain soils which carry a moderate amount of water.
165
Acadia Trails treatment Plan
• A 6:1 batter may be used for walls that retain inac- tive, well-drained soils with no unusual weight stresses, such as heavy equipment, placed on them.
Laying the Stone: Lay stones with the length back into the wall (header style) as often as possible. Larger stones occasionally may be laid with their lengths run- ning with the face of the wall (stretcher style), but only if they provide at least 8 to 10 inches of width in the face of the wall.
The tops of wall stones should provide level or gener- ally backsloping surfaces on which to lay the next stones.
Lay stones so that they transfer their weight into the wall below and the material behind, rather than away from the wall, which can cause stones to tumble out of the wall or walls to lean away from their loads instead of back into them.
same with additional contact points. Contact should be at or toward the face of the wall for stability and to better retain core material. This technique is known as making a stone "strong to the face." A stone should not tip forward when weight is put on it at the face.
Large stones should be used in the top course of the wall; all but the very largest (at least 3 cubic feet) should be set header style. The specific pressures on the wall must be considered. The weight of larger stones serves to pin down the wall below them. Top stones are more vulnerable because they are not pinned down, and larger, header-style stones will be dislodged less easily by back-pressure or hikers. In Acadia, use of large stones in the top course is the prevailing aesthetic; however, in cases where the look of walls is otherwise, care should be taken to imitate relevant work. If smaller stones are to be represented in the face of a wall, long stones can be set as deep headers.
Every seam created by stones laid side by side should be broken or spanned by a single stone which cov- ers the seam and has contact with each of the stones beneath it. Unbroken joints are called "running joints" or "stack bonds" and are usually the first areas to fail in a retaining wall.
Headers are stones laid with their lengths perpendicu- lar to the direction of the wall; tie rocks are headers which span the entire width of the wall, including the core, and ideally penetrate the material behind the wall. They serve to tie the wall together, front to back. The number of headers and tie rocks needed in a given wall will vary according to the size of other stones in the wall, the availability of headers, the purpose of the wall, and so on, but two good rules of thumb are: (1) Have at least one tie rock in any 3-square-foot area on the face of the wall; and (2) Lay a header over any stones set "stretcher" style, with their lengths parallel to the wall's face.
Wall stones should contact all stones below and beside them at one point. More contact points are unneces- sary, as the amount of friction transferred will be the
The Core: The core is the area between the face of the wall and the material being retained by the wall. Though unseen, it is an essential part of the wall, providing internal drainage, mass, and structural cohesiveness to the wall. Poorly built core, with small stones just thrown in behind the wall, or lack of a core, are perhaps the most common causes of retaining wall failure.
The core should be built using the largest stones first and then increasingly smaller stones until at least 80 percent of the core is packed with stone. Larger core stones should be laid so they span joints between stones in front of them in the face of the wall and stones below them. The end result is two walls, one built of the face stones and the other of core stones, that are woven together.
The core should be tightly built behind face stones before additional face stones are laid on for the next tier. Usually, a row of face stones is set, and then the core is tightly packed behind the row.
166
Chapter 6: retaining structures; C. Retaining Walls
2. Rubble Walls (Fig. 6-47)
In the construction of rubble walls, the same specifica- tions as for "Laid Walls" apply, with the exception of wall face and batter.
Face: The face of a rubble wall should appear as though the stones were randomly placed. Individual courses should not be discernible. Stones should show jagged noses and rounded fronts, and should protrude or be inset in a random pattern. The face of a rubble wall will often have gaps. The size of these gaps will be in direct correlation to the size of the stones in the face and in the core. They should not be so large as to allow face stones to shift or core stones to escape.
Batter: For structural reasons, the batter of a rubble wall should be at least 2:1, and ideally 1 1/2 :1 or shal- lower. However, the batter need not be consistent across a section of rubble wall. It should vary with the landscape, the stone, or in whatever pattern is convenient to the builder. Increased batter and the use of more rounded stones allows for "cradling" — a technique in which stones are trapped behind and on top of the stones below and in front of them, or "locked in."
3. Piled Walls
An assortment of uncut, local stone of different sizes should be used. Stones are then piled one by one so that each stone is cradled by those below it. When possible, the length of the stone should be set into the wall. The pile should have a batter of 1:1 on the outside and on the inside, so that before backfilling the wall shape is pyramidal. Piled walls should not be built over 3 feet high.
4. Crush Walls (Figs. 6-48 & 6-49)
Crush walls are contemporary structures used to treat areas with many exposed roots, or where it is desirable to obscure the use of retaining wall (Fig 6-50). A crush wall is often easier to build than a retaining wall, espe- cially at the top course, where a retaining wall requires uniform stones to satisfy height, width, and contact. However, as opposed to simply angled crush, crush walls use a retaining wall base to anchor the structure and gain the initial elevation vertically, reducing the need for additional width and material. The drawbacks of crush walls include the difficulty of constructing them over 3 feet tall, or where there is a need for a ver- tical structure, and the large amount of crushable rock required to build them.
May often be gaps between rocks
Core packed as with laid wall
Rocks often slope back and are "cradled' or "locked in"
This is long header Fig. 6-47 Detail of a rubble retaining wall.
ACAD NP-Baldyga/Barter
167
Acadia trails Treatment Plan
Fig. 6-48 Heavily rooted area on west side of the Jordan Pond Path (#39) before construction of crush wall.
Fig. 6-49 A 2002 crush wall construction on the same section of the Jordan Pond Path (#39) pictured in Fig. 6-48 after vegetation of berm but before placement of gravel. Note roots going into subgrade.
*r
Soil loss
°rig<
inal
tread
|
height |
||||
|
M* *''"'>*Vw |
Jjs- , |
ir$ |
||
|
•^ |
||||
|
y£& |
ByL |
N \ |
t**k |
Exposed roots
1^m*»«**'A^
,|pflpfc»
Fig. 6-50 Detail of heavily rooted area before application of crush wall construction technique.
ACAD NP-,
168
Chapter 6: retaining structures; C. Retaining Walls
Excavation: The trail corridor is excavated plus enough width on the downhill side for angled crush on top of the foundation stones. A 1:1 batter is the steepest recommended for crush material; therefore, every unit of height needed above the height of the foundation stones requires an equal distance from the trail edge. For instance, if 2 feet of height is required, and rocks are to be set that will stand 1 foot tall after being set in the ground, the edge will be excavated at least 1 foot for the crush, plus whatever is needed to properly set the stone header-style (a few inches at least).
Large roots need not be removed, but smaller roots may need to be cut to allow placement of larger stones. Insloping holes are excavated between the large roots to hold the foundation stones.
Setting the Foundation: (Fig. 6-51) Foundation stones are set header-style and in-sloping, at least several inches in the ground. They are set in the holes between large roots and they need not contact each other, though flared stones that contact each other over the roots between them are ideal. Non-contacting founda- tion stones should be locked in with stones set in from
above and from the inside of the wall jammed between them. Because foundation stones are not as locked in as wall stones, they need be large (2 cubic feet is a good target) and set well, always header-style, with any gaps around them crushed in.
Laying the Crush: The crush is laid into the tread and onto the foundation stones as in a wall-less causeway, with higher crush rocks pounded into lower crush to fill all gaps and ensure that stones are locked together. The retaining edge of the crush base should be 1:1 or shallower. The crush fill is worked around the roots. Crush fill is brought up to 1 inch below line at the retaining edge, and cupped to 3 inches below the line in the tread way. Note that the crush portion of the wall is not a veneer wall, which will quickly disinte- grate, but the outer edge of a crush-fill subgrade.
Vegetating the Sides (Fig. 6-52): Topsoil, mud, or organic material from the forest floor is worked into the retaining edge, and local vegetation (grasses and forest sods are best) is planted up to the mason's line. No organics are used inside the treadway, which is gravel-surfaced with the proper crown or outslope.
Former scar filled with crushed rock
Maximum 1:1 slope
Preserved roots
Fig. 6-51 Side view of crush wall construction.
169
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE
1. Maintain associated drainage structures and keep treadway above the wall draining properly.
2. Check face of wall for voids and fill them. Fill voids in the interior of the wall by stuffing small material through holes in the face.
3. Cut trees growing out of, directly in front of, or behind the wall. Generally, cut all trees three inches or less in diameter, cut all trees 4 to 6 inches in diameter if they are a threat to the wall, and avoid cutting trees greater than 6 inches in diameter,
unless they are an extreme threat to a historic wall's integrity and their removal will not cause further damage to the wall.
4. Replace or reset missing or displaced coping stones.
5. Check for signs of wall failure: the wall leaning out at the top, or kicking out at the bottom, bulges, loose or missing stones, rusted or missing pins at the base of the wall. Repair and/or replace failed portions of a wall as necessary. These problems will worsen with time.
Heavily rooted area makes crush wall a favorable solution
Vegetation (sod, soil, etc covers crush rock
Foundation stones set between large roots are long headers
ACAD NP-Baldyga
Saved roots
Fig. 6-52 Detail of finished crush wal
170
Chapter 6: retaining structures; D. Log Cribs
D. LOG CRIBS
HISTORICAL USE OF LOG CRIBS AT ACADIA
DEFINITIONS
Log cribs are retaining structures consisting of inter- locked logs. They may be treadway cribs, which are located in the trail's treadway itself, act as checks to retain the tread, and sometimes serve as sidewalls. They may also be wall cribs, which serve as retaining walls above or below the treadway (Figs. 6-53 & 6-54).
Log cribs are not historical features for Acadia's trail system. However, they may be used on a limited basis in certain circumstances. Log cribs should be consid- ered as a treatment option if all of the following apply:
1. There was never historical stonework anywhere on the trail that would be an appropriate solution for the problem; this is most often a consideration in areas with large tree roots.
2. The area is not in close proximity to historical stonework on another trail.
3. The problem site is in a wooded area.
4. There is not enough usable stone in the immediate vicinity to construct an appropriate stone feature.
There is no history of the use of log cribs in the system, although pinned logs were used by the VIA/VIS and the CCC recommended the use of log water bars. However, throughout the history of the system, many unconstructed woodland paths have developed ero- sion problems that were never anticipated in original construction. For most of these trails there is virtually no "appropriate" solution, as highly crafted stone- work is often not compatible with the unconstructed character of the trail and/or there is usually not enough available stone nearby.
Log cribs were introduced to Acadia by trails fore- man Gary Stellpflug in the early 1970s. Both treadway and wall log cribs were used to solve problems of trail gullying and bank erosion. Because of their ease of construction and the speed with which they could be built, log features were added to several trails. Many of these structures were built on inappropriate trails,
It:
g|T , /^gg^gt
Fig. 6-53 A wall crib on the Beech Cliff Ladder Trail (#106).
Fig. 6-54 Treadway cribs on the Bear Brook Trail (#10).
171
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
HISTORICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF LOG CRIBS
Pre-VIA/VIS (pre-1890)
There is no evidence or documentation of the use of logwork prior to the VIS/VIA period.
VIA/VIS Period (1890-1937)
Logwork was used for some limited features like pinned logs to retain tread, but log cribs were not used.
CCC Period (1933-42)
Logwork was used for some limited features like log water bars, but log cribs were not used.
NPS/Mission 66 Period (1943-66)
There is no evidence of the use of logwork.
NPS Period (1967-1997)
Widespread use of log cribs occurred in the early to mid- 1970s, but cribs were used more sparingly in later years. Their use was discontinued from 1995 to 2001.
Fig. 6-55 Wall crib on steepest west-side section of the Jordan Pond Path (#39) built in conjunction with stone retaining wall.
often with historic stonework within sight of the log cribwork. For example, extensive log treadway and wall cribs were constructed on the Beech Cliff Ladder Trail (#106) in 1982. This trail was historically defined by stone steps and ironwork, but at the time Stellpflug was in charge of a small, unskilled crew, and the easily installed log cribs quickly stabilized and made walk- able a large section of badly eroded hillside. The cribs are still in place today and are in good condition. Other inappropriate, though useful, cribs were constructed on the Ocean Path (#3) and the Bear Brook Trail (#10). More appropriately cribbed areas, because of their wooded locations and lack of constructed features, include the North Bubble Trail (#41), the South Bubble Trail (#43), and the Bubbles-Pemetic Trail (#36).
The use of log cribs was discontinued in the late 1990s, on the largely held belief that because of the tradition of stonework at Acadia, logwork was inappropriate for the trail system. However, the use of logwork in certain circumstances is now considered an accept- able alternative for trail problems that cannot be easily addressed through the use of other features. For example, a wall crib built in 2002 was the most feasible treatment for one of the steepest sections on the west side of the Jordan Pond Path (#39) (Fig. 6-55). Care was taken to blend the crib into a continuing section of stone retaining wall.
TREATMENT FOR LOG CRIBS
1. Maintaining Character
Issue: While stonework is the preferred method of dealing with most trail problems, in many areas stonework is not possible, would be destructive to vegetation (such as tree roots), or would not be an historically appropriate treatment for unconstructed trails. However, since log cribs are not historical and are characteristically very different from other features on the trail system, widespread use of log cribs will alter the character and integrity of the trail system.
Treatment Guidelines: Log cribs should be used on a limited basis and only if the four criteria listed above
172
Chapter 6: retaining structures; D. Log Cribs
(see "Definitions") are met. In these cases, logwork may be preferable to stonework and is an acceptable alternative.
To mitigate the effect of the characteristically different appearance of log work, it should be obscured as much as possible after construction. Sides of tread cribs should be buried and vegetated. Crib walls should be covered in soil and obscured by vegetation that will cover the logs permanently as it grows. Once slopes are stabilized and revegetated, or treadway becomes per- manently rehabilitated, logwork should be allowed to rot, returning the area to its natural state and a trail to its original unconstructed character. At this point, the slope is naturally supported by the surrounding veg- etation and constructed features should not be needed.
All joints should be notched, using either flat or saddle notches (see Chapter 5 and Fig. 5-42), and spiked.
1. Tread Cribs (Figs. 6-56 & 6-57)
Tread cribs consist of side-pieces, laid along the edge of the treadway, and cross-pieces, or checks, laid across the treadway.
The top of the crib should be at or just above the level of the ground at either side of the trail at the edge of the gully. If the gully is deeper than the width of the crib logs, then it should be filled with stone rubble to the appropriate height. Side pieces are set at the edges of the desired treadway width. If the gully is wider than the desired treadway, the outsides of the crib should be filled with stone and soil and revegetated.
SPECIFICATIONS FOR LOG CRIBS
Northern white cedar logs are used. Logs should be structurally sound but need not be completely free of rot. Size can vary greatly; diameters less than 4 inches should not be used, as they will deteriorate too early.
Cross-pieces may be set on top, underneath or flush with side-pieces. They are notched "Lincoln Log" style to fit with side pieces. A tread crib will have a cross-piece wherever it steps up to the next set of side- pieces, but it may also have side-pieces notched flush between individual cribs.
Structure may be elevated above ground for drainage
Gravel may be flush with sides
Cribs are filled with rock subgrade and surfaced with gravel
Side-pieces and cross-pieces are notched together
First cross- piece set weli into ground
Fig. 6-56 Detail of treadway crib.
ACAD NP-Baldyga/Barter
173
Acadia trails Treatment Plan
Checks notched in between tiers
Finished grade
Level
Side-pieces notched into cross-piece at next tier (saddle notches may also be used)
Side-pieces slope
Fig. 6-57 Side view of detail of treadway crib.
The rise between cross-pieces should not exceed 1 foot. Cross-pieces should be backed with substantial stones that extend into the ground deeper than the height of the next cross-piece below them, so that if the tread erodes to the level of the step below, under- mining will not occur.
The top surface of cross-pieces should be flattened with a chainsaw or ax to provide a stepping surface.
2. Wall Cribs (Fig. 6-58).
Wall cribs consist of wall or "rail" pieces, which make up the face of the wall, and "tie" pieces, which are perpendicular to the wall face and extend back into the slope, anchoring the structure. Rail pieces are set parallel to the trail and ties are notched into them, at least two ties per rail, and set back into the bank. Ties should be at least 36 inches long and extend into the bank at least 30 inches.
As with retaining wall, the bottom tier of the crib should be buried at least 8 inches below the natural level of the ground.
Ideally, the entire area is excavated and the crib is filled as it is built. Cribs should be backfilled with a mixture of stones, for strength and drainage, and lower tiers topped with soil for vegetation. Substantial live roots should not be cut; logs can be notched if need be to go around them. If preservation of roots, stable stones, or other plant life prevents full excavation, ties must be driven into the bank rather than laid. In such cases, ties can be sharpened and driven into the bank with a sledgehammer. If crib wall is long enough to require multiple rails set end-to-end, joints between rails should be staggered, as in a retaining wall.
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE
Generally, there will be no routine maintenance needed, as the intent is to let the log structures decay naturally. However, tread cribs should be checked periodically to ensure that no logs have dislodged which may cause a hiker safety hazard. Such logs should be repaired or replaced as needed.
Unless the terrain dictates a more vertical structure, crib walls should have sufficient batter to allow the rails to be "stepped" and soil and vegetation planted between each of them, or at least every two or three rails. An ideal width for the horizontal gap is 1 foot. Trees and shrubs should be planted if possible, as they will obscure the wall and their root structures will provide the bank with integrity when the log wall has disintegrated.
ENDNOTES
33 Bar Harbor VIA 19 09 Annual Report.
34 Bar Harbor Record, November 23, 1910,3.
35 Frank Kittredge, Standards for Trail Construction (United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1934).
174
Chapter 6: retaining structures; D. Log Cribs
r i
Large roots are not cut
r^ — >H
Ties should extend
a minimum of 2' into bank after
excavation (if any), or be deadmanned
Fig. 6-58 Detail of a wall crib.
175
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
176
Fig. 7-1 This staircase at the trailhead of Kurt Diederich's Climb (#16), circa 1916, is one example of the highly crafted stone step work that exists on Acadia's trails.
CHAPTER 7:
Steps
177
Acadia trails Treatment Plan
CHAPTER 7: STEPS
At Acadia, steps and staircases are primary character-defining features of the trail system. They contribute to trail diversity by allowing the trails to follow a variety of routes, from talus slopes to steep hillsides and ledges. Walking upon steps that are highly crafted and yet harmonize with the sur- rounding natural landscape is fundamental to the experience of hiking in Acadia.
Beginning in the 1890s, steps were built on steep slopes and ledges for ease of walking and guidance. From the 1910s through the 1930s, long sections of steps were added first by the VIA/VIS path committees and later by the CCC. Two types of stone steps are found on historic trails, slab-laid and set-behind, with the for- mer most common. Although each step and staircase is individually built in response to topography and local stone, this section categorizes them by period of con- struction and characteristics including layout, stone type, average stone size, run, rise, width, and degree of uniformity. Additional categories include the presence of coping stones, support walls, iron pins, shims, and associated drainage.
An analysis of the history of step construction and the steps extant in the 1990s suggests four major classifi- cations: Bates, Dorr, Brunnow, and CCC-style steps. As one of the most important historical features on the trail, care must be taken in rehabilitation work to understand the character and construction methods appropriate for each individual trail.
Most steps and staircases at Acadia were historically constructed of stone, and in keeping with this tradi- tion, stone steps are preferred for continued use in the park (Fig. 7-1). Log steps, including log checks and log cribbing, may be used as short-term solutions, but are not recommended for long-term use. They deteriorate in Acadia's extreme climate, and they do not comple- ment the historical building style of Acadia.
Note: Stone steps may be installed in conjunction with other trail features. For example, small runs of steps
may be incorporated into stone pavement, drainage/ culverts, coping and retaining walls, stream crossings, and ironwork. For information on these features, see Chapters 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8.
DEFINITIONS
A step is a constructed feature that is a vertical rise in grade onto a horizontal surface. A staircase is com- posed of a series of connected steps (stairs). Methods of step construction at Acadia include set-behind, slab- laid, or riprap.
Set-behind and slab-laid refer to steps in which each step is generally an individual stone, although in some cases two or more stones side-by-side may form a single step. In set-behind steps, each step is set directly behind the step immediately below it, so that the bottom of the upper step sits well below the top of the next lower step in the staircase. The stone below locks the stone above in place. In this way, the stone is "keyed" or wedged into place and can no longer slip unless the lower stone is moved. Slab-laid steps are set on top of each other, so that the bottom of the upper step sits on top of the back of the step immedi- ately below it (Figs. 7-2 & 7-3).
Riprap steps are a series of tiers built of randomly laid, abutting stones. Each tier or step consists of many stones laid so their tops form a single smooth stepping surface (Fig. 7-4). While used in the western United States and in the New Hampshire White Mountains, this technique is not an historically appropriate style of step building at Acadia. However, use may be appro- priate where a high-use trail has become excessively wide, or where a steep rocky slope needs to be stabi- lized.
Shims are small, flat stones placed underneath larger stones (steps, in this case) to eliminate wobble, to fill gaps, or to raise the overall height of a larger stone. In general, stones used for these purposes are called
178
Chapter 7: Steps
shims if they are exposed (see Fig. 7-4). If they are used in the interior of a structure, where they are locked in place, they are called blocking or packing (Fig. 7-4).
Patio refers to a wide section of stone pavement, often found between sections of steps (see Figs. 7-13, 7-43).
HISTORICAL USE OF STEPS AT ACADIA
Pre-VIA/VIS
There is no evidence or documentation of step use prior to the VIA/VIS period.
Village Improvement Associations/Societies
Beginning in the 1890s, the use of stone steps on the island's trails is an integral part of the history of the system as a whole. In fact, the trails on Mount Desert may be the country's first recreational trail system to incorporate the extensive use of stone staircases.
|
Steps locked in |
|||
|
behind each other |
|||
|
at least 3" j1 |
i /"T |
||
|
Bottom step |
\. r^—^^k A |
||
|
is locked in |
_h \T^ |
*tfl *j '■: |
|
|
\ ipsz |
\ |
jl ) \ Rock core or |
|
|
^IkJjJ |
] |
stable soil |
|
|
ACAD NP-Batdyga/Barter |
Fig. 7-2 Set-behind steps.
Bottom step set into ground
Steps overlap
Fig. 7-3 Slab-laid steps.
See specifications for orientation and size of front steps
Front stones of each step locked behind previous step
Small gaps between stones packed and fitted with crushed rock
Stones are flush and level
Ideal block foundation — crush if necessary (NEVER just dirt)
Back stones and packing
stones may be shallower (6" mm)
but still well locked in
ACAD NP-Baldyga/Barter
Fig. 7-4 Rip-rap steps.
179
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
Fig. 7-5 These steps on the Upper Ladder Trail (#334) contain exposed shims. Their use may have contributed to the deterioration of these Bates-style steps since shims are generally not locked in place and are often dislodged.
Fig. 7-6 Deteriorated steps on the Giant Slide Trail (#63).
•■■■ -
Fig. 7-8 Bates-style steps on the Goat Trail (#444).
Fig. 7-7 Bates-style steps on the Potholes to Eagles Crag Trai (#343).
Fig. 7-9 Dorr-style stone staircase on the Emery Path (#15).
180
Chapter 7: Steps
The first stone steps were most likely built in the 1890s either by or under the direction of Waldron Bates. Defined by economy and simplicity, these early steps were flat, uncut, slab-laid stones, constructed in short flights. The size of stones used was generally smaller than in later work. In some locations, especially over sections of ledgerock, the steps functioned more as guidance features (see Chapter 9) than as a way of providing a durable tread over changing topography. Examples of these early VIA/VIS "Bates-style" steps (Fig. 7-45) can be found on the Upper Ladder Trail (#334), Potholes to Eagles Crag Trail (#343), Cadillac Cliffs to Thunder Hole (#345), Goat Trail (#444), and Giant Slide Trail (#63) (Figs. 7-6 to 7-8).
While the majority of step-building took place in the Bar Harbor region throughout the VIA/VIS period, significant work also occurred in the Seal Harbor, Northeast Harbor and Southwest Harbor districts. Most of this step work, with a few important excep- tions, can be classified as Bates-style, especially since Bates assisted crews in Seal Harbor and Northeast Harbor districts for a number of years. For instance, steps on the Pond Trail (#20), the Jordan South End Path (#409), and the Penobscot Mountain Trail (#47) are in the rougher Bates style. One exception is a set of staircases on the Northeast Harbor side of the Asticou Trail (#49) that uses a unique style of wide, multi-stone stairs with support wall and coping. Southwest Harbor steps are a variation of rough-laid steps that use no coping and are set into the earth. The few staircases in this region appear on otherwise unconstructed, woodland trails.
Interestingly, while Bar Harbor steps evolved into larger, more highly crafted features as the era pro- ceeded, steps built in the other districts apparently did not. Though constructed in the 1910s, steps on the Maple Spring Trail (#58) and the Hadlock Brook Trails (#501, #502, #57) more closely resemble Bar Harbor work from the 1890s than that of the 1910s and 1920s. The one exception is the Van Santvoord Trail (#450), which is discussed below.
After the death of Waldron Bates in 1909, and through- out the extended tenure of Andrew Liscomb as Superintendent of Paths for the Bar Harbor VIA until 1931, stone steps continued to be a frequently con- structed feature on the island's slope-traversing trails. As VIA/VIS trail-building skill increased, steps began to be integral to trail building and construction meth- ods were modified, creating steps that became more refined and substantial trail features.
The memorial and endowed trails built under the direction of George Dorr in the 1910s represent some of the most ingenious stair building in the park. Many of these trails were engineered to provide walkers with a continuous stone tread, using large cut blocks set with even runs and risers (see Fig. 7-46). Added components of the "Dorr-style" stairs were coping stones, large boulders used as coping retaining walls, and iron pins. Dorr staircases exhibit straight runs and pleasing curves. They make use of both slab-laid and set-behind steps. Dorr was also the first to use drainage in conjunction with staircases, making steps the cap- stones of capstone culverts (used on the Emery Path, #15) and using subgrade drainage beneath his steps and side drains beside them. An interesting feature of some of Dorr's slab-laid steps is that they "belly" down, or rounded side down, behind the step on which they sit, locking in the stone and providing extra protection against slipping forward. Primary examples of steps in the Dorr style are extant on the Emery Path (#15), Kurt Diederich's Climb (#16), and the Homans Path (#349) (Figs. 7-9 to 7-15).
Later memorial paths, such as the Beachcroft Path (#13), Schiff Path (#15), and Andrew Murray Young Path (#25), had a tendency to use stairs that were smaller in overall scale and height of risers than the earlier paths, but often set in long runs of steps. Very few of the larger stairs on these later paths were as big as the stairs commonly used on their predecessors. The reason for this is unknown. Oddly, coping stones used on the Beachcroft Path (#13) are as large as any steps or paving stones on the early memorial paths, but the steps are smaller (Figs. 7-16 & 7-17).
181
Acadia trails Treatment Plan
Fig. 7-10 Coping is used with stairs on the Emery Path (#15), circa 1920. There is also an obscure culvert under this staircase.
Fig. 7-12 A curving section of steps on Kurt Diederich's Climb (#16).
Fig. 7-11 Dorr-style stone staircase on Schiff Path (#15), circa 1916.
Fig. 7-13 Stone steps on the Homans Path (#349) are interspersed with sections of stone "patio."
182
Chapter 7: Steps
Fig. 7-14 Dorr-style stone staircase on ledge rock on the upper section of the Homans Path (#349).
Fig. 7-15 Detail of stone steps on the Homans Path (#349).
Fig. 7-17 A narrow stone staircase between sections of stone pavement on the Beachcroft Path (#13).
Fig. 7-16 This curving staircase on the Beachcroft Path (#13) is typical of the smaller- sized steps generally found on this trail.
183
Acadia trails Treatment Plan
The sporadic, distinctively curved staircases of the Van Santvoord Trail (#450) represent another variation. Constructed between 1915 and 1917 under the direc- tion of Joseph Allen, Seal Harbor VIS path committee chairman, the trail contains large stone steps on steep climbs, between long stretches of trail with no other built features. Some short staircases were constructed on open ledgerock, reminiscent of some of the earliest Bates-style step work (Figs. 7-18 & 7-19).
Fig. 7-18 This small curving stone staircase on the Van Santvoord Trail (#450) is typical of many of the steps on this trail.
During the 1910s and 1920s, significant step work was being performed in every major area of the park. On the island's west side, the Southwest Harbor VIA added steps to the Bernard Mountain South Face Trail (#111) using typical VIA/VIS construction techniques including square, uncut stones, slab-laid construc- tion with even runs and risers, and no coping. On the east side, Rudolph Brunnow's crew built numerous staircases on the Orange and Black Path (#348), the Precipice Trail (#11), and the Beehive Trail (#7) (Fig. 7-21). These staircases exhibit a unique style in which the steps are the top course of a retaining wall which is constructed completely under them of relatively small, carefully laid stones. The stairs do not use coping, and the blocking is exposed. The "Hanging Steps" on the Orange and Black Path (#348) are the most dramatic example of this Brunnow style (Fig. 7-22).
Civilian Conservation Corps
In the early years of park management from 1916 to 1932, the VIA/VIS continued to construct and main- tain trails on land that would eventually become part of the national park. The park, under the direction of
Fig. 7-19 The stone steps on the Van Santvoord Trail (#450) were often located on ledgerock where there is no apparent need for a set of steps. These steps functioned more as a route guide than an aid to traversing the slope.
Fig. 7-20 Historic view of classic SHVIA slab-laid steps on the Moss Trail, part of the Bernard Mountain South Face Trail (#111). Steps are square, uncut stones with even runs and risers, no coping, and shimmed under the first step. The staircase is now obliterated, perhaps due to a weak foundation.
184
CHAPTER 7: STEPS
Superintendent Dorr, focused on construction of visi- tor facilities, including associated trails. For example, when the Cadillac Summit Road was completed in 1932, the park constructed an associated interpretive loop trail on the summit (#33). Design drawings were prepared by the NPS Branch of Plans and Design in 1932 and implemented in 1933. This was probably the first asphalt-paved trail on the island (Fig. 7-24). (In the 1970s, the trail was resurfaced with concrete mixed with local pink granite in an effort to harmonize with the native summit setting.) Upon the arrival of the CCC, Dorr also laid out plans for expansion of the trail system, including several stepped trails on the less- developed western side of the island.
The CCC vigorously continued the art and craft of step construction on a scale similar to the VIA/VIS endowed paths, and often in a remarkably similar char- acter. However, the CCC was even more methodical in their attention to detail, employing large numbers of engineers, foremen, and workmen at trail construction in the park. CCC steps had a consistent appearance, relying on cut or naturally occurring stone that was
uniform in size and shape (Figs. 7-25 and 7-46). The treads and "risers" were consistent throughout a run of steps, creating stairs that were comfortable for the hiker. Also, CCC steps were often wider than VIA/VIS steps, some over 4 feet wide, to handle more use. And to make the stairs blend in with the natural surround- ings, CCC crews would plant mosses, ferns, and other vegetation in the crevices of staircase after they were finished with construction.
This level of detail and attention to craftsmanship in the construction of CCC steps, as well as other con- tributing features like drainage and retention, remains especially evident on the Perpendicular Trail (#119). This trail was one of the few complete trails added to the park by the CCC, and much of the route consists of continuous staircases. On this trail, sections of a talus field were reconstructed and engineered in order to accommodate a series of even switchbacks of uniform steps (Figs. 7-26 & 7-27). While perhaps not as highly engineered, or as well constructed as the Perpendicu- lar Trail (#119), the Valley Cove (#626) portion of the Flying Mountain Trail (#105) is the other major
Fig. 7-21 A partially reconstructed stone staircase on the Beehive Trail (#7). The rehab is misfitting, as the odd-shaped stones of random sizes on the lower part of the staircase do not resemble the historic, evenly laid rectangular stones on the upper part of the staircase.
Fig. 7-22 Brunnow's "Hanging Steps" on the Orange and Black Path (#348). Steps are pinned in the front and middle. Note the exposed retaining wall under the upper steps.
185
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
Fig. 7-23 Brunnow-style stone steps on the Champlain East Face Trail (#12).
Fig. 7-25 These CCC steps on the Acadia Mountain Trail (#101) contain consistent sizes of stones. The AMC scree installed later along the trail edges has altered the historic character.
Fig. 7-24 Stone steps and asphalt pavement on the Cadillac Summit Loop Trail (#33).
Fig. 7-26 Highly engineered CCC switchbacks of uniform steps cutting through a talus slope on the Perpendicular Trail (#119).
Fig. 7-27 Details of CCC steps with shims on the Perpendicular Trail (#119).
186
Chapter 7: Steps
stepped trail built by the CCC. On this trail, hundreds of cut stone steps create a easily traversed route across ledgerock and through a talus slope (Fig. 7-28).
However, most CCC step construction was not as extensive as the work on the Perpendicular Trail (#119) or the Valley Cove portion of the Flying Mountain Trail (#105). Typical CCC work consisted of small runs of steps constructed in conjunction with the various visitor amenities added to the park during the 1930s. Several of these features were constructed to con- nect the CCC's newly renovated Ocean Path (#3) with parking facilities along the adjacent Ocean Drive (Figs. 7-29 to 7-31). Also, some steps were added to existing trails during CCC rehabilitation. For example, a run of steps at the start of the Beachcroft Path (#13) leads up the hill from Route 3 to the path itself. The original trailhead at Sieur de Monts was closed and the CCC added these stairs to access a new parking area across
the road from the newly established trailhead (Fig. 7- 32). Other trails where the CCC completed step work include the Beech Mountain South Ridge Trail (#109) and the Valley Trail (#116) (Figs. 7-33 & 7-34).
A comparison between the CCC style of step construc- tion and the earlier VIA/VIS Bates style is most evident on the Ladder Trail (#64). The CCC completely rehabilitated the staircases on the lower portion of this trail, creating a series of steps with a more uniform and constructed appearance and adding appropriate drainage features. This style contrasts greatly with the less orderly VIA steps that were originally used and remained evident on the abandoned Upper Ladder Trail (#334) (Figs. 7-35 to 7-37).
NPS/Mission 66
Few examples of Mission 66 steps are extant. Gener- ally Mission 66 trails were easily accessible trails near parking areas and park facilities and did not ascend steep slopes. They relied on a few short runs of stone steps, such as the two- and three-step staircases found on the Ship Harbor Nature Trail (#127) and the Anemone Cave Trail (#369). Like VIA/VIS and CCC steps, these tend to be square blocks set in even runs. However, the craftsmanship of the Mission 66 work was inferior to previous work, and much of it has since fallen into disrepair (Fig. 7-38).
Fig. 7-28 CCC steps across ledgerock on the Valley Cove Trail (#626), shown in 1969.
Fig. 7-29 CCC steps connecting Ocean Path (#3) with a parking area along Ocean Drive, soon after construction, circa 1937.
187
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
Fig. 7-30 CCC steps at Thunder Hole parking along the Ocean Path (#3).
Fig. 7-31 CCC steps at Otter Cliffs on Ocean Path (#3) adjacent to motor road grade separation.
Fig. 7-33 CCC stone wall and steps on the Beech Mountain South Ridge Trail (#109).
Fig. 7-32 These stone steps were added by the CCC at the newly established trailhead for the Beachcroft Path (#13).
Fig. 7-34 A CCC stone staircase on the Valley Trail (#116).
188
Chapter 7: Steps
|
■ |
|
|
^5 :%'#^ |
i*M |
|
L " v^,,,- |
5 |
|
- JHHfik - >"■■- ' •)* |
|
|
-s ^9 j ><fftys^^H msr '"- • |
|
|
^B' A |
Fig. 7-35 VIA/VIS Bates-style steps on the Upper Ladder Trail (#334).
Fig. 7-37 CCC steps on the lower section of the Ladder Trail (#64).
Fig. 7-36 CCC steps along cliff face on the lower section of the Ladder Trail (#64).
Fig. 7-38 The remains of a short run of Mission 66 steps on the Ship Harbor Nature Trail (#127).
189
Acadia Trails treatment Plan
National Park Service
Since the late 1960s, NPS crews have repaired historic staircases and have also added a number of staircases in places where previously there were none. While some of this work was in keeping with the trails' historic character, the majority of it was not. Historic steps were lost, and new incompatible features like riprap and wooden steps were added.
Since the 1970s, volunteer groups like the Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC) have also assisted with some step construction projects. This work has not only added additional styles of step construction to Acadia, it has also introduced a different attitude toward trail building, which is not always in keeping with Acadia's historic precedent. For example, in reference to step building, the AMC trail handbook says:
For aesthetic reasons. ..it is best to avoid building per- fectly straight staircases up a slope. Nature is unruly, so put some twists and bends in the staircase.... You can also break up the "staircase effect" through use of odd- shaped. ..rocks. Offset some steps rather than keep them in a direct line....36
This attitude is best shown in the AMC's style of step construction, which has been used on several trails at Acadia (Fig. 7-39). Only when the NPS began reha- bilitation efforts in the 1990s, did it become evident that the early trail builders at Acadia espoused a dif- ferent attitude toward trail construction. The steps themselves were often designed and meant to be emphasized as an important aesthetic feature of the trail. Depending on the individual trail, achieving a "staircase effect" is often a desirable goal to maintain historic character.
Some of the more extreme examples of harm done to Acadia's steps:
• The Spring Trail (#621) was closed in 1975 because a staircase could not be repaired due to a lack of information and/or skills by workers.
• During a 1975 "repair" of a CCC staircase at an overlook on the Acadia Mountain Trail (#101), loose steps were not reused, but simply heaved into the ocean.
• In 1992, CCC step work on Flying Mountain (#105) was dismantled and used as scree by a vol- unteer work group.
Even step work of integrity has not always been sympathetic to a trail's historic character. Round steps have been added to cut block staircases, as with the Beachcroft Path (#13) trailhead; steps of odd rise and run sizes have been added to staircases with uniform rises and runs; and cut and polished granite steps have been added to trails or visitor areas adjacent to trails, such as staircases constructed at the summit of Cadillac Mountain. Consequently, some of the work completed by the NPS since 1942 has compounded the problems caused by environmental conditions and increased usage of the trails.
However, recent work completed by NPS crews has been performed in a more informed manner. Histori-
Fig. 7-39 These AMC-style steps on the Pond Trail (#20) were built according to AMC handbook. However, this style of step work, with uneven, slanted steps and the heavy use of scree, is not appropriate for the Acadia trail system.
190
Chapter 7: Steps
cal precedents for step construction have been used in both the rehabilitation of old steps, as well as in the addition of new steps to the trail system. Some examples of recent step rehabilitation include work on the Pond Trail (#20) and the Ocean Path (#3) at Otter Point (Fig. 7-40).
HISTORICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF STEPS
Pre-VIA/VIS (pre-1890)
No evidence or documentation for step use has been found.
VIA/VIS Period (1890-1937)
The earliest, or Bates-style, steps were typically small, uncut, slab-laid steps of varying sizes constructed in short runs. As building skills improved with the advent of memorial trails, steps developed into longer engineered runs with uniform slab-laid and set-behind steps. These Dorr-style steps often used cut stones, coping walls, retaining walls, and/or ironwork. Brunnow-style steps were similar to earlier styles in their small size and lack of coping. They often used cut stones and exhibited a much higher level of craftsmanship, especially in the retaining walls built underneath the steps. Variations on these styles also occurred on many trails.
CCC Period (1933-42)
The consistency of the CCC work relied on uniform sizes of cut, slab-laid steps set in long, engineered runs. Stair- cases were usually used in conjunction with coping walls and/or retaining walls.
NPS/Mission 66 Period (1943-66)
Few steps were used during this period. The typical two- or three-step staircases were inferior in quality to previous historical work.
NPS Period (1967-1997)
Repairs were made to staircases of all eras, both in- character and out-of-character (Fig. 7-41). New work varied considerably. New styles were introduced, includ- ing AMC steps, wooden steps, riprap, and set-behind steps as a substitute for slab-laid steps. From the late 1990s on, close attention has been paid to rehabilitating and constructing steps in the proper style, such as in the 2002 rehabilitation of Bates-style steps on the Jordan Pond Path (#39) (Figs. 7-42 & 7-43).
1. Maintaining Character
Issue: Many historic steps and staircases are in serious need of repair or replacement resulting in a loss of historic fabric and character over the years as trails have not been adequately maintained. Some historic steps have been replaced with incompatible work, or new step styles have been added to the system. After water bars and dips, steps are the most common fea- ture added to sections of trails where they previously did not exist. While the addition of steps can solve many problems related to steep grades, in some places
Fig. 7-40 These stone steps at Otter Point on the Ocean Path (#3) were constructed in 2000.
Fig. 7-41 These stairs from the Park Loop Road to Western Point, south of Blackwoods Campground, are too uniform and are out of place in the Acadia trail system.
191
Acadia Trails treatment Plan
they are detrimental to the trail's historical character. For example, steps would not be in character for the smooth, graveled, "broad" paths like the Stratheden Trail (#24). In other areas, the addition of steps may change a trail's unconstructed appearance, such as on upper Perpendicular Trail (#119) or the Deer Brook Trail (#51).
Treatment Guidelines: Existing historic stone steps should be rehabilitated as necessary in the appropri-
Fig. 7-42 Dilapidated Bates-style steps on the Jordan Pond Path (#39) before NPS rehabilitation, see Fig. 7-43.
Fig. 7-43 NPS rehabilitation of Bates-style steps on the same section of the Jordan Pond Path (#39) in 2002. Note varying sizes, flat "patio" above the fifth step, and use of both slab-laid (top step) and set-behind (front steps). Steps also conform to boulders in the landscape.
ate historic style for the trail. Removal of historic stairs should only be considered as a last resort when stairs can no longer be repaired or reconstructed, or when maintaining these features is no longer a viable option due to resource or visitor protection. New stone steps may be added in-kind to existing staircases and may be considered for sections of trail when there is historic precedent of stone step use. New steps may be con- sidered for areas with steep ascents (typically over 15 percent) on the forest floor, through talus fields, or across ledgerock. Steps are also an acceptable solution for lesser grades with erosion problems. New steps should be constructed to complement existing work on the trail or fit within the trail's period and style of construction. Steps should not be added to trails whose character would be changed or interrupted by the addition of steps. For example, steps should not be used on long sections of smooth graveled tread, such as the broad paths or the Ocean Path (#3), or on long sections of inclined stone pavement. The alternative for steps on inclined graveled paths will be checks and/or inside drainage. Wooden steps are not a recom- mended treatment option.
2. Step Style
Issue: Each step style has pros and cons. Slab-laid steps were the most commonly used historically, yet they often succumb to rear pressure, which can push the steps forward into a "stack," or topple them altogether. Particularly vulnerable are steps built in loose or poorly drained soil. Small slab-laid steps not "pinched" on the sides by coping or ledge can be dislodged by foot traffic. Slab-laid staircases also depend on the use of rectangular stones of uniform thickness which may not always be readily available. While set-behind steps are more durable in certain situations and allow the use of various stone shapes, they often appear out of place in Acadia and have their own problems. Flowing water can run directly behind set-behind steps, tread size is dictated by stone shape, and building on ledge- rock is particularly difficult. In some cases, historic step styles are not wide enough to accommodate the volume of foot traffic, or the right stone is not available to build staircases of a sufficient step-size.
192
Chapter 7: Steps
Treatment Guidelines: Slab-laid steps should be replaced in kind. In problem areas where failure is likely, larger steps (over 150 pounds) and/or well-built coping that "pinch" steps in place will be used to pre- vent slab-laid steps from shifting. If steps are being cut or shaped, Dorr's "bellying" technique may be used to help secure steps from sliding forward. The lower surface is shaped so that it locks in and will not slide over the step below. In new step construction with no historical precedent for slab-laid steps, or in areas where drainage problems or a lack of the appropriate stone prohibits the building of slab-laid steps, set- behind steps may be used. Set-behind steps should be built in a way that mimics the appearance of slab-laid steps as much as possible, including the use of square fronts to the steps and evenly spaced treads and ris- ers. When building in an historic style, care should be taken to avoid a riprap look with multiple stones set as a single step.
Occasionally, non-historic step styles are necessary and may be used, although this is not a preferred treatment option and should only be considered as a last choice. Riprap steps may be used if the following conditions apply:
• There is no precedent of another style of step in that area of the trail.
• There is a need for a tread-width greater than the available stone, or than an historic style will allow.
• The trail grade is too steep or too vulnerable to treat with less conspicuous features, such as checks and fill, or causeway.
Like riprap, log crib steps may also be considered when there is no historical precedent. See Chapter 6 for further information on the use of log cribs.
3. Use of Pins
Issue: Unpinned steps and walls constructed directly on ledgerock have slid out of place over time, while work held by iron pins has generally lasted as long as the pins' useful life of over fifty years. However, iron pins are not historically accurate on all trails, including early VIA/VIS work like the deteriorating steps of the Upper Ladder Trail (#334).
Treatment Guidelines: The addition of pins is an acceptable remedy for steps and/or coping wall that is in danger of slippage. The options of either setting the base of the wall in a stable area, such as insloping ledge, or adding coping wall to steps to shore them up, should be considered before pins are added to trails where they are not historically accurate. If used, stain- less steel pins are recommended as a compatible yet distinguishable feature and may last much longer than the traditional iron. Pins should be placed in incon- spicuous locations (see Chapter 8).
4. Use of Shims
Issue: In slab-laid construction, shims are often used to level a step or keep it from rocking on the step below. The use of shims can save the labor of reshap- ing a stone, quarrying another, or extensively rebuild- ing a section of steps. However, shims can work themselves loose over time, often leaving an unstable and unsafe step.
Treatment Guidelines: The use of shims is not rec- ommended since they cannot be permanently held in place. In cases where shims may have been used historically, new steps should be selected or the old steps reshaped in order to level and/or stabilize them. The use of shims as blocking underneath the sides or backs of steps may be considered, provided they are set tightly and held on all sides by other stonework.
5. Drainage
Issue: In some cases, old steps were built without drainage. Water and ice flowing into or over them has pushed the steps out of place or led to their total col- lapse.
Treatment Guidelines: Drainage systems built in conjunction with historic steps or steps constructed in an historic style should be in keeping with other drain- age systems used in conjunction with similar steps. For Dorr-style and CCC steps this includes culverts under- neath steps. For all other styles, such drains should be used only as a last resort and be kept as subtle as pos- sible. In nearly all cases another drainage option may
193
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
be more appropriate, such as subgrade drainage, side drainage, or cross drainage above the staircase.
6. Stabilization
Issue: Several historic trails at Acadia are no longer marked and maintained. There are many original steps and staircases on these trails which need stabilization to prevent further deterioration and loss of historic fabric.
Treatment Guidelines: Stabilization of steps on abandoned trails should be done in the least intru- sive method possible. Small repairs, like on a piece of retaining wall or a single step in order to keep a staircase from collapsing, will be the first choice. Dete- riorated pins and slipped shims should be replaced as needed. If the repair is extensive, new stainless steel pins and shims should be inconspicuously added to prevent further collapse. Drainage threats should be resolved using methods that do not sacrifice the integ- rity of the step or staircase, such as dips and ditching.
SPECIFICATIONS FOR STEPS (FIGS. 7-45 TO 7-47)
1. General Guidelines for Historic Stone Steps
• Steps and staircases should be constructed of stone either taken directly from the site, or stone that is indistinguishable from local stone.
• Rectangular stones, especially those with flat surfaces for the tread, are preferred over rounded stones.
• Slab-laid construction is preferred over set- behind, though both may be used if needed.
• When possible, staircases should be used in either straight or curving rows.
• Steps are as even as possible, given the construc- tion technique, the surrounding landscape and the general terrain.
• Rise and run of steps are negotiable. Treads are deep enough to land on, and risers are within reach of the average stride.
• Steps are intended to stand out as constructed fea- tures, becoming objects of interest, even admira- tion, to the hiker.
Sizes differ
ACAD NP-Baldyga/Baitet
Fig. 7-45 Details for a typical VIA/VIS Bates-style staircase.
194
Chapter 7: Steps
The degree to which a given staircase will meet the general step criteria depends on the particular con- struction model for that set of steps. For example, Bates-style steps rely on local uncut stone and will be as even and uniform as the material allows. CCC steps will be of cut stone laid on a reconfigured trail align- ment to assure that each step is nearly identical in size and spacing to the other steps throughout the staircase.
The following historic styles of steps are to be used as guidelines when rehabilitating existing steps or adding new steps to the trail system.
• Bates-style VIA/VIS steps
• Dorr-style VIA/VIS steps
• Brunnow-style VIA/VIS steps
• CCC steps
Specifications for construction of each of these step types have been identified through field investigations and historic research. These are described below.
2. Construction Techniques for Historic Stone Steps
Adhering to the following chart (Fig. 7-47), specific needs for rise and run are calculated, and stone sizes and shapes are determined, then quarried or shaped, with the appropriate amount of variation for the style. The area around the step is excavated of organic soil and loose stone. The bottom step is set at least 6 inches below ground on inorganic soil, crushed stone, or bedrock, or it is keyed or pinned onto ledge so that it cannot slip forward.
In slab-laid construction (Figs. 7-3 & 7-46), the area behind each step is packed as the core of a retaining wall (see Chapter 6). If coping or sidewall is not to be used, exposed core stones must be laid as a wall under the step, as with Brunnow-style construction.
Coping, sidewall, and/or retaining wall should be constructed as the steps are laid as one interwoven structure. If coping or sidewall is to be used, coping
Usually coping
Even runs and risers
Steps are slab-laid overlapping at least 6"
Rock base for drainage and stability
ACAD NP-Baldyga/Barter
Fig. 7-46 Detail of a typical staircase from the CCC or VIA/VIS period.
195
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
|
Bates-style VIAIVIS Steps |
Dorr-style VIAIVIS Steps |
Brunnow-style VIAI VIS Steps |
CCC Steps |
|
|
Type of Construction |
Slab-laid and set- behind; often both types in one staircase |
Slab-laid and set- behind; often both types in one staircase |
Slab-laid |
Slab-laid |
|
Layout of Staircases |
Short, sporadic flights broken by sections of level tread; natural features like boulders are often incorporated into the staircase, or the steps go around them |
Flights in straight lines or engineered curves; landscape often altered to accommodate regularity of staircase |
Some staircases engineered, others dictated by the landscape |
Staircases engineered and laid out to exacting standards and specifications |
|
Stone Type |
Uncut; shape varies; at least one flat surface |
Primarily cut; some uncut; rectangular |
Cut or uncut; rectangular |
Primarily cut; some uncut; rectangular |
|
Average Stone Size |
Varies greatly |
24"x18"x6" |
18"x18"x6" |
24"x18"x6" |
|
Typical Run |
10"-24" |
12"-32" |
10"-24" |
8"-24" |
|
Typical Rise |
3"-18" |
6"-12" |
6"-18" |
6"-14" |
|
Typical Step Width |
8"-48"; typically smaller than other styles |
12"-60" |
12"-60" |
12"-60"; typically over 30" on well traveled paths |
|
Step Uniformity |
Irregular rises and runs, varying greatly from step to step |
Regular rises and runs within staircases; varies between staircases |
Rises and runs may or may not be consistent within a staircase and/ or between staircases |
Regular rises and runs within staircases; varies between staircases |
|
Coping |
Typically used; uncut single or piled stones no more than 12" above steps |
Typically used; large cut or uncut single stones or retaining wall |
Not used |
Typically used; single cut or uncut stones of various sizes |
|
Support Wall |
None |
Laid wall |
Laid wall |
Laid wall |
|
Iron Pins |
None |
Steps, coping and retaining walls may be pinned |
Steps may be pinned |
Coping and retaining walls may be pinned |
|
Shims |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Associated Drainage Features |
None |
Capstone culverts |
None |
Graveled-overor capstone culverts and side drains |
Fig. 7-47 Historic styles of steps and specifications.
196
CHAPTER 7: STEPS
will hold the core and it need only be packed solidly. Coping stones should span the joints between steps.
Each next step is set on the previous step and core so that it overlaps the step by at least 6 inches (1 foot is ideal). The step should contact the lower step at least once and should be stable without shims. If shims are appropriate to the area, exposed shim stones may be used. These should be part of the core and locked underneath and on the side by coping may be used.
In set-behind steps, the core is packed behind the step to a level that will lift the next step to the desired height (Fig. 7-2). The upper step sits on the core only, contacting the lower step along its face. To ensure that steps are locked in, each upper step should be set at least 3 inches below the top of the step below. Small gaps between steps are packed only after a number of steps are set, to prevent separation. The same tech- niques are appropriate for constructing accompanying coping or retaining wall.
3. Construction Techniques for Riprap Steps (Fig. 7-4)
Riprap steps should be considered as a treatment option if the following apply:
1. The trail is high-use trail that must have a corridor wider than most available stone.
2. There is no appropriate historical solution.
3. The area is not in close proximity to historic steps.
All building stones should contact abutting stones. The step's top surface should be relatively flat, and stones should be set so they are flush with each other. All gaps should be chinked so that the result is a flat and level surface free of gaps or impediments.
Rise and run should be consistent over a span of steps. Risers should be 4 to 10 inches (ideally 6 or 8 inches), but should be the same for each step. Width may vary from staircase to staircase depending upon the trail's use and other factors, but should be no narrower than 2 feet. Runs should be even throughout the structure, a minimum of 1 foot (ideally 16 inches or greater). Flat "patio" areas (see Fig. 7-13) may be incorporated
between steps, but runs of evenly spaced steps should be as long as the terrain allows so that hiking will be more natural.
The core under the steps is constructed as with other steps, according to the principles of core building for retaining walls (see Chapter 6). Proper height is achieved by constructing the blocking under each stone so that it holds the stone to the correct height; sometimes the stone must be put in and taken out a number of times for correct adjustment. Blocking should span the breadth of the stone, rather than sup- porting the step stones under just one or two points. Friction with abutting stones should not be depended on to keep stones from sinking or tilting; "pinch sets," which are hollow underneath, should never be used.
Riprap is always built in conjunction with a wall on each side, or natural features contacting the steps on each side to keep individual stones in place. Single- tiered walls should contain stones of substantial size (generally 2 cubic feet or greater) and set header-style to withstand movement, unless they are very large. Multi-tiered retaining walls should be constructed according to wall specifications (see Chapter 6). The top tier, which holds the riprap together, should be constructed of large stones leaning into the structure (2 cubic feet is ideal). In all cases, wall stones should contact each other, and contact the steps toward the top of the step stones for greatest integrity. Wall stones should also span the joints between riprap steps.
When riprap is constructed against the side of a hill, the hill-side of the structure should still be supported with a row of stones dug into the earth, to apply maximum pressure to the structure; this is often called a "false wall" because the stones are trapped between earth and the structure, and are therefore not really a retaining wall.
The first tier should be one or more large stones set at least 1 foot deep in the ground so that the top of the stone is flush with the original ground level. Sometimes the bottom tier is keyed behind a substantial lip in the ledge, or locked in behind a large extant stone, or is
197
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
held with iron pins. The set of the first tier is of crucial importance to the integrity of the structure.
The front stones of each step are keyed behind and in contact with the rear stones of the step below. Front stones of the upper step should span the joints of the lower step, as in a retaining wall. Header-set stones may be as small as Vi cubic foot, or 1 cubic foot if cake- set. Both must be set a minimum of 4 inches behind the step in front, deeper if they are at the small end of the acceptable sizes. Toast sets can be used as front steps only if two-thirds of their height is below the step in front. They should be stones at least 1 cubic foot in size. Contact between front stones of a step should be within 1 inch of their tops, and toward the front of these stones. The face of each step should be within 1 inch of vertical in either direction, with little overhang or back-slope.
Rear stones may be set in any orientation. Ideally, they should break the joints of front stones, but this isn't as crucial as in other areas. They should be set at least 6 inches deep in the step, deeper if they are small. Stones with a very small stepping surface may be used if they are set deep into the step as "pegs."
All gaps should be fitted with the largest and deepest stones that will fit and be flush at the top. Small rocks should be packed and crushed into the remaining gaps until the step is smooth at the top and one continuous structure with very few gaps in its core.
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE
1. Create or maintain any drainage that protects the steps (see Chapter 4).
2. Any erosion at the bottom of stairs should be dealt with to prevent slippage. Slipped steps on which other steps are laid, most commonly bottom steps, should be reset as soon as possible to prevent a domino effect in which the entire staircase col- lapses.
3. Remove invasive vegetation from coping walls, retaining walls, and between steps. Otherwise, roots may separate the stonework.
ENDNOTES
36 Carl Demrow and David Salisbury, The Complete Guide to Trail Building and Maintenance (Boston: Appalachian Mountain Club Books, 1998), 135.
198
Fig. 8-1 Iron pins hold an overhanging boulder at Sieur de Monts Crag on the Emery Path (#15).
CHAPTER 8:
IRONWORK
199
Acadia Trails Treatment plan
CHAPTER 8: IRONWORK
Ironwork consists of pins, rungs, railings, lad- ders, and bridges that are drilled into stone. Iron enables rigorous hiking on cliffside trails and supports some of the finest stonework on the island. Without iron, many of the steepest trails would not be feasible. An abundance of ironwork is one of the many distinguishing characteristics of Acadia's trail system.
Iron was possibly introduced to the trail system in the late 1800s. Its use increased dramatically in the 1910s for the construction of VIA/VIS cliffside trails, such as the Beehive Trail (#7) and Precipice Trail (#11), and for the construction of memorial trails, such as the Emery Path (#15) and the Van Santvoord Trail (#450) (Fig. 8-1). The CCC also installed iron, but to a lesser degree. Much of the original VIA/VIS ironwork is still extant, although it is now nearly ninety years old. This ironwork requires careful inspection and, when necessary, replacement to ensure safety. In some loca-
tions additional iron has been added to provide greater assistance to hikers. Such additions are limited, how- ever, so as to prevent hikers from climbing to heights beyond their abilities and to preserve the character of these climbs. Replacement iron and additions are dis- tinguishable only upon close inspection. In concealed locations stainless steel pins are now used, which are compatible yet distinguishable from original iron.
DEFINITIONS
Ironwork as identified at Acadia is a constructed iron or steel trail feature, affixed to stone, for the purpose of either supporting structures or aiding hikers. It gener- ally consists of rolled steel, though often it is square steel stock, angle iron, or any assorted pieces of steel. Ironwork includes the following components (Figs. 8-2 to 8-6):
Fig. 8-2 Pin holding step on the Homans Path (#349).
Fig. 8-3 Pinned log, rungs, and ladder on Perpendicular Trail (#119). A series of rungs as shown here may also be called a ladder.
200
Chapter 8: Ironwork
A pin is any piece of solid iron or stainless steel used for fastening, holding, or supporting steps, wall, cop- ing, overhanging boulders, bridge stringers, or any other constructed feature.
A rung is a foot perch, crosspiece of a ladder, or a handhold.
A rail, or railing, is generally rolled steel, extending from one point or support to another, that serves as a guard, barrier, handrail, or support. Some railings are supported on iron stanchions, which serve as posts. Railings are also constructed with galvanized pipe.
A ladder is a structure for climbing that consists of two sidepieces joined at intervals by crosspieces on which a hiker may step or hold. A series of ascending or descending rungs, without sidepieces, is also often described as a ladder.
An iron bridge is a series of bars, perpendicular to the tread and supported by angle iron, used to span gaps between ledges.
Fig. 8-5 Rung handrails and ladder on the Ladder Trail (#64).
Fig. 8-4 Railing supported on stanchions on the Orange and Black Path (#348).
Fig. 8-6 An iron bridge on the Beehive Trail (#7).
201
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
Iron pins are the most prevalent yet least visible ironwork on the trail system. Most pins are concealed below large coping stones, retaining walls, culvert headwalls, and on the sides of stone steps. Some are concealed above the trail where they hold overhang- ing boulders together, acting like iron staples. Other pins are visible where they anchor slab-laid steps onto ledges. Pins support signs, bridges, and iron and wooden railings. Some pins were probably used to anchor construction equipment. There are a vari- ous pins in the park marking pre-park boundaries. Instances of pins with absolutely no discernible pur- pose are also scattered throughout the park.
Iron rungs, rails, ladders, bridges, and pinned steps are used to aid hikers on steep rock ledges. In a few locations, including the Beehive Trail (#6), Cliff Path to Great Cave (#347), and the South and North Bubble Cliff Trail, (#451 & 459), iron bridges are used to span gaps between ledges. Ironwork on its own or in combination with stone or wood construction allows hikers to climb with relative security in areas that would otherwise require technical rock climbing gear, or sheer madness.
Mountain, of Newport, of Sargent's, of Kebo and sev- eral others." Although several trails dating to the 1890s do contain ironwork, it is undocumented as to when the ironwork was initially installed.
The Ladder Trail (#64), which was described as a new route in 1896, shown on the 1896 path map, and labeled on the 1901 path map, may be the first trail to use ironwork: "This latter [sic] path down the eastern slope of Dry is quite steep and needs to be followed with caution" (Fig. 8-7). It is possible its name was derived from the iron ladders used on the trail. The Goat Trail (#444) on Pemetic Mountain has a small amount of ironwork of varying types. It is mostly round iron, with a few square pieces, and primarily consists of rungs and step pinning (Figs. 8-8 & 8-9). The Shore Path (#427) along ledges near Seal Harbor (#427) and the Ingraham Rocks Path (#445), both shown on the 1896 path map, traversed the cliff tops and their initial construction likely included iron stanchions, iron railings, or iron bridges. Remnants of this ironwork, including a rod-and-turnbuckle anchor, are visible and definitively dated in a 1908 photo of a bridge along the path. Portions of these paths and their iron are still present today (Fig. 8-10).
HISTORICAL USE OF IRON AT ACADIA
Pre-VIA/VIS
Iron was used across Mount Desert in the late 1800s. Ships tied to eyebolts or to piers of pinned granite blocks. Logs sluiced and drove through gauntlets of iron-pinned side dams, roll dams, and coffer dams. In 1883 the Green Mountain Railway climbed Cadillac on tracks anchored with hundreds of iron pins. Cyrus Hall's quarry employed hundreds of workers during the late 1800s, all of whom could have easily applied the skills of their trade to the growing trail system on Acadia. No documentation of ironwork on trails exists, however, until 1908.
Village Improvement Associations/Societies
Using iron on trails would have furthered the VIA/VIS purpose to enable "the public to climb with ease and delight in the steeps of Green Mountain, of Dry [Dorr]
The installation of iron became more common in the early 1900s beginning with the supervision of Bar Harbor VIA Path Committee Chairman Rudolph Brunnow. Landscape Designer and Superintendent of Paths Andrew Liscomb, local masons, and laborers most likely carried out the actual work. Brunnow laid out some of the most challenging trails on the eastern side of the island, along the cliffs of Champlain Moun- tain, selecting routes that would be nearly impossible to ascend without the use of iron. Between 1913 and 1916, along the eastern cliffs of Champlain Mountain, the VIA/VIS installed extensive iron for pins, rungs, railings, ladders and bridges on the Precipice Trail (#11), the Beehive Trail (#7), the Cliff Path (#347), and the Orange and Black Path (#348). Ironwork was also used in the Brigham Trail (#366) when it was built in 1924-1925. On the Precipice Trail (#11), ironwork offered a novel climbing adventure up the cliff by rungs, rails, and ladders as described in the 1915 Path Guide
202
Chapter 8: Ironwork
(Figs. 8-11 & 8-12). The 1928 Path Guide refers to a sign at the base of the trail: "Precipice Trail, which is steep and dizzy: for experienced climbers only." Long sections of iron handrails were installed along the most exposed sections of the trail. These were built in com- bination with a wooden bridge connecting two ledges (Fig. 8-13). The Beehive Trail (#7) contains extensive pins, rungs, rails, and a small iron bridge that spans two ledges (Figs. 8-14 & 8-15, also Fig. 8-6). On the Cliff
Path (#347) iron supports stone paving over a ravine (Fig. 8-16). On the Orange and Black Path (#348) iron pins were set in the front center of each step to hold together a staircase (see Chapter 7, Fig. 7-22).
In the Sieur de Monts Spring area, on several memo- rial trails built under the direction of George Dorr, iron was used to achieve a different purpose: to create a highly crafted and easy-to-walk trail across rugged
Fig. 8-7 Ladder on the Ladder Trail (#64).
Fig. 8-9 Pipe railing along steps on Goat Trail (#444).
Fig. 8-8 Rungs and handrail on Goat Trail (#444).
Fig. 8-10 Iron railing with stanchions on Shore Path (#427) in 1999.
203
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
Fig. 8-11 Rungs and handrails on Precipice Trail (#11), circa 1920.
Fig. 8-13 A view in 1958 of the wooden bridge and iron handrail along the Precipice Trail (#11) ledges. The bridge was later destroyed by a rockslide.
Fig. 8-14 These pins on the Beehive Path (#7) are too long and can be seen by hikers on the trail.
Fig. 8-12 Climbers ascend the Precipice Trail (#11) with the assistance of iron rungs, circa 1920.
Fig. 8-15 Rungs and rails on the Beehive Trail (#7).
204
Chapter 8: Ironwork
Fig. 8-16 Side view of iron bridge surfaced with flat stones on the Cliff Path (#347).
Fig. 8-17 The Beachcroft Path (#13) showing a low pinned retaining wall originally designed to hold gravel tread, which has been lost.
Fig. 8-18 Pin supporting coping stone, not visible from the trail, on the Beachcroft Path (#13).
terrain. On the Beachcroft Path (#13), along steep sections and across ledges, iron pins hold many base and key rocks of laid and piled retaining walls, as well as many coping stones. This use of iron for walls is not found on earlier trails. Most of these pins are obscured from the hiker's view (Figs. 8-17 & 8-18). On the Homans Path (#349), completed in 1915, iron was used in only four locations to hold steps and coping sidewall (Fig. 8-19, also Fig. 8-2). (It is possible some of these pins are a later repair or alteration.) The Emery Path (#15), completed in 1916, contains extensive, concealed iron pins to support coping stones and walls, which are some of the highest trail walls at Acadia (Figs. 8-20 & 8-21). Pins were also used to hold retaining walls built with logs, which formed pinned log walkways (Fig. 8- 22). A less common use of ironwork was to stabilize a large boulder above the path (see Fig. 8-1). It is inter- esting to note that in areas where iron was not used, the actions of gravity, erosion, and ice over the past one hundred years have altered the initial placement of many steps, wall rocks, and coping stones.
While the most extensive ironwork was carried out under the direction of Brunnow and Dorr, ironwork was also used by the Seal Harbor VIS for the memorial Van Santvoord Trail (#450), completed in 1915 under the direction of Path Committee Chairman Joseph Allen. Here, iron was used in a manner that anchors steps to ledge from behind as opposed to pinning them in front (Figs. 8-23 & 8-24). On the present NPS trail system, the Penobscot Mountain Trail (#47) had wooden steps over a short section of open ledge and pinned handrails in an area that is relatively safe and easy to traverse without these aids. Other examples of Seal Harbor VIS ironwork appear on the Jordan Cliffs Trail (#48), the Shore Path (#427), and the Goat Trail (#444).
When America entered World War I there was a lull in new feats of ironwork until circa 1926 when the Gurnee Path (#352) was built along Eden Street in Bar Harbor. Iron pins were used to support both wooden railings and many sections of laid retaining wall. In 1928, the South Bubble Cliff Trail (#451) was built by the Bar Harbor VIA or Seal Harbor VIS using log steps
205
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
Fig. 8-19 Pin supporting steps on the Homans Path (#349).
|
^w&s??. |
|
|
■- . <■■ •■■■-' - J, ' * ■ "'-'■"■■■ ~^r* |
|
|
w^^^^ ~** |
- ^Hi |
Fig. 8-20 Trail builders used iron pins to hold many coping stones along ledges and steep slopes, such as seen here on the Emery Path (#15) in a 1920 photo.
Fig. 8-21 Contemporary view of Emery Path (#15) pins holding coping stones. In the foreground a stone has toppled over the ledge, leaving the pin exposed.
Fig. 8-22 A pinned retaining log on the Ladder Trail (#64) shown in the 1920s
206
Chapter 8: Ironwork
pinned to ledge. Comparable pinned log construc- tion was used on the North Bubble Cliff Trail (#459) in 1929. Despite the addition of iron steps and rails in 1931, the dramatic South Bubble Cliff Trail was consid- ered too dangerous by some hikers. The trail was not maintained during the 1940s and was eliminated by the NPS in the 1950s by removing some but not all of the iron. Skeletal traces of this marvelous example of the bygone trail system remain rusting and broken (Figs. 8-25 to 8-28).
Additional interesting ironwork from this same time period occurs on the southern portion of the Jordan Cliffs Trail (#48). This trail contains a few pinned logs and steps, one pinned wooden rail at a bridge, and less than a dozen hand rungs. There is also pre-1900 work on the nearby Bluff Path (#457) across the top of Jordan Bluff. Comparison in the field and research on maps and guidebooks implies that the work and the iron on Jordan Cliffs is part of a 1932 connection to the Sargent East Cliff Trail (northern end of Jordan Cliffs Trail, #48). It is quite different in style from the rudimentary steps and patio, and lack of iron, on the 1896 Bluff Path (#457).
Notably, there are highly crafted VIA/VIS routes that contain little or no ironwork. The Andrew Murray Young Path (#25) and Gorge Path (#28) have only a few pins that anchor stone pavement and wall. In the trail districts of both the Northeast Harbor VIS and Southwest Harbor VIA, there is no evidence of iron- work until the CCC era.
The VIA/VIS materials and methods for installing iron were essentially the same as the present methods (see "Specifications for Ironwork"). It is interesting to note that any material available was employed. Many pins were broken drill steels, old bolts, eyebolts in places where the "eye" was unnecessary, and of more than one diameter in the same general area. There are even instances of a square pins in use. It appears that the path builders were comfortable using whatever iron was available.
Ironwork was inspected annually by the VIA/VIS path committees. According to Frederic Weekes, path com- mittee chairman for the Bar Harbor VIA from 1918 to 1923, each autumn iron railings and ladders on the cliff trails were given two coats of paint to prevent deterio- ration and rust during the winter.
The usage varies among different step Pins may occur on one or both sides of steps, or stone coping may support one side with pins located in the other side
Iron pin anchored into step
Iron pin anchored — into ledgerock
Fig. 8-23 An unusual placement of pins holding steps on the Van Santvoord Trail (#450).
ACAD NP-Baldyga/Slellptlug
Fig. 8-24 Detail of various pin placements for stone steps.
207
Acadia trails Treatment Plan
Fig. 8-25 Climber using hand and foot rails on the South Bubble Cliff Trail (#451) in 1955.
Civilian Conservation Corps
Iron pins, rungs, and ladders were used extensively in some sections of trail built by the CCC in ways similar to the VIA/VIS. When the CCC installed ironwork, it was most often used in the areas of difficult terrain, such as steep grade or exposed ledge, in order to sup- port structures and assist hikers. Written and photo- graphic documentation of CCC ironwork has not yet been found, though ample physical evidence remains.
The CCC installed iron ladders on the Beech Cliff Ladder Trail (#106) in the 1930s. One rung and four different ladders guided hikers up the cliff face. For comparison, on the Brunnow trails of Champlain Mountain, ladders usually consisted of individual rungs in series. The Beech Cliff ladders, however, incorporated rolled steel crosspieces fitted and welded to angle iron sidepieces with 110 feet of 3^-inch wire rope cable providing safety railing for hikers. This type of railing, with 2-inch square metal stanchions and eyebolts for support, is unique among Acadia's trails (Figs. 8-29 to 8-32).
Fig. 8-26 Remnant railings on the South Bubble Cliff Trail (#451) in 1999.
Fig. 8-27 Iron bridge across ledges on the South Bubble Cliff Trail (#451) in 1963.
208
Chapter 8: Ironwork
It is interesting to note that the Ladder Trail (#64), which was heavily reworked by the CCC, incorporates two of the crosspiece/welded rung-style ladders as seen on Beech Cliff (Fig. 8-33). Likewise, the Perpen- dicular Trail (#119) climbs a short 4-foot ladder (see Fig. 8-3). This is an apparent CCC approach to ladders, as opposed to typical VIA/VIS rung ladders.
Fig. 8-28 Remnant iron bridge on the South Bubble Cliff Trail (#451) in 1999.
Fig. 8-30 End of rope cable on Beech Cliff Ladder Trail (#106).
Fig. 8-31 Cable on stanchions on the Beech Cliff Ladder Trail (#106).
Fig. 8-29 Ladder on the Beech Cliff Ladder Trail (#106).
Fig. 8-32 Fastener for ladder on the Beech Cliff Ladder Trail (#106).
209
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
On the Perpendicular Trail (#119), 160 feet of walled tread and switchback is secured with pins. Most of these are Vi inch diameter, and only 2 to 3 inches tall. They are barely discernible, with no detrimental effect on the overall view of the intricate stonework (Fig. 8-34). There are also pins throughout the Valley Cove section of Flying Mountain Trail (#105). One section, though, reveals a most remarkable use of iron in the form of a pinned rock walkway. This tread runs 60 feet across open ledge. Two dozen steps are secured in place with eighteen pins, with evidence of five to seven other pins rusted away. Perhaps these pins were not as visible when first installed. Possibly, vegetation in the area concealed these pins. With subsequent vegeta- tion loss over the years, they are now highly visible (Fig. 8-35). In contrast to the extensive use of iron on some CCC trails, the highly crafted Valley Trail (#116) contains extensive walls and stonework steps with no ironwork.
&g£$mk
— ~:£fct 5^E -
j^*"'
m, <
. >
£
y
Two areas deserve special note as curious anomalies. First, along the Long Pond Trail (#118), a pinned log walkway exists, creating tread approximately 24 inches wide. It is so out of character with the 4-foot width of over 2 miles of this trail that this may be a later repair or alteration of a pinned retaining wall. Second, on the Perpendicular Trail (#119), a highly crafted trail
Fig. 8-34 This section of coping and retaining wall along a staircase on the Perpendicular Trail (#119) is held in place with iron pins that are expertly hidden among the stone. It is typical of the type of ironwork used by the CCC on this trail.
Fig. 8-33 Ladder on Ladder Trail (#64), a VIA trail, similar to the CCC type.
Fig. 8-35 Increased pin visibility resulting from vegetation loss on the Flying Mountain Trail (#105).
210
Chapter 8: Ironwork
with extensive stonework, there are very few rungs, a pinned log, and a short ladder (Fig. 8-36, also Fig. 8-3). Careful examination of this area suggests that steps may have been used, or at least planned for, since there are step-shaped blocks immediately to the side of the trail, stacked and indeed usable as steps. The ladder differs slightly from the original Beech Cliff ladders. The limited use of rungs on this trail, the possibility of steps set aside, and the difference in character from other CCC work suggest this iron was a later addition.
NPS/Mission 66
There is no record or evidence of Mission 66 using ironwork. However, improvements to the Lower Mountain Road in the early 1960s included the addi- tion of galvanized pipe hand railings and iron rungs near the Park Loop Road.
National Park Service
NPS has continued to install and maintain ironwork. Most work involves the replacement of broken or rusted rungs or rails. New rungs are occasionally installed in areas that cannot be climbed without iron and where hiker safety is a concern. In some instance in the early 1980s, rungs were replaced with pre-made rungs of differing lengths. This accounts for some of the Precipice Trail (#11) rung ladders which con- tain various-length hand/footholds. Also, many rung placements show visible drill holes within a few inches
of their present location. This serves as evidence of replacements, as drill holes normally cannot be reused. Again, on The Precipice, the safety rails near the wood bridge exhibit up to three holes, suggesting as many replacements over the years. In spite of replacements, many of the original rungs remain in the system.
The current iron ladders on the Beech Cliff Ladder Trail (#106) are replacements of the CCC originals. One ladder was replaced in 1976, the other three in 1984. The bracing is different from the original, and the second ladder up was lengthened due to erosion at its base, but in general the spirit and intent of the original trail has been followed.
In the 1980s, to cope with increasing sign vandalism, NPS crew began pinning both standard and log sign posts to ledge areas. A K-inch pin is run alongside the post, with a bolt through both pin and post (Fig. 8-37).
During the 1990s, new materials and methods of installation have been used by NPS crews. Stainless
Fig. 8-36 Pinned log on the Perpendicular Trail (#119) (refer also to Fig. 8-3).
Fig. 8-37 Pinning technique used to deter sign vandalism on signpost at the Bear Brook Trail trailhead (#10).
211
Acadia Trails Treatment plan
steel pins were introduced on the Beachcroft Path (#13) to secure a wall foundation. These were used to differentiate new work from original pins and in hopes they would last longer. Ironwork was added to some traditionally iron-free areas. One rung was installed on the Parkman Mountain Trail (#59) and one on the Acadia Mountain Trail (#101), which was later removed. Several foot and hand rungs have been added to the Precipice Trail (#11). In some cases this has been in response to genuine concerns. Erosion may have altered conditions in such a way that rungs are a necessity. Additionally, the death of a hiker on the Beehive Trail (#7) in 2000 necessitated the addi- tion of more rungs in one area to address visitor safety; this may happen elsewhere throughout the system. New methods of installation were developed, includ- ing the use of chemical cement to anchor ironwork, and bending the pin prior to insertion, with the pres- sure on the crimped pin providing the friction to hold it in place.
HISTORICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF IRONWORK
Pre-VIA/VIS (pre-1890)
There is no record of the use of ironwork prior to the VIA/VIS period.
VIA/VIS Period (1890-1937)
There was extensive use of iron pins, rungs, rails, ladders, and bridges on many, but not all highly crafted trails, particularly cliff trails. The iron was generally painted.
CCC Period (1933-42)
Iron pins, rungs, and ladders were used on sections of cliffside and pondside trails.
NPS/Mission 66 Period (1943-66)
There was no use of ironwork during this period.
NPS Period (1967-1997)
Rusted iron rungs and ladders were replaced. Additional ironwork included pins for wall repairs, pinning signposts to ledge, and new rungs and ladders for hiker safety and convenience. Stainless steel pins and chemical cements were introduced.
TREATMENT OF IRONWORK
1. Durability
Issue: Rust, rockfall, and areas of constant use affect the longevity of ironwork, particularly of rails, rungs, and stanchions. Historic records indicate the VIA/VIS painted iron to inhibit rust.
Treatment Guidelines: Some iron will require more frequent replacement due to rust, rockfalls, or high use. If a section of iron is damaged or destroyed by a rockfall, replacement ironwork should be placed outside of the rock fall line when possible, to reduce the likelihood of future damage. Changes in loca- tion should be documented. In certain areas, railing stanchions occasionally break due to stress or rockfall. Replacement of these stanchions should be considered part of the long-term maintenance program if altera- tions would greatly affect the appearance or experi- ence of a given trail or trail section. Ironwork should not be painted. Many unpainted rungs have lasted over eighty years, suggesting the gain from painting is negligible. Deterioration is more prevalent in areas subject to seasonal water flow and moisture. If pos- sible, ironwork should be placed in areas that remain relatively dry.
2. Size of Materials
Issue: Most extant ironwork is M-inch-diameter steel for rungs or rails; however, some historic iron used a smaller diameter.
Treatment Guidelines: For safety and longevity, replacement iron rungs and rails should be a minimum of % inch diameter, which is sufficient to withstand stress.
3. Use of Stainless Steel
Issue: Stainless steel was not used historically on the trail system, but it offers a new solution to prevent deterioration by rust.
Treatment Guidelines: Because of its lack of historic authenticity, and its smooth surface that provides little friction for a grip, stainless is not presently recom-
212
Chapter 8: Ironwork
mended for use on highly visible and used features like ladders, rungs, and rails. Stainless steel pins may be used to support rock wall or coping where they are not visible and are not intended to be used directly by a hiker.
Additionally, stainless steel is slightly more brittle than iron, and may not hold up to the stresses of con- stant use on frequently used features. However, as it generally corrodes at a slower rate, stainless steel may indeed last longer than iron. Test applications of stain- less should be implemented to document and study the long-term endurance and reliability of stainless steel.
4. Adding Rungs or Rails
Issue: The ease in which iron can be used to solve tread problems may preclude the use of less-intensive solutions, or cause overuse. Adding new iron rungs or rails for hiker convenience may affect the character of a trail or trail sections. Additions may also affect physi- cal visitor experience. That is, a trail may become more easily traversed, and some of the thrill of a difficult section may be lost. Some of the feeling of climbing on natural surfaces may be compromised.
5. Adding Pins
Issue: Pins are often used as a quick and easy solution for supporting structures such as retaining walls and wooden railings.
Treatment Guidelines: Pins may be added for the pur- pose of supporting structures such as retaining walls or wooden railings. Added pins should be hidden or disguised so as not to alter the appearance of the trail. In particular, added stainless steel pins should be well concealed. Additions should be documented.
6. Documentation
Issue: New ironwork is often difficult to distinguish from historical work. This may affect maintenance or inspection procedures, or future historical research.
Treatment Guidelines: The use of stainless steel pins distinguishes new work. In lieu of stainless steel, maintaining comprehensive documentation will suffice for differentiation between new and historical work. Historic pins should not be removed unless absolutely necessary.
Treatment Guidelines: Iron should not be used as a panacea. Its use should be tied to what is appropriate to the individual trail, rather than simply adding rungs, rails, or pins where they were not used historically. For example, rungs should not be added to an eroded area of a woodland trail. Ironwork should not be installed under misguided attempts to make trails easier to traverse. This would include areas where there is only a slight drop-off along the tread, where tread width is safe and sufficient, or where there are several handhold options.
SPECIFICATIONS FOR IRONWORK
1. Hole Depth
Ladders: Ladder supports, either for VIA/VIS trails or the CCC ladders, require a minimum 4-inch depth.
Pins: Pins supporting stonework require a minimum 2-inch depth.
Railing: Railing stanchions require a minimum 3-inch depth.
There are instances where a limited number of iron additions are necessary due to changes in terrain that result from a rockfall, where accidents have occurred, or there is a safety concern, such as a precipitous drop, limited tread width, or insufficient foot or handholds. Additions should be accomplished in a manner appro- priate to the trail and the area so the visual character of the trail will not be affected.
Rungs: Vertical or horizontal hand and foot rungs require a minimum 3-inch depth; 4 inches is suggested.
2. Hole Diameter
Bolts: For expansion bolts, follow the manufacturer's recommendation.
213
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
Cement: For chemical cements, allow at least !4 inch larger diameter than metal to be used, and/or follow the manufacturer's recommendation.
Pins: For wedged or crimped pins, hole diameter is the same size as the metal to be used.
rung safely and effectively works. Hikers must be able to grasp or stand on the rung.
Stanchions: Stanchions should range from approxi- mately 30 inches high (Beech Cliff Ladder Trail, #106) to approximately 36 inches high (Precipice Trail, #11).
3. Materials
Ladders: Use 2-inch by 2-inch by !4-inch side-pieces. An exception is on the Ladder Trail (#64), which uses 2-inch by 3/s-inch flat steel.
Pins: Default to Ya inch diameter. Exceptions include areas where visible pin size and appearance should match surrounding work. Use cold-rolled steel where visible. Where not visible, stainless steel may be substi- tuted for support of rock coping or wall.
Railings: Use M-inch-diameter cold-rolled steel. Exceptions include areas such as the Precipice rails where M-inch galvanized pipe is used, and Beech Cliffs where ^4-inch-diameter cable is installed.
Rungs: Use M-inch-diameter cold-rolled steel in all instances.
Stanchions: Use %-inch cold-rolled steel, except on the Beech Cliff Ladder Trail (#106) which uses 2-inch- square steel stock.
4. Protruding Distance
Pins: Pins should protrude at a distance to match surrounding work. New pins should protrude as little as possible to perform their supporting function. Pin height for pinning stones should not exceed 6 inches unless this matches work in surrounding areas. Pin height to support wooden railings should be 6 inches minimum. Signpost supports require pins to protrude 12 to 14 inches above the surface. These pins are heated and flattened on their top 3 to 6 inches, and drilled to accept a Vs-inch bolt for attachment to the signpost.
Rungs: Rungs should protrude at a distance to match surrounding work. This distance must be such that the
5. Method of Attachment (Figs. 8-38 to 8-41)
Cements: A hydraulic cement, such as brand name Waterplug, is now used successfully for sign pins. Further research and/or the test of time is necessary to establish the practicality of this method, especially for rungs or rails. Installation is in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. Cement should not be used where visible. Small indentations or nicks should be filed or sawn into pin along the length that will be inserted in the hole. This will allow the cement to grip the pin.
Crimping: A pin is bent or crimped slightly, at approx- imately one-half the distance it will be inserted in the hole base. When inserted, this crimp causes enough pressure on the sides of the drilled hole to keep a pin in place. Crimping alone is unreliable for rungs and rails but may be used for pins. Rungs and rails should be installed with the traditional wedge method plus a slight crimp.
Expansion Bolts: Expansion bolts have not been used on trails. These may be used for anchoring non- historic features such as new ladder supports, hidden pins, or sign pins. Installation is in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. Expansion bolts should not be used where visible.
Wedging: Using a hacksaw, a slit is cut YA inches up from the base of the rung along its axis. A small metal handle wedge is placed in this slit and inserted in the drilled hole. The rung is forcefully hammered into place. As the rung is hammered, the wedge is driven against the bottom of the hole. This forces the wedge to spread the base of the pin against the sides of the hole, causing friction to hold in the rung or pin.
214
Chapter 8: Ironwork
Lead Wool: Lead wool is a matted gathering of thin strands of lead. It is similar in appearance to common steel wool. When packed tightly, the strands form an effective barrier against the intrusion of water. Small pinches of lead wool are wrapped around the inserted pin. Using a pin punch, the lead wool is packed into the gap between pin and rock. There is a sufficient amount when the wool is hard packed to approxi- mately Vs inch above the rock surface. The final surface should be tamped smooth to form a watertight seal. Always use gloves during this operation, as lead is a toxic substance.
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE
1. Careful documentation of location of all ironwork is critical.
2. Inspect all coping stones, retaining walls, steps, and overhanging boulders that are supported by pins for shifting, rotating, or possibility of falling. Make sure rocks are stable and not loose.
3. Inspect all ironwork for corrosion and replace when it appears the work may fail.
Fig. 8-38 Detail of iron attachment using chemical adhesive or hydraulic cement.
Fig. 8-39 Detail of iron attachment using bending or crimping.
|
Grooves are cut into pin before insertion Grooves allow cement to grip |
||
|
auau NH-aaiayga/ateiiptiug |
Pin is bent before it is hammered in
Pressure at these points causes friction to hold pin to rock
ACAD NP-Baldyga/Stellpflug
Steel wedge is inserted into hacksawed slot
As pin is driven into hole, wedge opens pin bottom and outward pressure holds pin in rock
Hole around pin is sealed with packed lead wool
ACAD NP-Baldyga/Stellpflug
Fig. 8-40 Detail of iron attachment using wedges.
>
Gaps may be filled with chemical adhesive or hydraulic cement
As threaded pin is turned, sliding sleeves I are forced outward
Pressure holds pin in rock.
ACAD NP-BaUyga/SKIpflug
Fig. 8-41 Detail of iron attachment using expansion bolts.
215
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
4. Check yearly all rungs and rails. Ensure that the work will support body weight without bending. Tap with small hammer and listen for a clear ring. If a clear ring is not present, this may indicate dete- rioration of the iron. Find the cause and correct, or replace rungs.
5. Repack the lead wool as necessary.
216
Fig. 9-1 Directional signs, like these CCC signs shown in the 1930s possibly near Gilley Field, have always been major guidance features on the trail system at Acadia.
CHAPTER 9:
Guidance
A. BLAZES
B. CAIRNS
C. DIRECTIONAL SIGNS
D. INFORMATIONAL SIGNS
E. SCREE
F. WOODEN RAILINGS AND FENCES
G. TRAIL NAMES
217
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
CHAPTER 9: GUIDANCE
Guidance encompasses all markers, signs, symbols, constructed features, and informa- tion provided to direct hikers along the trail and to their destination. While a number of con- structed features serve a secondary function of making the trail visible on the landscape, such as steps and stone pavement, this chapter deals only with features specifically designed to provide guidance. Six catego- ries of guidance features are used at Acadia.
A. Blazes
B. Cairns
C. Directional Signs
D. Informational Signs
E. Scree
F. Wooden Railings and Fences
G. Trail Names
For Acadia's trails, guidance features were described as early as 1855, though it was not until the 1890s that the VIA/VIS developed an island-wide system for mark- ing trails. The VIA/VIS Joint Path Committee issued standards for the four districts, which were followed until the 1930s when the CCC took over responsibility for trail signs within the park (Fig. 9-1). Since that time, the CCC signs have been continually replaced and updated, first during the NPS Mission 66 period and again by the NPS Trails Program.
Remnant Bates-style cairns within the park and signs posted on the Northeast Harbor VIS trails outside the park retain the characteristics of the VIA/VIS era. Short runs of steps constructed to help guide the hiker still remain (see Chapter 7, Historical Use). Most historical guidance features, however, have long since disappeared. Many features were removed as Acadia management made incremental style changes to sig- nage. As signs deteriorated, they were often replaced with a new style. Bates-style cairns were removed and/or not maintained by trails crews and hikers alike. Blazes have weathered beyond recognition, and van- dalism to signs, cairns, and blazes has continued to be a problem since the 1890s.
Loss of signs and change of trail names have created confusion over the years. These treatment guidelines provide standards for blazing, cairns, signage, and trail names.
Fig. 9-2 VIA/VIS pointer on tree indicating trail route, illustrated in the 1928 path guide.
Fig. 9-3 These wooden signs and pointers were early forms of trail guidance recommended by Waldron Bates.
Fig. 9-4 VIA/VIS metal marker, approximately 4 inches square, painted red, on the Green and Black Path (#358), origin unknown.
218
Chapter 9: Guidance; A. Blazes
A. BLAZES
DEFINITION
A blaze is a mark used to identify a trail and reassure hikers that they are following the route. Blazes may be markers nailed onto trees or marks painted onto led- gerock and/or trees. At Acadia, the most recent style of blazing is the use of blue painted rectangular marks, approximately VA by 4 inches in size.
HISTORICAL USE OF BLAZES AT ACADIA
Pre-VIA/VIS
In the 1880s, Clara B. Martin's guidebooks suggest that most hikers simply followed the "beaten" paths. How- ever, in 1885 she describes three trails radiating from Northeast Harbor, up Sargent Mountain, up Asticou Hill, and to Jordan Pond, that were marked with red arrows and blazes.
Village Improvement Associations/Societies
Beginning in the 1890s the Bar Harbor VIA used arrows and pointers to mark the trail route. Painted blazes were used only on the colored path system on Champlain and Gorham Mountains.
Fig. 9-5 VIA/VIS metal marker, approximately 4 inches square, painted half green and half black, on the Green and Black Path (#358), origin unknown.
The paths and trails are marked at their entrances and crossings by signs suitably inscribed; by cairns, i.e., piles of stones along the open rocks and ledges; by rustic arrows and pointers in the woods, or by colors painted on trees and rocks as around Newport [Champlain] Mountain.37
Arrows were straight branches, with tapered ends, nailed to trees to indicate trail direction (Figs. 9-2 & 9-3). Specifications for pointers were described in 1906 by Waldron Bates, BHVIA path committee chairman from 1900 to 1909:
Cut the pointers from hard-wood trees, maple by pref- erence, large, with blunt ends back and front, and with the back part forked, and so place them that no part of a pointer shall be nearer the ground than 6 ft. 6 in....
Before putting up a sign or a pointer, consider the situa- tion from all sides.
Where there is a sharp turn in a path, put up two point- ers on the same tree or build three cairns.
Where paths meet or cross in the woods, put up a pointer or a sign for each diverging path, usually all on the same tree, and another pointer on each path on nearby trees....
Where the [BHVIA] Association paths cross or meet wood roads or paths not shown on the Path Map, define the Association paths very clearly and put up extra pointers.
Blazing the colored path system at Champlain and Gorham Mountains was the work of Herbert Jaques, BHVIA path committee chairman between 1893 and 1900. Colored arrows and rings on the trees cor- responded to the name of the trail, such as the Black Path (currently the Bear Brook Trail, #10). The colored paths on Champlain Mountain were also marked with small metal blazes fastened to trees (Figs. 9-4 & 9-5). It is not known when these were initially used, but there are still metal blazes on the abandoned Green and Black Path (#358). They are 3 inches square and are striped green and black to correspond with the trail name. During the historic period, maps mounted on trees at trailheads provided a diagram of the colored path routes and destinations.
219
Acadia Trails Treatment plan
Civilian Conservation Corps
No documentation has been found for the use of blaz- ing by the CCC.
NPS/Mission 66
No documentation has been found for the use of blaz- ing during the Mission 66 era.
National Park Service
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, most wooded areas were marked with 3-inch-square metal blazes, all deep reddish orange in color. Ledge areas were marked with cairns. Remnants of an earlier marking system of large orange painted arrows was still evident in a few areas of the park. (It is unknown when these were first intro- duced.) There were perhaps a dozen arrows, of varying length and size, scattered and extremely faded. For example, on the Bear Brook Trail (#10) a large arrow pointed east with painted text "to the White Path."
During the mid-1970s, new orange paint blazes were introduced and blazing with metal tags was discontin- ued. By the late 1970s, metal blazes were completely
■A
■ • A v V -
. -\ - ■ H
Fig. 9-6 Bird-shaped metal marker on the Ledge Trail (#103).
removed from the marked trails (except for a few over- looked examples). In the mid-1970s, however, some trails were marked with bird-shaped metal blazes, approximately 4 inches long (Fig. 9-6). These blazes were difficult and time consuming to cut, and their use was discontinued in 1977, though a few still remain in the trail system. Within the Acadia National Park land on Schoodic Peninsula, some bird-shaped blazes also remain on open trails.
In the 1970s there were increasing numbers of hikers, subsequently increasing the need for trail guidance. Since the size of the park trails crew was insufficient to maintain a comprehensive system of cairns, standard- ized painted blazes were introduced. A few orange painted blazes still remained, so orange was chosen as the color for new blazes. In 1974 and 1975, 4-inch-long orange arrows were applied at various locations in the park. These included summits, intersections, and con- fusing areas. Application of the stenciled arrows was labor intensive, so the VA- by 4-inch rectangular blaze was adopted. By the mid-1980s the entire NPS system
Fig. 9-7 This blue painted blaze on the Ledge Trail (#103) is curved to indicate a turn in the trail. Most trail blazes are rectangular.
220
Chapter 9: Guidance; A. Blazes
on Mount Desert Island was marked with orange rect- angular blazes. Cairns were only used on a few trails.
The orange blazes, however, were considered too intrusive by some, so in the early 1990s an AMC study group recommended a change in blaze color. Acadia trails foreman Don Beal painted a stone with several test colors, and a committee chose sky blue as the blaze color that was most pleasing to the eye, the least intrusive, and was still easily spotted from a distance. Throughout the 1990s, the system of orange rectangu- lar paint blazes was replaced with blue blazes (Fig. 9-7).
The 1990s also saw a reintroduction of the square metal blazes for a short time. The original metal blazes had been nailed to trees, but the new blazes were installed in trees by cleaving a slot with an axe and inserting the blaze. To date, these blazes are extant on quite a few trails, though their maintenance and use has been discontinued.
TREATMENT
1. Excessive Blazing
Issue: Excessive paint blazes have been applied to some trails. Additionally, blazing has been used on steps, stone paving, rungs, and coping stones.
HISTORICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF BLAZES
Pre-VIA/VIS (pre-1890)
Some trails were marked with red arrows and blazes.
VIA/VIS Period (1890-1937)
Colored paths on Champlain and Gorham Mountains were marked with painted arrows, tree rings, and painted metal blazes.
CCC Period (1933-42)
No documentation for the use of blazes has been found.
NPS/Mission 66 Period (1943-66)
No documentation for the use of blazes has been found.
NPS Period (1967-1997)
Sporadic remnant orange arrow blazes, then rectangular paint blazes were used throughout the system. The use of metal blazes was discontinued, reinstated, then discontin- ued again. Eventually, blue paint blazes became standard for all trails.
3. Natural Resource Protection
Issue: Some hikers are troubled with the aesthetics of blazes, the visual intrusion of unnatural markers into the landscape, and the introduction of chemicals (paint) into the environment.
Treatment Guidelines: Paint should be applied according to the specifications outlined in this docu- ment. Paint should never be used on trail sections with steps, stone paving, rungs, coping stones, or otherwise clearly delineated tread, particularly on the memorial and endowed VIA/VIS trails. In such sections, blazing is not needed and detracts from trail character.
2. Metal Blazes
Issue: Metal blazes nailed to trees may be hazardous to hikers and potentially damaging to trees. Metal blazes in the shape of birds are difficult to produce.
Treatment Guidelines:The practice of using metal blazes, including bird-shaped tags, should not be reinstated.
Treatment Guidelines: Due to the large number of hikers at Acadia, the average hiker's skill level, and the challenge of some trails, the trails need to be clearly marked. Cairns are often difficult to main- tain, especially in wooded areas. Many hikers also object to the aesthetic appearance and the resultant resource damage of cairn building. Blazes have historic precedent at the park, can be relatively unobtrusive if used sparingly, and are considered an acceptable and appropriate method for marking trail routes at Acadia. Chemical intrusion in the environment can be minimized through careful training of trail blazers and following recommended application techniques developed in consultation with natural resource staff.
221
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
4. Colored Path System
Issue: Reinstating the historical use of various colored blazes for the colored path system on Champlain and Gorham Mountains, devised by Herbert Jaques in the 1890s, is inconsistent with the current system-wide approach of uniform blue blazes.
Treatment Guidelines: Due to the high volume of use of trails across the island, consistency and clear guidance are essential. Thus, one system and standard of blazing is recommended. However, as stated above, blazes should be used with restraint. The history of the colored path system should be interpreted through trail naming and signage (information is provided later in this chapter).
5. Ineffective Blazes
Issue: Blazes are often difficult to see, or are covered with snow. Their function is not apparent to some new hikers.
Treatment Guidelines: In wooded areas, blazes should be placed on trees. On ledges, blazes should be supplemented with cairns. Information on trail blazing at Acadia should be provided to hikers at trailhead signs and on park maps.
SPECIFICATIONS FOR BLAZES
Following are general specifications for the location and installation of paint blazes at Acadia. For further information on blazing in general, it is strongly recom- mended that trail workers read through, understand, and follow the guidelines established in The AMC Complete Guide to Trail Building and Trail Maintenance, 1998, pages 77-85. It provides an excellent summary of blazing.
1. Paint Color
A uniform sky blue color should be used within park boundaries. The paint currently used is Interlux Brightside Polyurethane, Medium Blue #4353. This paint, or a comparable mixture, should continue to be used for blazing.
2. General Location
As a general rule, trail sections with historic construc- tion features that adequately mark the route, such as steps, stairs, stone paving, or rungs, should not be blazed (Fig. 9-8). There are some exceptions to this rule. In certain areas, such as the tumbledown on The Precipice, constructed tread is almost indistinguishable from the surrounding area, and this presents many options for hikers to stray from the trail. Areas such as these should be paint blazed, using extreme care not to over-blaze. In other instances, constructed tread is in such a state of disrepair so as to make it difficult to follow the correct path. These areas, too, can be care- fully blazed until rehabilitation efforts more correctly define the corridor. All trails with unconstructed tread should be blazed to direct and reassure hikers, and to uniformly mark the trail system.
The character of the trail is a deciding factor in deter- mining blaze frequency. In general, the frequency of blazes increases in area where the tread is hard to discern or follow. This would include sections cross-
Fig. 9-8 This paint blaze located adjacent to a stone staircase on the Perpendicular Trail (#119) is unnecessary since steps and coping stones clearly delineate the trail route.
222
Chapter 9: Guidance; B. Cairns
ing old wood roads, social trails, sharp turns, and areas where natural conditions create false trails. Care should be taken to avoid excessive blazing.
The best rule of thumb is that a hiker should never walk out of sight of a blaze either behind or ahead. Depending on the terrain, this could be as far as a few hundred feet to as little as 20 feet. From TheAMC Complete Guide to Trail Building and Trail Maintenance, 1998: "Do not fail to mark a trail because you think no one could possibly get lost in that area.... Trail mark- ing is for the benefit of one who is unfamiliar with the trail. ..hikers, many with little experience. ..will rely on your blazes."
B. CAIRNS
DEFINITIONS
A cairn is a stone or a stone structure used as a trail marker. Cairns are used extensively on trails crossing the mountain summits, where the exposed ledgerock often leaves no location for sign placement, and painted blazes are easily missed or obscured. Addition- ally, cairns are especially important in locations such as summits where fog or snow can interfere with a hiker's ability to follow a trail; cairns are often easier to locate than blazes.
3. Application
Blazes should be applied in one direction at a time. Finish a trail in one direction, then mark the trail in the other direction. This ensures the best placement of blazes.
Use a wire brush to prepare stone surfaces and trees. Trees shall be wirebrushed, wiped with a dry rag (espe- cially white birch), or scraped. Do not scrape through the bark on any tree.
Blazes shall be rectangular marks 1 to 2 inches wide by 4 inches long. The length should run parallel to the treadway. No other types of marks should be used.
Apply the paint with a small brush 1 to 2 inches wide.
Piled cairns are a historic Acadia style of cairns that consist of randomly constructed stone piles used to mark the trail.
Bates-style cairns are a historic Acadia style of cairn dating from Waldron Bates's chairmanship of the Bar Harbor VIA. They are constructed of two base stones set apart with a lintel across them, creating an opening in the direction of the trail, and topped by a pointer stone (Figs. 9-13 & 9-23) . Some Bates-style cairns consist of two or more tiers constructed in this manner (Fig. 9-9).
Stacked cairns are a historic Acadia style of cairn con- sisting of stacked stones of diminishing size, from larg- est on bottom to smallest on top (Figs. 9-10 & 9-18).
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE
1. Paint blazes should be inspected yearly and/or when hikers complain about trail legibility.
2. Whenever blazes have faded or deteriorated to the point of being difficult to identify, the entire trail should be reblazed. "Spot" blazing should be avoided, as this would present a non-uniform marking system on any given trail.
3. Vegetation that is obscuring blazes should be trimmed, or the blaze completely removed and relocated, if possible.
Fig. 9-9 Bates-style cairn at the summit of Eliot Mountain, on the Asticou Ridge Trail (#520).
223
Acadia Trails Treatment plan
Conical cairns consist of tiers of circular, battered (in- sloped) walls that form a "cone" (Fig. 9-24) This type of cairn is the most substantial and solid of the cairn types, and is the standard used by the AMC. However, there is no evidence of its early historical use at Acadia. Use of conical cairns likely began in the 1970s and continued through the 1990s.
Upright single stones are large individual stones or boulders standing on end and acting as cairns (Fig. 9- 12). They were used historically at Acadia.
HISTORICAL USE AT ACADIA
Pre-VIA/VIS
The first description of a stone trail marker dates to 1855 when Charles Tracy noted a "sat up" boulder (an upright single stone) and pile of stones on the sum- mit of Sargent Mountain (Figs. 9-11 & 9-12). Benjamin F. DeCosta's 1871 guidebook indicates that the Bear Brook Trail (#10) (originally called the Path up New- port Mountain) was marked with piles of stones.
Village Improvement Associations/Societies
Beginning in 1890 the Bar Harbor VIA marked trails with signs, arrows, pointers, cairns, maps, and regula- tory signs. Cairns were used along the open ledgerock. Specifications for cairns were described in 1906 by Waldron Bates, Bar Harbor VIA path committee chair- man from 1900 to 1909 (Figs. 9-13 & 9-23).
Build the cairns as shown in the accompanying diagram pictures: two large stones with an opening between in line with the direction of the path, across one flat stone, and on top of this one long stone in line with the direc- tion of the path. Use large stones and set them firmly in place....
Where there is a sharp turn in a path, put up two point- ers on the same tree or build three cairns....
Where paths meet or cross on ledges, build a large pile of stones at the intersection and place a cairn on each diverging path about ten feet from the pile of
stones...
39
Cairns were used extensively on some ledge trails; however, construction varied. Many cairns con- structed under Bates are still extant. On the mountain summits, piles of stones, first described in 1855, have continued to grow to large mounds (Figs. 9-15 to 9-22).
Fig. 9-10 Stacked cairn on the Ledge Trail (#103) with a large boulder used as the base.
Fig. 9-11 This 1907 view, possibly located near Jordan Bluffs, shows two early cairn styles. The large upright stone may be the first style of cairn to mark recreational walking routes. In 1855, Charles Tracy described a "sat-up" boulder on the summit of Sargent. The smaller Bates-style cairn represents an early VIA/VIS style of cairn building.
224
Chapter 9: Guidance; B. Cairns
Fig. 9-12 A "sat-up" or upright stone marking the trail across exposed ledge rock on the Dorr Mountain East Face Trail (Emery Path/Schiff Path, #15).
EXAMPLE OF CAIRNS IN THE WOODS
CADILLAC CLIFFS PATH
Fig. 9-13 Cairn included in Waldron Bates 1906 General Instruc- tions for Work on Paths in the 1906 Bar Harbor VIA Annual Report.
RUSTIC ARROWS AND CAIRNS
Fig. 9-15 Early images of trail markers and cairns illustrated in the 1915 path guide.
Fig. 9-16 Large cairn on the Potholes Path (#342) photographed in 1995.
Fig. 9-14 Stone cairn with large upright stone on the Seaside Path, circa 1910.
225
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
Fig. 9-17 A 1906 photo of a small Bates-style cairn, exact location unknown, but most likely near Seal Harbor.
Fig. 9-18 VIA/VIS stacked cairn on the Van Santvoord Trail (#450).
Fig. 9-20 Bates-style cairn on the Van Santvoord Trail (#450).
Fig. 9-21 Bates-style cairn on the Potholes to Eagles Crag Trail (#343).
Fig. 9-19 This Bates-style cairn on the Sargent Mountain South Ridge Trail (#52) in 1999 may have survived in this open location because of its extra large lintel stone.
Fig. 9-22 A large pile of stones marking the summit of Dorr Mountain.
226
Chapter 9: Guidance; B. Cairns
Civilian Conservation Corps
No documentation has been found relating to cairn use by the CCC.
NPS/Mission 66
No documentation has been found relating to cairn use by the NPS during the Mission 66 era.
National Park Service
Although initially the NPS repaired and installed cairns on mountain ridges, ledges, and in some wooded areas, over the years cairn use was altered. Many historical cairns were dismantled on abandoned trails to dis- courage hikers from using those routes. The Bates- style cairn was considered too vulnerable to vandalism, leading the trails crew to discontinue its use in the 1970s, when they began building conical cairns. By the early 1980s, disheartened by the speed with which cairns were being vandalized, Gary Stellpflug discon- tinued cairn building altogether in favor of blazes. Blazing became the primary mode of marking ledge
HISTORICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF CAIRNS
Pre-VIA/VIS (pre-1890)
Two types of cairns were used: piles of stones and upright single stones.
VIA/VIS Period (1890-1937)
Four types of cairns were used: Bates-style cairns, stacked cairns, piled cairns (typically on summits), and upright single stones.
CCC Period (1933-42)
No documentation has been found for the style of cairns used.
NPS/Mission 66 Period (1943-66)
No documentation has been found for the style of cairns used.
NPS Period (1967-1997)
Paint blazing was introduced to mark ledge areas. Conical cairns were introduced and used to replace Bates-style cairns. Many Bates-style cairns were dismantled on aban- doned trails. Bates-style cairns were reintroduced in 2002.
trails. In the early 1990s, the trails crew began using the conical cairn and it became the standard type of cairn used in the park. Beginning in 2000, in response to rapid degradation of summit ecosystems by wan- dering hikers, a substantial program of cairn building that focused on mountain ridges was begun by Acadia Resource Management. The Acadia Ridge Runners began constructing new cairns to direct traffic over sensitive summit areas. In 2002 the Ridge Runners began building new Bates-style cairns. At the time of this document, the overall success of the program, as well as the relative success of the two cairn types, has not been determined.
TREATMENT
1. Bates-Style Cairns versus Conical Cairns
Issue: Historically, the Bates-style cairn was the most widely used kind of trail marker, at least on trails on the eastern side of Mount Desert Island. These cairns are also the easiest to build, provided an adequate number of suitably sized and shaped stones can be found (see "Specifications for Cairns"). However, there is a concern that Bates-style cairns may be more easily knocked over than conical cairns and they may be more likely to encourage "copycat" cairns (see below) due to their ease of construction and pleasing appearance.
Treatment Guidelines: The park is currently in an experimental phase to determine whether Bates-style or conical cairns are preferred for use on the trail system, given the construction difficulties, ease of visibility, and life span of each cairn style. Currently, the preferred treatment recommends constructing Bates-style cairns on the eastern side of the island if they can be shown to meet these criteria reasonably well. However, if conical cairns are shown to be much more durable, encourage less copycatting, and/or are substantially easier to construct, they may be used instead of Bates-style cairns.
227
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
2. Vandalism and Copycatting
Issue: Cairns of any type are consistently toppled, and nearly every summit in Acadia has a number of copycat cairns built both on and off-trail. The building of copycat cairns not only misleads hikers, it disturbs the character of trails and endangers local habitats since stones for these cairns are often pulled from soil pockets, destabilizing the plant life and subjecting the soil to erosion.
Treatment Guidelines: Cairns will be built and main- tained by park staff as needed. Resource management will continue, and increase if possible, efforts to edu- cate visitors concerning vandalism and copycatting. Such education efforts might include model cairns, information in park publications and on maps, signs, and direct education on the trails by park staff.
3. Documentation
Issue: The historic cairns still extant in the park are not adequately documented.
Treatment Guidelines: Every effort should be made to identify and preserve historic cairns that are extant on both open and abandoned trails. The age of the cairn can be approximated by examining the lichen growth on the outer surfaces and comparing it to the concealed surfaces on which the stones are stacked. In general, the lesser the amount of lichen inside the cairn, relative to that outside the cairn, the older it is. When identified, historic cairns should be documented with black-and-white photographs.
SPECIFICATIONS FOR CAIRNS
Cairn spacing will vary depending on visibility and the number of turns a trail makes, but a general guideline is that cairns should be spaced 50 to 100 feet apart. Hikers should always have in sight at least the cairn in front and the cairn behind the one at which thy are standing. Cairns should not be built in locations where they will intrude on the landscape, such as on a ridge where they will be silhouetted against the sky to ascending hikers.
Stones for cairns may be gathered or quarried from the surrounding area, following the guidelines set forth in Acadia's Hiking Trails Management Plan.40 When gathering material, best management practices should be followed to avoid resource damage. According to Demrow and Salisbury, trail workers should "Take care to avoid damaging areas with fragile soils and vegetation while you are quarrying rock. Find a rock pile near the site that you can reach without trampling plants (i.e. walk on rocks). Carry the rock to the cairn site, or use a rock basket or a skyline. ..to move large quantities of rock." 41
1. Bates-Style Cairn (Fig. 9-23)
Four stones are needed: two base stones, a lintel, and a pointing stone. The sizes of historic cairns vary greatly, but following are the ideal dimensions for a cairn built in a place where it needs to be seen from a distance and may be subjected to toppling. Smaller versions may be appropriate for trails with little use or woodland trails. Base stones should be rectilinear stones averaging 16 inches to 2 feet long, 10 inches high, and 10 inches wide. The lintel stone should be an elongated plate and need not be rectilinear. Ideally it should be between 2 and 3 feet long and at least 1 foot across. The pointer should be an elongated stone no longer than the width of the lintel on which it is to be placed. It may be rounded.
The base stones are set in the ground or on ledge with their length in the direction of the trail. They should be gapped so that the lintel stone will just reach their outside edges when it is laid across them lengthwise. If the stones wobble, or if the ground is sloped, solid shims may be used, if they are locked in (see Chapter 7), or a stone base built under them.
Some cairns have two stones stacked on top of each other acting as a single base stone. This is seen only occasionally in historic cairns, and the technique should be used sparingly. If two stones are to be used as a single base stone, both should be sufficiently wide and flat so that the top stone fits solidly on the lower stone without shimming.
228
Chapter 9: Guidance; B. Cairns
The lintel is laid across the base stones with its length perpendicular to the trail. If possible, base stones should be adjusted so that the lintel is solid, but shims may be used under the lintel if necessary.
The pointer stone is set on top of the lintel so that it points in the direction of the trail. No shims should be used to secure this stone, as it is not of sufficient weight to keep them in place.
The height of the finished cairn should be at least 16 inches.
2. Conical Cairn (Fig. 9-24)
Conical cairns should be built in layers. The base layer should be built of large, flat stones; for subsequent lay- ers, flat stones should be arranged to slope toward the center of the cairn. Each stone should have three con- tact points for stability. Stones should span joints in previous layers, as in the construction of stone retain- ing walls. Small stones should not be used as wedges or stabilizers between layers; these will eventually loosen, resulting in an unstable cairn. A stable and strong cairn relies on good contact between adjoining stones.42
1' min.
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE
1. Toppled or fallen cairns should be rebuilt. If pos- sible, the original stones should be located and reused to avoid disturbing more of the area.
2. Copycat cairns and other stone structures should be dismantled, and the stones scattered or used in needed cairns.
3. If cairns are constantly toppled in a given area, a new guidance solution, such as paint blazes, should be considered.
4. In areas where it is evident that hikers are wander- ing, new cairns should be considered, or other guidance features added, such as coping stones.
Joints are
broken
Plan view of a well-constructed cairn
ACAD NP-Baklyga
Fig. 9-24 Detail of a conical cairn.
Base stones 16"-24" is typical
ACAD NP-Baldyga/Barter Fig. 9-23 Detail of a Bates-style cairn.
229
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
C. DIRECTIONAL SIGNS
DEFINITIONS
this flat face includes trail and destination names and directional arrows (Fig. 9-35, also 9-42 & 9-43). Gary Stellpflug developed this style of signage for Acadia in 1980.
Directional signs contain information to direct hik- ers. These signs are usually located at trail heads, road crossings, trail intersections, summits, and points of interest.
Trailhead or log signs are signs crafted from a single log which has had a flat face cut on one or both sides for the top portion of the log. Information routed into
|
■k £ |
||
|
Jjgj* . V |
||
|
^^^^^3Bl |
^bk_^L |
|
|
it |
%£ ' fi§^ |
|
|
'?m j0tm-k |
Fig. 9-25 On this signpost at the summit of Sargent Mountain, the sign in the center is the oldest of the three and directs walkers to "Somes Sound." The upper and lower signs were likely installed under the direction of Waldron Bates, who recommended "burned-in" lettering. Both the Giant Slide Trail and Chasm Brook Trail were laid out by Bates in 1903, thus the signs were relatively new in this 1907 photograph. Note the point on one end and the slight taper on the "cut-off" end.
Flat signs are planed wood pieces containing lim- ited information, such as a trail or summit name. The lettering is usually routed or chiseled into the wood. Flat signs may be pointer signs, which are cut to a point on one end, indicating the direction of the sign's named location. Flat signs may also be rectangular signs, which are cut square on each end and indicate the location where the sign is placed, such as a sum- mit, spring, or the trail the hiker is on. Flat signs are mounted, usually in groups, on posts (Figs. 9-33 & 9-34, also Figs. 9-40 & 9-41). Posts may be milled square posts, milled round posts, or natural logs. Some original VIA/VIS signs were mounted on trees, but this practice is no longer used at Acadia.
HISTORICAL USE OF SIGNS AT ACADIA
Pre-VIA/VIS
There is no documentation for sign use on the Mount Desert Island trails prior to the VIA/VIS period.
Fig. 9-26 Signs shown in the 1928 path guide built in the Waldron Bates style.
Fig. 9-27 This 1906 image shows several early VIA/VIS signs near Seal Harbor. The individual signs were mounted on a tree at a height of approximately 6 feet.
230
Chapter 9: Guidance; C. Directional Signs
Village Improvement Associations/Societies
Beginning in 1890 the Bar Harbor VIA marked trails with signs, arrows, pointers, cairns, maps, and regula- tory signs. The group marked "paths and trails... at their entrances and crossings by signs suitably inscribed."43 Specifications were described in 1906 by Waldron Bates (Figs. 9-25 to 9-27, also Fig. 9-3):
Make the signs with both ends pointed and with the lettering burned in. When the position of a sign is deter- mined, cut off one end so that the other end shall point in the desired direction.
Before putting up a sign or a pointer, consider the situation from all sides.
Where paths meet or cross in the woods, put up a pointer or a sign for each diverging path, usually all on the same tree, and another pointer on each path on nearby trees.
Where the [BHVIA] Association paths cross or meet wood roads or paths not shown on the Path Map, define the Association paths very clearly and put up extra pointer....
See that the waterproofed and varnished Path Maps mounted on cloth, placed at a few important points on the paths, are renewed from year to year. Place signs, at a few important points on the paths worded as follows: B. H. V. I. A. The land-owner has a right to close this path. Do not injure trees or shrubs.44
On the colored path system maps were mounted on trees at trailheads and provided a diagram of the colored path routes and destinations. In 1900, cross-island uniformity of trail marking standards was achieved by the Joint Path Committee of the Bar Harbor VIA, Seal Harbor VIS, and Northeast Harbor VIS. The committee was expanding in 1914 to include Southwest Harbor VIA. Resolutions adopted in 1914 included:
• The use of standardized signs — wooden varnished signs with letters cut in and painted red, referred to as "Bates" signs — at most locations (excepting summits).
• The placement of steel signs on summit and ridge trails to eliminate the need for their annual replacement (Fig. 9-28).
• A numbering system for trails to be marked on trail signs, maps, and guides.
Fig. 9-28 This steel post with signs, shown here in 1965, was located on the Sargent Mountain North Ridge Trail (#53) and dated to the VIA/VIS period. The signs read: Aunt Bettys Pond, Chasm Brook, Sargent Mt., and Giant Slide. They were removed circa 1970, but the spot where the angle iron support was cemented into the rock is still visible.
Fig. 9-29 One of the last remaining early VIA/VIS signs pictured in 1961 with lower-case letters at the top of post. Later VIA/VIS signs with upper-case letters on lower post located on the Jordan Cliffs Trail (#48).
231
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
f HomcAsnmcR
JORDAN STREAM LONG POND
MITCHELL HILL
Fig. 9-30 CCC-style carriage road trail markers in the NPS sign shop.
Fig. 9-31 A 1958 photo of a 1930s CCC trail sign at Lookout Point on the Mansell Mountain Trail (#115). The sign is nailed to a notched post that was stained brown and cut with a conical top. The sign had tapered ends and was also stained brown with chiseled letters painted yellow.
Fig. 9-32 Two different styles of CCC signs are shown in this 1958 photograph. The sign on the left was stained brown with yellow painted letters. The sign in the center was left natural, weathered wood with painted letters. Although different colors, these signs all contained one pointed and one beveled end, and were mounted on round posts with conical tops, though blunter than those in the Bar Harbor district.
Fig. 9-33 This CCC sign, photographed in 1964, was one of the last remaining CCC signs. It was located at the intersection of the Green and White Path (#327) with the Black Path (Gorham Mountain Trail, #4) on Champlain Mountain near the outlet of The Bowl. The signs read from top to bottom: Black Path to Champlain Mountain; Otter Creek Road at Canon Brook Path (pointing to the Green and Black Path, #358, which forked off a little up the ridge); Ocean Drive; Beehive Mt.; Otter Creek Road at Canon Brook Path (may have been reattached and not an original sign on this post). CCC-type signs such as this were used in the Bar Harbor district, and were slightly different than signs on the west side of the island. Bar Harbor district posts were taller, had pointed tops, and could accommodate more signs. The use of a second line in smaller letters only occurred in the Bar Harbor area. This type of sign became extremely rare, as most burned during the 1947 fire. Note the very pointed conical post top.
w
« • A-
■•-.> ! f
r*j
;i^imr
WV
Fig. 9-34 NPS signpost on the South Bubble Trail (#43), in the saddle between the North and South Bubble Trails.
232
Chapter 9: Guidance; C. Directional Signs
Fig. 9-35 Trailhead sign on the Kane Path/Tarn Trail (#17) marking the way to Sieur de Monts Spring.
Fig. 9-37 Within the park, near Northeast Harbor, are signs made by the current Northeast Harbor VIS that retain the VIA/VIS style (pointed on one end, tapered on the other, chiseled letters) but are slightly more crafted (edges are slightly beveled, thus not "cut off" in the field. These signs are on the Norumbega Lower Hadlock to Goat Trail (#69).
Fig. 9-38 Detail of sign in the current Northeast Harbor VIS district with square post, pointed at the top, located near the entrance to the Asticou Brook Trail, or "Path," near the Asticou Gardens (#514).
Fig. 9-36 Within the former Bar Harbor VIA district are contemporary signs of unknown origin (i.e., by a phantom), located within the park on unmarked trails. These signs mimic the VIA/VIS style (pointed on one end, tapered on the other) but with alterations (beveled edge, routed rather than chiseled letters.) The center sign "To CANYON BROOK TRAIL" was installed in about 1997.
Fig. 9-39 Signpost on the Little Harbor Brook Trail (#55) at the Route 3 trailhead. The sign is stained gray with red painted letters, in the Northeast Harbor VIS style.
233
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
Acadia superintendent George Dorr changed the names of many of the mountain peaks in about 1918. This in turn required name changes for many of the trails and required the replacement of many signs. Local resistance to name changes, particularly by the Northeast Harbor VIS, resulted in a mix of signs with old and new names, a situation that still persists in a few locations.
During the early period of park ownership, the VIA/VIS path committees continued to maintain all markings. When the park began producing signs in the 1930s through the CCC, the path committees contin- ued to maintain trail signs outside the park and also within the park in their respective districts, but with less uniformity than had been done previously (Fig. 9-29).
Civilian Conservation Corps
A 1935 NPS Master Plan for the trail system, coupled with CCC manpower, resulted in an overhaul of trail signage within the park. CCC records indicated that new signs were needed in conjunction with recent trail construction, as replacements for signs in bad repair, or where makeshift shingle signs had been used. Approximately 700 trail signs were installed on the eastern half of the island and 80 on the western half of the island. Where adaptable to the site, signs on tall posts were used. Where views of the surround- ing landscape were important, a waist-high signpost was used. Signs were mounted on notched posts with cut, conical tops (Figs. 9-30 to 9-33, also Fig. 9-1). Two color schemes were used: (1) stained brown signs and posts with chiseled, yellow-paint letters, and (2) natural weathered signs and posts with chiseled, red- paint letters. (Further research is needed to determine whether brown and yellow signs adhered to nation- wide CCC specifications, and if natural and red signs were intended to harmonize with the existing VIA/VIS signs.)
NPS/Mission 66
CCC signs persisted into the 1950s, but by 1959 NPS/ Mission 66 crews removed all extant signs and installed approximately 400 signs, probably similar in
style to the flat signs currently used at Acadia. How- ever, signs no longer indicated trail names, but instead described destinations and distances. For example, rather than "Giant Slide Trail" and "Sargent Moun- tain Trail," the signs read "Sargent Mountain, 2.0." Without individual trail names on the new signs, it was often difficult to know which trail one was fol- lowing. On trails that were to be abandoned, signs were removed and not replaced. This sign change was coincident with a renaming of the trails in which many historic names were changed.
Sign is typically 48" high from ground to top of post
(higher if need be)
Cone is 4" high
Post is notched for signs
48"
Sign angled to point exactly in direction of referent
Signs bolted
to post —
bolt between
letters
"Deadman"
used if sign
cannot be
buried 30"
(or pinned
to ledge)
Deadman is notched together and post is notched for deadman
ACAD NP-Baldyga/BaiKx
Fig. 9-40 Detail of a typical signpost for flat signs.
234
Chapter 9: Guidance; C. Directional Signs
National Park Service
In the 1970s Acadia trails foreman Gary Stellpflug altered sign specifications to reduce vandalism and use local materials. Signs were bolted rather than nailed to posts. Cedar was introduced along with redwood. Distances were given in both miles and kilometers. Stellpflug continued to use the size, shape, and font style of the earlier flat signs, a style that may have been developed during the Mission 66 era (Fig. 9-34, also Figs. 9-40 & 9-41).
In 1980, Stellpflug introduced the log sign as an alternative to the easily vandalized or stolen flat signs, mainly at trailheads along motor roads. The original design was routed letters on the face of a 4-inch-round by 8-foot-long post. One such sign was installed at the southern Gorham Mountain Trail (#4) trailhead. Within a year, Stellpflug developed the current log sign design, which became the standard sign for entrances to the trail system and trail crossings with motor roads or carriage roads (Fig. 9-35, also Figs. 9-42 & 9-43).
Distance given in miles and kilometers towards point of sign
90" angle
■ All 1" letters
- Space is 1/4" min. between words
- Space is 1/4" between lines
• Text may be 1 .2 or 3 lines and is centered vertically
- Space varies between text and distances
5 3KM ONE tINE SIGN
TWO LINE SIGN
3.3MI 5.3KM
18"
ACAD NP-Baidyga
Approximately 2-5^ from perpendicular
Angled out approximately 15u of horizontal
3
Fig. 9-41 Detail of lettering layout for flat signs.
Fig. 9-42 Detail of log signs.
BEECH
MTN
TRAIL
BEECH
MTN
.6MI/.8KM
FIRE
TOWER
.6MI/.8KM
A
>!t;ii
BEECH MTN .6MI/.8KM
BEECH MTN TRAIL
iTN^
BEECH MTN .5MI/.8KM
I D
BEECH MTN .5MI/.8KM J
A -*"
1/4"
1/4"
1/4"
Arrow
n
■ All 1" letters
• Space is 1/4" min between words, names, distances, arrows in groups
■ 1" between each group
1i-
No longer than 4", though shorter if need be
ACAD NP-BaWygaBarter
Fig. 9-43 Detail of lettering for log signs.
235
Acadia Trails Treatment plan
Some log signs were also placed off-road at intersec- tions and summits where flat signs were commonly vandalized or stolen, such as the Beehive Trail (#7) or the summit of Dorr Mountain).
In the 1990s, foreman Don Beal began installing log signs at any intersection at which maps showed a trail with a different name beginning or ending. Each trail terminus was given its own log sign, so that many inter- sections had two or even three log signs. An example is the intersection of the Bear Brook Trail (#10), Bowl Trail (#6), and Beehive Trail (#7). This intersection at The Bowl currently has three log signs. Adequate records were not kept of the sign exchanges, but possi- bly hundreds of flat signs were removed and discarded during this time.
Throughout the years, some characteristics of VIA/VIS signage have persisted. As of 2002, VIA/VIS-style signs are used by the Seal Harbor VIS (tapered ends, painted letters), Northeast Harbor VIS (tapered ends, chiseled letters, similar dimensions, and in some locations red- painted letters), and a phantom signmaker in the Bar Harbor VIA district (tapered ends) (Figs. 9-36 to 9-39).
HISTORICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF DIRECTIONAL SIGNS
The chart below identifies characteristics of flat signs for the different periods.
|
HISTORICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF DIRECTIONAL SIGNS |
||||
|
VIA/VIS |
ccc |
Mission 66 |
NPS |
|
|
Post |
Natural post, some with coned tops, some with square tops, trees occa- sionally used |
Natural, smooth posts with coned tops, notched for each sign |
Unknown, probably simi- lar to current NPS flat signs. |
4" x 4"cedar or pressure- treated posts, notched only for non-right-angle signs |
|
Sign Size |
Length and width varied with wording |
Length varied with wording, 6" standard width |
18" length, 3%" and 5 W standard width |
|
|
Sign Surface Treatment |
Probably varnished or stained |
Stained |
Mostly natural, some stained |
|
|
Sign Beveling |
Face probably beveled, some butt-ends beveled |
Face beveled butt-ends beveled |
No beveling |
|
|
Lettering |
Chiseled or cut, basic font, capital and lower- case letters, one groove, painted red and yellow |
Chiseled or cut, rectilinear font, all capital letters with initial large letter, double groove, painted yellow and possibly red |
Routed, basic font, all same size capital letters, single groove, most unpainted |
|
|
Information Provided |
Destinations, current trail name, adjacent trail names |
Destinations, current trail name, adjacent trail names |
Destinations, trailheads, current trail name |
236
Chapter 9: Guidance; C. Directional Signs
TREATMENT FOR DIRECTIONAL SIGNS
1. Maintaining Character
Issues: The flat signs currently used at Acadia are unlike those used in either of the two historical peri- ods, VIA/VIS and CCC. The adoption of historically accurate signage from the VIA/VIS or CCC period raises several issues, including:
• The more attractive signs of both historic periods may invite vandalism.
• Historic letters were cut or chiseled; currently, let- ters are routed. Chiseled or cut letters take longer to make and require more skill. Routed letters are more uniform in appearance and allow less varia- tion between different signmakers. Router bits are available that can approximate the look of chiseled or cut letters. Hand-cutting the double-bordered letters of the CCC style would be labor-intensive.
• Historically, letters were painted and sign faces stained or painted; currently, letters are not painted, and sign faces are not treated. Paint in the grooves and stain or paint on the face tends to dis- integrate faster than the sign and create a ragged appearance or require the added work of regularly repainting signs.
• Historic signs used either capital/lowercase letters, or all capitals with larger initial capitals; currently, lettering is all capitals of a single size. Laying out signs is easier if all the letters are uniform.
• Historic signs were usually beveled on the butt end and on the sign face; currently, signs are cut square on the butt ends and the faces are not beveled.
• Historic signs used rounded posts, usually coned at the top; current posts are 4-inch by 4-inch milled timbers.
at least one major intersection on a popular route should be marked with signs reconstructed in the appropriate style of each period.
Signs currently used by the VIA/VIS groups on trails outside the park are still being crafted in pre-Mission 66 styles. The park has no jurisdiction over signs installed outside the park; however, this practice will be encouraged by park management, as it continues a tradition, and also provides a distinction between trail intersections inside and outside the park.
2. Log Signs to Deter Vandalism
Issue: Certain sign types and signs in certain locations are often vandalized or stolen. Log signs, although not historic, are not easily vandalized and cannot be easily stolen. For this reason, log signs are currently used at all trailheads and trail crossings located at roads, at many summits, and at many interior trail intersections. This increased use of log signs has led to the removal by NPS of many flat signs, even in locations where log signs may not be needed like remote trail intersections. A consistent policy is needed for the use of log signs at Acadia.
Treatment Guidelines: In agreement with the Hiking Trails Management Plan, it is recommended that log signs be installed in places where vandalism requires the constant replacement of flat signs, at trailheads, and at carriage road crossings. However, flat signs will be returned to all interior trail intersections, mountain summits, and other locations where vandalism does not pose a threat.45
Treatment Guidelines: The current flat sign style is compatible with the two historic periods yet it is distin- guishable as a modern addition to the trail system. This style should continue to be used with one alteration: pointed router bits will be used to approximate chis- eled or cut letters. A maintenance schedule should be developed to replace square posts with round, coned posts in the historic style. For interpretive purposes, in order to represent the VIA/VIS- and CCC-style signs,
SPECIFICATIONS FOR DIRECTIONAL SIGNS
See Figures 9-40 to 9-43 for sign specifications.
237
Acadia Trails Treatment plan
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE
D. INFORMATIONAL SIGNS
3.
All signs should be inspected yearly for needed maintenance or replacement. Broken or stolen flat signs will be replaced; inter- sections where frequent vandalism occurs may be signed with log signs.
Signs and posts should be replaced when they become illegible or deteriorate to the point where they are no longer aesthetically pleasing.
DEFINITIONS
Informational signs convey information about trail routes, conditions, and safety and educate trail users about cultural and natural history, resource protection, and associated rules and regulations. Informational signs may include text, illustrations, maps, and regula- tory symbols. The island's trail system, both within and outside of the park, currently contains a spectrum of informational signage.
|
»V;,j» K |
|||
|
foflreffi ^ |
■*v |
||
|
WS$JM . :3*llPI |
I >* HH |
||
|
^pp |
|||
|
\ |
|||
|
; |
' '.»?*>* |
irZ+Zmlmm^, |
%m |
|
i " r MfflnBll |
m |
Fig. 9-44 A trailhead exhibit at the Cadillac Mountain North Ridge Trail (#34) located on the summit of Cadillac Mountain.
In this report, informational signs are distinguished from signs used for guidance, including trailhead name and intersection signs. These are addressed under the previous section, "Directional Signs." Commemorative plaques and engraved stones are also addressed sepa- rately in Chapter 10, Section A. Types of informational signs include:
Trailhead exhibits are located near popular trails. Each consists of two embedded fiberglass panels that provide the trail name, a map, "Leave No Trace" and/or other resource protection messages, and safety information. An example of a trailhead exhibit is located at the summit of Cadillac Mountain (Fig. 9-44).
|
1 ^t IS |
'• , «<»*"■ F IVt. iit »llo-rd **" °* **»*• XIM«l-r bj WhHlll» ■» »■««•. ••* «,..„ .»„!. iMttn In o.»«r lo lk< I'll*, lo bllim *loa« il of IB IV irhilffnwild* il Wnlro »rc .«ffk*»t n»«« for f*wlf* lo piblir IP). J. TV 11.. Ilarto T«»« Coancll •! • IV B., H.rW,r VilliB ■ ■wmnml A»«ii(i<.n • |
Fig. 9-45 Interpretive signs on the Cadillac Summit Loop Trail (#33) discuss the surrounding viewsheds.
Fig. 9-46 This interpretive sign on the Shore Path (#301) gives an overview of the history of the trail.
238
Chapter 9: Guidance; D. Informational Signs
Interpretive signs are located at scenic overlooks, such as Cadillac Summit; at cultural features, such as Bass Harbor Head Light; at natural features, such as Thunder Hole; and at the several trailheads, such as the Ship Harbor Nature Trail (#127) or the Shore Path (#301) in Bar Harbor. Numbered posts along nature trails corresponding to self-guided trail brochures are also considered interpretive signs (Figs. 9-45 to 9-48).
Rules and regulatory signs with wording and/or symbols are also posted where necessary. Examples include signs explaining trail closures due to nesting peregrines or signs prohibiting certain practices, such as "No Camping" or "No Fires" (Figs. 9-49 & 9-50).
|
^KdL '^Itfi&k |
||
|
^JT^C^HMlS- |
j»8| |
Br t^fl^tt^ |
|
■&' * * - . B^CSS"-* |
*i*«* |
|
|
V AjStatfKJIt MtTUttE H^^^RyL til |Brfi7 : * tub. j 7 ' s. ■MiLft |
||
|
— |
||
|
^^PHURr ~^* *•( |
||
|
~jfl |
V I |
|
|
W8&? ■• |
^^Pw |
|
|
W&rT' "■'"' ' |
" "^ " i-Vr-^l |
|
|
j^^ujyp/ .*;: : |
. |
Fig. 9-47 An interpretive sign at the start of the Ship Harbor Nature Trail (#127).
Safety signs are closely related to rules signs and are posted in areas with unsafe conditions. Examples include the trailheads of the ladder trails, near shore- line caves that are flooded at high tide, and by the sandbar to Bar Island, which is accessible only at low tide.
Finally, map signs are posted both as part of the trailhead exhibits and in the one map house, located on Eliot Mountain, near Northeast Harbor (Fig. 9-51). Historically, more map signs were posted in the park than are currently present.
HISTORICAL USE AT ACADIA
Village Improvement Associations/Societies
Beginning in the 1880s, rules were posted on the Shore Path (#301) in Bar Harbor to keep walkers on the path and off private property. A similar message was included on path maps and guides:
Since the paths and trails cross private properties the owners of which may at any time exercise their legal right to close them to the public, the law in regard to setting fires should be strictly observed.
Fig. 9-48 Numbered markers such as this one on the Ship Harbor Nature Trail (#127) are often used with self-guiding trail brochures.
Fig. 9-49 This regulatory sign reminds hikers to stay off a newly vegetated area on the Ocean Path (#3).
239
Acadia Trails treatment Plan
|
1* |
Regulatory s signs |
- |
|
«*#■*-. '" |
■iWtM&te |
/ |
|
signs |
||
Fig. 9-50 The trailhead to the Precipice Trail (#11) contains both interpretive signs and regulatory signs informing hikers of trail closure during peregrine falcon nesting season.
Fig. 9-51 Eliot Mountain map hut on the Asticou Trail (#49).
Fig. 9-52 This interpretive sign was installed during the Mission 66 era at the Hulls Cove Visitor Center.
When the first path map was published by the VIA/VIS in 1896, it was mounted and lacquered onto boards. These map signs were posted at major trail intersec- tions. At an undetermined time, a map house was built on Eliot Mountain, which offered both a mounted map sign and a small shelter for hikers in the Northeast Harbor VIS district.
The self-guided Jordan Pond Nature Trail (#463), developed by the Seal Harbor VIS in 1929, was the first of its kind in the park. It was located near the Jordan Pond House and extended to the western side of Jordan Stream to the Asticou Trail (#49). The trail included over seventy-five plant labels. There is still a self-guiding nature trail in the vicinity today, but it is located east of the Jordan Pond House, not on the original trail route. The dates of closure of the original nature trail and the creation of the current nature trail are unknown.
Civilian Conservation Corps
By 1933, the park staff included ranger-naturalists who led tours on several of the most popular loops, includ- ing the newly built Cadillac Summit Loop Trail (#33). Interpretive signs were added to provide information along the extremely popular trail. The park also devel- oped three interpretive gardens, containing native wildflowers labeled with plant names and brief infor- mation. These were located at Sieur de Monts Spring (Wild Gardens of Acadia), the Cadillac Mountain summit, and the park's campground at Bear Brook, which is no longer present. No documentation has been found regarding the CCC production of interpre- tive signs.
NPS/Mission 66
In the early 1950s, interpretation was concentrated in the park's headquarters and at road waysides. Ranger- led hiking tours provided interpretation on the trails, but there were no self-guided trails (except possibly the Seal Harbor VIS Jordan Pond Nature Trail). As part of the park's Mission 66 plan, interpretive self- guiding trails were proposed on both the east and west sides of the island. The park built the Ship Harbor Nature Trail (#127) in 1957 and produced a self-guided
240
Chapter 9: Guidance; D. Informational Signs
brochure for the trail circa 1959, which corresponded with fourteen numbered posts along the trail route. The walk and brochure are still actively used. Mission 66 may have also built a similar trail near the Jordan Pond House (#45). Mission 66 crews also paved the trail to Anemone Cave (#369), and a photograph taken in 1961 shows an informational sign at the end of the trail. The park's visitor center at Hulls Cove was also constructed during this period. This new facil- ity offered interpretive information, though it was detached from the trail system (Fig. 9-52).
National Park Service
There is limited information for informational signage installed by the NPS from the 1960s to the 1990s, but generally the style used followed generic NPS stan- dards.
The most recent sign was a new design for trailhead exhibits developed in the late 1990s. Composed of three cedar posts, a small roof, and two display panels, the kiosks display maps, trail mileage, rules, and safety considerations (see Fig. 9-44). The maps are generated through the park's Geographic Information System database. Information about the terrain is provided only for the ladder trails. Additionally, the self-guided trails at Jordan Pond and Ship Harbor are actively used by individuals and ranger-led tours. A self-guided nature area is also maintained within the Wild Gardens at Sieur de Monts Spring.
At present the various informative signs located in the park do not reflect a unified style and there are no sign standards, other than general NPS regulations, that are unique to Acadia.
TREATMENT
1. Sign Standards
Issues: There are no unified standards for informa- tional signage on the trail system. Signs are placed in an ad hoc manner, and there are examples of many differ- ent styles throughout the park.
HISTORICAL CHARACTERISTICS
During the VIA/VIS period, interpretive signs were some- what standardized, but this did not last through other historic periods. Currently there is little consistency in the style or usage of interpretive signs throughout the trail system.
Pre-VIA/VIS (pre-1890)
There is no documentation for use of informational signage.
VIA/VIS Period (1890-1937)
Trailhead signs were installed on popular trails such as the Shore Path (#301) in Bar Harbor. Map signs were used at major path intersections and at the map house. All signs were developed by the VIA/VIS organizations, which through the Joint Path Committee developed sign standards.
CCC Period (1933-42)
No new trailhead signs were developed. Interpretive signs were added to high use areas; however, there was no stan- dard for informative signage, and a mix of VIA/VIS and CCC styles were used.
NPS/Mission 66 Period (1943-66)
No new trailhead signs were developed. Self-guided nature trails were developed on the east and west sides of island. No sign standards were followed.
NPS Period (1967-1997)
New trailhead exhibits for popular trails such as the Cadillac North Ridge Trail (#34) were designed and installed. Self-guided trails remain at Jordan Pond, Ship Harbor, and Wild Gardens of Acadia. However, no sign standards are in use.
Treatment Guidelines: According to Albert Good,
Nothing in parks, unless it be the entranceway, offers wider legitimate scope for individuality in conveying the characteristics or background of the particular area than the signs and markers. These can be the embodi- ment of those rare and distinguishing features that have dictated the establishment of the park — park motifs-in-
miniature
46
Signage provides an important aspect of the character of the park and its trail system. Therefore, unified stan- dards for informational signs should be developed for
241
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
Acadia that are complementary to the system's direc- tional signage (as discussed in the previous section of this chapter) and other park signage (motor roads, car- riage roads, etc.). Items to be addressed include style, location, and number of signs. While adequate signage is important, the overuse of signs should be avoided, as too many signs detract from the natural setting. Signs should be informative but not overwhelming with excessive information, and their placement should not obscure views or interesting features. Signs should be built in a rustic style with local wood and stone, avoiding metal, recycled plastic, pressure-treated wood, laminated paper or card stock, or other materi- als manufactured with character that is not compat- ible with the historic trail system. However, these materials may be used for structural stability, and/or to deter vandalism, if they are concealed and not readily apparent to the casual observer. Signs should be of the proper scale. For example, signs constructed of large timbers are not appropriate for a location with pre- dominantly small second-growth trees. Signs should not be painted on stones or nailed into trees. Slight variations in placement and construction may be made to suit the topography, vegetation, ledges, or other natural features in the vicinity of the sign.
2. Adequate Information
Issue: First-time hikers may be unprepared for the rigor of Acadia's trails. Only hikers with guidebooks or using trailhead exhibits for orientation have sufficient information on conditions and what to expect.
Treatment Guidelines: Informational signs can pro- vide hikers with various details about their destination, trip length, anticipated terrain, public transportation options, "Leave No Trace" principles, history of the trail, notable natural and cultural features, park regula- tions, appropriate gear and supplies, and safety issues and concerns. It is not necessary for every informa- tional sign to convey all this information. For example, a safety notice on the upper Precipice may mention safety issues and appropriate gear, and nothing else. A public transportation sign near a trailhead could simply state transportation options and no information about the trail.
3. Accessibility
Issue: There are currently no informational signs per- taining to hikers with disabilities.
Treatment Guidelines: It is recommended that Acadia develop informational signage that provides accessibil- ity information for the trail system.
The U.S. Access Board is currently developing Acces- sibility Guidelines for trails as described in the Report of the Regulatory Negotiation Committee on Accessibil- ity Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas (www.Access- board.gov). These guidelines describe the ideal provisions for surface, width, openings, protruding objects, obstacles, passing space, running slope, cross slope, rest intervals, edge protection, and signs. The report provides exceptions that address necessary depar- tures from these provisions. For historic trails, exceptions are allowed where compliance would cause substantial harm to cultural, historic, religious, or significant natural features or characteristics. Exceptions are also allowed where the provisions are not feasible due to terrain or the prevailing con- struction practices.
A key component of accessibil- ity, which is not fully addressed in the proposed accessibility guidelines, is providing infor- mation to hikers so they can make decisions about whether a trail is too difficult. A recent sign program, advocated by a
Mexican Ditch Trail North
Length 0.6 mi (1.0 km)
O Hiking
E551 Bicycling
HJ Equestrian
Snogs Allowed per posted restrictions
o
No Motorized Vehicles
0
Grade
Typical Grade 0.8%
15% of the trail is 2%
12 ft (4 m) is 7% to 18%
8% grade is a standard ramp
JJ^ X-Slope
Typical Cross Slope 5.0% 10% of the trail is 6% 286 ft (87 m) is 33%
@
Tread Width
Typical Tread Width
12 ft (3.7 m)
Minimum Clearance Width 60 in (152 cm)
@ Surface Type
Aggregate / Gravel 100% is Firm or better
o
Obstructions
Fence opening - Minimum Clearance Width of 16 inches to exit at Riverview Park Post 50 inches high
Q
Trail Access Information
Fig. 9-53 Trailhead signage using the Universal Trail Assessment Process developed by Beneficial Designs.
242
Chapter 9: Guidance; E. Scree
private consultant group, Beneficial Designs Inc., offers parameters for information needed by all hikers, but particularly disabled hikers. Beneficial Designs Inc. identifies trail characteristics that would allow hikers of all abilities decide whether to hike a particular trail. These characteristics include trail grade, cross slope, width, surface firmness, and the presence of obstacles. Obstacles identified include tree roots, boulders, water crossings, ruts, vertical obstructions, steps, dangerous plants, and drop-offs. Information is collected through their Universal Trail Assessment Process (UTAP) and conveyed through an Internet database for trails across the country, in guidebooks, and by signs posted at individual trailheads. The trailhead sign format is referred to as Trail Access Information (Fig. 9-53).
SPECIFICATIONS FOR INFORMATIONAL SIGNS
As there is such a wide range of informational sign styles, and there may or may not be any historical precedent for any given sign, there are no exacting specifications for their construction. However, there are some general guidelines that can be followed., as discussed in Treatment Issue 1, "Sign Standards," above. Informational signs, lacking historic precedent, need not necessarily be built in historic or even rustic styles. Indeed, a safety sign or ADA-related sign may need to "stand out" and be highly visible to the public. General specifications include visibility and installa- tion in areas safe for the visitor to view the sign. Signs should be of sturdy, long-lasting, and weatherproof construction. Professional quality is of extreme impor- tance, and signs should not have a shoddy, makeshift, or temporary appearance.
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE
1. All signs should be inspected yearly for needed replacement or repair.
2. Safety signs should be updated as needed during peak hiking seasons so that hikers do not inadver- tently end up in an unsafe situation.
E. SCREE
DEFINITION
Scree refers to stones, logs, or other natural materials piled along the sides of a trail to define the treadway, direct and restrict hikers, and protect trailside vegeta- tion and soil. Scree performs no structural function. Other stone and log features that aid in guidance such as steps, stepping stones, and bridges are not discussed in the Guidance chapter.
Although scree can be similar in appearance to coping stones, there are some distinct differences. Scree is often placed in random piles, has a more haphazard appearance, and forms a continuous line along the trail edge. Coping stones are usually placed at regular inter- vals along a straight or evenly curving line at the trail's edge and often contribute structurally to the retention of the treadway (see Chapter 6, Section B). Though coping stones sometimes abut, forming a solid line, they are still a single row, are set well in the ground, and are overall much more orderly in appearance than scree.
Occasionally coping and historic scree are used together, when even runs of single coping stones are interspersed with rows of piled stones, as on the Asticou Trail (#49).
HISTORICAL USE AT ACADIA
Pre-VI A/VIS
There is no documentation for the use of scree prior to the VIA/VIS period.
Village Improvement Associations/Societies
During the early period of VIA/VIS trail construction, stones and roots were removed from trails to create a smooth walking path. The result was often a path lined with stones acting as scree (Fig. 9-54). This technique was used on the most heavily traveled graveled paths, such as the Seaside Path (#401), a popular walk from
243
Acadia Trails Treatment plan
three large hotels in Seal Harbor to the Jordan Pond House. Annual reports describing maintenance on the Seaside Path suggest that this practice exacerbated trail erosion, and the trail eventually had to be entirely rebuilt. More often, stones removed from the treadway were set in orderly rows of coping.
stones are piled into walls along the trail to define the treadway and keep hikers off fragile vegetation. Well-maintained stone cairns, paint blazes, and infor- mational signs accompany the scree and careful judge- ment is used in the selection of stones in alpine areas to form scree walls so as not to incur damage.
During the memorial part of the VIA/VIS period, cop- ing stones generally increased in size, frequency, and regularity; at the same time, the use of scree became obsolete.
Civilian Conservation Corps
There is no documentation for the use of scree by the CCC. Typically, if stones were used by the CCC along the trail, they were coping stones.
NPS/Mission 66
There is no documentation for the use of scree during the Mission 66 period.
National Park Service
The AMC has used scree in the White Mountains to define the trail and direct hikers since the 1970s. It is typically used for steep sections of woodland trail where large and medium stones, fallen trees, and large limbs are set in a random fashion along the edges of stone staircases to stabilize soil, direct foot traffic, and prevent shortcutting at switchbacks. For alpine areas,
In the western United States, Student Conservation Association crews also use scree in both woodland and alpine situations. Stones are placed along the trail in a seemingly haphazard pattern so that the trail is the easiest and most attractive route to follow.
Despite its widespread use on other trail systems, Acadia trail crews have chosen to refrain from install- ing large amounts of rock scree because of its impact on trail aesthetics. This is especially true on summits, where scree-lined trails appear road-like and detract from the natural appearance of the surrounding environment. However, some rock scree has been used recently at Acadia, primarily on woodland trails (Fig. 9-55). Typically, this scree is out of keeping with historical scree used in the park. Recent scree has a haphazard quality, is usually higher (a foot or greater), and has been used on trails where historic builders would not have used scree, like woodland paths. Little rock scree has been placed on Acadia's summit trails. Log scree has been introduced on woodland paths to define the treadway.
Fig. 9-54 A 1907 photograph showing the early Seal Harbor VIS trail construction of the Seaside Path (#401). Stones and roots were removed from the treadway and stacked along the trail, acting as scree. However, this technique contributed to increased trail erosion, and widening of the path.
Fig. 9-55 Scree installed on the South Bubble Trail (#43).
244
Chapter 9: Guidance; E. Scree
HISTORICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SCREE
Pre-VIA/VIS (pre-1890)
There is no documentation for scree use.
VIA/VIS Period (1890-1937)
Scree was used on some early paths where stones extracted from tread were piled along path edges.
CCC Period (1933-42)
There is no documentation for scree use.
NPS/Mission 66 Period (1943-66)
There is no documentation for scree use.
NPS Period (1967-1997)
Some scree was used, but generally its was avoided, par- ticularly on summit trails. Log scree was introduced and used on woodland paths to define the treadway.
TREATMENT FOR SCREE
1. Maintaining Character
Issue: Small amounts of scree have been used histori- cally in the park, but modern usage has typically been in a different style. Although scree may be an appropri- ate feature for limited use, continued use of haphazard scree will negatively impact trail aesthetics and historic integrity of the trail system.
Treatment Guidelines: For areas in which use of scree is appropriate, properly constructed scree compatible with historic scree may be added or rebuilt in-kind. Log scree should be the first consideration. It can be blended with the natural environment, is easily removed, and will rot away as the preferred treadway becomes more established through increased use. Ran- dom scree will not be used under any circumstances.
For areas where scree is not an appropriate feature, or where historic scree will not properly deter wander- ing, other methods may be employed to guide hikers. Revegetation of wide areas and social trails is effective, especially if thorny bushes or woody plants are used. In some cases, especially those in which trail work is
needed for some other reason, a more appropriate option would be to construct an attractive treadway by using checks, stairs, bogwalks, coping stones, or other appropriate features. Additional options include place- ment of individual stones in an impacted area, sig- nage, temporary rope fences, enhanced trail marking, patrols, educational programs, and/or reroutes.
Note: The use of stone scree to protect fragile summit vegetation from wandering hikers has not been deter- mined effective to date. Sample sections need to be installed to verify if this would be the most appropriate solution to this problem.
SPECIFICATIONS FOR SCREE
Stone scree will be used only on those trails on which scree is an historically appropriate feature and should be constructed of local stones. Stones should be piled no higher than 8 inches, and no wider than 2 feet. The scree row should conform exactly to the trail edge, outlining a pleasing contour. Openings should be left in the scree to allow for trail drainage.
Log scree can be used to treat any trail on which guid- ance is an issue that cannot be solved by other means. Logs and brush should be piled along the trail edge in away that looks natural and imitates the look of fallen trees in the surrounding area. Care should be taken to hide chainsaw marks or cut edges. The minimal amount of material needed to deter hikers should be used. However, if hiker removal of brush and smaller material is a problem, large trees may be placed at the trail edge with a hoist. At the completion of a log scree project, leaves and other organic material should be spread along the edge of the trail to better delineate it and cover scars left in the adjacent landscape by the construction work.
Although log scree is considered a temporary measure, it can be left in place for many years, or even until it rots. Ideally, its use should be limited and the trail corri- dor should be defined by natural barriers, an attractive treadway, and/or historically appropriate construction.
245
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE
F. WOODEN RAILINGS AND FENCES
1 . Scattered scree should be re-piled as necessary.
2. Occasional openings should be maintained in sec- tions of scree to allow for trail drainage.
DEFINITION
Wooden railings and fences are used in several loca- tions on the trail system to provide guidance, ensure hiker safety, or add an aesthetically pleasing feature to a particular location. The style of railing is similar to railings and handrails used in conjunction with trail bridges, although the features described here are free- standing and are not generally associated with bridges.
HISTORICAL USE AT ACADIA
Pre-VIA/VIS
It is evident from early photographs that many of the late-1800s roads, such as Sargent Drive and the old Ocean Drive, were lined with wooden railings. Pin remains suggest that some sections of the old Cadillac Mountain road were lined with wooden railings also.
Village Improvement Associations/Societies
Wooden railings were used along cliffs and waterfalls in the Catskills resorts in the late 1800s, and perhaps the early Acadia trail builders were influenced by these styles. The rails certainly do provide a degree of physi- cal safety as well as a psychological safety net. Never- theless, many of the railed areas were not difficult to traverse, nor were they in dangerously exposed areas. This indicates that these rails were often installed for aesthetic reasons in addition to safety concerns.
Fig. 9-56 Extant VIA/VIS railings on the abandoned Gurnee Path (#352).
246
Chapter 9: Guidance; F. Wooden Railings and Fences
Examples of VIA/VIS railings were present on the ledges of the Penobscot Mountain Trail (#47, formerly the Spring Trail, #621, from 1911), the connection from the Maple Spring Trail (#58) to the Hadlock Brook Trail (#57), the Northeast Harbor Skidoo Trail (#509) and Steep Trail (#508), and the Thuya Lodge trails (including #519). Examples of historic railings can still be found on the abandoned Gurnee Path (#352) (Fig. 9-56)
badly eroded hillsides. Fences were installed for the same purpose on the Echo Lake Ledges and near The Tarn. With the increase in hiker numbers, and the decrease in trailside vegetation related to trail widen- ing, the 2003 trails crew is considering adding fences as guidance structures to a few eroded trailside areas.
TREATMENT
Civilian Conservation Corps
The CCC used wooden railings in conjunction with some of their constructed features, including railings along the Pretty Marsh Picnic Area staircases.
1. Maintaining Character
Issue: Wooden railings and fences were not used con- sistently during the historic periods, and their overuse is not in character with the historic trail system.
NPS/Mission 66
It is unknown whether wooden railings or fences were installed during the Mission 66 era.
National Park Service
From the 1980s to the present, the focus for railings has changed. Rails along the Beech Cliff Trail (#106) were established purely to direct and guide hikers off
HISTORICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Pre-VIA/VIS (pre-1890)
Wooden railings were used along some early roads.
VIA/VIS Period (1890-1937)
Wooden railings and fences were used occasionally, for safety as well as aesthetic reasons.
CCC Period (1933-42)
Evidence shows that wooden railings were used with some staircases.
NPS/Mission 66 Period (1943-66)
It is unknown whether Mission 66 crews used wooden railings or fences.
NPS Period (1967-1997)
Wooden railings and fences were used primarily for hiker safety and to prevent trail widening and erosion in suscep- tible areas.
Treatment Guidelines: If other guidance features are more compatible and seem to be functioning, wooden railings or fences should not be added to the trail sys- tem. However, these features can be an effective, easily installed, and temporary solution to guidance problems when there is no acceptable alternative that is histori- cally appropriate. They may be used on a temporary basis until more permanent measures can be applied. In some instances, vegetation growth and hiker patterns may change enough during the life span of railings or fences so that their use can be discontinued.
SPECIFICATIONS FOR WOODEN RAILINGS AND FENCES
Specifications for wooden railings and fences are the same as specifications for bridge railings described in Chapter 5, Section B.
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE
Inspect wooden railings and fences regularly for decay, structural integrity, splinters, and raised nails, and repair or replace members as necessary.
247
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
G. TRAIL NAMES
DEFINITION
A trail name is ascribed to each trail from its origin to its destination or the point where it intersects another trail. The name is used on trail signs, maps, in guidebooks, and associated documents. Having one designated name reduces confusion related to use and management of the trails.
HISTORICAL USE AT ACADIA
Pre-VIA/VIS
The terminology for trails has changed over the past century. In the late 1800s, prior to automobiles, most roads accommodated livestock and carts as well as pedestrians and were referred to as roads, lanes, paths, or passes. Routes through the woods were called "wood paths." Naming paths on Mount Desert Island became important in the 1870s and 1880s when several guidebooks were printed. Most names were described as destinations such as the Path to Jordan Pond or the Path up Newport Mountain.
Village Improvement Associations/Societies
When the Bar Harbor VIA began marking recreational walks in the 1890s, routes were naturally referred to as paths. With the production of maps and guidebooks, general names such as the Path up Newport Mountain evolved into definitive path names, i.e., the Newport Mountain Path. The names of some new trails added to the system did not describe the destination but rather features along the route, such as the Sweet Fern Path (#360) and the Hemlock Path (#23) (Fig. 9-57). Beginning in 1893, Bar Harbor VIA Path Committee chairman, Herbert Jaques, developed a colored path system for trails in the Newport Mountain area, such as the Green and Black Path (#358). This nomenclature survived until 1959, when those colored paths that had not fallen into disuse were renamed.
The path map printed in 1901 was the first to identify path names. Of the approximately forty trails named on the map, several were associated with the cur- rent landowners, including the Hadlock Ponds Paths (#501 and #502) and the McFarland Path (#524). Many called out geological features such as the Giant Slide Path (#63) and Chasm Path (#525) (Fig. 9-58). A few trail names implied the strenuous quality of the trail, such as the Ladder Path (#64 and #334) and the Goat Path (#444). With the formation of the Hancock County Trustees of Public Reservations (HCTPR) in 1901 and subsequent gifts of land for protection, names were added to the system to commemorate individu- als. This began with the path to the Champlain Monu- ment (#453), marked in 1906, followed in 1910 by the Waldron Bates Memorial Path (#525), which was previously built and named the Chasm Path in 1903 by Bates himself.
One of the founders as well as an active member of the HCTPR, George Dorr envisioned the Sieur de Monts Spring area as the nucleus of the reservation, and sub- sequently the national park. He guided the develop- ment of a network of memorial trails. The Kane Path (#17), Beachcroft Path (#13), Kurt Diederich's Climb (#16), Emery Path (#15), Homans Path (#349), Schiff Path (#15), Stratheden Path (#24), and Jesup Path (#14)
WESTERN GROUP Of WOOD PATHS
LDin : STREET
Fig. 9-57 This 1890 map prepared for the Bar Harbor VIA by Francis H. Peabody shows trails named for vegetation along the route, like the Sweet Fern Path (#360).
248
Chapter 9: Guidance; G. Trail Names
evolved from Dorr's vision of a network of paths lead- ing to and radiating from the spring (Fig. 9-59).
The term "trail" became popular in the twentieth cen- tury. Early use of the term on Mount Desert Island is associated with some of the steeper routes, such as the Precipice Trail (#11), constructed and named in 1915. When the reservation became part of the national park system, it appears that the term was applied to many of the existing routes. However, the VIA/VIS groups con- tinued to use the word "path." Similarly in about 1918, shortly after the park was established, Superinten- dent George Dorr changed the names of many of the mountain peaks. This in turn resulted in name changes for many of the trails and required the replacement of many signs, as described earlier in this chapter in the "Directional Signs" section. Local resistance to name changes, particularly by the Northeast Harbor VIS, resulted in a mix of signs with old and new names, a situation that persists in a few locations. Signs for "Brown Mountain," the earlier name of Norumbega Mountain, still exist.
Civilian Conservation Corps
During the 1930s the CCC constructed new routes that were called trails, including the Long Pond Trail (#118) and the Anemone Cave Trail (#369). Under NPS management, most "paths" were renamed "trails." In the 1930s new sign standards were developed by the CCC and approximately 780 signs were replaced. These signs applied the new mountain names assigned by Dorr in 1918 (see Fig. 9-1).
NPS/Mission 66
As part of the Mission 66 program, trail signs were again replaced. Many of the original names of the trails were changed or misspelled. The Emery Path (#15) and Kane Path (#17) were respectively called the Dorr Mountain Trail and the Tarn Trail. The colored trails were renamed. For example, the northern end of the Black Path became the Bear Brook Trail (#10). Mis- sion 66 records, maps and inventories misspelled Jesup (#14) as "Jessup" and Gurnee (#352) as "Gurney." These spellings permeated NPS documents and have been retained to the present.
National Park Service
The use of "trail" has continued until the present for most of the system. However, with the research and planning for the trail system currently underway, there has been interest in returning some of the historic trails to their original designation as "paths," and/or to cor- rect names to historic spellings.
In 2002, the Hiking Trails Management Plan addressed the trail name issue. Under the preferred alternative, the park service would develop a standardized list of
JiiAjsijac
Fig. 9-58 These signs on the summit of Sargent Mountain, shown in 1907, marked trails by the natural features found on the route, like the Giant Slide, Chasm Brook, and Somes Sound (enlargement of Fig. 9-25).
Fig. 9-59 Carved stones, like this one marking the Stratheden Path (#24), were used to identify Dorr's trails radiating from Sieur de Monts. Many are still extant in the park.
249
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
trail names, reverting to historic names "when prac- tical." Additionally, they would encourage private guidebook and map publishers to use this official list of trail names to reduce confusion.47 For example, the CCC Great Pond Trail is now referred to as the Long Pond Trail, since most maps refer to the adjacent water body as Long Pond.
HISTORICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF TRAIL NAMES
Pre-VIA/VIS (pre-1890)
Names were destination oriented, such as the Path up Newport Mountain.
VIA/VIS Period (1890-1937)
The use of "path" rather than "trail" predominated. Path names were associated with destinations, features along route, landowners, commemoration of individuals, and terrain.
CCC Period (1933-42)
The use of "trail" and newly established mountain names predominated.
NPS/Mission 66 Period (1943-66)
Many names were misspelled and memorial paths were renamed.
NPS Period (1967-1997)
There was continued use of Mission 66 era names until the recent planning for the trail system, which raised the issue of returning to historic precedents.
TREATMENT
1. Reestablishment of Historic Names
Issue: Many of the historic trail names have been altered over time. However, simply reestablishing all historic names is not a feasible option, since this would present a variety of concerns. Some of the interrelated issues regarding trail naming include:
• Hikers are confused, and sometimes misled by trails that have two or more names, or that contra- dict the names or spellings on maps or guides.
Some name changes took place during the VIA/ VIS or CCC historic period. For example, the VIA/ VIS path committees referred to the Canon Brook Path (#19) as the Canon (Spanish for canyon) Path (1901) and Canyon Brook Path. Many routes that were referred to as paths by the VIA/VIS were referred to as trails by the CCC. None of the colored path names have persisted. Some colored paths have been renamed, such as the Black Path, which is now the Gorham Moun- tain Trail (#4), Bowl Trail (#8), and Bear Brook Trail (#10). Many are no longer marked such as the White Path (#329), Yellow Path (#338), and Yellow and White Path (#336). Even during the historic period, some considered the colored path names confusing.
On some historic paths the route has been altered or a portion is no longer marked, which may cause confusion if the historic name is used. Examples include the Orange and Black Path (#12 and #348), Black Path (#4, #8, #10, and #346), and Jordan South End Path (#47 and #409). Some historic trails have assumed new sections, such as the upper section of the Beachcroft Path beyond Huguenot Head, which is actually upper section of the Black and White Path (#326).
Treatment Guidelines: The significance of the various types of historical trail names is a key component of the island's trail system. The original names contrib- ute to the character and history of the trails, and their reintroduction will promote greater awareness and educational opportunities for the park.
It is recommended that historic trail names be used when feasible, as stated in the Hiking Trails Manage- ment Plan:
When practical, the NPS may revert to historic trail names. Trail names will be determined on a trail by trail basis, considering the historic importance of the name, whether the historic name would confuse visitors, and other considerations. An official list of park trail names will be developed, and publishers of hiking-related information will be encouraged to use official trail
250
Chapter 9: Guidance; G. Trail Names
names to reduce confusion. Changing trail names will be carefully planned and coordinated with publishers of information about the trail system to minimize visi- tor confusion, costs associated with the new signs, and effects on local communities.48
SPECIFICATIONS FOR TRAIL NAMING
The following recommendations are made for changes to specific trail names. These recommendations were developed by Acadia's Trail Naming Committee in February 2002. A thorough explanation of trail naming at Acadia and the reasoning behind each of the recom- mended changes is included at the end of this report in Appendix C.
|
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TRAIL NAMES |
|||
|
Trail names listed below are those that currently differ from VIA/VIS or CCC historic names and those for which altered routes (different trailheads) are suggested. This chart does not list trail names that have been changed to be consistent with the current names of mountains or other natural features. |
|||
|
Trail Number and Current Name |
Historic Name/Names |
Suggested Name |
Route |
|
#4 Gorham Mountain Trail |
Black Path |
Gorham Mountain Trail |
Current route |
|
#5 Gorham/Cadillac Cliffs Trail |
Cadillac Cliffs Path Black Path |
Cadillac Cliffs Path |
Current route |
|
#9 Sand Beach-Great Head Access Trail |
Ocean Drive |
Satterlee Trail |
Current route |
|
#10 Bear Brook Trail |
Black Path |
Champlain North Ridge Trail |
Current route from the summit north to the Loop Road |
|
Black Path |
Champlain South Ridge Trail |
Current route from the summit south to the Bowl Trail |
|
|
#12 Champlain Moun- tain East Face Trail |
Orange and Black Path |
Orange and Black Path |
Current route of Champlain Mountain East Face Trail i |
|
#13 Beachcroft Trail |
Beachcroft Path (section), Black and White Path (section) |
Beachcroft Path |
Current route |
|
#15 Dorr Mountain East Face Trail |
Emery Path |
Emery Path |
Sieur de Monts to Sieur de Monts Crag intersection |
|
SchiffPath |
SchiffPath |
Sieur de Monts Crag intersection to Dorr summit |
|
|
#17 Tarn Trail |
Kane Path |
Kane Path |
Current route |
|
#18 Sieur de Monts- Tarn Trail |
Wild Gardens Path |
Wild Gardens Path |
Current route |
|
#19 Canon Brook Trail |
Canon, Canon, Canyon, or Canon |
Canon Brook Path |
From the trail's original entrance on Route 3, past Featherbed, to intersection with Bubble and Jordan Pond Path |
|
#20 Pond Trail |
Bubble and Jordan Ponds Path |
Bubble and Jordan Ponds Path |
From Jordan Pond, past intersec- tion with historic route of Canyon Brook, along historic corridor, tying in with carriage road near Bubble Pond |
251
Acadia Trails Treatment plan
|
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TRAIL NAMES (CONTINUED) |
|||
|
Current Name |
Historic Name/Names |
Suggested Name |
Route |
|
#21 Dorr Mountain North and South Ridge Trails |
Kebo Mountain Path |
Kebo Mountain Trail |
Loop Road, over Kebo, to Hemlock Trail |
|
Dry Mountain Path |
Dorr North Ridge Trail |
From intersection w/Kebo Mountain Path north to summit |
|
|
Dry Mountain Path |
Dorr South Ridge Trail |
Current route |
|
|
#23 Hemlock Trail |
Hemlock Path |
Hemlock Trail |
Current route |
|
#24 Stratheden Trail |
Harden Farm Path, Stratheden Path |
Stratheden Path |
Current route, eventually extended across loop road to connector |
|
#25 A. Murray Young Trail |
A.Murray Young Path |
A. Murray Young Path |
Current route |
|
#28 Gorge Trail |
Gorge Path |
Gorge Path |
Current route, eventually to extend to connector |
|
#29 Triad Pass Trail |
Triad Pass |
Triad Pass |
Current route |
|
#30 Pemetic West Cliff Trail |
Part of Pemetic Trail |
Pemetic South Ridge Trail |
Summit of Pemetic south to Jordan and Bubble Ponds Path |
|
#31 Pemetic Mountain Trail, East/Southeast |
Pemetic Trail, Old Trail |
Pemetic North Ridge |
Bubble Pond north to Pemetic summit |
|
East Cliff Trail |
Pemetic East Cliff Trail |
From intersection with Pemetic South Ridge Trail southeast to intersection with Jordan and Bubble Ponds Path |
|
|
Part of Van Santvoord Trail, unnamed connector |
Triad Trail |
From Day Mountain Bridge north over summit of Triad to intersection with Jordan and Bubble Ponds Path |
|
|
#32 Cadillac West Face Trail |
Near route of abandoned Steep Trail |
Cadillac West Face Trail |
Current route |
|
#35 Hunters Brook Trail |
Hunter's Brook Trail (sec- tion), Van Santvoord Trail (sec- tion) |
Hunters Brook Trail |
Current Route |
|
#36 Bubbles-Pemetic Trail |
Northwest Trail |
Pemetic Northwest Trail |
Current route |
|
#38 Jordan Pond Carry Trail |
Eagle Lake Carry, Jordan Pond Carry, Carry Trail, Carry Path |
Jordan Pond Carry |
Current route |
|
#39 Jordan Pond Loop Trail |
Jordan Pond Path (1928 sign and 1928 guidebook), East Jordan Path (1903), West Jordan Path(1903) East Side (1906), West Side(1906), Jordan Path, Jordan Pond Path (1937) |
Jordan Pond Path |
Current route |
|
#41, #43 North/South Bubble Trails |
Bubble Mountain Trail |
Bubbles Trail |
From JP Carry intersection at JP, over South Bubble, over North Bubble, Connors Nubble, to Eagle Lake Trail |
|
Bubbles Divide Trail |
Bubbles Divide |
From Bubbles parking up through notch and down to Jordan Pond |
252
Chapter 9: Guidance; G. Trail Names
|
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TRAIL NAMES (CONTINUED) |
|||
|
Current Name |
Historic Name/Names |
Suggested Name |
Route |
|
#47 Penobscot Mountain Trail |
Spring Trail |
Spring Trail |
Jordan Stream to ridge of Penobscot |
|
Jordan South End Path |
Penobscot Mountain Trail |
Summit of Penobscot south along ridge to Asticou and Jordan Pond Path |
|
|
#48 Jordan Cliffs Trail |
Jordan Bluffs Path, Jordan Cliffs Trail |
Jordan Cliffs Trail |
From intersection with Spring Trail north to Deer Brook Trail |
|
East Cliffs Trail |
Sargent East Cliffs Trail |
From intersection with Deer Brook Trail north, then west to summit of Sargent Mountain |
|
|
#49 Asticou Trail |
Asticou and Jordan Pond Path |
Asticou and Jordan Pond Path |
Current route |
|
#52 Sargent Mountain South Ridge Trail |
Sargent Mountain Ridge Trail |
Sargent South Ridge Trail |
Current route |
|
#53 Sargent Mountain North Ridge Trail |
Pieces of Aunt Bettys Pond Trail, perhaps Sargent Mountain Ridge Trail, and an unnamed connector to Giant Slide |
Sargent Northwest Trail |
From the summit of Sargent, north and then down to the west and connecting to Giant Slide Trail |
|
#57 Hadlock Brook Trail |
Waterfall Trail Hadlock Brook Trail |
Hadlock Brook Trail |
Current route |
|
#60 Norumbega Mountain Trail |
Goat Trail |
Goat Trail |
Parkman parking to summit |
|
Browns Mountain Path |
Norumbega Mountain Trail |
Lower Hadlock Pond to summit |
|
|
#65 Jordan Stream Trail |
Jordan Stream Path |
Jordan Stream Path |
Current route |
|
#69 to #502, unnamed connector to Hadlock Ponds |
Hadlock Ponds Trail |
Hadlock Ponds Trail |
Lower Hadlock pump house to Hadlock Brook Trail |
|
#105 Flying Mountain Trail |
Flying Mountain Trail |
Flying Mountain Trail |
Fernald Point parking, over summit, to head of Valley cove |
|
Valley Cove Trail |
Valley Cove Trail |
Head of Valley Cove across CCC trail along cove to intersection at end of Man O'War Brook Road |
|
|
#110 Sluiceway Trail |
Sluiceway Trail Little Notch Trail |
Sluiceway Trail |
Current route |
|
#111 Bernard Mountain South Face Trail |
South Face Trail Kaighn Trail Moss Trail |
Bernard Mountain Trail |
Current route of Bernard South Face Trail |
253
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
|
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TRAIL NAMES (CONTINUED) |
|||
|
Current Name |
Historic Name/Names |
Suggested Name |
Route |
|
#112 Razorback Trail |
Razorback Trail |
Razorback Trail |
From intersection with Gilley Trail to intersection with the spur to Mansell Mtn. Trail, then west to Great Notch; includes spur to Mansell Mountain |
|
#115 Mansell |
East Peak Trail |
Mansell Mountain Trail |
From Gilley Field to intersection |
|
Mountain Trail |
Razorback spur, continuing to summit |
||
|
#117 Cold Brook Trail |
Cold Brook Trail, Gilley Trail |
Cold Brook Trail |
Current route |
|
#118 Long Pond Trail |
Great Brook Trail, Great Pond Trail |
Long Pond Trail |
Current route |
|
#120 Western |
Western Trail, |
Great Notch Trail (section) |
See below |
|
Mountain Trail |
Center Road |
||
|
#122 Great Notch |
Great Notch Trail |
Great Notch Trail |
Beginning at intersection with |
|
Trail |
Gilley Trail, through notch, over route of current Western Mountain Trail, to Long Pond Fire Road |
||
|
#401 Seaside Path |
Jordan Pond Path (Seaside) |
Seaside Path |
Current route |
ENDNOTES
37
38 39 40 41
42 43 44 45 46
47 48
Harold Peabody and Charles Grandgent, Walks on Mount Desert Island (1928), 4.
Bar Harbor VIA 1906 Annual Report.
Bar Harbor VIA 1906 Annual Report.
Hiking Trails Management Plan, 23.
Carl Demrow and David Salisbury, The Complete Guide to Trail Building and Maintenance (Boston: Appalachian Mountain Club Books, 1998), 94.
Demrow and Salisbury, 95-96.
Peabody and Grandgent, 4.
Bar Harbor VIA 1906 Annual Report.
Hiking Trails Management Plan, 28.
Albert H. Good, Park and Recreation Structures (National Park Service, 1938), Vol. 1, 39.
Hiking Trails Management Plan, 29.
HikingTrails Management Plan, 29.
254
Fig. 10-1 Commemorative plaque honoring Waldron Bates in the cliffs of the Gorham Mountain/ Cadillac Cliffs Trail (#5), circa 1916.
CHAPTER 10:
MONUMENTS AND ASSOCIATED STRUCTURES
A. MONUMENTS
B. ASSOCIATED STRUCTURES
255
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
CHAPTER 10: MONUMENTS AND ASSOCIATED STRUCTURES
The trail system contains many associated fea- tures that fall outside the boundaries of con- structed trail features. Although these items are not integral to the trails' construction, they still enrich the hiking experience at Acadia. In this section, treat- ment guidelines are provided for two of these features.
A. Monuments
B. Associated Structures
Monuments include commemorative plaques and engraved stones used to commemorate trail builders, explorers, and other individuals significant to the his- tory of Acadia (Fig. 10-1). Structures associated with the trail system include a variety of trail amenities such as benches, shelters, comfort stations, and observation towers (Fig. 10-2).
Comfort, safety, and appreciation of the natural beauty and cultural history of the island have been an integral part of the trail system since the formation of the VIA/ VIS path committees in the 1890s and early 1900s. The commitment of the VIA/VIS groups to the trail system was manifested in the careful selection of trail routes and the placement of signs, benches, shelters, and commemorative features. With the creation of the park in 1916, a broader range of hikers required additional associated features, developed in accordance with park system standards.
Fig. 10-3 The Champlain Monument, along Route 3, soon after its installation and dedication in 1906. Trails to the monument connected to Seal Harbor and Day Mountain.
A. MONUMENTS
DEFINITIONS
A number of monuments at Acadia commemorate trail builders, philanthropists, and individuals associated with the cultural history of the island. Two types of monuments are associated with the trails and described in this document.
A commemorative plaque is a plaque cast in bronze or other metal which is mounted on the face of a cliff, into a large boulder, or in one case, into a stone bench; all of these commemorate individuals.
An engraved stone is a boulder, step, or cut stone into which text has been engraved. Generally, engraved stones associated with trails name the trails themselves and were located at one or both entrances to the trail.
^WPaSW!
Fig. 10-2 This 19th-century gazebo with a bench nearby, photographed in the 1870s, was built as part of a Bar Harbor summer estate in the vicinity of some of the earliest Bar Harbor recreational paths.
256
Chapter 10: Monuments and associated Structures; A. Monuments
HISTORICAL USE AT ACADIA
Pre-VIA/VIS
There is no documentation or evidence of monument construction prior to the VIA/VIS period.
Village Improvement Associations/Societies
In 1906, the first two commemorative plaques were added to the park. A large stone with descriptive plaques on both sides was erected on the southeastern side of Day Mountain (currently located near the trail- head for the Day Mountain Trail, #37) to honor Samuel de Champlain (Fig. 10-3), and the Bar Harbor VIA installed a smaller plaque on the edge of Fawn Pond to commemorate Charles T. How's gift of the pond and forty acres of land to the park. Over twenty additional commemorative plaques and inscribed stones were added between 1910 and 1945.49 As members of the Mount Desert Island community, mostly summer residents in Bar Harbor, Seal Harbor and Northeast Harbor, either contributed land or died, a fitting tribute was to establish a memorial path or place a com- memorative plaque at a favored spot. For example,
when Waldron Bates, Bar Harbor VIA Path Commit- tee chairman (1900-1909), died suddenly in 1909, the Chasm Path (#525) was renamed the Waldron Bates Memorial Path. A sign was posted at the upper end of the trail. In addition, many people contributed funds for a commemorative plaque to be placed on a ledge at the southern end of the Cadillac Cliffs Walk (#5) laid out by Bates, which the Bar Harbor VIA considered the "best illustration of engineering skill in path making"50 (Figs. 10-1 & 10-4).
Beginning in 1913, George Dorr guided the develop- ment of a network of memorial trails radiating from the Sieur de Monts Spring area, which he envisioned as the nucleus of Hancock County Trustees' reservation and proposed National Park. Six trails, each marked with an engraved stone and most with a bronze commemora- tive plaque, were built between 1913 and 1918, includ- ing the Kane Path (#17), Kurt Diederich's Climb (#16), Beachcroft Path (#13), Emery Path (#15), Jesup Path (#14), Homans Path (#349), and Stratheden Path (#24) (Figs. 10-5 to 10-12).
Fig. 10-5 Commemorative plaque honoring John Innes Kane on the Kane Path (#17).
Fig. 10-4 Detail of the Waldron Bates plaque, photographed in 1995.
Fig. 10-6 Detail of John Innes Kane plaque.
257
Acadia Trails Treatment plan
Fig. 10-10 Detail of the engraved stone on the Beachcroft Path (#13).
Fig. 10-7 Engraved stone marking the Kane Path (#17).
Fig. 10-8 Detail of the engraved stone step marking the entrance to Kurt Diederich's Climb (#16).
|
■ |
' Engraved x |
|
"' |
^ stone ^ |
|
" '?:'- .^'Hsi |
|
|
•_ . — -. ; - . |
|
|
f m^tjatitai |
Fig. 10-11 1918 commemorative plaque honoring Morris K. and Maria DeWitt Jesup on the Jesup Path (#14).
Fig. 10-9 Beachcroft Path trailhead with and engraved stone to the right of the trail.
Fig. 10-12 "Sweet Waters of Acadia" engraved stone off the Park Loop Road near Sieur de Monts. This stone is probably not in its original location.
258
Chapter 10: Monuments and associated Structures; a. Monuments
In the Seal Harbor VIS district, similar commemorative activities took place, but to a lesser degree. A circuit path was built in memory of John Van Santvoord (#450), path committee chairman from 1907 until his death in 1913. A simple commemorative plaque was placed at the summit of the East Triad in 1915 (Fig. 10- 13). About this time a granite bench and commemora- tive plaque honoring Sarah Cushing was placed on the shore of Jordan Pond, not far from the Jordan Pond House. No documentation has been found about this commemorative bench. In association with gifts of land, a plaque was also placed on Acadia Mountain circa 1918 to recognize Reverend Cornelius Smith and Mary Wheeler.
After a post-World War I lull, work on memorial paths resumed in the mid-1920s. In Seal Harbor, the VIS placed a commemorative plaque on a large boulder
along the Seaside Path (#401) circa 1925 in memory of Edward Rand, who was responsible for the VIA/VIS path maps and a former path committee chairman (Fig. 10-14). In the Bar Harbor VIA district several memorial paths were added to the system, while some existing trails were endowed with maintenance funds. Com- memorative plaques were set on existing large boulders on the newly built Andrew Murray Young Path (#25) and the already established Gorge Path (#28). A stone bridge and associated engraved stone were placed at the outlet of Lakewood (#309) in recognition of the land gift of Annie Kane and Fanny Bridgham (Figs. 10-15 to 10-17). Two additional memorial trails were established, the newly built Gurnee Path (#352) and the already established Canon Brook Path (#19), but these did not receive monuments. In Northeast Harbor, a commemorative plaque was placed on Eliot Mountain circa 1929 in memory of Charles W. Eliot, founder of
Fig. 10-13 Commemorative plaque on the Van Santvoord Trail (#450).
Fig. 10-14 Commemorative plaque honoring Edward Lothrop Rand on the Jordon Pond Seaside Path (#401).
Fig. 10-15 Commemorative plaque honoring Andrew Murray Young on the Andrew Murray Young Path (#25).
259
Acadia Trails treatment Plan
the Hancock County Trustees (Fig. 10-18). Nearby, a rough-cut engraved stone was placed on the Asticou Terraces in memory of Joseph Curtis.
Civilian Conservation Corps
Fewer monuments were added to the trail system as the VIS/VIS role in the construction and maintenance of paths diminished. The CCC did not initiate the addi- tion of monuments to the system and the NPS tended to discourage the placement of monuments on park land, with a few exceptions. However, one significant monument was added during the 1930s. A commemo- rative plaque honoring Stephen Mather, the first direc- tor of the Park Service, was placed at the entrance to the Cadillac Mountain Summit Loop Trail (#33) (Fig.
10-19). Similar plaques were placed at all national parks across the United States.
NPS/Mission 66
Two monuments were added to the trail system dur- ing the Mission 66 era. In the early part of the period, the Seal Harbor VIS installed the last commemorative plaque honoring a VIA/VIS member. This plaque was installed on the Jordan Pond Path (#39) circa 1945 in memory of Joseph Allen, Seal Harbor VIS Path Com- mittee chairman from 1914 to 1945 (Fig. 10-20). During the 1960s, the NPS honored John D. Rockefeller, Jr. with a commemorative plaque. The plaque was located along the Ocean Path (#3) at Otter Point and described Rockefeller's contributions to the creation of Acadia National Park (Fig. 10-21).
mm
Fig. 10-16 Lilian Endicott Francklyn commemorative plaque on the Gorge Path (#28).
Fig. 10-18 Eliot Mountain commemorative plaque.
Fig. 10-17 Engraved stone near the Kane 8i Bridgham Memorial Bridge along the path around Lakewood (#309).
Fig. 10-19 Stephen Mather commemorative plaque on the Cadillac Summit Loop Trail (#33).
260
Chapter 10: Monuments and associated Structures; A. Monuments
National Park Service
No monuments have been added within the park in association with the path system since the 1960s. One commemorative plaque was added in the 1980s outside park boundaries in Northeast Harbor to honor Gordon H. Fait, who worked on trails around the village (Fig. 10-22). In 1990, park volunteers Charles and Virginia Edwards conducted a park-wide inventory of monu- ments. They located thirty-two monuments (not all associated with the trail system), including four monu- ments associated with the park but not on park land. Since this time the park has assumed ownership of one of these four, the Charles T. How commemorative plaque, located on the shore of Fawn Pond. In 1993, the NPS documented the monuments as part of the List of Classified Structures (LCS).
Fig. 10-20 Joseph Allen commemorative plaque on the Jordan Pond Trail (#39).
Fig. 10-21 Rockefeller commemorative plaque at Otter Point on the Ocean Path (#3).
HISTORICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF MONUMENTS
The earliest monuments under the VIA/VIS were engraved stones. Later monuments consisted of bronze commemorative plaques mounted on stones. Although each monument is slightly different, the general usage did not vary much during the historic period. Later periods saw little addition to the trail monuments.
Pre-VIA/VIS (pre-1890)
No monuments were associated with trails.
VIA/VIS Period (1890-1937)
Some twenty monuments were added to the trail system. Most were engraved stones or commemorative plaque on boulders and ledges.
CCC Period (1933-42)
One monument was added to the trail system.
NPS/Mission 66 Period (1943-66)
Two monuments were added to the trail system.
NPS Period (1967-1997)
No new monuments were added.
Fig. 10-22 Gordon H. Fait commemorative plaque.
261
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
|
MONUMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE TRAIL SYSTEM |
||
|
Name and Date Installed Trail Name and Location Description |
Inscription |
History |
|
Champlain Monument, 1906 Day Mountain Trail (#37), 70 feet north of Route 3 and 75 feet east of trail, formerly at the end of the Champlain Monument Path (#453) Two bronze commemorative plaques on relocated boulder |
Front Side: "In honor of Samuel de Champlain Born in France 1567 Died at Quebec 1635 A soldier sailor explorer And administrator Who gave this island its name." Rear Side: "The same day we passed also near an island about four or five leagues long... it is very high, notched in places so as to appear from the sea like a range of seven or eight mountains close together. The summits of most of them are bare of trees for they are nothing but rock. I named it The Island of the Desert Mountains, Champlain's Journal, 5 September, 1604." |
Placed by the Hancock County Trustees of Public Reservations. Originally placed on their first parcel of donated land, west of Ox Hill overlook- ing the Cranberry Isles, the monument was later moved to its present location along Route 3. |
|
Charles T. How, 1906 Fawn Pond (#309), ledge on northwest side of pond, facing south Bronze commemorative plaque |
"This plaque Commemorates the gift by Charles T. How Of the Fawn Pond And forty acres of land To the Bar Harbor Village Improvement Association 1906" |
Placed by the Bar Harbor VIA in recognition of one of the first land gifts for preservation. The land was sold to the National Park Service in the 1990s. |
|
Waldron Bates, 1910 Gorham Mountain Trail (#4), southern end at junction with Cadillac Cliffs Trail Bronze commemorative plaque on ledge |
"1856-1909 Waldron Bates In Memoriam MCMX Pathmaker" |
Placed by the Bar Harbor VIA in memory of Waldron Bates, who laid out over 25 miles of trails, helped map the trail system in the 1890s, developed standards for trail construction and maintenance, and served as Bar Harbor VIA Path Committee chairman. Bates laid out the Cadil- lac Cliffs Path. The plaque was designed by New York sculptor and summer resident, William Ordway Partridge. |
|
Waldron Bates, 1910 Waldron Bates Memorial Path/ Chasm Path (#525), at upper end of path — exact location unknown Unknown |
Unknown |
Described by Mitchell in the Bar Harbor VIA 1910 Path Committee Annual Report |
|
John Innes Kane, 1913 Kane Path (#17), northern end of path Bronze commemorative plaque on boulder |
"In memory of John Innes Kane A man of kindness who Found his happiness in Giving others pleasure 1913" |
Memorial trail funded by Mrs. John I. Kane in 1913. Described by Rudolph Brunnow in his 1914 Bar Harbor VIA Path Committee report. Com- pleted in 1915 and attributed to George Dorr. |
262
Chapter 10: Monuments and associated Structures; A. monuments
|
John Innes Kane, ca. 1913 Kane Path (#17), northern end of trail, exact loca- tion unknown Engraved stone |
Kane Path |
See above, placement attributed to George Dorr. |
|
Kurt Diederich, 1913 Kurt Diederich's Climb (#16), currently located in park sign shop Bronze commemorative plaque |
"In memory Of Kurt Diederich Who loved these mountains 1913" |
Trail construction funded by Mrs. Hunt Slater in memory of her nephew, described by Rudolph Brunnow in his 1915 Bar Harbor VIA path com- mittee report and attributed to George Dorr. |
|
Kurt Diederich, ca. 1913 Kurt Diederich's Climb (#16), lower end of path near The Tarn Engraved stone step |
"Kurt Diederich's Climb" |
See above, installation attributed to George Dorr. |
|
Beachcroft Path, ca. 1915 Beachcroft Path (#13), lower end of path near Route 3 Engraved stone |
"Beachcroft Path" |
Mrs. C. Morton Smith funded construction of ' the path, and later, in 1926, funded improvements and a maintenance endowment. Installation attributed to George Dorr. |
|
Sweet Waters of Acadia, ca. 1916 Emery Path (#15), lower end at Sieur de Monts Spring Engraved stone |
"Sweet Waters of Acadia" |
Located at Sieur de Monts Spring, the hub of the network of the memorial trails, installation attrib- uted to George Dorr. |
|
Morris K. and Maria DeWitt Jesup, 1918 Jesup Path (#14), southern end of path Bronze commemorative plaque on boulder |
"In Memory of Morris K. and Maria DeWitt Jesup Lovers of this island 1918" |
Morris Jesup was a railroad investor and banker and president of the Chamber of Commerce of New York, the Audubon Society, one of the incorporators of the American Museum of American History, and a leader in efforts to protect the Adirondacks. On Mount Desert Island, he was active in the Bar Harbor VIA and helped establish the Jesup Memorial Library. George Dorr named a path for the Jesups in 1916 and directed placement of the plaque. |
|
Jesup Path, ca. 1918 *Former Jesup Path at Cromwell Harbor Road (#375), at intersec- tion with Harden Farm Road Engraved stone |
"Jesup P ath" |
Entrance marker for memorial path dedicated to Morris K. and Maria DeWitt Jesup. Installation by George Dorr. See above. |
|
Stratheden Path, ca. 1916 In the woods north of Sieur de Monts Spring House Engraved stone |
"Stratheden Path" |
See next entry. |
263
Acadia Trails Treatment plan
|
Stratheden Path, ca. 1916 Stratheden Path (#24), west side of Sieur de Monts Fire Road at junc- tion with Hemlock Road Engraved stone |
"Stratheden Path" |
Formerly known as the Harden Farm Path, no documentation has been found on when and why the trail name was changed, or the rationale for choosing the name. Installation attributed to George Dorr. |
|
Stratheden Path, ca. 1916 * Former Stratheden Path (#24) trailhead on Cromwell Harbor Road, south of road in the golf course, approximately 30 feet south of roadbed, at a small pull- off, approximately 1850 feet east of the Rte. 233 intersection at the Kebo Valley Club. Engraved stone |
"Stratheden Path" |
See previous entry |
|
Van Santvoord Trail, 1916 Pemetic Mountain Trail (#31), on ledge at summit, facing west Bronze commemorative plaque |
"The Van Santvoord Trail" |
Installed by Seal Harbor VIS and named for John Van Santvoord, who was Seal Harbor VIS Path Committee chairman from 1907 until his death in 1913. His successor, Joseph Allen, led the effort to construct and name the trail. |
|
Sarah Eliza Sigourney Cushing, Date Installed Unknown Jordan Pond Nature Trail (#45), south end of trail, 50 feet south of boat launch Bronze commemorative plaque and granite bench |
"In grateful loving memory of Sarah Eliza Sigourney Cushing Wife of Edward Tuckerman 1832-1915 She dearly loved this spot" |
This is the only commemorative plaque associ- ated with a bench. |
|
Edward L. Rand, ca. 1925 'Seaside Path (#401), southern end of path near private road Bronze commemorative plaque on large boulder |
"To the memory of Edward Lothrop Rand 1859-1924 In grateful recognition of His pioneer service and labor of love In making known The flora of Mount Desert And compiling maps of Its woodland and mountain paths" |
Installed by Seal Harbor VIS in memory of Edward Rand who was a member of the Cham- plain Society, coathored Flora ofMt. Desert, path maps, and guidebooks, and served as Seal Harbor VIS Path Committee chairman. Rand was active in the early marking of the Seal Harbor VIS path network, including the Seaside Path. |
|
Andrew Murray Young, ca. 1924 Andrew Murray Young Path (#25), lower end of trail, 800 feet north of Canon Brook Trail junction, near brook. Metallic commemorative plaque (white metal) on large boulder |
"In memory of Andrew Murray Young, Who loved this island Where god has given Of his beauty with a Lavish hand 1861-1924" |
Funded and endowed by his wife, Marie Hunt Young. Described by Harold Peabody in his Bar Harbor VIA Path Committee reports in 1924-26. Installation attributed to George Dorr and the Bar Harbor VIA. |
264
Chapter 10: monuments and associated Structures; A. Monuments
|
Lillian Endicott Francklyn, ca. 1929 Gorge Path (#28), 3/4 mile south of Loop Road, on ledge just below waterfall and pool Bronze commemorative plaque |
"In loving memory of Lilian Endicott Francklyn 1891-1928 This trail is endowed by Her friends" |
Funded by several summer residents who endowed the trail with a maintenance fund. Installation attributed to George Dorr and the Bar Harbor VIA. |
|
Kane & Bridgham, ca. 1929 Fawn Pond Path (#309), at outlet of Lake Wood Engraved stone |
"In memory of Annie Cottenet Kane & Fanny Schermerhorn Bridgham Who gave the lake & Surrounding land to Acadia National Park" |
Unknown history. Located near the Kane & Bridgham Bridge, designed by Beatrix Farrand and built between 1926 and 1929. Pieces of the bridge are still visible. Installation attributed to George Dorr and the Bar Harbor VIA. |
|
Stephen Tyng Mather, 1930s Cadillac Summit Loop Trail (#33), at trailhead, near parking lot Bronze commemorative plaque |
"Stephen Tyng Mather July 4, 1867-Jan 22, 1930 He laid the foundation of the National Park Service defining and establishing the policies Under which its areas shall be developed and Conserved unim- paired for future generations. There will never come an end to the good that He has done." |
A similar plaque is located in all national parks — not directly associated with the development of the trail system. |
|
Charles William Eliot, date unknown *Eliot Mountain Trail to Map House (#516), along trail on ledge facing south Bronze commemorative plaque |
"Eliot Mountain Named for Charles William Eliot 1834-1926 One of the first to cruise these Island-dotted down-east waters 1872-82 He bought this land and built the first summer Cottage on this shore 1882 Founder of the Hancock County Trustees of Public Reservations 1903, Through which the lands were assembled, And the Lafayette National Monument, Now Acadia National Park, was established." |
History unknown. |
|
Joseph Henry Curtis, 1932 Elliot Mountain Trail to Asticou Terrace Path (#519)*, patio area halfway up path Engraved stone with bronze com- memorative plaque insert |
"1841-1928, Joseph Henry Curtis Landscape architect Vigilant protector Of these hills The Asticou Terraces are his gift For the quiet recreation of the people Of this town and their summer guests." |
The plaque was cast by Roman Bronze Works in New York. |
265
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
|
Joseph Allen, ca. 1945 |
"Lover of rocks and high places |
Placed by the Seal Harbor VIS after Allen's death |
|
Builder of trails |
in 1945. |
|
|
Jordan Pond Path (#39), at water's |
Conserver of natural beauty |
|
|
edge, near intersection with Jordan |
Joseph Allen |
|
|
Pond Carry Path (#38), facing |
Chairman |
|
|
northeast |
Seal Harbor Path Committee 1914-1945." |
|
|
Bronze commemorative plaque |
||
|
John D. Rockefeller, Jr., 1960s |
"John D. Rockefeller, Jr., 1874- |
Rockefeller, Jr. donated large tracts of land to the |
|
1960 |
park and funded much of the construction of the |
|
|
Ocean Path (#3), approximately |
These groves of spruce and fir, |
carriage road and motor road system. Rockefeller |
|
770 feet north of Otter Point |
these granite ledges, this magnifi- |
was involved in the construction of Ocean Drive, |
|
cent window on the sea, were given |
Otter Cliffs overlook, and the associated Ocean |
|
|
Bronze commemorative plaque on |
to the United |
Path construction carried out by the CCC in the |
|
ledge |
States by John D. Rockefeller, Jr. He was among the first To sense the need to preserve America's natural beauty and, To set standards of environmental quality. This quiet, dedicated con- servationist gave generously of his time, wisdom and resources to help establish this park and others, For the physical, cultural and spiritual benefit of the American people." |
1930s. |
outside of park boundary
TREATMENT
1. Location of Monuments
Issue: One engraved stone and at least two commemo- rative plaques have been removed, and some of the trails or trail segments to which markers refer have been abandoned.
Treatment Guidelines: Monuments should not be moved from their historic locations. According to NPS Management Policies:
Many commemorative works have existed in the parks long enough to qualify as historic features. A key aspect of their historical interest is that they reflect the knowl- edge, attitudes, and tastes of the persons who designed and placed them. These works and their inscriptions will not be altered, relocated, obscured, or removed, even when they are deemed inaccurate or incompat- ible with prevailing present-day values. Any exceptions require specific approval by the Director.51
If the original location of a removed monument can be determined, the monument will returned to this loca- tion. If not, it should be erected in a suitable location on the trail it commemorates. For example, the Kurt Diederich commemorative plaque should be reinstalled on Kurt Diederich's Climb (#16) at its original location if known; otherwise, it should be placed in a suitable place on the trail.
As stated in the Hiking Trails Management Plan, deci- sions to reopen abandoned trails will be made inde- pendent of the existence of monuments. However, if an abandoned trail or trail segment is reopened, every effort should be made to follow the historic route to access associated monuments.
2. Agreement of Trail Names and Monument Inscriptions
Issue: Currently some trail names no longer corre- spond to their associated monuments.
266
Chapter 10: Monuments and associated Structures; A. Monuments
Treatment Guidelines: Maintained trails associated with monuments are to be restored to their historic names, thereby bringing them into agreement with monument text (see Chapter 9, Section G).
An exception to this guideline is the Van Santvoord Trail (#450). Most of this route is abandoned and the section that contains the commemorative plaque is now maintained as part of the Pemetic Mountain Trail (#31). To avoid hiker confusion, the trail will retain its current name and the plaque will not be removed. An inter- pretive marker should be added to the trail to inform hikers of the trail's history and the reason for the name inconsistency.
3. Documentation
Issue: Other than photographs, the park has no physi- cal record of the individual design of the commemora- tive plaques and carved stones. If one were stolen, it would be extremely difficult to accurately replace.
Treatment Guidelines: Commemorative plaques and engraved stones associated with the trail system should be thoroughly documented. A project should be developed to update the existing documentation with additional information such as rubbings of the bronze plaques and/or measured drawings of the monuments. A monument specialist should be consulted to scope the project and determine what documentation would be adequate to replace these features if they were lost.
authorized by Congress or approved by the Director (36 CFR2.62). The consultation process required by Section 106 of National Historic Preservation Act must be completed before the Director will make a decision to approve a commemorative work.53
If the addition of new monuments is approved, they should be either commemorative plaques or engraved stones. Their placement, scale, and text should be compatible with existing monuments. A new style of monument should not be added to the system. New monuments should only be placed at appropriate loca- tions along the trail, such as trailheads or prominent natural features. Documentation of existing monu- ments will identify the historic patterns of monument placement throughout the system and should be used as a general guideline for determining the placement of new monuments.
SPECIFICATIONS FOR MONUMENTS
Specifications for the fabrication of new monuments will be developed on a case-by-case basis. The size of the monuments, as well as the layout, font, and sizing of text should be compatible with the existing collec- tion of commemorative plaques and engraved stones. Appropriate specifications should be developed as part of a system-wide monument documentation project.
4. Addition of Monuments
Issue: Although the Hiking Trails Management Plan allows for the possible addition of monuments to the trail system through "careful consideration" and adher- ence to applicable NPS management policies, the addi- tion of incompatible new monuments could adversely affect the historic trail system.52
Treatment Guidelines: The standard for the addition of new monuments to national parks is high. NPS man- agement policies state:
Outside the District of Columbia and its environs commemorative works will not be established unless
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE
1. Commemorative Plaques
Bronze plaques should be cleaned and waxed annually to protect them from oxidation. The best time is in July or August because the plaque must be warm to absorb the wax; otherwise a torch must be used to warm the plaque. The plaque is cleaned with Orvis Paste (Univer- sity Products, Inc. cat. #963-1000, tel. 800-628-1912). Then wash with Stoddard's Solvent, using 100- percent-cotton diapers, not rags. All environmental and personal safety precautions must be followed. It is important to remove salts, bird droppings, and tree saps that promote and accelerate corrosion. Use plastic
267
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
or natural brushes, not wire. Rinse well with clear water. The plaque must dry completely so moisture is not locked in. The plaque is waxed with Butcher's Bowling Alley Clear Wax, buffed, rewaxed and buffed again. The Butcher's wax must be the Clear variety, not the Orange variety. The plaque should be profession- ally cleaned on a ten-year schedule using Incralex, a powerful solvent, after which the annual cleaning and waxing can be resumed by trails personnel. Acid rain or excessive touching can cause the wax to break down and oxidation or "greening" to occur at an accelerated rate, in which case professional cleaning may be needed at an earlier date than scheduled.
B. ASSOCIATED STRUCTURES
DEFINITION
An associated structure includes any constructed feature that provides the hiker comfort, rest, or an opportunity to appreciate the surrounding landscape. Examples include benches, shelters, picnic facilities, and observation towers.
HISTORICAL USE AT ACADIA
Note: Consult a bronze or monument specialist to find acceptable alternatives to the products listed above if these are not available.
2. Engraved Stones
Periodically, lichen should be removed from the faces of engraved stones with a wire brush. Engraved stone can also be washed with the Orvis Paste (see above). Lichens can be scrubbed with a vegetable brush. Sometimes they are seated deep within in the stone and can crumble the stone as they grow, so do not be too aggressive on compromised stone. As above, follow environmental and safety precautions.
Note: These instructions are sufficient for routine maintenance. Fungicidal preparations or pressure- washing may be required for seriously infected stones, but should be done only by trained conservators.
Note: Research to date has uncovered limited infor- mation on the location, design, and construction of associated structures. Thus, this history is based on fragments of information from annual reports, historic photographs, and historical precedents from compa- rable sites. For example, the construction of gazebos and towers was undertaken throughout the Catskills resort areas in eastern New York State during the same historical period as the early work at Acadia. Therefore, it is likely that the early rusticators on Mount Desert would have followed this example.
Pre-VIA/VIS
Comfortable seating has been a part of the hiking expe- rience on Mount Desert Island as early as the 1870s when rustic structures with shade roofs and seats were built on the island and benches placed in the landscape. Private landowners constructed these structures in the "picturesque" style, a style promoted by landscape gar- dener, Andrew Jackson Downing (1815-52), who wrote the widely read Treatise on the Theory and Practice of Landscape Gardening. Downing advocated the use of native materials, particularly woodwork. He believed that manmade rustic features, such as bridges, steps, seats, and shelters, enhanced one's comfort and enjoy- ment in natural surroundings, while adding to the pic- turesque scene. Unfortunately, such delicate wooden structures could not withstand Maine's harsh climate and were soon gone (Fig. 10-23, also Fig. 10-1).
268
Chapter 10: monuments and associated Structures; B. Associated structures
Village Improvement Associations/Societies
The first annual report of the Bar Harbor VIA describes a proposal to add benches or "seats" to the Duck Brook Path (#311) "where the pedestrian might sit and rest himself." As the path system expanded, seating areas were proposed throughout. However, it is not clear how many benches were added to the trails, and photographic documentation is scant. Photographs of the Jesup Path (#14) in 1916 show a bench in the back- ground (Figs. 10-24 & 10-25). "Seats" were also placed along paths in the Seal Harbor district as described by the path committee chairman in 1939 on the Seaside Path (#401) and in 1941 along Hunters Brook Trail (#35 and #455) and Jordan Stream Path (#65). In 1942 the Seal Harbor VIS also placed benches on Little Hunt- ers Brook Path (#438), at Champlain Monument (then located at the southern end of #453), Barr Hill Lookout (summit of #403 and #404), and on the Jordan Pond Path (#39). A 1907 photograph shows a Seal Harbor hiking group possibly sitting on a bench on an undeter- mined trail (Fig. 10-26). No other photographs have been found to further document this. The Northeast Harbor VIS also constructed benches along the trails, and continues to do so (Fig. 10-27). The majority of historic photographs portray hikers sitting on the existing boulders and ledges rather than constructed
|
HI |
l |
|
|
■ |
/ • ^ "■5S |
|
|
..\H^k jH |
||
|
"" -nJ |
: ':*ri£'"-~- *£& ~: |
|
|
. ■ |
Fig. 10-24 George Dorr and Mr. and Mrs. Drury on Jesup Path bench near Sieur de Monts Spring.
«#*>.*>•.
8 "
Fig. 10-25 Bench on the Jesup Path (#14), circa 1916.
Fig. 10-23 Rustic bench near Bar Harbor no longer present, photographed in circa 1870s.
Fig. 10-26 Ladies resting, possibly on a bench, on an unknown trail in Seal Harbor in 1907.
269
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
benches, suggesting that benches were probably never widespread throughout the trail system.
None of the early wooden benches are extant in the park. Along with their natural tendency to deteriorate, vandalism of benches was also an issue. In 1938 the co- chair of the path committee reported,
On the Gurnee Path last year, you may remember that three dainty little seats placed on the path through the kindness of Miss Gurnee, were carried off bodily by some of our light-fingered "tripper visitors." Instruc- tions were given to Mr. Dunbar, our worker, to make a very heavy substantial bench for this path. This was done, a heavy rustic bench built, which was heavily pro- tected by large stones. I am happy to be able to report that this bench is still there! 54
Two existing stone benches may date to the VIA/VIS period. The first is a memorial bench located on the shore of Jordan Pond on the Jordan Pond Nature Trail (#45), approximately 50 feet south of the boat launch- ing area (Fig. 10-28). While the commemorative plaque on the bench is typical of those placed by the VIA/ VIS, no documentation has been found in the annual reports of the Bar Harbor VIA or Seal Harbor VIS to document the bench's construction. The second bench sits along the Penobsot Mountain Trail (#47) on the first bluffs west of and overlooking Jordan Pond. The location and orientation of this large rectangular block suggest it was more than likely arranged as a stone bench.
Other benches were likely present on other VIA/VIS trails, although documentation is circumstantial. Evidence of a stone bench has been discovered on the Champlain Mountain East Face Trail (#12). The Acadia
Fig. 10-27 This log bench on the Lower Hadlock Trail (#502), was constructed in the 1980s by the Northeast Harbor VIS.
|
3i |
||
|
• |
||
|
■> |
||
|
■^~7 *;■'*% |
^ |
|
|
■ .'-"■ -v - |
' IW& |
|
|
» |
■ . |
|
|
/*T\ |
*■ - , ■ f - |
|
|
j i |
||
|
■ :-<r - -~^ '■-■-'- A |
||
|
^^^■1 |
1 ^fir^i |
|
|
&** I ' |
||
|
* i |
. |
|
|
rf— *■ |
* |
t |
|
aflJP^^^- |
||
|
\-'^£ypP* |
Fig. 10-28 This stone memorial bench located on the Jordan Pond Nature Trail (#45) is dedicated to Sarah Cushing.
Fig. 10-29 Historic view of the Sieur de Monts Spring House near the Emery Path (#15) trailhead, circa 1920.
270
Chapter 10: monuments and associated Structures; B. Associated Structures
Trail Inventory documents that on section two of the trail, at 852 feet, in the "widest area of walkway, there used to be a stone bench (top is still there)." However, the historic bench is missing, and a new bench has been added as a replacement. Additionally, there are two curious spots on the Emery Path (#15) where benches may have been located. They are constructed flat areas approximately 200 and 400 square feet in size adjacent to the main trail. They provide excellent locations for scenic overlooks and it would be difficult to conceive benches had not been placed at these spots by the trail builders.
In addition to benches, many buildings and shelters offering seating, cover, and refreshments were scat- tered throughout the trail system during the VIA/VIS period. Examples included the Sieur de Monts Spring House, the Kebo Golf Club, the Building of the Arts,
Fig. 10-30 Satterlee's Tea House on Great Head, 1961.
Harbor. Mc
Fig. 10-31 Detail view of Satterlee's Tea House on Great Head, circa 1920.
the Green Mountain House, the Jordan Pond House, the Russian Tea House, Satterlee's Tea House, the Seaside Inn, and the Asticou Inn (Figs. 10-29 to 10-31). Other, more rustic shelters were also constructed, including a map house at the western end of the Asti- cou Trail (#49) (see Chapter 9, Fig. 9-51) , shelters along the trail to the Thuja Lodge overlooking Northeast Harbor (Fig. 10-32), and a "rustic summer-house built by Mr. Kaighn" on the Bernard Mountain Trail (#111).55 This summer house built by a family that frequented Southwest Harbor was mentioned in both the 1915 and 1928 Path Guides, and currently five iron pins remain in the ledge just south of the Bernard Mountain summit where it likely stood. The VIA/VIS did not construct any towers in association with the trail system.
Civilian Conservation Corps
During the CCC period of construction, there is no documentation for the addition of individual benches to the trail system. Instead, CCC documentation recounts the construction of recreation and picnic areas such as the Bear Brook, Pretty Marsh, Pine Hill, and Oak Hill picnic areas and the Echo Lake swimming area. These areas included outlook structures, picnic tables, and fire pits. Trails were built to connect these areas with the existing trail system.
The CCC did issue generic specifications for bench construction, although it is unknown if they were used at Acadia. The specifications are documented in the second volume of Albert Good's Park and Recreation Structures (1938), which includes a chapter on "Trail- side Seats, Shelters, and Overlooks." Good writes:
Seats along trails affording hikers a place to rest after a particularly difficult climb or to contemplate a fine view or an object of interest are very properly of much more informal character than the seating provided where use is more concentrated. If it is to be effectively natural- ized, it must appear casual and unforced, free of the appearance of being too cumbersome and elaborately devised. Natural objects or formations may be utilized, within the limits of reason, as resting places along the trail. Ledges of stone, boulders, or down logs, with slight
271
Acadia trails Treatment Plan
adaptations, provide trailside seating without the intro- duction of foreign elements.56
Although no CCC benches are extant in the park, a bench installed by the NPS in the 1990s is similar in style to CCC benches described in Park and Recreation Structures. It is located on the Penobscot East Trail (#50) at Sargent Mountain Pond (Figs. 10-33 & 10-34).
In the second volume of Park and Recreation Structures, Good describes the desired characteristics of trailside shelters and overlook structures as having "an ingrati- ating lack of pretentiousness."57 Of the CCC outlook shelters built on Mount Desert Island, only those at Pretty Marsh remain, though the viewshed and the associated trail are now overgrown. At Oak Hill, only the foundation of the shelter remains (Fig. 10-35). The
CCC also constructed ranger cabins with trails on Ber- nard Mountain, McFarland Hill, and Youngs Moun- tain, but none of these structures are extant (Figs. 10-36 & 10-37). However, there are still a few rotted logs, boards, and shingles at the Bernard Mountain site.
Good describes favorable characteristics for both fire and observation towers. Regarding fire towers, he writes:
Adequate protection against lightning, high winds, and winter storms, and the factor of live load due to a concentration of visitors must be taken into account in designing the lookout. High towers must be provided with railings along the steps, platforms, and landings. It is possible by employing native rock or logs in the construction to achieve a certain harmony with the sur-
Fig. 10-32 A rustic shelter at the Asticou Terraces in Northeast Harbor on the trail to the Thuja Lodge.
Fig. 10-34 This log bench, installed by the NPS in the 1990s at the water's edge on the Penobscot East Trail (#50), is similar in construction to CCC-style benches.
Fig. 10-33 This CCC log bench, with log supports on a stone base located in Camden State Park, Minnesota, is typical of the standard CCC bench style built at many sites across the country in the 1930s.
Fig. 10-35 The picnic shelter shown in this 1937 photograph was constructed by the CCC at the Oak Hill picnic area. A trail led visitors from the parking area the site overlooking the marsh. Only the foundation of the structure remains.
272
Chapter 10: monuments and associated Structures; B. Associated Structures
roundings, especially if, when located on a rocky sum- mit, the structure is blended to it and made to appear to grow out of it.
The CCC constructed a fire tower in this style on the summit of Bernard (Western) Mountain, which was used as a public observation tower (Fig. 10-38). A small fire tower was also constructed in 1941 approximately 200 yards northeast of the Sargent Mountain summit. This structure is no longer extant, but there are rem- nants of wooden walls, shingles, a line of utility poles, and telephone cable on the site.
NPS/Mission 66
There is no documentation for bench or shelter construction during the Mission 66 period. Mis- sion 66 crews did replace the wooden fire tower on Beech Mountain with a modern steel tower sometime between 1960 and 1962. The western half of the Beech Mountain Loop Trail (#113) was constructed by Mis- sion 66 crews as an access route for the construction of this tower (Fig. 10-39). (The towers and trail are documented in Acadia's interpretive guide, "Beech Mountain Hike.")
•\^J^^jgifif
Fig. 10-36 Construction of a ranger cabin on McFarland Hill by the CCC in the 1930s.
Fig. 10-38 This CCC fire tower on Bernard Mountain, photographed in 1936, was also used by many hikers as an observation tower.
Fig. 10-37 A ranger cabin on Youngs Mountain shown in the 1930s after construction by the CCC.
Fig. 10-39 Located on the summit of Beech Mountain along the Beech Mountain Loop Trail (#113), this steel fire tower was constructed during the Mission 66 Program and is still extant.
273
Acadia Trails treatment plan
National Park Service
Relatively few associated structures have been added to the trail system during the NPS period. In the 1960s, the NPS installed benches in the Wild Gardens of Acadia at Sieur de Monts Spring (Fig. 10-40). A more recent addi- tion, added by the Northeast Harbor VIS, is a garden bench on the Asticou Brook Trail (#514) in Northeast Harbor, outside of the park (Fig. 10-41). Due to a lack of documentation, it is difficult to assess whether these garden-style benches are out of character with VIA/ VIS-era benches.
Examples of other associated structures added by the NPS include a privy on Beech Mountain Loop Trail (#113), and an observation platform and steps on the Bass Harbor Head Light Trail (#129). The construction of features like these provides both visitor comfort and safety. However, they generally do not complement the historic character of the trail system. These types of fea- tures have typically been generic in style and construc- tion and are often not representative of the historical precedents at Acadia (Figs. 10-42 & 10-43).
^t&r^:
Fig. 10-41 This wooden, garden-style bench is located on the Asticou Brook Trail (#514) and was installed in the 1990s by the Northeast Harbor VIS.
Fig. 10-40 Wooden benches like this were used in the Wild Gardens of Acadia during the 1960s.
Fig. 10-43 Observation deck on the Bass Harbor Head Light Trail (#129) built in the 1990s.
274
Chapter 10: Monuments and associated Structures; B. Associated Structures
HISTORICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Based on the limited documentation available, it appears the historical character of associated structures has never been consistent but has changed during each of the historic periods. The result has been myriad styles ranging from the early picturesque benches, bridges, and shelters, to CCC features constructed to standardized specifica- tions.
Pre-VIA/VIS (pre-1890)
Rustic wooden gazebos, bridges, and benches in the picturesque style, similar to those espoused by Andrew Jackson Downing, and erected in the Catskills resort areas, were used on several of the early trails.
VIA/VIS Period (1890-1937)
Varying styles of benches were used throughout the system including round logs (Jesup Path), granite (Jordan Pond), and split cedar log (Lower Hadlock Brook). Other structures remotely associated with the trail system were added, including the Jordan Pond House and the Sieur de Monts Spring House.
CCC Period (1933-42)
Some rustic wood and stone structures were added, primarily at new recreation areas like the various picnic grounds. Fire towers were also constructed.
NPS/Mission 66 Period (1943-66)
Benches were likely used on the trails, as there were old and rotted benches replaced at Great Notch and Bernard Mountain overlook in the early 1970s. However, the only documented addition was a steel fire tower on Beech Mountain.
NPS Period (1967-1997)
An assortment of bench styles were used, including wooden garden style in developed areas. A few other associated structures, like observation decks, were added, typically in a generic style of construction.
TREATMENT
1. Maintaining Character
Issue: There is poor documentation for many of the structures associated with the trail system. For exam- ple, specifications for the design and location of historic benches are often speculative. In places where the trail widens and there is an exceptional view, placement of a bench might be appropriate, but typically there is no documented evidence to verify if a bench was used his- torically by the VIA/VIS or CCC. This lack of informa- tion has resulted in the random placement of various bench styles throughout the trail system without unify- ing design standards. This haphazard approach had also applied to other features added to the system like observation decks and small structures.
Treatment Guidelines: Given the lack of information, prudence is required when dealing with associated structures.
For benches, a comprehensive inventory of existing benches should be undertaken to identify any extant historic benches and aid in establishing design guide- lines for bench style and placement. The inventory should include VIA/VIS trails outside of the park as an additional source for information. Existing benches should not be removed until it can be determined whether they date to the historic period. Existing benches should be inspected to ensure they are struc- turally sound, and replaced in-kind if deteriorated beyond repair. If new benches are added to the trail system, they should be built in a rustic style with logs and/or stone, avoiding materials such as metal, recycled plastic, or pressure-treated wood in visible locations. Benches are easily removable and have less of a perma- nent impact on trail character. Therefore, new benches may be installed in locations where it is speculated a bench was placed historically. If evidence is later found to contradict this assumption, the bench can easily be removed. However, benches should not be installed in areas where there is no presumption of historical use.
Other associated structures dating from the historic period should be maintained as contributing features
275
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
to the integrity of the trail system. Examples include, but are not limited to, the map house on Eliot Moun- tain and the CCC shelters at Pretty Marsh, including maintenance of the viewshed and rehabilitation of the associated trail. Physical remnants of other structures should be documented and preserved.
2. Vandalism
Issue: Overlook spots, where hiking groups are likely to stop, are the most likely locations for rock throw- ing, bench tossing, or other acts of vandalism which threaten both visitor safety and resource protection.
Treatment Guidelines: The threat of vandalism should not be a deterrent to installing and maintaining associ- ated structures. However, careful consideration should be given to the placement of features. For example, benches should not be located in remote locations, where there is increased risk of vandalism, and not every overlook is in need of a bench. To decrease the threat of removal by vandals, ways to anchor the bench to the ledgerock that are relatively inconspicuous should be explored, such as pinning or using chemical adhesives.
SPECIFICATIONS FOR ASSOCIATED STRUCTURES
Specifications will vary for individual associated struc- tures according to type and should be developed on a case-by-case basis by appropriate park staff. Visitor safety and resource protection are primary consider- ations to examine when developing specifications for an associated structures. Local building codes may also need to be addressed for buildings and/or larger structures.
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE
1. Regularly check all associated structures for decay and/or deterioration, and repair or replace pieces in-kind as needed. Wooden features should be routinely checked for splinters.
2. The fire tower and other larger structures should be inspected regularly for safety. Major repairs may need consultation with structural engineers to develop appropriate specifications for work.
ENDNOTES
3. Security of the Beech Mountain Fire Tower
Issue: The Beech Mountain fire tower currently remains locked and unavailable for public use. This restricts the public's enjoyment of one of the larger structures historically associated with the trail system and also limits interpretive opportunities for the Beech Mountain Loop Trail (#113).
Treatment Guidelines: It is recommended that the Beech Mountain fire tower be opened for public use. To determine the feasibility of implementing this recommendation, the park should to commission a study of the tower's structural integrity and identify the liability concerns involved with allowing public access.
49 Monuments associated with the path system, with the excep- tion of the Jesup engraved stone monument, are documented in the 1990 Monument Inventory completed by park volunteers Charles and Virginia Edwards. Additional monuments are described in the inventory that are not part of the path system, including those for George Dorr, Atwater Kent Field, Satterlee Field, David McKinney, Gertrude and Fritz Engel, and John Moore, the Fabbri Monument, for Sargent Drive, and on Bar Island.
50 Bar Harbor Record, November 23, 1910, 3.
51 National Park Service, Management Policies 2001 (United States Department of the Interior), section 9.6.4, 115.
52 Hiking Trails Management Plan, 14.
53 Management Policies, 2001, section 9.6.1, 114.
54 Bar Harbor VIA 1938 Annual Report.
55 Harold Peabody and Charles Grandgent, Walks on Mount Desert Island, 1928.
56 Albert H. Good, Park and Recreation Structures (National Park Service, 1938), Vol. 2, 87.
57 Good, Vol. 2, 8.
58 Good, Vol. 2, 156.
276
Acadia Youth Conservation Corps using a highline above the Jordan Pond Path (#39).
SECTION 2:
Individual Trail Specifications
SCHIFFPATH (#15) JORDAN POND PATH (#39) JORDAN CLIFFS TRAIL (#48) SHIP HARBOR NATURE TRAIL (#127) HOMANS PATH (#349)
277
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
SECTION 2: INDIVIDUAL TRAIL SPECIFICATIONS
Section 2 provides treatment guidelines for individual trails, building on specific feature information presented in Section 1. Included are recommendations for five trails — the Schiff Path (#15), the Jordan Pond Path (#39), the Jordan Cliffs Trail (#48), the Ship Harbor Nature Trail (#127), and the Homans Path (#349).
As this document was under development, rehabilita- tion work was already in process or planned for these five trails. The Jordan Pond Path (#39) in particular underwent extensive rehabilitation concurrent with the development of this report. Field work provided an opportunity to test the guidelines and make necessary modifications to address trail conditions, staff availabil- ity, budget concerns, and other pertinent issues. Since rehabilitation remains underway on these five trails, it is anticipated the process of refining the guidelines will continue as each trail is addressed.
Deadlines for completion of this report preceded com- pletion of trail rehabilitation. As rehabilitation of each trail is completed, actual trail conditions and guidelines used may be altered somewhat from the information currently presented in Section 2. As a result, Section 2 as written is general in nature and is not presented as the definitive prescription for each trail. It is included primarily to illustrate the complete planning process for trail rehabilitation at Acadia, showing how the feature information from Section 1 can be applied to individual trail scenarios. Ideally, as trail work is completed and guidelines are refined, the written documentation should be updated to reflect any changes in trail plan- ning or implementation.
Character: The specific character of the trail is ana- lyzed, including how this trail fits into the overall char- acter of the entire system.
Features: Specific treatment guidelines are provided for each of the feature types that are present on this particular trail or may be appropriate for addition to the trail. This section relies heavily on the information provided in Section 1. For example, if a certain trail historically contained VIA/VIS bridges, the treatment guidelines for bridges will likely say any new bridge work must be compatible with the VIA/VIS style. For a description of the VIA/VIS style and specifications for building compatible bridges, the reader should refer back to Section 1, Chapter 5, where VIS/VIS bridges are discussed in greater detail.
Routine Maintenance: Information is provided here only for specific maintenance concerns for the individ- ual trail that must be addressed to preserve its historic character. This information will not be provided for all of Acadia's trails, as general maintenance for each feature type is addressed in Section 1.
In Section 2, the following information is provided for each of the five included trails:
History: The historical development of the trail is dis- cussed, including the original builders and any docu- mented modifications to the trail during later eras.
278
Section 2: individual Trail Specifications
Fig. 15-1 Circa 1920s view of the Schiff Path.
SCHIFF PATH
(#15)
279
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
SCHIFF PATH (#15)
The Schiff Path has withstood nearly eighty years of heavy use with relatively little maintenance. The trail traverses the upper slope of Dorr Mountain to the summit, acting as an extension of the Emery Path (#15). Currently, both the Schiff Path and the Emery Path are marked as the Dorr Mountain East Face Trail (#15) (Figs. 15-1 & 15-2).
Most of the tread is highly constructed with stone paving, steps, and capstone culverts. Some sections are eroded and steps are slipping. Built features need to be reset or repaired to ensure that extensive damage does not occur.
REHABILITATION PRIORITIES
• Reopen closed culverts.
• Repair drainage on sections where no longer func- tional.
• Repair eroded sections, particularly where steps are loose or slipping.
• Inspect and replace ironwork as needed.
HISTORY
Beginning in 1913, George Dorr directed the develop- ment of a network of memorial paths radiating from Sieur de Monts Spring. Dorr envisioned the Sieur de Monts area as the center of a reservation of protected lands, with paths connecting to Bar Harbor and the sur- rounding mountains. Dorr was able to raise funds for trail construction as an active member of the Bar Har- bor VIA Path Committee, the Hancock County Trustees of Public Reservations, as well as the founder of his own philanthropic organization, the Wild Gardens of Acadia Corporation. By the time the reservation was desig- nated Sieur de Monts National Monument in 1916, with Dorr as Superintendent, most of the memorial trails were partially or fully completed, including the Kane Path (#17), Beachcroft Path (#13), Kurt Diederich's Climb (#16), Homans Path (#349), Emery Path (#15), and Jesup Path (#14). The Schiff Path was the last addi- tion to the Sieur de Monts memorial paths and, like the others, was highly crafted with extensive stonework and ironwork.
To Kebo Mtn.
To Cadillac
Dorr X Summit
North Ridge Dorr Mountain
I South Ridge Dorr ^ Mountain
Not to Scale North
t
0
□ Nature Center
O Spring & Gazebo
To Rt. 3 &
Huguenot
Head
Ladder Trail
Fig. 15-2 Sections #1 and #2 of the Schiff Path (#15).
280
Section 2; #15. Schiff Path
As early as 1915, a path from Sieur de Monts Crag to the summit of Dry [Dorr] Mountain was anticipated; how- ever, construction had been delayed for several years. Circa 1921, Superintendent Dorr negotiated with the Bar Harbor VIA to take over care of the trails on Cham- plain and Dry [Dorr] Mountains. Construction of the Schiff Path is not mentioned in Bar Harbor VIA annual reports, thus it may have been carried out by the NPS in the early 1920s rather than by the VIA. The Schiff Path first appears on the 1926 path map. The path is drawn fairly inaccurately, as it does not show its close proxim- ity and connection to the Ladder Trail (#64). The 1928 path guide described the Schiff Path and the connector to the Ladder Trail (#64), with special mention of the views to The Tarn, Otter Creek Gorge, and the steep, wooded west slope of Picket Mountain [Huguenot Head]. The connection between the two trails is shown on NPS maps prepared in the 1940s.
The path is named for Jacob Schiff (1847-1920), a businessman and philanthropist who contributed generously to the Bar Harbor VIA Path Committee. He joined the Bar Harbor VIA in about 1902 became a life member in 1908, and donated funds annually towards the upkeep of the path system. His wife was listed as a contributor in the VIA records through 1925.
In the 1930s the CCC rehabilitated some of the Dorr Mountain trails. While only the Emery Path (#15) and the Ladder Trail (#64) were mentioned specifically in CCC records, work on the "system" of Dorr Mountain trails was mentioned and it is likely this included the Schiff Path. Work documented in the area included adding stone pavement, stepping stones, steps, guard- rails, and some rerouting of paths.
At this time the Emery Path/Schiff Path was one of the most popular hikes in the park and was commonly used for ranger-led walks. This continues to the present, since the steps allow for hikers of varying abilities.
In the early 1950s, many park trails were closed if they paralleled another route, led to private land, were sel- dom used, or were costly to maintain. The Upper Lad- der Trail (#334) was both parallel to the Schiff Path and
costly to maintain, and was closed around 1952. During this period, the total 1.6 miles of the Schiff and Emery Paths was renamed the Schiff-Emery Trail. By the late 1950s the trail was called the Dorr Mountain Trail, and later renamed the Dorr Mountain East Face Trail (#15).
In 1981, 3.5 miles of Acadia's trails, including the Dorr Mountain Trail East Face Trail (#15), were designated National Recreation Trails under the National Trails System Act. This designation has been given to approx- imately 800 trails across the country.
Fig. 15-3 Lower end of Schiff Path (right) at intersection with Kurt Diederich's Climb (#16) to the left and Emery Path (#15) in the foreground.
Fig. 15-4 The trail winds across ledges and past several large boulders. Squeezing hikers through narrow passageways, like this one, was a common design feature used on similar Dorr trails including the Homans Path (#349) and Ladder Trail (#64).
281
Acadia trails Treatment Plan
Fig. 15-5 Gravel surface has washed away, exposing rubble base.
Fig. 15-6 The same view in 2001 as Fig. 5-1 in the 1920s, but with gravel surface washed away.
|
:*.,' ■jff |
i£ "£V |
|
|
u |
- |
1 i.j |
|
%, |
||
|
' •^■I^S^^feLsaBii |
||
|
sR9 |
• • |
Fig. 15-7 Stone paved trail in good condition.
Fig. 15-8 Stone paved path with some erosion.
282
SECTION 2; #15. SCHIFF PATH
CHARACTER
The Schiff Path connects four trails on the east face of Dorr Mountain to the summit, including the Ladder Trail (#64), Kurt Diederich's Climb (#16), the Emery Path (#15), and the Homans Path (#349) (Fig. 15-3). The trail was constructed as part of the memorial path system radiating from Sieur de Monts Spring. Named in memory of Jacob Schiff, there is little documenta- tion about the naming and no record of an associated endowment as with other memorial trails from the same period. The trail has extensive built features including steps, iron-pinned retaining walls, stone pavement, and capstone culverts. Though well- armored by its durable construction, the trail is heavily used and is eroded in sections. Most of the gravel sur- face has been lost, exposing the rock rubble base. Many closed culverts are either partially collapsed, filled, or no longer effective. The trail requires thorough reha- bilitation to ensure that built features are not damaged.
FEATURES
For detailed treatment guidelines and specifications for each feature, refer to Section 1, Chapters 1 through 10.
1. Route
The Schiff Path begins at the intersection of the Emery Path (#15) and Kurt Diederich's Climb (#16) at Sieur de Monts Crag. It travels southward along the side of Dorr Mountain to intersect with the Ladder Trail (#64), then turns westward, and ascends over ledge to the summit by a series of long, winding switchbacks along ledges and through boulders. This route is the original design of the trail and should be maintained (Fig. 15-4).
2. Vegetation
The Schiff Path travels through sparse upland woods, pines, and dense alpine shrubs. The area was burned in the 1947 fire; thus most trees are young, and birch and maple trees dominate. On the upper half of the trail, vegetation is low, allowing for exceptional views of the valley and surrounding mountains. Minimal man-
agement of vegetation is needed. The trail should be brushed every three to five years.
3. Treadway
A. Bench Cut: The lower half of the trail travels along the natural bench formed by Sieur de Monts Crag. It is likely that bench cuts were made at the time of construction. The tread was then armored with stone wall and pavement or gravel over rubble. In most cases these bench cuts do not require further maintenance, except to maintain the closed cul- verts under the path.
B. Causeway: None.
C. Gravel Tread: Many sections of trail were once surfaced with soil and gravel over rock rubble. Most of this gravel has washed away (Figs. 15-5 & Fig. 15-6, compare with Fig. 15-1). Because this is a highly crafted memorial trail, imported crushed stone and gravel would diminish the historical character of the trail. Borrowing enough gravel and soil to resurface all sections may be difficult and not sustainable. Thus, rock rubble may continue to be the surface for many sections. These sec- tions can be repaired with stone pavement similar in appearance to other sections of trail. In places where gravel surface remains, drainage should
be repaired or maintained to prevent erosion of remaining material.
D. Stone Pavement: The trail contains long sec- tions of stone pavement that provide durable and comfortable walking tread (Figs. 15-7 to 15-10). In some locations erosion and/or loss of stone pave- ment has occurred, possibly because of a broken or clogged culvert nearby. Culverts associated with stone pavement should be repaired and stepstones reset. Compatible new stone pavement may be added to highly eroded sections of trail.
E. Unconstructed Tread: There is very little uncon- structed tread along the trail. Near the summit there are fewer built features and the trail travels along open ledge. Where there is erosion, built
283
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
Fig. 15-9 Stone paved trail with capstone culvert in good condition.
Fig. 15-10 Stone paved trail and steps in good condition.
Fig. 15-11 Massive capstone culvert.
284
Section 2; #15. Schiff Path
features should be added in character with the trail. Sections across ledge should be clearly marked to keep hikers from wandering off the trail.
4. Drainage
A. Culverts: The trail contains extensive culverts. These include capstone culverts and graveled-over culverts that have lost their gravel. Many culverts need to be rebuilt or cleaned out. Culverts should be rebuilt with the same stones if possible and in the style of historic closed culverts on the trail (Fig. 15-11).
Some coping stones have slipped and need to be reset (Figs. 15-14 & 15-15). Extant coping should be retained. Where coping is slipping along ledge, concealed pins may be added. Compatible new coping may be added as needed.
C. Retaining Walls: The Schiff Path contains almost 2,000 linear feet of retaining wall. Wall height ranges from 1 to 6 feet. Most of the wall is in good condition (Fig. 15-16). Damaged sections should be repaired or reset and compatible new sections may be added as needed.
B. Subsurface Drains: None.
C. Side Drains: There is some evidence of side drains. Extant side drains should be rehabilitated in con- junction with closed culverts, but installation of new side drains should be avoided.
D. Water Bars: None. Bars should not be added.
E. Water Dips: None. Dips may be added as needed.
5. Crossings
None.
6. Retaining Structures
A. Checks: Erosion is a problem in several sections of trail. Checks may be added to fill gullied sections and redirect water off of the treadway. Since the Schiff Path is a highly crafted memorial trail, stones used for checks should be gathered locally, as well as rubble and gravel fill. Use of checks should be limited so as not to detract from historical charac- ter. Some eroded sections are better repaired with the addition of steps, particularly if remnants of steps are apparent (Figs. 15-12 & 15-13).
B. Coping Stones: There are extensive sections of coping wall along the trail, built in association with retaining walls and steps. Some coping wall may have originally been sidewall, but a loss of surface material has exposed the stones. In some places, coping stones are holding water on the tread.
7. Steps
Like other memorial trails, the Schiff Path ascends the mountainside with staircases of stone. There are about 350 steps of various styles. Some are placed through boulder fields. Most are built in association with retain- ing walls and stone pavement (Fig. 15-18). And, most are slab laid and cut (Fig. 15-19). Some are set behind, but in some cases this may be a result of slipping. Some are placed with drill marks visible. Many sections alternate between stone steps and stone paving. One step is cut out of ledge (Fig. 15-20). In several places, extensive erosion is undermining the bottom step of a staircase, thus jeopardizing the structural stability of the entire run. All steps that have slipped should be reset and secured with extant coping stones. Sources of erosion should be corrected by the construction of closed cul- verts or other appropriate drainage solutions. Eroded sections (see Fig. 15-13) should be repaired using steps, stone pavement, or checks.
8. Ironwork
There are two trail sections with iron. Iron is used to pin rubble retaining walls along the first 600 feet of trail (lower end). About 600 feet beyond is another section of iron used to anchor wall and steps (Fig. 15-21). Extant ironwork should be replaced as needed. Additional iron may be added to sections of the trail where it is currently extant, but excessive use of new iron should be avoided.
285
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
Fig. 15-12 Eroded upper trail.
Fig. 15-13 Eroded section with collapsed steps that need to be rebuilt.
Fig. 15-14 Low coping wall holding water on tread.
Fig. 15-15 Very large coping stones are used along this area of exposed ledge rock to retain the tread. Some of the stones have slipped.
286
Section 2; #15. Schiff Path
Fig. 15-16 Retaining wall at lower end of trail.
Fig. 15-19 Slab-laid steps.
Fig. 15-17 Stone steps with coping, some steps and coping stones have slipped.
&fl&sM$fe
Fig. 15-20 Step cut out of ledge.
Fig. 15-21 Iron pins securing stone in retaining wall.
Fig. 15-18 Stone steps with coping stones and retaining wall behind.
287
Acadia trails Treatment plan
9. Guidance
A. Blazes: For most of the trail, steps and walls serve as guidance, a technique employed by the VIA/VIS path committees from the 1890s onward. Blazes should only be used in the upper section of the trail, where it travels over open ledge.
B. Cairns: Like blazes, Bates-style or stacked cairns should only be used in the last upper section of the trail over open ledge to keep hikers on the route.
C. Directional Signs: Intersection signs are needed at both ends of the trail and in the middle, at the intersection with the Ladder Trail (#64).
D. Informational Signs: None.
E. Scree: None. Scree is not appropriate for this his- toric highly crafted memorial trail.
F. Trail Name: The Schiff Path and Emery Path are currently referred to as the Dorr Mountain East Face Trail (#15). As historically significant memo- rial trails, the trail names should revert to the Schiff Path and Emery Path. Ideally the Schiff Path would also be assigned a different trail number, to reduce confusion when documenting features and work performed on each trail.
10. Monuments and Associated Structures
As a memorial path, the Schiff Path is one of the few that has no associated monument or commemorative plaque. It is also one of the least documented memo- rial trails. Further research in local newspapers from the late 1910s and early 1920s or the writings of George Dorr may reveal more information. No additional monuments or associated structures should be added to this trail.
288
Section 2: individual Trail Specifications
Fig. 39-1 Corduroy bridge built in 2004 on the Jordan Pond Path near the Jordan Pond Carry Path.
JORDAN POND PATH
(#39)
289
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
JORDAN POND PATH (#39)
For over 100 years, the Jordan Pond Path has been one of the most heavily traveled walking paths on Mount Desert Island. Located in the pristine interior, along the reflective shores of Jordan Pond and leading to the Jordan Pond House, the trail offers a leisurely stroll for all generations (Figs. 39-1 & 39-2). The trail has suffered, however, from this heavy use. Erosion, compaction, widening, and exposed roots have created an unattractive and undesirable trail. Rehabilitation work must preserve the character of this late-nineteenth-century trail but also provide a durable tread.
REHABILITATION PRIORITIES
• Restore the tradition of an easy, mildly graded hike around Jordan Pond.
• Protect all adjacent natural resources.
• Restore the historic surface of gravel tread or stone paving.
• Rehabilitate extant features or construct new historically accurate features to ensure the durabil- ity of the trail surface. These include stone sidewalls, stone checks, side drains, culverts, coping, and bridges.
• Restore the trail to its original route, width, height, and grade.
• Revegetate scars caused by trail braiding and widening.
• Determine the trail's official name.
pond. Constructed circa 1890, it is first documented in the 1896 Bar Harbor VIA annual report as "the old path on the west side of Eagle Lake and Jordan Pond." The path on the eastern side of the pond may have been cut in 1896 as part of a path to connect Bar Harbor with the Jordan Pond House:
...a particularly good path having been run from the Jordan Pond House on the east side of Jordan Pond, through the old carry, and on the south end of Eagle Lake and west slope of Green Mountain, coming out at the toll gate on the Green Mountain carriage road. This path as been especially protected and cut under the direction of the map committee.11
The north section was cut two years later.
Since the date of the last report, a new path has been made under the Bubbles, along the northern edge of Jordan Pond, and connecting the paths on the eastern and western sides of the pond.12
HISTORY
The Jordan Pond Path extends from the Jordan Pond House around the pond along the shore. The trail con- sists of several sections dating to the late 1800s. The oldest documented section is on the western side of the
Deer Brook
To Sargent & Penobscot
South
Bubble
X
Jordan Pond Carry Path
Pond Trail
t
; 3] Jordan Pond House
North Not to Scale
Fig. 39-2 Jordan Pond Path (#39).
290
Section 2; #39. Jordan Pond Path
At the outlet of the pond by the Jordan Pond House, a bridge was built by the Seal Harbor VIS Path commit- tee, possibly with assistance from the Bar Harbor VIA and Waldron Bates. The trail was also shown on the 1896 path map (Fig. 39-3).
In the early 1920s the east and west sides were rebuilt and surfaced with fine gravel as recorded by Joseph Allen, Path Committee Chairman for Seal Harbor:
The Committee is glad to report that with the cordial assistance of Mr. Dorr, Curator of the National Park, this path has been largely rebuilt, and made into one of the easiest and most delightful on the Island, especially for visitors who are unable to climb.15
With the cooperation of Acadia National Park, work begun last season on the west side of Jordan Pond has been continued. The circuit of the pond can now be made with reasonable easy footing all the way.14
A circa 1920s photograph shows stepping stones, or a stone causeway, across the southeastern inlet to the pond (Fig. 39-4). Another 1920s photograph shows the 3-foot-wide trail located adjacent to the pond shoreline, newly surfaced with fine gravel tread (Fig. 39-5).
In 1937 the west side was improved by the CCC as described by the park's landscape architect B. L. Breeze: "Jordan Pond Trail. ..reconstruction of minor bridges, removal of rock slides, construction of shore sections of realigned trail."15 By the 1940s there was an extensive network of trails connecting to the Jordan Pond Path as shown on the 1941 path map (Fig. 39-6).
The 1950 Seal Harbor Annual Report mentions the erection of "a memorial tablet to Joseph Allen for thirty-one years chairman of this Committee. To him we owe a lasting debt for the building of several of our finest trails and for his devoted and effective concern in the preservation of the natural beauty of Mount Desert Island." The commemorative plaque is located on a granite boulder at the water's edge at the intersection of the Jordan Pond Trail and the Jordan Pond Carry Path (#38), facing northeast (Fig. 39-7). The inscription reads,
Lover of rocks and high places, builder of trails, con- serve of natural beauty, Joseph Allen, Chairman, Seal Harbor Path Committee, 1914- 945.
Another memorial along the trail, that most likely predates the Allen memorial, is a granite bench and commemorative plaque with the following inscription (Fig. 39-8):
In grateful loving memory of Sarah Eliza Sigourney Cushing, Wife of Edward Tuckerman, 1832-1915, She dearly loved this spot.
'^argent Mt.
I more BerisPk. PR. /
i V/Y,/,,-/ I
: J ord'an M*^"^
//So • ,
j?L Palls /
i
Cedkp-.. Swamp
Vo/k- J&t- """"■
/w T J (South End/
Fig. 39-3 Portion of the 1896 path map by the VIA/VIS showing the trails on the south, east and west sides of the pond (north is up).
Fig 39-3 An early photograph of the stone causeway, ca. 1920.
291
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
Fig. 39-9 This wooden bridge was constructed in 1983 and reinstalled on wooden crib piers in 1987.
Fig. 39-6 Portion of the 1941 path map by the VIA/VIS showing trails leading to, from, and around Jordan Pond (north is up).
292
Section 2; #39. Jordan Pond Path
The Seal Harbor VIS continued to maintain the trail to some extent. In the early 1950s, the trail was cleared all around the pond and three new bridges were con- structed.16 By the 1970s, NPS took over maintenance of the trail. Youth Conservation Corps crews built wooden walkways that were unsuccessful and dismantled in the 1980s. NPS crews rebuilt bridges on the east and west sides in the 1970s and again in the 1980s. A bridge at the western end of the pond had washed away a couple of times, so in 1987 it was reconstructed on wooden crib piers. The bridge currently remains intact (Fig. 39-9). In 1988 bogwalk was introduced to the trail, with further additions in the early 1990s. Despite these repairs, the tread continued to erode due to high use, insufficient drainage, and little maintenance (Fig. 39-10). In 1991, various signs were installed for visitor safety, including some warning "Caution: Trail Becomes Difficult." Even with a massive rehabilitation of the western side in 1993, the tread was heavily eroded and unpleasantly difficult (Figs. 39-11 to 39-13). In 1997, a rehabilitation of greater magnitude began as the kickoff for the Acadia Trails Forever campaign. Work continues to return the trail to its historic condition of "one of the easiest and most delightful on the Island."
CHARACTER
The 3.2-mile Jordan Pond Path circles around the entire pond within 10 to 40 feet of the water's edge. It is a level route providing attractive views of the water and sur- rounding mountain cliffs. The primary trailhead is the Jordan Pond House, with two less-frequented trailheads along the park motor road. The trail intersects with five other marked trails as it loops around the pond. By the Jordan Pond House, the trail passes through an open meadow, cleared to allow views from the restaurant to the pond. The trail crosses streams, wetlands, and talus slopes and contains many built features including bridges, bog walks, causeways, stepping stones, talus pavement, and two memorial tablets. The trail receives very high use, resulting in a worn tread, standing water, excessive widening, and exposed roots on some sec- tions of the trail (Fig. 39-14).
Prior to current rehabilitation efforts, most of the trail was in need of extensive maintenance, with only one section trail remaining in good condition as the bottom of a talus slope (Fig. 39-15). As of 2004, has been reha- bilitated (Fig. 39-16, also see Fig. 39-1).
FEATURES
For detailed treatment guidelines and specifications for each feature, refer to Section 1, Chapters 1 through 10.
1. Route
Easy walking is hard to find on Mount Desert Island's rugged terrain. The Jordan Pond Path offers one of the longest level hikes, other than those provided by the carriage road system. The trail will require substan- tial improvements, however, to provide comfortable walking all the way around the pond. History shows that most repairs last about ten to twenty years due to the constant flow of water across the trail and into the pond from the surrounding mountains. In many places, the trail route has edged closer to the shore to avoid roots and vegetation. The coping stones that once lined the lower edge of the path were visible above or in the middle of the current route. These stones were often obscured by the soil and thick vegetation that has settled over the path from the slope above. In these locations it is necessary to evaluate whether the trail can be moved back to its original route.
Despite the level of rehabilitation needed, it is recom- mended that the primary route of the Jordan Pond Path be maintained, with only minor modifications allowed to address erosion, exposed roots, and other problems associated with a pondside trail. Proposed route modi- fications should not alter the trail's historic character of a easily traversed, pondside loop and they should follow the general guidelines for trail route provided in Section 1 of this document.
2. Vegetation
Most of the trail is through a tree and shrub edge along the steep bank of the pond. The current trail has moved closer to the shore to avoid roots and vegetation. One
293
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
Fig. 39-10 Eroded trail and bogwalk on the western side of the pond.
Fig 39-12 Erosion and difficult tread area on east side of pond.
Fig 39-11 Eroded (not original) walled causeway on east side of pond.
Fig 39-13 Gullied section on east side of pond.
294
Section 2; #39. Jordan pond Path
option would be to return the path to its original, historic route. The soil and plants that are removed from the original surface could be transplanted to the downhill side of the trail, covering and revegetating the existing trail where it has migrated downhill, close to the pond shore.
The advantages of moving the path back to the original route are:
• The path would be farther away from the shore, reducing impact to the shoreline.
• The path would be brought back to its historic route; the existing stones defining the lower edge could be left in place, with minor resetting.
The disadvantages of moving the path back to the origi- nal route are:
• A large amount of vegetation and soil now covers the path; this would have to be dug out and trans- planted over the current route.
• The disturbance of vegetation and removal of soil would temporarily encourage erosion.
Fig. 39-14 Eroded portions of the trail on the western side of the pond are in need of rehabilitation, including narrowing the trail corridor.
Many sections of trail are excessively wide due to walk- ers avoiding wet areas. Revegetation is needed to bring the trail back to a width of approximately 4 feet. In many places, walkers are avoiding exposed roots. Roots are awkward to walk over, while excessively high ones may be a tripping hazard.
Roots should not be cut out unless absolutely neces- sary. Where possible the trail surface should be raised, the gaps between roots filled with rock rubble (apple to
Fig. 39-15 This section of the trail at the bottom of a talus slope is in excellent condition.
Fig. 39-16 The same view as Fig. 39-5 taken in 2001 showing NPS rehabilitation in progress. The base is in place, but the final application of gravel tread has not been completed.
295
Acadia Trails Treatment plan
grapefruit sized), and the trail surfaced with gravel fill. Adding material to the trail surface will not damage the tree by smothering its roots. Once the trail surface is built up and surfaced, if roots are still high enough to be a tripping hazard (2 to 3 inches), they may be removed. Once the trail surface is improved, the edges of the trail may be revegetated. Refer to use of crush wall to fill in around the roots in Chapter 6, and see Figs. 6-49 to 6-51.
3. Tread way
A. Bench Cuts: Much of the trail is a bench cut. This is the historic construction and should be main- tained.
bilitation (Figs. 39-17 to 39-21). Guided by the preferred alternative, the rehabilitated trail on the eastern side of the pond consists primarily of new gravel tread (Fig. 39-22). Work on the western side of the pond will include some sections of gravel tread, but will also contain sections of bogwalk and stone pavement (Figs. 39-23 to 39-26)
D. Stone Pavement: There is a section of talus pave- ment on the western segment of the trail. The stones need to be reset regularly due to movement by ice. This work would possibly be reduced in the future by rerouting the trail farther above the shore- line.
B. Causeway: For pond inlet crossing, retain the stone causeway even though it was a later addition. It is likely that before the stone causeway was built there were single large stepping stones similar to those shown for The Tarn near Sieur de Monts Spring (Figs 5-52 & 5-58). However, the Jordan Pond Path receives such heavy use that single stepping stones across this inlet of the pond would not be suitable or safe for hikers.
C. Gravel Tread: Historically, most of the trail was surfaced with gravel tread. However, the heavy use of the trail and site characteristics lead to increased maintenance concerns, raising the question of whether a high quality, 4-foot-wide gravel tread should be maintained around the entire perimeter of the trail, or only a certain distance from the Jordan Pond House. If only partially maintained, the northern sections of the trail could receive a moderate level of surface improvement and main- tenance, allowing for some exposed rocks, roots, and a variation in width from 3 to 4 feet, while the southern sections closer to the Jordan Pond House would be rehabilitated to a higher quality.
To facilitate a decision on tread treatment, four feasible alternatives were developed for park con- sideration and evaluation. From these, a preferred alternative was chosen that adequately addressed park needs, resource protection, and trail reha-
E. Unconstructed Tread: None.
4. Drainage
Drainage is a significant problem on the Jordan Pond Trail. The trail travels along the base of a slope, crossing many streams and wet areas that drain into the pond. It appears that when originally constructed, the trail was not built to handle the large amount of water crossing the path or the large volume of foot traffic. As a result the trail was patched with an assortment of culverts, wood turnpiking and cribbing, stepping stones, stone causeways, split log bridges, and cut board bridges. The trail is sometimes flooded when the outlet on the south end is plugged. Thus it is important to keep this outlet clean. The restoration of the gravel surface will require good drainage if it is to be durable.
A. Culverts: Because there is so much water flow- ing across the trail, there is a need for many more trail culverts and other drainage solutions. Stone culverts should be used in place of wood because they last longer and are more in character with the island's tradition of stonework. While different methods of construction are needed to handle dif- ferent flows of water, it is important that there be a harmonious blend of durable construction styles.
For light cross-flow, allow water to sheet across the trail. For wet areas, use stone-edged turnpiking with finer rubble fill and compacted gravel surface.
296
Section 2; #39. Jordan Pond Path
Jordan Pond Trail Alternative A
Stabilization
Historic Rehabilitation
North
Fig. 39-17 Alternative A is to maintain a high-quality compacted gravel surface for the entire loop trail around Jordan Pond. This would ensure walkers would encounter the same style of path and easy walking, perpetuating the trail's 1920s character. To make the fragile pondside corridor on the west side durable and sustainable would require extensive work and constant maintenance to repair damage from water flow and seep.
|
/WV\ |
|||||
|
/"T#°%. U ^ |
M |
||||
|
^ \\\ * |
\ 3 J o/ / |
||||
|
sa ca / Q. / I |
|||||
|
Vt 1 ^Y I |
North (not to |
||||
|
scale) |
|||||
|
[I |
o IV °" 1 |
-o |
|||
|
\ o) 1 |
i ^ |
||||
|
Jordan Pond ^*& |
\\ 3 1 |
1& |
|||
|
Trail Alternative \ |
1 ° |
||||
|
V\ "° 1 |
5 |8. |
||||
|
Key |
|||||
|
(9 Vi |
J! o 1 |
||||
|
$\ |
(( 5 \ |
||||
|
■== — ===- |
>\ |
\\ °- a |
|||
|
Stabilization |
|||||
|
&^zmss^^& |
|||||
|
Historic |
\ 11 #X<r |
Pond |
r'V |
||
|
Rehabilitation |
Pond House v |
||||
Fig. 39-18 Alternative B is to maintain a high-quality compacted gravel surface on the eastern side of Jordan Pond and improve the connection via the Deer Brook Trail (#51) to the carriage road on the western side of the pond. This alternative would reduce maintenance time and costs of maintaining gravel surface for the entire trail length and would be partially in keeping with the tradition of an easy walk around the pond.
Jordan Pond Trail Alternative
c
Stabilization
Historic Rehabilitation
Pond House -1
Fig. 39-19 Alternative C is to maintain a high-quality compacted gravel surface on a small section of the trail at the southern end of Jordan Pond, near the Jordan Pond House. The gravel surface would extend slightly up the western side of the pond to the first carriage road connector. It would also include a portion of the Jordan Pond Nature Trail (#45), creating a short loop. This alternative would reduce the time and cost of maintaining a gravel surface for the entire trail length, but not perpetuate the tradition of an easy walk around the pond.
Jordan Pond Trail Alternative D
Stabilization
Historic Rehabilitation
Fig. 39-20 Alternative D is to maintain a high-quality compacted gravel surface for a half-mile of trail on each side of Jordan Pond, north of the Jordan Pond House. Like Alternative C, this alternative would reduce the time and cost of maintaining a gravel surface for the entire trail length, but not perpetuate the tradition of an easy walk around the entire pond.
297
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
Trail is 3' wide in most places (historic width), gravel surface with some rock steps, stone paving, stepping stones as historically appropriate except for one non-historic log wall - also historic stone retaining walls and coping, open and closed stone culverts, wooden bridges
t
North (not to scale)
Fig. 39-21 The chosen treatment is a combination of Alternatives A and B. This treatment involves less gravel paving than Alternative A, and more than Alternative B. The remainder of the trail is either rehabilitated stone paving or continuous, wide, flat bogwalk. Thus the tradition of an easy walk around the pond is restored to the Jordan Pond Path.
Although not a historic feature, the 4,000-foot bogwalk section was used for two reasons. First, there is little or no evidence of historic work on this section of trail; and second, this is largely a wetland area, which would be radically altered by the introduction of rock and causeway.
298
Section 2; #39. Jordan pond Path
For medium cross-flow, construct small open stone culverts with less than a 1-foot gap in the trail tread without capstones. Open culverts are used in place of closed culverts because small capped culverts can fill with ice in the winter and remain frozen in the spring, resulting in washouts. Where water flow is heavier, the trail tread should be raised and the water directed through cross-drains or larger closed culverts. Covered drains, stepping stones, stepstone culverts, or bridges are also recom- mended for areas with heavier flow. Water courses should not be redirected but allowed to cross the trail where they would naturally. Where the water
comes from different sources, several small culverts should be used instead of one large one (Figs. 39-27 & 39-28).
B. Subsurface Drains: Many sections of trail have year-round water slowly seeping across the trail and into the pond. These sections should be improved with the installation of subsurface drains.
C. Side Drains: For medium cross-flow, construct a side drain with a few larger culverts. The side drain should be lined with flat stones to reduce scouring and help hold the edge in place.
Fig. 39-22 Newly installed gravel tread on the eastern side of the pond.
Fig. 39-24 2002 NPS new stone sidewall, gravel, open stone culvert (with temporary wood planks) on west side near section pictured in Fig. 39-23.
Fig. 39-23 Heavily rooted area and deteriorated tread on the west side of the pond.
Fig. 39-25 Erosion on the steepest slope at northern end of the west side of the pond.
299
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
Fig. 39-26 Wall crib and checks installed by NPS in 2002 in same section shown in Fig. 39-25.
|
J3& if ■•'■ |
~, |
*■ |
|||
|
'■ m |
■■• f*S» |
!S^JfcV'*JE'Ml |
|||
|
P |
1:# |
' |
|||
|
> ; |
J .-' ififk-ra - -"-■" "* ^ |
'ii-i^^ |
|||
|
-fa.: :".;'' |
^23 |
l^j |
Fig. 39-27 A medium flow of water should be handled with a small open culvert. Closed culverts, although providing better visual consistency to the trail tread, would likely clog and fail regularly due to ice dams and organic debris, requiring increased maintenance.
|
w |
■^^v > J |
||
|
r - -. i |
mm |
■^Si |
|
|
.A*' |
..«..■■■ ^' . V: |
||
|
t ^^tf*" - |
|||
|
"JKVmm |
|||
|
r 'via&fe |
|||
|
*y |
W' 1 |
||
|
. ^ |
• i |
||
|
r 1 |
v ■ |
||
|
• |
s. |
1 1 |
|
|
'- i |
|||
|
\ |
HpRc |
||
|
l |
;>,.„> 1 |
l.^P^l |
Fig. 39-29 Bogwalk should be uniform in length and width. For example, this bogwalk on the western side of Jordan Pond is not of uniform width at the joint, making it more difficult for hikers to walk along safely.
Fig. 39-28 This step stone culvert was installed on a newly rehabilitated section of trail to handle a heavy water flow.
Fig. 39-30 View in 1997 of the stone causeway at the southern end of the pond.
300
Section 2; #39. Jordan pond path
D. Water Bars: None.
E. Water Dips: Since most water is flowing directly across the trail, use of water dips is limited.
5. Crossings
A. Bogwalks: The trail contains extensive bogwalk on the western side. Although not a historic feature, the high use, large amount of standing water, exposed roots, and fragile pondside ecosys- tem require this treatment. Sections of bogwalk should be built with a uniform length and width (as specified in Chapter 5, Section A) and repaired as needed, so walkers can establish a comfortable rhythm and safely enjoy the pondside scenery (Fig. 39-29).
B. Bridges: Bridges on the Jordan Pond Path include one large, 20-foot bridge at the northern end of the pond and several small bridges scattered through- out the trail. The large bridge should be replaced in kind as it duplicated the bridge that preceded it (see Fig. 39-9). The smaller bridges, currently planed and split log, should be replaced with rustic VIA/ VIS-style cedar bridges and graveled-over bridges (see Fig. 39-1).
C. Stepping Stones: Evidence from a historic post- card dating from the 1920s shows that a rough stone causeway crossed the Jordan Pond inlet at the southeastern end of the pond (see Fig. 39-4). However, this was subsequently changed to a wider and smoother stone causeway to provide a safer, more comfortable crossing (Fig. 39-30). At least one run of twenty or so historic stepping stones was also located at the northern end of the pond; these were rehabilitated during 2002. There were some sections of stepping stones on the eastern side, but they were not historic. They have since been removed. New stepping stones should not be added to the trail.
6. Retaining Structures
A. Checks: None.
B. Coping Stones: Historically the trail was defined by a row of coping stones on the downhill or pond side of the trail. As part of the rehabilitation work, historic coping stones should be reset and addi- tional stones may be added as needed.
C. Retaining Walls: Historically, most of the trail was constructed without the use of retaining walls. However, substantial laid and rubble retaining walls were constructed midway along the eastern shore and in the tumbledown area on the north- east corner of the pond. Small rubble walls are also extant along the west side of the pond. Some extant walls are up to 6 feet high and continuous over hundreds of linear feet. Coping, iron, and cut stone were all used. The majority of the square footage of retaining wall was in need of repair, which was accomplished in 2001 and 2002. Much of the work is featured in examples in Chapter 6.
7. Steps:
None.
8. Ironwork
Approximately eight historic pins were found during trail rehabilitation. These pins were holding retaining walls on the east side of the pond in the tumbledown area (see Fig. 39-15). A limited number of pins may be used to secure retaining walls as specified in Chapter 8.
9. Guidance
A. Blazes: The newly rehabilitated sections of the trail are easy to follow and require no blazing. Minimal blazing may be needed on the western side, espe- cially on the section through the talus slope.
B. Cairns: None.
C. Directional Signs: Signage should conform to park-wide standards.
301
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
D. Informational Signs: Signage should conform to park-wide standards.
E. Scree: None.
F. Trail Names: The trail was initially called the "Jordan Pond Trail" by the VIA/VIS in the 1915 path guide (p. 32) and as "East Shore of Jordan Pond" and "West Shore of Jordan Pond" in the 1928 path guide (pp. 16-17). The CCC referred to it as the "Jordan Pond Trail." The Park Service referred to it as the "East Side Trail" and "West Side Trail" in the early 1950s and the "Jordan Pond Shore Trail" in the late 1950s. The name was changed to the "Jordan Pond Loop Trail" in the 1990s. Given the trail's history of highly crafted construction, and its current level of rehabilitation on the eastern side, the recommended historic name for the entire loop trail around Jordan Pond is "Jordan Pond Path" (see Appendix C). This name is now in use again.
ENDNOTES
59 Bar Harbor VIA 1896 Annual Report.
60 Bar Harbor VIA 1898 Annual Report.
61 Seal Harbor VIS 1921 Annual Report.
62 Seal Harbor VIS 1923 Annual Report.
63 CCC Records, National Archives, Waltham, MA.
64 Seal Harbor VIS 1952 Annual Report.
10. Monuments and Associated Structures
A. Monuments: Two monuments are located along the trail. A bench with a commemorative plaque, in memory of Sarah Cushing, is located at the south end of the pond near the boat ramp (Fig. 39-8), and a boulder with a commemorative plaque, placed
in memory of Joseph Allen, is located by the shore towards the north end of the pond near the south- ern base of South Bubble (Fig. 39-7). No additional monuments should be added to the trail.
B. Associated Structures: The Jordan Pond House is an important destination and trailhead associated with this trail. This connection should be main- tained. No additional structures should be added to the trail.
302
Section 2: individual Trail Specifications
Fig. 48-1 Repair work on the steepest section of the Jordan Cliffs Trail.
Jordan Cliffs Trail (#48)
303
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
JORDAN CLIFFS TRAIL (#48)
Characteristic of VIA/VIS summit trails, this challenging route winds along the ledges of Jordan Bluffs, then ascends to the north by a steep ravine to the open ledges and summit of Sargent Mountain (Figs. 48-1 & 48-2). A lack of built features, however, on the northern section has resulted in sub- stantial erosion and unsafe conditions. Rehabilitation efforts must focus on the addition of features, which are in keeping with the VIA/VIS style, to ensure durable and safe tread.
REHABILITATION PRIORITIES
• Repair damaged section of trail north of Deer Brook. Reset step-shaped rocks — currently used in scree — as steps. Use stone in the talus field for cop- ing and retaining wall, characteristic of VIA/VIS style.
• Bring eroded sections of trail back to their original 2- to 4-foot width by adding checks, improving drainage, treadway, and placing barriers along trail edges, such as infrequent coping stones.
• Re-mark closed section with fresh blazes and cairns.
• Add gravel surfacing in short sections from local borrow pits where material has been lost.
• Determine whether the trail should be renamed the Bluffs Path and East Cliffs Trail.
HISTORY
Jordan Bluffs, later referred to as Jordan Cliffs, is one of the steepest cliffs in the interior of the island; it offers dramatic views of Jordan Pond and the surrounding mountains. On the earliest path map prepared by the VIA/VIS in 1896, the Bluffs Path is marked from near the outlet of Jordan Pond, up and north along the base of the ledges, up to a spring, then up the bluffs to the shoulder of Penobscot [Jordan] Mountain (48-3). The trail was possibly laid out by Waldron Bates, accord- ing to the 1893 Bar Harbor VIA Annual Report: "Mr. Bates has done much valuable work upon the Jordan Pond end of the Sargent mountain path." In the 1920s, as first shown on the 1926 path map, another path was added to the Bluffs, extending further north across the Bluffs, to cross the Deer Brook Trail (#51) and ascend to the summit of Sargent Mountain. This addition, now known as the Jordan Cliffs Trail, was named the East
North Ridge Trail
J53) Sargent Summit X^
Grandgent Trail J|66,
South Ridge Sargent
Not to Scale North
t
Penobscot Mountain Trail/ Spring Trail
To Jordan Pond
Fig. 48-2 Jordan Cliffs Trail (#48).
304
Section 2; #48. Jordan Cliffs Trail
Cliffs Trail in the 1928 path guide and described from the south end to the north end: (Fig. 48-4)
Just beyond Bluffs at fork and signpost, go straight ahead on trail marked "Sargent Mt. Summit via Deer Brook." Follow cairns along cliffs then descend into woods to intersection near Deer Brook. Go straight ahead. Cross trail and brook, and ascend this very steep trail. On emerging from the trees, ascent becomes easier, and continues by easy grades to the summit of Sargent Mt.65
This section of the trail, from the Bluffs eastward, is also described as a "new" trail in 1932 by Seal Harbor VIS Path Committee Chairman Joseph Allen.
Attention is called to one new trail which is expected to prove very popular. It leaves the Jordan Bluff trail at about two-thirds of the way up, and crosses the face of the east cliffs on Jordan Mountain, reaching the top of the bluff at its northerly end. This gives fine views of cliffs, over Jordan Pond, out to sea, into the mountains, and without very arduous climbing. It differs in this
Sargerit Mt.
>re BensPk.
K. /f
/,/, .y„-i,lt/ \
3 A
,5 ^
J* The Bubble£^\/v
o
Pemetic
Jordan Mif^j
KftrgW)i
3hr^ Swamp
Ml. M..MILI mi
d T iouth End
\n,pl,
' / <7
•' Th.
6C
Fig. 48-3 Portion of 1896 path map by the VIA/VIS showing the route of Bluffs Path, starting northwest of the dam at Jordan Pond, across the Bluffs to a spring, then to the ridge of Jordan Mountain.
respect from the ladder trail on Newport Mountain, resembling more the charming Bubble Cliff trail opened last season. It is recommended for all those who have steady heads as a delightful variation in the ways to ascend Jordan or Sargent Mountains.66
By 1941 several other trails were added to the Bluffs area, creating a labyrinth of trails (Fig. 48-5). Several trails were subsequently closed by the NPS. In a 1952 path inventory the northern half of the trail, from Deer Brook to the summit of Sargent Mountain, was referred to as the Sargent Summit Cutoff. By the late 1950s, how- ever, the trail was again named the Jordan Cliffs Trail. Since about the 1980s, the southern half of the trail has been closed from early spring to late summer to protect peregrine falcons, which nest on the Bluffs not far from the trail (Fig. 48-6). In the 1990s, the northern half of the trail was closed due to unsafe trail conditions in a steep section of trail with loose rock (Fig. 48-7).
Spring /$ r x> , 1&< '
Fig. 48-4 Portion of the 1926 path map by the VIA/VIS showing the trail extended north of the Bluffs, across Deer Brook, then west to the summit of Sargent (north is up).
305
Acadia Trails Treatment plan
CHARACTER
Rising above Jordan Pond and the Jordan Pond House, this difficult cliffside trail extends 2.2 miles from the Penobscot Mountain Trail, along Jordan Cliffs. It then drops into a wooded valley, crosses the Deer Brook Trail and Deer Brook, and finally climbs up to the summit of Sargent Mountain. Its southernmost sec- tion, from the Penobscot Mountain Trail (#47) to the Penobscot East Trail (#50), is one of the oldest cliff- side trails on the island. It contains some iron, one log bridge, stepping stones across Deer Brook, and some stonework. In comparison with other VIA/VIS trails, however, it has relatively few built features. With heavy use, this lack of built features has resulted in substan- tial erosion, and in some sections, difficult and unsafe tread. As a result, the northern portion of the trail was closed in the mid-1990s.
FEATURES
For detailed treatment guidelines and specifications for each feature, refer to Section 1, Chapters 1 through 10.
1. Route
On the section of trail north of Deer Brook, the trail winds up through talus and along ledges. Once above treeline, there are spectacular views from the ledges (Figs. 48-8 to 48-10). The trail ascends to the shoulder of Sargent Mountain and travels fairly directly to the summit (Fig. 48-11). A steep and eroded section located in a talus area above Deer Brook is currently unsafe due to loose falling rocks. This straight section should be rebuilt to wind up through the talus area. The new route should be flagged prior to construction and rejoin the original route above and below the damaged sec- tion.
2. Vegetation
There are extensive areas of alpine vegetation along the trail. These should be protected by carefully mark- ing the trail with blazes, cairns, and occasional coping stones where hikers tend to wander. Educational trail literature and maps should also be provided to hikers.
istript'
Fig. 48-5 Portion of the 1941 path map by the VIA/VIS showing several additional trails to the Bluffs (north is up).
Fig. 48-6 The southern section of the trail is closed seasonally for peregrine falcon nesting.
306
Section 2; #48. Jordan Cliffs Trail
Fig. 48-7 Steep eroded section of trail that has been closed for several years.
Fig. 48-9 Views from ledges on shoulder of Sargent Mountain.
Fig. 48-10 Views from Jordan Cliffs Trail over ledges on shoulder of Sargent Mountain.
|
I |
^^^L-» ' |
^ |
|
|
* H^'foiffr-g |
|||
|
•" ""£LA |
' JxP» |
.-■■*■ |
|
|
-* 9 |
|||
|
i |
|||
Fig. 48-8 Ascending ledges below shoulder of Sargent Mountain. Section in poor condition needs steps and checks.
Fig. 48-1 1 Trail across ledges to summit of Sargent. Clear trail marking with blazes, cairns and occasional coping is important to protect alpine vegetation.
307
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
Fig. 48-12 Looking south at jumbled stepping stones in foreground over Deer Brook and intersection with Deer Brook Trail (#51) in background.
Fig. 48-15 A short run of coping stones, steps, and stone pavement on ledges in poor condition.
Fig. 48-13 Section of tread along ledge, a natural bench, with retaining wall.
Fig. 48-14 The same retaining wall as above, viewed from the side of the trail.
Fig. 48-16 Tread and slope stabilization in progress in 2004 using winding steps built in the VIA/VIS style.
308
Section 2; #48. Jordan Cliffs Trail
3. Treadway
A. Bench Cuts: Much of the trail extends along bench cuts created by ledges. This should be maintained.
B. Causeway: None.
C. Gravel Tread: New tread material should be added as needed in accordance with guidelines previously established for gravel tread.
D. Stone Pavement: None.
E. Unconstructed Tread: The trail contains extensive sections of unconstructed tread across ledge. These sections should be delineated with blazes, cairns, and, if necessary, occasional coping stones to keep hikers from wandering and damaging alpine vegeta- tion (see Fig. 48-11).
4. Drainage
The trail has very few drainage features since most of the trail is across ledges. The northern half of the trail, from Penobscot East (#50) onward, appears to have received minimal attention to construction and drain- age. Drainage features, particularly culverts and water bars, should be added to improve the durability, stabil- ity, and safety of the treadway.
5. Crossings
A. Bogwalk: None.
B. Bridges: A two-stringer bridge over a ravine on the cliffs was removed in the 1970s and replaced with
a single-notched-log bridge. A handrail was added in the 1990s for hiker safety. No documentation has been found for the original crossing; however, the VIA/VIS bridge style is appropriate for this trail if bridges should be added.
6. Retaining Structures
On the section of trail north of Deer Brook, there are several low retaining walls to provide comfortable tread along ledges. There is also some coping (Figs. 48-13 to 48-15). Additional or new retaining walls and/or checks are needed in sections that are eroded and washed out. The most eroded sections of trail need checks, coping stones, retaining walls, and steps.
7. Steps
On the section of trail north of Deer Brook, there are several sections in poor condition that may have contained steps. Steep eroded sections in poor condi- tion should be repaired with a combination of checks, retaining wall, and steps constructed to be compatible with the general VIA/VIS style. This would include step work in the Bar Harbor VIA, Northeast Harbor VIS, and Southwest Harbor VIA districts. In Bar Harbor, this would include step work on the relocated Curran Path (#315) and several 1920s endowed trails, including the Andrew Murray Young Path (#25), Gurnee Path (#352), Beachcroft Path (#13), Gorge Path (#28), Brigham Path (#366), and Canon Brook Path (#19). The repaired section should be winding rather than straight. The challenge is to create a durable treadway without mak- ing this trail appear like the highly constructed endowed trails (Fig. 48-16). Figure 48-1 shows trail rehabilitation with steps in progress.
8. Ironwork
There is iron on the southern half of the trail, includ- ing iron pinned logs. The existing ironwork should be rehabilitated as needed. Compatible new ironwork may also be added.
9. Guidance
A. Blazes: The entire trail should be marked with blazes.
C. Stepping Stones: Large stepping stones are used to cross Deer Brook. These should be maintained and reset as needed (Fig. 48-12).
B. Cairns: Cairns should be maintained on the
ledge sections of trail, particularly for the section approaching Sargent Mountain summit.
309
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
Fig. 48-17 Scree placed in the early 1990s that may have eliminated VIA/VIS steps. Eroded unsafe section above.
E. Scree: A section of trail north of Deer Brook was repaired with scree, possibly dismantling VIA/VIS steps. The section is now in poor condition. Scree is not appropriate for use on this trail, and steps and coping stones should be used in place of scree (Fig. 48-17).
F. Trail Names: The current trail consists of two his- toric trails, one south of Deer Brook along Jordan Bluffs, and one north of Deer Brook up Sargent Mountain. It is recommended that the name of the trail reflect this. The southern half of the trail should be called the Jordan Cliffs Trail, while the northern half should be called the Sargent East Cliffs Trail, as it was called in the 1928 VIA/VIS path guide (see Appendix C).
10. Monuments and Associated Structures
None.
ENDNOTES
65 Harold Peabody and Charles Grandgent, Walks on Mount Desert Island (1928), 53, also 46.
66 Seal Harbor VIS 1932 Annual Report, 14.
C. Directional Signs: There are four directional signs on the trail, located at the junction with the Penob- scot Mountain Trail (#47), at the junction with Penobscot East (#50), at the junction with the Deer Brook Trail (#51), and at the summit of Sargent Mountain (see Fig. 48-6).
D. Informational Signs: Trail closure signs are posted seasonally for peregrine falcon nesting. In 1984 a "Caution" sign was placed at the southern end of the trail. During the spring and summer seasons, signs for trail closure are posted in the three previ- ously described locations. Information signs should follow general sign standards established for the trail system.
310
Section 2: individual Trail Specifications
Fig. 127-1 Outer loop on the Ship Harbor Nature Trail.
Ship Harbor Nature Trail (#127)
311
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
SHIP HARBOR MATURE TRAIL (#127)
As a Mission 66 trail, this trail does not fall within the period of historical significance for the development of the trail system. How- ever, many of the guidelines developed in the treatment plan may be applied.
Replace corroded 8-inch steel corrugated culverts
in-kind and re-dig associated side drains and
ditches.
Add walled or wall-less causeway over low, wet
sections that are difficult to drain.
Add gravel surfacing where material has been lost.
REHABILITATION PRIORITIES
• Make the first 1,300 feet of trail ADA accessible, from the trail entrance, along the eastern half of the northern loop, to the intersection with the southern loop, then west to the harbor inlet.
• Define the terminus of the ADA-accessible section at the inlet with a sign, bench, and widened circular area.
• Bring trail back to its original 5-foot width by improving drainage, treadway, and placing barriers along trail edges, such as infrequent coping stones, natural logs, and vegetation.
• Remove log crib steps and water bars.
• Replace 1990s log checks that are tripping hazards with stone checks.
HISTORY
A protected cove, Ship Harbor is named in memory of an American privateer who sailed into the harbor to hide from the British during the Revolutionary War. The land bounding Ship Harbor became part of Acadia National Park in 1937. At this time, Park Superinten- dent George Dorr directed improvements to the Ship Harbor area in an effort to open it for public use. This work included clearing of understory vegetation and deadwood, termed "fire hazard removal," and the devel- opment of a fire road on the west side of the harbor. In the 1950s, as part of the Mission 66 program, the park constructed a self-guided nature trail on the east side of Ship Harbor. Construction of this trail fit well within the Mission 66 program to add "well planned trails"
ADA Accessible Section
Rt. 102
Not to Scale North
Fig. 127-2 The Ship Harbor Nature Trail (#127).
312
Section 2; #127. Ship Harbor Nature trail
for "enjoyment-without-impairment." Specifically, the park added trails for interpretive purposes for an increasing number of visitors. A 1961 document also proposed that ranger-led tours would travel from the Seawall Campground to trails along Wonderland and Ship Harbor. The Ship Harbor Nature Trail, as designed by the Park Service, provided a 5-foot-wide gravel tread, with nearby parking and an easy grade. Corrugated steel pipes were installed for drainage. A self-guided trail with fourteen numbered posts and a brochure was developed in 1968, while John Good served as the park superintendent. The brochure has been reprinted, most recently in 1995 through Eastern National Park & Monument Association. The posts have also been replaced. The trail is used heavily and one of the easiest in the trail system (Figs. 127-1 to 127-5).
CHARACTER
With a parking area right at the trailhead, this 1.5-mile loop trail offers a relatively easy walk through thick coniferous forest, along ledges exposed to the ocean's pounding surf, and along the shore of a cozy, tidal harbor with no development. The Ship Harbor Nature Trail is the only self-guided nature trail on the western side of Mount Desert and is similar to the Jordan Pond Nature Trail (#45) on the eastern side.
The trail's intent is to offer easy walking, provide opportunities for appreciation of the coastal scenery, and interpret the area's natural and cultural history. However, the intent is somewhat hindered by the poor condition of the trail. There are many areas of exposed roots, water puddling, and trail erosion. In some loca- tions, the trodden path is almost 30 feet wide. Addition- ally, vandals have damaged an interpretive sign that once existed at the southern-most vista on the trail's lower loop.
FEATURES
For detailed treatment guidelines and specifications for each feature, refer to Section 1, Chapters 1 through 10.
1. Route
The loop trail departs from a parking area and creates a figure eight with northern and southern loops. The trail's proximity to ocean and harbor afford the hiker magnificent views. There is a park-maintained vista at the southernmost part of the trail. The trail's original route should be maintained with portions upgraded for ADA accessibility (Fig. 127-6).
2. Vegetation
The trail winds through an old orchard and thick coniferous forest, past interesting trees with burls and snake-like trunks, and along the rockweed-strewn coast. In thick forested areas, much of the trail is undefined and widened due to a lack of understory vegetation (Fig. 127-7 & Fig. 127-8). This variety in vegetation char- acter should be maintained along the trail by keeping the original route. Trail widening should be addressed with coping stones and/or the placement of fallen logs sporadically along the trail edges.
Fig. 127-3 Entrance to the Ship Harbor Nature Trail, with the harbor in the distance.
Fig. 127-4 Self-guided trail post on ledge overlooking Ship Harbor.
313
Acadia Trails Treatment plan
3. Treadway
A. Bench Cuts: About one-third of the original trail was constructed with half bench cut. Subsequent erosion makes it difficult to identify bench cuts. New bench cuts may be constructed, if needed, to stabilize the trail.
D. Stone Pavement: One 50-foot section through a rock jumble has step stones set in gravel function- ing as stone pavement. This section was built in 1992 by a volunteer group. It may be retained until it needs rehabilitation, then it should be replaced with causeway.
B. Causeway: Many eroded sections should be improved with causeway.
C. Gravel Tread: The original trail was 5 feet wide and gravel-surfaced by Mission 66. Much of the gravel has washed away and the eroded surface has exposed roots. Once drainage problems are dealt with, new gravel tread should be applied
(Fig. 127-9).
E. Unconstructed Tread: There are sections of unconstructed woodland forest floor and ledge. Sections that are low and wet require constructed tread. Along the first half mile that will be ADA accessible, causeway should be built. Causeway is also the preferred alternative for other low and wet portions of the trail; however, boardwalk may also be constructed if needed to address accessibility. At the terminus of the ADA accessible section of trail a wide area of raised tread should be established as
|
h Thji rucL. outer up doesn't K»ve bui lichens are Thanking thii The red Inhi-k. ii. J ^icen spots nn the n>ck. arc jlgae. Imng and wording together |
|
|
■ip> !»■**» «v by |
|
|
tih°pn*K<l^li' |
|
|
lered places, the |
|
|
ii cr — the beginnings |
|
|
ss |
id grasses grow from ing. collecting more |
|
SS£^ |
i larger shrubs, and |
|
7S5S tw.gs. Tamarack |
0/ the tamarack, or |
|
"bST^'I^l** |
Fig. 127-5 Interpretive brochure for the Ship Harbor Nature Trail (#127).
314
Section 2; #127. Ship harbor nature Trail
an overlook and turnaround point. This would be similar to the CCC overlook constructed at Otter Cliffs.
4. Drainage
A. Culverts: The trail contains 8-inch steel corrugated pipe culverts with stone headwalls at each end.
Side drains and ditches have silted-in and become ineffective, so water remains on the trail. Pipes should be replaced and reset for positive drainage. Associated side drains need to be re-dug and main- tained (Fig. 127-10).
B. Subsurface Drains: (see Fig. 127-6).
Black outline indicates ADA Accessibility
Fig. 127-6 Ship Harbor treatment detail.
315
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
Fig. 127-9 Typical 5-foot gravel treadway.
Fig. 127-11 Original coping.
316
Section 2; #127. Ship Harbor Nature Trail
C. Side Drains: Original side drains have filled in and are no longer effective. These should be re-dug and maintained annually.
D. Water Bars: Water bars were added in the 1990s. These should be removed for the ADA-accessible section of trail and replaced with water dips or side ditches and pipe culverts. For other sections of the trail, water bars should be maintained annually.
E. Water Dips: Some water dips exist on the trail. Water dips may be added to the trail where needed, particularly on the ADA-accessible section of trail.
5. Crossings
None.
6. Retaining Structures
A. Checks: Several log checks are in poor condition and are tripping hazards. These should be removed and replaced with stone checks.
B. Coping Stones: Small pieces of original coping stones remain (Fig. 127-11). Coping is square, bro- ken chunks of local basalt, set mostly in the down- hill side of the tread, with some set on both sides. Coping should be added where trail widening is a problem. Stones should be dispersed ten feet apart and placed in conjunction with natural fallen logs and revegetation.
C. Retaining Walls: Several sections of original retaining wall are still visible, consisting of angular chunks of local basalt laid with a batter to hold tread on the downhill side. Wall is usually under
1 foot high and protrudes above the tread due to erosion. Many wall sections have collapsed or been obliterated by subsequent scree work. A 1992 section built by University of Maine volunteers is approximately 8 feet high by 20 feet long. Another section of new wall, constructed in 1993 by the YCC, is constructed of single stones, averaging 2 feet square, set into the beach to hold tread along the ocean (Fig. 127-12). Collapsed and dismantled retaining walls should be rebuilt. Additional walls
should be constructed as needed to repair eroded treadway.
7. Steps
At the trail entrance, a series of log crib steps were added in 1992. These are 5 feet wide with 10-inch risers (see Fig. 127-3). There is also one short stone staircase, added in 1991, consisting of four slab-laid steps of local basalt, measuring 2 feet by 4 feet, with a 1 foot rise (Fig. 127-13). These staircases should be removed if possible for ADA accessibility. Additional steps should not be added to this trail.
8. Ironwork
None.
9. Guidance
A. Blazes: None.
B. Cairns: None.
C. Directional Signs: A large sign is located at the trail entrance (see Fig. 127-3). At 613 feet along the trail, there is a post for a intersection sign where the loop begins. This sign is stolen often. At the convergence of the two loops, at 1,167 feet along the trail, is a log sign with arrows. Signage at these points should be maintained in a style consistent with the system. No additional directional signs should be needed for this straightforward, easily traversed trail.
D. Informational Signs: At the trail entrance is a brochure box and an iron tube with a money slot. Nearby is a large sign with the trail name, map, and quote. There are fourteen numbered posts for the self-guided nature trail (see Figs. 127-4 & 127-5). A redwood interpretive sign describing shipwrecks was located at the southern end of the trail, but the NPS removed the sign after it was vandalized.
The entrance sign and numbered posts should be maintained to coordinate with the self-guided hike. The shipwreck interpretive sign should be replaced with a style of sign that is less prone to vandalism.
317
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
Fig. 127-12 Retaining wall constructed by YCC in 1993.
-->,"" ':*■•'■■ ■,
Fig. 127-13 Slab laid steps built in 1991 of local basalt.
Fig. 127-15 ADA-accessible section of trail completed in 2003.
Fig. 127-14 Portion of a 50-foot section of step stones serving as stone pavement in gravel, lined with scree, constructed in 1992.
318
Section 2; #127. Ship Harbor Nature Trail
E. Scree: A 50-foot section of trail, repaired in 1992, contains step stones set in gravel with scree along the sides (Fig. 127-14). When this section is rehabil- itated, the scree should be removed. No additional scree should be added to this trail.
F. Trail Names: The trail was originally named the Ship Harbor Nature Trail. This name should be retained.
10. Monuments and Associated Structures
A. Monuments: None.
B. Structures: There are currently no associated structures. Benches should be added along the half-mile ADA-accessible section, particularly at the terminus of this section by the harbor inlet (Figure 127-15).
319
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
120
Section 2: individual Trail Specifications
Fig. 349-1 Historic photograph, circa 1916, of steps and overhead lintel showing the constructed character of the Homans Path.
Homans Path (#349)
321
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
HOMANS PATH (#349)
Unmarked since the 1940s, the Homans Path provides an undisturbed example of early- twentieth-century VIA/VIS stonework on its ascent up the eastern slope of Dorr Mountain. As one of the highly crafted memorial trails radiating from Sieur de Monts Spring, the Homans Path is a showpiece of rustic construction techniques (Figs. 349-1 & Fig 349-2). In June 2001 this trail was carefully documented with written descriptions, measurements, and photo- graphs (Figs. 349-3 & 349-4). Information gathered included the location and use of stone steps, shims and blocking, drill marks, "dog" dimples, ironwork, closed culverts, boulders set over the trail, and other stone- work.
Park management has decided to reopen the Homans Path. In anticipation of this, the trails crew developed a general plan for treatment of the trail addressing rehabilitation of the trail's constructed features as well as the creation of new access routes at both ends of the trail. Once reopened, marked, and included in the trail system, maintenance will become a priority on this trail. High use will likely cause the slab steps to slip and slump, as has occurred on other stepped trails. To deter this, early rehabilitation work may include the minimal addition of concealed iron pins to help hold steps and coping stones in place. The extensive collection of photos taken during recent trail documentation should be used to monitor the exist- ing trail conditions during each season, noting changes that occur over
time. Sections of stonework that are slipping can then be reinforced before they fail and require complete rebuilding.
REHABILITATION PRIORITIES
• Reopen the trailhead and the connection to Sieur de Monts Spring.
• Repair sections of collapsed steps. Reset steps, retaining walls, and coping that have slipped. Add drainage or iron pins if necessary. Document addi- tions.
• Add constructed features to the upper uncon- structed section of trail to delineate the route. Use features that are compatible with the rest of the trail — stone pavement, coping stones, and pos- sibly steps as needed. A clearly defined route will prevent trail braiding, tramping of vegetation, and erosion.
• Install a trailhead sign at the base and an intersec- tion sign at the upper end.
Jesup Path
Stream
Not to Scale North
t
Fig. 349-2 Homans Path (#349).
322
Section 2; #349. homans Path
HISTORY
Beginning in 1913, George Dorr directed the develop- ment of a network of memorial paths radiating from Sieur de Monts Spring. Dorr envisioned the Sieur de Monts area as the center of a reservation of protected lands with paths connecting to Bar Harbor and the sur- rounding mountains. Dorr was able to raise funds for trail construction as an active member of the Bar Har- bor VIA Path Committee, the Hancock County Trustees of Public Reservations, as well as the founder of his own philanthropic organization, the Wild Gardens of Acadia Corporation. By the time the reservation was desig- nated Sieur de Monts National Monument in 1916, with Dorr as Superintendent, most of the memorial trails were partially or fully completed, including the Kane Path (#17), Beachcroft Path (#13), Kurt Diederich's Climb (#16), Homans Path (#349), Jesup Path (#14), and Emery Path (#15), with the Schiff Path (#15) added later. All of the trails were highly crafted with extensive stonework.
According to the 1915 path guide, the Homans Path was initially constructed between 1913 and 1915 as part of Kurt Diederich's Climb (#16), which was described as follows:
from the northern end of the Kane Path to the Sieur de Monts Crag about halfway up the eastern face of Dry [Dorr] Mountain with a fine view, it then descends and comes out on the road a little beyond the Sieur De Monts Spring. A path leading from the crag to the top of the mountain is projected.
Subsequent construction of the Schiff Path (#15) to the top of the mountain and the Emery Path (#15) from Sieur de Monts Spring resulted in the renaming of the northern half of Kurt Diederich's Climb (#16) as the Homans Path. Dorr named the path for Mrs. Eliza Homans, the first large land donor to the Han- cock County Trustees. The path is one of the least documented in the system and was not endowed with a maintenance fund. It is first shown on the 1916 path map and briefly mentioned in the Bar Harbor VIA 1916 annual report:
...the system of Memorial Paths constructed by Mr. Dorr on Dry [Dorr] and Pickett [Huguenot Head] has been enriched by the Emery Memorial Path,.. .leading from the Sieur de Monts Spring to the Crag above, where it con- nects with Kurt Diederich's Climb and the Homans Path.
With the completion of the Emery Path (#15), the Homans Path became a parallel but less accessible route for hikers traveling to and from Sieur de Monts Spring. For hikers traveling from Bar Harbor, the Homans Path was one of several options, and it offered a shorter route to Sieur de Mont Crag and the summit of Dry [Dorr] Mountain. But as the Sieur de Monts Spring area became a center of activity and a place for parking automobiles, the use of the Homans Path diminished. The Homans Path was not described in the 1928 path guide issued by the VIA/VIS Joint Path Committee (though shown on VIA/VIS path maps until 1941) and was deleted from maps produced by the National Park Service in the 1940s.
Little if any maintenance was done on the path after its construction. It is possible that the CCC or Park Service crews dismantled the upper section of the path to avoid confusion with the Emery Path (#15). The path remained unused and unmarked for over fifty years. In 1993 the publication Trails of History, written by local hikers Tom St. Germain and Jay Sanders, rekindled interest in the trail. The authors described the path's remarkable stone construction with its carefully placed stone boulders, its route past several natural springs, and wonderful views. They also recommended that the path be reopened. A year later, an unknown party, one or more individuals dubbed by park as "trail phantoms," carried out unauthorized work. Trees were cut along the path and moss was scraped from the stone steps. The incident sparked local publicity and spotlighted the uncertain fate of the park's many unmarked trails, most of which were closed by the Park Service in the 1950s. In the Hiking Trails Management Plan, the Homans Path is called out as a highly crafted historic trail with high cultural value that should be reopened.
323
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
CHARACTER
The Homans Path is similar to other highly constructed memorial paths radiating from the Sieur de Monts Spring area. The trail starts in a woodland setting (see Fig. 349-3) and rises quickly across a series of talus slopes. The choice of route is like other trails con- structed in the 1910s— winding, leading through rock fissures, past water features and to viewpoints. The trail consists predominantly of slab-laid stone steps with retaining walls and coping stones of assorted sizes. As part of the third memorial path constructed between 1913 and 1915— preceded by the Beachcroft Path (#13), which was later reworked, the Kane Path (#17), and constructed as part of Kurt Diederich's Climb (#16)— the trail exhibits exceptional craftsmanship, but it is relatively simple compared to the later Emery Path (#15), which contains more coping stones and exten- sive iron. The Homans Path has only minimal iron,
which is used to hold slab-laid steps and support walls onto ledge. The relatively few drainage features are located near the base of the trail, and most of the trail relies on subsurface drainage through underlying talus. Boulders placed over the path at rock crevices, a unique feature on the Homans Path, act as lintels, creating spaces through which hikers may travel (see Fig. 349-1 & 349-5). One of the greatest values of the Homans Path at the time of this report is the pristine quality of its circa-1915 construction, which has been altered slightly by weathering but not by high use (Fig. 349-6). During its fifty or so years of disuse, trail sections that cross intermittent streams or pass by springs have been dismantled by ice and water, though all steps and wall stones are retrievable (Fig. 349-7). The steps— large, occasionally cut, slab-laid and set-behind — are typical of the memorial trails. There are no extant associated trail structures, such as benches, cairns, signs, monu- ments, or markers.
Fig. 349-3 The entrance to the Homans Path is on an unmarked section of Hemlock Road (#377), marked by two large coping stones. Constructed VIA sonework is prevalent along the trail, and the first features at the trailhead include a capstone culvert over the road's drainage ditch, and followed by a series of steps.
324
Section 2; #349. homans path
Fig. 349-4 Homans Path treatment detail.
Fig. 349-5 This stone was placed during trail construction to create an interesting feature along the route. It is the same location as shown in Figure 349-1, but viewed from above.
Fig. 349-6 Stone steps and stone pavement through talus slope.
325
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
FEATURES
For detailed treatment guidelines and specifications for each feature, refer to Section 1, Chapters 1 through 10.
1. Route
The Homans Path begins at the former Hemlock Road (#377), which is no longer marked, not far from the junction of the Stratheden Path (#24) and Hemlock
Fig. 349-7 Approximately 230 feet from entrance, a 24-foot section of collapsed tread and uprooted trees shows the abandoned condition of some trail segments.
Trail (#23). The trail has two entrances that join in a fork approximately 160 feet along the trail (Fig. 349-8). The ascent up Dorr Mountain, made up of predomi- nantly stone steps, begins in the woods and winds up past several springs, under boulders and through rock crevices and formations (Figs. 349-9 & see 349-1 & 349-5). Two boulders were placed over the trail, as evidenced by "dog" dimples at the corners of the boul- ders. Near the upper end of the trail the stone steps terminate, and the last 500 feet are unclearly marked with no built features. Increased use over the past five years has resulted in a trodden "social path" to connect with the Emery Path (#15) along Sieur de Monts Crag.
The historic route of the trail up Dorr Mountain, and the connection to the Emery Path (#15) should be main- tained. Connections to both the Emery Path (#15) and the Hemlock Road should be constructed in conjunc- tion with the reopening of this trail (see Fig. 349-4).
Fig. 349-8 Fork located about 160 feet up the trail.
Fig. 349-9 Rock formation along the trail route.
326
Section 2; #349. Homans Path
2. Vegetation
There is no exceptional vegetation along the trail. The area was burned in the 1947 fire, and some steps and retaining walls were possibly dismantled by the decay and uprooting of large trees killed in the fire (see Fig. 349-7). The area has revegetated with birches. Many birches along the trail were damaged by trail phantoms who were trying to brush the trail in the mid-1990s. The damaged trees should be cut at the base (Fig. 349-10). Any trees and/or roots that are likely to dismantle steps or other stonework should be removed. Along the upper section of the trail, where there is no constructed tread, installation of a clearly defined trail will protect adjacent vegetation (Fig. 349-11).
3. Treadway
A. Bench Cuts: Some short sections of the trail extend along benches, but most of the trail consists of steps leading up the slope. Avoid introducing additional bench cuts.
B. Causeway: None.
C. Gravel Tread: Most of the treadway consists of steps and stone pavement. Four culverts that were initially graveled-over are located in the first 130 feet of trail (Fig. 340-12). A section of stone rubble at 170 feet up the trail indicates that short sections of trail were once gravel surfaced with borrowed soil or gravel. As the trail reaches the top of Sieur de Monts Crag, there are additional sections similar to this, and also where the trail connects to the Emery Path (#15). During rehabilitation, gravel tread should be reestablished where it was located historically. It may also be added to the upper unconstructed sections of the trail to strengthen the tread and prevent erosion. Locally mined gravel should be used unless the volume needed becomes too large; then the imported gravel mix may be used with care to ensure the gravel color, size, and texture does not detract from the existing historic stonework.
D. Stone Pavement: There are short sections of stone pavement and talus pavement throughout the trail.
Fig. 349-10 Young birch trees are the predominant vegetation along the lower parts of the trail. Damaged specimens like this one should be removed from treadway.
Fig. 349-1 1 Unconstructed tread at the upper end of the trail is bounded by sporadic coping stones, blueberry bushes, and other subalpine vegetation. A more constructed tread way would discourage trail widening and damage to adjacent vegetation.
327
Acadia trails Treatment Plan
Fig. 349-14 Retaining wall, coping and curved steps at about 270 feet up the trail.
Fig. 349-16 Large stone steps.
328
Section 2; #349. Homans Path
However, the upper 500 feet of the trail does not contain steps or stone pavement. This section will need reinforcement of the treadway to prevent erosion and gullying, and stone pavement or gravel tread may be used. When applying new stone pavement, consult other memorial trails as models, but make sure the new installation can be differen- tiated from historic work when complete. Where possible, the trail should be routed along the ledge of Sieur de Monts Crag, both to provide less need for a constructed tread and to access the views from the mountain.
E. Unconstructed Tread: Most of the trail relies on constructed tread, which is part of its highly crafted character. Sections of steps are pinned to ledge rather than leading the hiker on the ledge itself. Unconstructed tread at the top of the trail connect- ing with the Emery Path (#15) should be reinforced with stone pavement or gravel tread (see above).
4. Drainage
A few drainage features are located in the first section of trail. At the entrance, a capstone culvert extends across the Hemlock Road (#377) drainage ditch (see Fig. 349- 3). This culvert is the first constructed feature on the trail. About 60 feet up the trail, a graveled-over culvert directs water from an intermittent stream under the tread (Fig. 349-12). Three similar culverts are located within the next 70 feet of trail. The last of these four culverts has exposed lintels. No other culverts exist on the trail. A drainage feature is located 370 feet up the trail, which, according to the trail inventory, consists of "a hold for water to flow into boulders" below a set of steps. Above this point there are no evident drainage features (see Appendix E). One section contains water flowing down the steps, but most sections that cross intermittent streams or pass by springs are in poor con- dition. These sections should be repaired with capstone or graveled-over culverts, similar to those at the begin- ning of the trail. Open culverts, pipe culverts, and water bars would detract from the trail's character.
5. Crossings
None.
6. Retaining Structures
A. Checks: No checks are used, as they are a contem-
porary addition to the Acadia trails. Use of checks should be avoided on this highly crafted, historic trail.
B. Coping: Coping stones are used to define the trail through the woods, under ledges, and along sections of stone pavement. Coping is also used to anchor steps in talus areas and on top of retaining walls. Most are relocated boulders of irregular sizes (Fig. 349-13). Some coping stones have toppled. These should be retrieved, reset, and in necessary, pinned in place with concealed pins. Additional compatible coping stones may be added as needed.
C. Retaining Walls: There are extensive sections of rubble retaining walls, often in combination with coping. Several sections of retaining walls have collapsed (Figs. 349-14 & 349-15). Existing walls should be rehabilitated, and new additions should be compatible with the historic style.
7. Steps
There are extensive slab-laid and set-behind steps on the path (Figs. 349-14 to 349-18). The size of step and riser varies. This assortment of step size, some cut into rectangular blocks, others with uncut ends, helps to harmonize the steps with the natural surroundings. With the exception of steps located near water features, all steps are in excellent condition. Most are laid across ledges or through talus areas, which allow water to seep well under the trail. In order to lead hikers through rock formations, some sections of trail were built up with blocking and retaining walls. There are drill marks on steps and on nearby ledges (Figs. 349-19 & 349-20). Shims were used on some steps (Fig. 349-21). Reha- bilitation should maintain the variety of steps currently extant on the trail.
8. Ironwork
There is minimal iron on the trail. The circa-1915 construction of the trail places it during a period when iron use was increasing. The existing iron is used to support slab-laid steps and coping stones on ledge
329
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
at approximately 850 and 930 feet up the trail (Figs. 349-22 & 349-23). Additional concealed pins may be added to help hold steps in place. For example, a pin may be added to hold the bottom step of a run of steps to ensure that the staircase does not collapse with increased use. Pins should be added to secure stone- work prior to reopening the trail where high use will cause the steps to slip. Annual inspections may locate additional locations for pins. Use of concealed pins is preferred, rather than adding stone retaining walls or coping, to avoid altering the character of the trail.
Fig. 349-17 Steps on ledge near upper end of trail.
9. Guidance
The steps serve as guidance, a technique employed by the VIA/VIS from the 1890s onward. Blazes, cairns, and scree should not be added to the trail.
A. Blazes: None.
B. Cairns: None.
C. Directional Signs: Signs are needed at both ends of the trail. At the lower end of the trail, a vandal-proof trailhead post is needed; possibly two because of the fork. At the upper end an intersec- tion sign is needed.
D. Informational Signs: An information sign or bro- chure box may be added at the base of the trail to interpret the history of the trail and its reopening.
E. Scree: None.
F. Trail Name: The trail should be named Homans Path with no apostrophe.
10. Monuments and Associated Structures
There is no evidence of monuments or structures associated with this trail, and none should be added.
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE
A series of photographs has be taken of the trail's stone- work prior to its official reopening in 2003 (Fig. 349- 24). Each year the trail should be carefully inspected to determine whether the steps are slipping due to trail use. Altered sections should be repaired as soon as pos- sible, with the addition of concealed pins if necessary. This will prevent long sections of steps from slipping or collapsing.
Fig. 349-18 Several runs of smaller steps without coping and covered with moss are located about 550 to 600 feet up the trail.
330
Section 2; #349. Homans Path
Fig. 349-19 Hand showing drill marks on a nearby ledge where steps were quarried.
Fig. 349-20 Stone step with drill mark.
Fig. 349-21 Stone step with shims.
Fig. 349-22 Detail of a pinned step on the Homans Path.
Fig. 349-23 Stone steps pinned on ledge, side view.
Fig. 349-24 Reopening of the Homans Path in 2003.
331
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
332
SECTION 3:
REFERENCES
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDIX A: TERMINOLOGY
APPENDIX B: TRAIL LIST
APPENDIX C: TRAIL NAMING JUSTIFICATION
APPENDIX D: SOUND MASONRY PRACTICES / STONECUTTING
APPENDIX E: SAMPLE TRAIL INVENTORY
333
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arthur, Guy B. Civilian Conservation Corps Field Training: Construction of Trails. 1937.
Interior, National Park Service, Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, June 2001, revised June 2005.
Bar Harbor Record. November 23, 1910.
Bar Harbor Village Improvement Association. Annual Reports, 1-42, 45-46, 48-50. 1890-1941.
Birkby, Robert C. Lightly on the Land: The SCA Trail- Building and Maintenance Manual. Seattle: The Mountaineers, 1996.
National Park Service. "Mission 66 for Acadia National Park." ca. 1956. Harpers Ferry Library, Box — ACAD, B2.
. Management Policies. Department of the Interior,
National Park Service, 2001.
Northeast Harbor Village Improvement Society. Annual Reports, 2-32. 1899-1930.
Brown, Margaret Coffin, Pathmakers: Cultural Landscape Report for the Historic Hiking Trail System, Mount Desert Island, Maine, Volume 1: History, Existing Conditions, and Analysis. National Park Service, 2006.
Demrow, Carl, and David Salisbury. The Complete Guide to Trail Building and Maintenance. Third edition. Boston: Appalachian Mountain Club Books, 1998.
Peabody, Harold, and Charles Grandgent. Walks on Mount Desert Island. 1928.
Rand, Edward L. First Annual Report of the Champlain Society. 1880.
Seal Harbor Village Improvement Society. Annual Reports of the Seal Harbor Village Improvement Society, 1901-1984.
Good, Albert H. Park and Recreation Structures. National Park Service, 1938.
Southwest Harbor Village Improvement Association. Annual Report. 1932.
Goodrich, David. Correspondence to Paul Haertel, Superintendent, Acadia National Park archives, March 16, 2001.
Griswold, Stephen S. A Handbook on Trail Building and Maintenance. Three Rivers, CA: Sequoia Natural History Association, 5th edition, September 30, 1996.
Hesselbarth, Woody. Trail Construction and Maintenance Notebook. Missoula, Montana: United States Depart- ment of Agriculture, United States Forest Service, 1997.
Hooper, Lennon. NPS Trails Management Handbook. Denver: United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, no date.
Kittredge, Frank. Standards for Trail Construction. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1934.
Meier, Lauren G., Lee Terzis, and Nancy J. Brown. "Historic Resources of Acadia National Park Multiple Property Listing." United States Department of the
St. Germain, Thomas A., Jr., and John D. Saunders. Trails of History: The Story of Mount Desert Island's Paths from Norumbega to Acadia. Bar Harbor: Parkman Publica- tions, 1993.
Stakely, J. Tracy, Margaret Coffin Brown, and Paul Wien- baum. National Register Nomination for the Hiking Trail System, Acadia National Park. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, Draft March 1999.
United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Hiking Trails Management Plan. February 2002.
United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. "Mission 66 for Acadia National Park," Harpers Ferry Center Library, Box ACAD, B2, ca. 1956.
Village Improvement Societies of Bar Harbor, Northeast Harbor, Seal Harbor, and Southwest Harbor. A Path Guide ofMDI, Maine. 1915.
334
Appendix A: Terminology
APPENDIX A: TERMINOLOGY
abandoned trail
Trail that is no longer mapped, marked, or maintained.
abutment
A stone, wooden, or concrete substructure supporting the ends of abridge.
accessible
See wheelchair accessible
ADA
Americans With Disabilities Act; this legislation governs the construction of trails for people with disabilities, including physical aspects of the trail and which trails must be built in such a manner; ADA trail refers to a trail constructed according to such legislation to allow use by handicapped persons.
ADA trail
A trail constructed according to the requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act that allows access by people with disabilities; wheelchair accessible.
alignment
A trail's placement on the landscape; route.
AMC
Appalachian Mountain Club.
apron
The dip on the uphill side of the bar that directs most of the water off the trail before it gets to the bar itself; ideally "funnel-shaped."
backed waterbar
A waterbar "backed" or held in place by steps or checks immediately on its downhill side.
backfill
Fill material behind a structure.
Bates-style cairn
Cairn constructed in the manner of Waldron Bates's cairns, consisting of base stones, lintel, and pointer stones.
Bates-style steps
Steps constructed in the style of Waldron Bates; a rustic method of step construction.
batter
The slope of a wall face; batter is the relationship of rise to run, where rise is the height of the wall and run is the distance from vertical that the face recedes from founda- tion to top; this relationship is expressed in this document as "rise:run"; hence, a 2-foot tall wall that slopes back on foot is said to have a batter of 2:1. A wall may have a large or small batter, indicating the increasing degree to which the wall is sloped backwards from the base.
bedlog
Support log for the treadlogs of a bogwalk.
bedrock See ledge.
bellying
Technique of constructing steps in which each slab-laid step is shaped so that it "bellies" down behind the step on which it sets, thus locking it in.
bench cut
A side-hill or cross-slope treadway constructed by remov- ing material from the slope to create a flattened surface.
berm
Raised strip of soil, usually vegetated.
blaze
One of a series of marks along a trail that indicates the loca- tion of the trail.
blocking
Stones used to support or backfill building stones in a masonry structure; see also core.
bog-style stepping stones
Stepping stones used to cross boggy areas; see also stream- style stepping stones.
bogwalk
Wooden walkway providing a raised, even and dry tread, usually through a wet area.
borrow pit
Pit along a trail from which material for trail construction was taken.
335
Acadia Trails treatment plan
breaking joints
Principle of stonework in which the seam between any two stones is "broken" or overlaid with a single stone; one over two.
bridge
A structure providing passage over an impediment such as a waterway, gully or crevice.
broad paths
Historic gravel paths in the Seal Harbor and Bar Harbor districts.
Brunnow-style steps
Steps constructed in the style of Rudolph Brunnow, in which steps are laid as the top course of a retaining wall.
brushing
The clearing of brush along a trail corridor.
bullrail
A low barrier, usually not over four inches high, placed along the side edges of a bridge; see curbrail.
cairn
Trail marker that is a built or piled group of stones.
cake
(AMC term): way of setting rock so that it is laying down with its greatest surface area flat in the ground; oppose to toast.
cantilever
A beam or member that extends past its support, resulting in an overhang.
capstone culvert
Closed culvert topped with one or more exposed treadway stones.
catch basin
An excavated, constructed area at the entrance to a culvert designed to "catch" debris before it clogs the culvert.
causeway
Constructed treadway raised above the level of the sur- rounding area; may be walled causeway, wall-less causeway, or stone causeway.
ccc
Civilian Conservation Corps.
character-defining features
Exemplary characteristics of a historic structure, object or landscape that contribute to its historic character and aid in the understanding of its cultural construction.
check
A constructed barrier in the trail that retains treadway material from moving down-grade; may be log, or a row of abutting stones with high contacts.
chinked
Stuffed with the correct small stones to fill gaps left between building stones; process is called "chinking."
climbing turn
Gentle turn that reverses a trail's direction, designed to gain grade on a sidehill trail; the turn is less sharp than in a switchback.
closed culvert
Culvert closed at the top so that it is underneath the treadway.
closed log culvert
Closed culvert constructed of logs, usually surfaced with gravel; see gravelled-over bridges.
colored paths
Paths of a system developed under Herbert Jaques in Bar Harbor in the early 1900s in which each path was named for a color, or two colors; ex. "Green and Black Path"; all of these trails have been renamed, though some may be restored to historic color names.
commemorative plaque
In the Acadia trail system, a cast bronze plaque which is mounted on the face of a cliff, into a large boulder or onto a structure to commemorate individuals associated with the memorial trails.
conical cairn
AMC-style of cairn, constructed of a series of circular retaining walls that form a cone.
contact
Touching; a fundamental principle of sound masonry, in which all abutting building stones contact each other; see also high contact.
control points
Significant locations the trail is designed to access; primary considerations in the design of its route.
336
Appendix A: Terminology
coping retaining wall
Coping wall that functions also as a retaining wall.
coping stones
Stones set at the edge of a treadway (or road) that protrude above the surface and act as guidance; they may be the top course of a retaining wall, assisting with its structural integrity.
coping wall
A continuous row of coping stones.
corduroy
Decking or treadway composed of continuous log rounds, or split logs with the round side up.
core
Interior of a masonry structure, especially a retaining wall, in which it is the material between the face of the wall and the material being retained; provides structural integrity and drainage to the structure.
cradling
Technique of construction, especially as used in shallowly battered walls, in which rocks are trapped partially behind rocks they are set on top of, and thus locked in.
creep
Slow movement of material down a slope.
crib
Wooden structure that retains material and/or acts as a pier for a bridge or bogwalk; see log cribs.
cross-slope
Tread slope perpendicular to trail direction, or, a trail per- pendicular to the fall line.
crowned
Refers to gravel paving that is raised in the middle to shed water to either side of the treadway.
culvert
Structure that carries water across or under a treadway.
curbrail
A low barrier, usually not over 4 inches high, placed along the side edges of a bridge, parallel to the treadway; see bullrail.
cut stone
Stone, usually rectilinear, that is the result of splitting a larger stone, usually by drilling and using feathers and wedges.
cyclic maintenance
Maintenance scheduled to take place at a given interval, such as annual drain cleaning.
decking
Walking surface constructed of planking, especially on a bridge.
designed alignment
An alignment laid out with consideration for factors other than control points, such as grade and treadway sustain- ability.
destination points
The end points of a trail.
dimple
See dog holes.
direct alignment
An alignment that takes the shortest feasible route to its control points.
directional signs
On the trail system, signs which locate and direct hikers.
ditch
Earthen channel to direct water; usually a side drain, outlet ditch, or off-trail drainage.
ditch and fill
A technique used to treat wet areas whereby a ditch is dug along the side of the treadway and the resultant material is used to elevate the treadway; the result is similar to a cause- way but less constructed.
dog holes
Dimple-like depressions or shallow drill holes at opposing ends of stones; historically used to move large stones mechanically in conjunction with chain dogs and a derrick.
Dorr-style steps
Steps constructed in the style of George Dorr; a highly crafted method of step construction.
337
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
dry-laid
Stonework constructed without the use of mortar or bonding agents; type of construction used in the Acadia trail system.
endowed trails
A specific group of historic trails whose maintenance was funded by an endowment; many of these are also memorial trails.
engraved stone
A boulder, step or stone into which language has been cut; in general, engraved stones associated with trails were located near one or both entrances to the trail and were engraved with the name of the trail.
expansion bolt
A bolt designed to anchor to rock by expanding when it is installed.
eyebolt
A piece of iron anchored into rock that has been bent at the end to form a circle, or "eye" for attaching something.
face
The front, or exposed area, of a retaining wall.
fall line
The direct downhill line; the line which water takes as it descends a slope.
fall-line route
A direct route that follows the fall-line of a slope; a vulner- able route common to the Acadia system.
fines
Very small particles of soil; see silt.
fitted wall
Retaining wall constructed of stones fitted in between existing stones in the landscape, especially in a talus slope.
flat notch
Method of joining logs in which a flat surface is cut in each log, and the logs are joined at the flat surfaces.
flat signs
Planed wood signs mounted on posts; may be pointer signs or square signs.
floor
The bottom of a drainage channel.
footing
Base of a masonry structure, usually well below the surface of the ground.
French drain
A covered channel of stone laid underneath the trail sur- face or surrounding ground; a type of subsurface drain.
fully constructed side drain
Side drain fully constructed of stone, such as "V"-shaped and "U"-shaped side drains.
geotextile material
Synthetic cloth that allows water penetration while acting as a barrier to silt.
gesture
As a descriptive term for alignment, the way a trail moves in response to the landscape; may be a small gesture or a large gesture.
grade
Slope; incline of a trail, usually expressed as a percentage of rise to run, or as an angle from horizontal.
grade string
See line.
gravel paving
Any treadway surfaced with gravel.
graveled-over culvert
Closed stone culvert overlaid with gravel paving.
guidance features
Features designed to direct hikers along a trail and contain hikers within the treadway.
gully
An eroded channel, usually carrying water.
handrail
A rail at hand height; may be along a bridge or along a steep portion of a trail.
header
Any stone set header style; in a retaining wall, a stone set in the face of the wall that penetrates the core, also called a tie rock.
header-style
Set with the length of the stone into the structure; strongest way of laying stone; as opposed to stretcher style.
338
Appendix A: Terminology
high contact
Contact at the top of a row of stones; a technique for retaining surface material.
historic
A term used to describe a person, place or object that is significant to a culture.
historic scree
Scree that was constructed in a period of significance; generally more precise and attractive than contemporary scree.
historical
A term that refers to periods or themes in history.
historical significance
Meaning or value based on evaluation criteria for inclu- sion on the National Register of Historic Places given to a district, site, building, structure, or object. These criteria are based on associations with important persons or events in American history, design characteristics, or pre-history.
hub
A central location at which a number of trails converge by design; such as at Sieur de Monts Spring.
informational signs
Non-historic signs in a variety of styles that convey infor- mation of many types about trails; also called "interpretive signs."
inslope
Tread cross-slope against the prevailing grade, i.e., towards the hillside.
insloping
Sloping in towards higher ground, usually into the tread- way, or towards the core of a structure; the ideal type of slope for rocks in a masonry structure
ironwork
In the Acadia trail system, constructed iron features affixed to stone, for the purpose of either supporting structures or aiding hikers; such as a rung.
keyed
In setting a rock, it means set into a space in which the rock is secured by other rocks, especially in reference to founda- tion stones or bottom steps secured by rocks or ledge in the landscape.
laid coping
Free-standing wall laid at the edge of the treadway.
laid wall
Laid retaining wall; retaining wall with a substantial verti- cal component in which rocks are interwoven.
large gesture
Movement of a trail dictated by design over small-scale features in the landscape; a large-gestured route will have many straight and evenly curving sections.
lead wool
A matted gathering of thin strands of lead, similar in appearance and consistency to steel wool; used to seal holes around iron work and thereby prevent rusting.
ledge
Solid, continuous layer of rock; bedrock; slickrock.
line
Mason's line; high-tensile string used as a reference for construction; string line; mason line; grade string.
lintel
Stone that bridges a gap; part of any closed stone culvert or pipe culvert.
live edge
An edge of a log with the bark left on it.
living wall
Berm of vegetation and soil performing a retaining func- tion; see wall-less causeway.
log crib
Retaining structure constructed of logs; may be wall crib or treadway crib.
log scree
Scree made of logs or brush.
log signs
At Acadia, synonymous with trailhead signs; signs crafted from a single log which has a flat face cut on one or both sides on which information is routed.
lowland route
Route that follows the bottom of a contour or traverses a low or flat area.
mason's line See line.
339
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
memorial trails
A specific group of historic trails built in memory of deceased persons; e.g., Emery Path.
non-native species
Any species not native to Acadia; no such plants should be used in revegetation.
NPS
National Park Service.
off-set intersection
An intersection at which the ends of two connecting trails, or the segments of a single trail, do not line up at either side of the trail or road they cross.
off-trail drainage
Drainage away from the trail, usually ditching that directs water to trail drainages.
one over two
See breaking joints.
open culvert
Culvert with an open top.
open log culvert
Open culvert with log sides.
open stone culvert
Open culvert with stone sides and floor.
outflow drain see outlet ditch
outlet ditch
Ditch at the outflow, or downhill side of a drainage; out- flow drain.
outrigger bracing
Bracing that triangulates from the outside of a bridge.
outslope
Tread cross-slope with the prevailing grade, i.e., towards the downhill side.
outsloping
Sloping away from higher ground or core of a structure; outsloping rocks usually weaken a masonry structure.
path
At Acadia, a highly constructed, easily-walked trail devel- oped by a VIA or VIS group.
patio
See stone pavement.
pea-stone
Small rounded stone.
perforated-pipe drain
A type of subsurface drain in which perforated pipe is the main drainage channel.
pier
Support structure between bridge or bogwalk spans.
piled coping
See scree.
piled wall
Piled stones performing a retaining function.
pin
A straight piece of iron anchored vertically into stone for the purpose of securing other structures.
pipe culvert
Closed culvert, the channel of which is a pipe or pipes.
planking
Decking surface of milled boards.
pole bridges
Temporary bridge consisting of logs laid side by side into a wet area.
pressure-treated wood
Wood treated with chemicals to make it rot-resistant; most types of pressure-treated wood are not allowed for use at Acadia due to chemicals used in them.
raised treadway
Earthen treadway raised above surrounding ground; see causeway.
reconstruct
The act of rebuilding a missing historic feature.
rectilinear
A three-dimensional object with rectangular surfaces.
rehabilitate
To preserve the historic character of a property, while making allowances for new uses; measures are taken to preserve those historic features and characteristics that remain; compatible additions may be made for modern needs.
340
Appendix A: Terminology
reroute
A section of trail that has been realigned.
retaining wall
Wall that holds one portion of ground higher than another; may be laid, rubble or piled.
revegetation
Reintroducing vegetation to an area that has been damaged.
Ridge Runners
In Acadia, a group that marks trails and assists visitors on the trails.
ridge-line route
A direct route that follows the top of a ridge.
ripped
Cut in half lengthwise with a saw, pertains to logs used in bogwalks and bridges.
riprap
Technique of trail construction in which a continuous stone treadway is constructed of many abutting, locked-in stones, many of which are individually narrower than the treadway width; riprap may be level, graded or terraced. Riprap is primarily a Western technique, and is not an historically appropriate method of construction on the Acadia trail system. "Riprapped" refers to any random- laid, continuous rock surface.
riprap steps
A series of tiers built in the style of riprap: randomly laid abutting stones; each tier consists of many stones laid so their tops form a single smooth surface.
rise
Amount of vertical distance, usually understood per hori- zontal distance, or run; see also slope.
route
The alignment of a trail; its design, and placement on the landscape.
rubble
Non-building stone used for fill, subgrade, or a drainage floor.
rubble wall
Retaining wall laid less carefully than a laid wall; the face is irregular and the batter more shallow.
run
Amount of horizontal distance, usually understood per vertical distance, or rise; see also slope.
rung
A horizontal piece of iron work for climbing; may be anchored into rock itself, or a crosspiece of a ladder.
running joint
Unbroken vertical seam in a masonry structure; a place of weakness; see also stack bond and breaking joints.
rustic
A term used by Albert Good in Park Structures and Facili- ties (1938) to refer a design style "through the use of native materials in proper scale, and through the avoidance of rigid, straight lines, and over sophistication, gives the feel- ing of having been executed by pioneer craftsman with limited hand tools. It thus achieves sympathy with natural surroundings and with the past."
saddle notch
Method of joining logs in which a rounded cut is made in one log for the other log to fit into.
scouring
The loss of material due to moving water, especially of a drainage floor.
scree
Stones, logs or other material piled along the sides of a trail to define the treadway; see also historic scree.
seepage
Slow-moving underground water.
set-behind
Method of laying steps in which each step is set behind and with the bottom below the top of the step immediately below it; oppose to slab-laid.
shim
In masonry, a small rock used to support larger, building rocks in a masonry structure; usually a weak element.
side drain
A drain that runs parallel to the treadway; usually collects water from the uphill side of the trail and connects to cul- verts that direct water to the downhill side.
341
Acadia Trails treatment Plan
sidehill route
A route that travels perpendicular to the fall-line along the side of a slope; a cross-slope route.
sidewall
Single-tier retaining wall that retains tread material, espe- cially in a walled causeway or walled side drain.
sill
A supporting timber set in the ground; a bridge sill sits at either end of the bridge, perpendicular to it.
silt
Fines left by moving water.
siltation
The build-up of fines deposited by moving water; can clog subsurface drainage.
slab-laid
Method of laying steps in which each step is set partially on top of, or overlapping, the step directly below it; as opposed to set-behind.
slickrock
Ledge.
slope
Grade; the degree to which a surface is out of horizontal; calculated as rise divided by run, or expressed as the angle out of horizontal.
small gesture
Movement of a trail dictated by, or responsive to, small- scale features in the landscape, such as boulders or trees.
social paths
Paths developed by hikers to shortcut trail routes or access points of interest.
spill point
In a water bar or water dip, the point at which water leaves the trail.
stabilize
To prevent further deterioration of a landscape or structure using the least amount of intervention necessary.
stack bond
Rocks laid with a series of running joints.
stacked cairn
Cairn that consists of a single stack of stones.
stanchions
Iron uprights used to support a rail.
step
A constructed feature that is a vertical rise onto a horizontal surface suitable for stepping.
stepped-down railing
Extension of a railing that angles down from the main railing.
stepping stones
Stones set in a single row, a stepping distance apart, used to traverse streams or wet areas; may be bog-style or stream- style.
stepstone culvert
Open culvert with one or more stepstones in the drainage channel.
stone causeway
A causeway constructed primarily of stones and having a surface of stone pavement.
stone pavement
Constructed continuous stone treadway.
stream-style stepping stones
Stepping stones used to cross streams; see also bog-style stepping stones.
string line
See line.
stringer
A long horizontal timber to connect uprights in a frame or to support a floor.
subgrade drainage
Non-channeled subsurface drainage that consists of clean stone rubble that allows percolation of seepage; an essen- tial element of tread construction.
subsurface drain
Drain hidden beneath the treadway, mainly used to handle seepage; also called "hidden" or "blind" drain.
support wall
Retaining wall that supports the treadway.
342
Appendix A: Terminology
swale
Water dip; an angled depression, or reversal in grade, designed to direct water to the side of the trail; as part of a water bar, called the apron.
switchback
A designed element of a trail's alignment in which a side- hill trail reverses direction in order to gain grade.
switchback route
A route that primarily consists of switchbacks.
talus
Rock piles and debris reposed at an angle, usually at the base of a cliff; also called a "talus slope" or "talus field."
talus pavement
Stone pavement constructed through a talus field.
terrace
Flat, raised area; checks and terrace steps create a series of stable terraces as the treadway.
terrace steps
Non-abutting steps spaced to create terraces of tread mate- rial between them.
tie rock
In a retaining wall, a long face stone that penetrates the core; usually set header-style.
tier
Row of face stones in a retaining wall.
tiered wall
Retaining wall in which rocks are laid on top of other rocks in the face; oppose to single-tier wall and sidewall.
tiling
Flat stones laid into a drainage floor, then called "tiled."
toast
(AMC term): way of setting rock so that it is straight up and down in the ground so that it resembles a stood-up piece of toast; weakest style of setting stone; opposite of cake.
trail braiding
When multiple paths become used in addition to or instead of the treadway.
trail corridor
The space occupied by the trail and its features, including the brushed area above the treadway.
trailhead signs
At Acadia, synonymous for log signs; signs crafted from a single log which has a flat face cut on one or both sides on which information is routed; or any sign at the beginning of a trail.
tread
The walking surface of the trail.
tread pavement
Stone pavement constructed in a soil treadway.
treadlog
Milled, ripped or topped log used as the treadway of a bogwalk.
treadway
The walking surface of the trail.
treadway crib
Log crib constructed in the treadway, acting as checks and sidewall.
tributaries
Smaller water courses that feed into larger ones.
truss
An assemblage of members (such as beams) forming a rigid framework.
turnpike
A raised treadway supported on each side with logs.
unconstructed tread
Natural treadway with no constructed features.
uncut stone
Stone that has not been shaped; natural stone.
U-shaped side drain
Stone side drain in which rounded or square stones rein- force the sides of a ditch in a U-shape.
varied woodland route
A type of direct route that traverses different kinds of terrain.
343
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
veneer wall
Retaining wall in which there is no core and face stones do not penetrate the interior of the wall; a weak structure.
VIA
Village Improvement Association; either Bar Harbor or Seal Harbor.
view
Broad range of vision, expansive or panoramic, usually of scenic elements.
VIS
Village Improvement Society; either Seal Harbor or North- east Harbor.
vista
The controlled prospect of a discrete range of vision, which is deliberately contrived, typically associated with constructed landscapes, usually of scenic elements.
V-shaped side drain
Stone side drain in which flat stones are set perpendicular to each other in the shape of a V.
wall crib
Log crib, consisting of rail pieces and ties, that acts as a retaining wall.
walled causeway
A raised gravel or soil treadway supported on both sides with retaining walls.
wall-less causeway
Raised gravel or soil treadway constructed without retain- ing walls; gravel is contained on each side with berm or living wall.
water dip
An angled depression in the treadway that diverts water from the trail surface; a reversal in grade.
water bar
A drainage structure consisting of a depression crossing a treadway which is reinforced by a log or row of abutting rocks; the main function of a waterbar is to divert water flowing down a graded treadway.
wedging
Process by which ironwork is anchored into rock; the end of the iron is slit and a wedge inserted that spreads the iron once it is driven into a hole.
wheelchair accessible
Trail constructed according to ADA standards, especially concerning grade, to allow access by wheelchairs; ADA trail.
344
Appendix B: Trail List
APPENDIX B: TRAIL LIST
|
1 Trail Name |
Trail Number |
District |
Year Built |
|
Andrew Murray Young Path |
25 |
BHVIA |
1924 |
|
Acadia Mountain Trail |
101 |
SWHVIA |
1915 |
|
Amphitheatre Trail |
56 |
NEHVIS |
1911, 1917 |
|
Amphitheatre Trail, north |
523 |
NEHVIS |
1911 |
|
Amphitheatre Trail, south |
528 |
NEHVIS |
1911 |
|
Anemone Cave Trail |
369 |
BHVIA |
1934 (reopened by NPS 1960) |
|
Asticou and Jordan Pond Path, see Asticou Trail |
|||
|
Asticou Brook Trail |
514 |
NEHVIS |
1979 |
|
Asticou Hill (Eliot Mtn) to Little Harbor Brook |
517 |
NEHVIS |
circa 1921 |
|
Asticou Inn Trail |
513 |
NEHVIS |
circa 1926 |
|
Asticou Path, see Asticou Trail |
|||
|
Asticou Ridge Trail |
520 |
NEHVIS |
1885, 1914 |
|
Asticou Trail |
49 |
NE/SH |
circa 1881 |
|
Asticou Trail, see Pond Hill Trail |
|||
|
Aunt Bettys Pond Path |
526 |
NEHVIS |
1867, 1900 |
|
Bald Peak Trail |
62 |
NEHVIS |
1932 (reopened by NPS 1980) |
|
Bar Island Trail |
1 |
BHVIA |
1867 (reopened by NPS 1990) |
|
Barr Hill Path |
404 |
SHVIS |
1896, 1900 |
|
Barr Hill/Redfield Hill to Jordan Pond |
403 |
SHVIS |
circa 1896 |
|
Bass Harbor Head Light Trail |
129 |
SWHVIA |
circa 1900 |
|
Beachcroft Path |
13 |
BHVIA |
1871, 1890, 1915, 1926 |
|
Bear Brook Trail |
10 |
BHVIA |
1867, 1890, 1934 |
|
Beech Cliff Ladder Trail |
106 |
SWHVIA |
1936, 1937, circa 1941 |
|
Beech Cliff Loop Trail |
114 |
SWHVIA |
1871, 1906 |
|
Beech Cliff Trail to Lurvey Spring, see Echo Lake to |
Lurvey Spring |
||
|
Beech Cliff Trail, see Canada Cliffs Trail |
|||
|
Beech Cliff, path along |
604 |
SWHVIA |
circa 1871 |
|
Beech Hill Road, see Valley Trail |
|||
|
Beech Mountain Loop Trail |
113 |
SWHVIA |
circa 1906 |
|
Beech Mountain Road Path, see also Valley Trail |
624 |
SWHVIA |
circa 1762 |
|
Beech Mountain South Ridge Trail |
109 |
SWHVIA |
circa 1915 |
|
Beech Mountain Trail, see Beech Mountain Road Path or Beech Mountain West Ridge |
Trail |
||
|
Beech Mountain West Ridge Trail |
108 |
SWHVIA |
circa 1915 |
|
Beechcroft Trail (see Beachcroft Path) |
|||
|
Beehive Trail |
7 |
BHVIA |
1916 |
|
Beehive, West |
8 |
BHVIA |
1874, 1894, 1916 |
|
Bernard Mountain Ski Trail, see Bernard Mountain South Face Trail |
|||
|
Bernard Mountain South Face Trail |
111 |
SWHVIA |
circa 1915 |
|
Bicycle Path |
331 |
BHVIA |
1890, 1895 |
|
Bicycle Path Connector |
372 |
BHVIA |
1895 |
|
Birch Brook Trail |
429 |
SHVIS |
circa 1909 |
345
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
|
1 Trail Name Trail Number |
District |
Year Built |
|
|
Black and Blue Path |
353 |
BHVIA |
circa 1896 |
|
Black and White Path |
326 |
BHVIA |
1890 |
|
Black Path, see Bear Brook Trail, Bowl Trail, and Cadillac Cliffs to Otter Creek |
|||
|
Black Woods Trail |
440 |
SHVIS |
1915 |
|
Blue and White Path |
337 |
BHVIA |
circa 1893 |
|
Blue Path |
330 |
BHVIA |
circa 1893 |
|
Bluff Trail, see Jordan Cliffs Trail |
|||
|
Bowl Trail |
6 |
BHVIA |
1874, 1892 |
|
Boyd Road/Path |
449 |
SHVIS |
circa 1893 |
|
Bracken Path |
307 |
BHVIA |
1890 |
|
Bracken Path extension |
371 |
BHVIA |
1895 |
|
Bracy Cove Road/Path |
402 |
SHVIS |
circa 1893 |
|
Breakneck Road/Path |
314 |
BHVIA |
1777, 1923 |
|
Brigham Path/Red & Black Path |
378 |
BHVIA |
1925 |
|
Brigham to Beehive Connector |
366 |
BHVIA |
1925 |
|
Brown Mountain, North |
521 |
NEHVIS |
1921 |
|
Brown Path, upper half, see Bowl Trail |
|||
|
Brown Path, lower half, see Beehive West |
|||
|
Brown Path to Beehive Connector |
351 |
BHVIA |
1894 |
|
Browns Mountain Path, see Norumbega Mountain Trail |
|||
|
Bubble Mountain Path, see North Bubble Trail |
|||
|
Bubble Mountain South Cliff Trail, see South Bubble Cliff Trail |
|||
|
Bubble and Jordan Ponds Path (#20), see Pond Trail |
|||
|
Bubble Pond Carry |
412 |
SHVIS |
1874, 1931 |
|
Bubble Pond Path, see Pond Trail |
|||
|
Bubbles-Pemetic Trail/Northwest Trail |
36 |
SHVIS |
circa 1926 |
|
Burnt Bubble Path, see Burnt Bubble South End Path |
|||
|
Burnt Bubble South End Path |
413 |
SHVIS |
circa 1896 |
|
Cadillac Cliffs Path to Thunder Hole, part of |
345 |
BHVIA |
1906 |
|
Cadillac Cliffs Trail, see Gorham/Cadillac Cliffs Trail |
|||
|
Cadillac Cliffs to Otter Creek/Black Trail |
346 |
BHVIA |
1906 |
|
Cadillac Mountain East Ridge Trail |
350 |
BHVIA |
1874, 1919 |
|
Cadillac Mountain North Ridge Trail |
34 |
BHVIA |
1850, 1931, 1935 |
|
Cadillac Mountain South Ridge Trail |
26 |
BH/SH |
1874, 1896 |
|
Cadillac Mtn. South Ridge Trail, Eagles Crag |
27 |
BH/SH |
1905 |
|
Cadillac Path |
367 |
BHVIA |
1916 |
|
Cadillac Summit Loop Trail |
33 |
BHVIA |
1933 |
|
Cadillac West Face Trail/Steep Trail |
32 |
SHVIS |
1919 |
|
Cadillac-Dorr Trail |
22 |
BHVIA |
1871, 1890 |
|
Canada Cliffs Cutoff |
632 |
SWHVIA |
circa 1926 |
|
Canada Cliffs to Dog Connector |
637 |
SWHVIA |
1915 |
|
Canada Cliffs Trail |
107 |
SWHVIA |
circa 1911 |
346
Appendix B: Trail List
|
| Trail Name Trail Number |
District |
Year Built |
1 |
|
|
Canada Ridge Trail, see Canada Cliffs Trail |
||||
|
Canon Brook Trail |
19 |
BHVIA |
1900, 1930 |
|
|
Canon Brook Trail, eastern end |
333 |
BHVIA |
1900, 1924 |
|
|
Canyon Brook Trail, see Canon Brook Trail |
||||
|
Canyon Path, see Canon Brook Trail |
||||
|
CCC Trail, see Spring Trail |
||||
|
Cedar Mountain Cutoff |
527 |
NEHVIS |
1915 |
|
|
Cedar Swamp Mountain Trail, see Sargent Mountain South Ridge Trail |
||||
|
Cedar Swamp Mountain, path up |
515 |
NEHVIS |
circa 1901 |
|
|
Center Trail |
623 |
SWHVIA |
circa 1911 |
|
|
Champlain Mountain East Face Trail/Orange & Black Path 12 |
BHVIA |
1913, 1942 |
||
|
Champlain Monument Cutoff |
426 |
SHVIS |
circa 1916 |
|
|
Champlain Monument Path |
453 |
SHVIS |
1906 |
|
|
Champlain Trail, to Seal Harbor tennis |
428 |
SHVIS |
1915 |
|
|
Chasm Brook Trail, see Chasm Path |
||||
|
Chasm Path/Waldron Bates Memorial Path |
525 |
NEHVIS |
1903, 1910 |
|
|
Church Lane Path |
610 |
SWHVIA |
circa 1915 |
|
|
Circular Trail |
630 |
SWHVIA |
1919 |
|
|
Cliff Path, see Gorham/Cadillac Cliffs Trail |
||||
|
Cliff Path to Great Cave |
347 |
BHVIA |
1916 |
|
|
Cliff Trail |
512 |
NEHVIS |
circa 1930 |
|
|
Cliff Trail, see Precipice Path |
||||
|
Cold Brook Trail |
117 |
SWHVIA |
circa 1893 |
|
|
Conners Nubble Path, see Burnt Bubble South End Path |
||||
|
County Road Cutoff |
425 |
SHVIS |
circa 1893 |
|
|
Cross Roads Path |
612 |
SWHVIA |
circa 1915 |
|
|
Cross Trail, Birch Brook to Upland Road |
430 |
SHVIS |
circa 1909 |
|
|
Cross Trail, south of Mitchell Hill |
443 |
SHVIS |
circa 1915 |
|
|
Curran Path |
315 |
BHVIA |
1885, 1930 |
|
|
Cutoff Path |
614 |
SWHVIA |
circa 1896 |
|
|
Cutoff Trail between Pond Trail and Seaside Trail 415 |
SHVIS |
1901 |
||
|
Dane Path |
445 |
SHVIS |
1901 |
|
|
Day Mountain Caves Trail/Valley Trail |
424 |
SHVIS |
1911,1916 |
|
|
Day Mountain Trail |
37 |
SHVIS |
1896,1911 |
|
|
Day Mountain Trail, Lower, see Champlain Monument Path |
||||
|
Deep Brook Trail |
601 |
SWHVIA |
circa 1765 |
|
|
Deer Brook Trail |
51 |
SHVIS |
circa 1896 |
|
|
Dog Mountain Trail, see Saint Sauveur Trail |
||||
|
Dole Trail |
619 |
SWHVIA |
circa 1915 |
|
|
Dorr Mountain Branch |
323 |
BHVIA |
1898 |
|
|
Dorr Mountain East Face Trail, see Emery Path and Schiff Path |
||||
|
Dorr Mountain North and South Ridge Trails |
21 |
BHVIA |
1871, 1890, 1896, |
1901 |
347
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
|
| Trail Name |
Trail Number |
District |
Year Built |
|
|
Dorr property paths |
376 |
BHVIA |
circa 1960 |
|
|
Dry Mountain Branch, see Dorr Mountain Branch |
||||
|
Dry Mountain Path extension |
332 |
BHVIA |
circa 1896 |
|
|
Duck Brook Path |
311 |
BHVIA |
1760, 1874, 1890 |
|
|
Eagle Cliff Trail, see Valley Peak Trail |
||||
|
Eagle Crag Loop |
27 |
BHVIA |
1905 |
|
|
Eagle Lake Connector |
308 |
BHVIA |
circa 1903 |
|
|
Eagle Lake Trail |
42 |
BHVIA |
1896 |
|
|
Eagle Lake, East Shore, north section |
317 |
BHVIA |
circa 1903 |
|
|
Eagle Lake, West Shore, see Eagle Lake Trail |
||||
|
Eagles Crag Foot |
343 |
BHVIA |
1905 |
|
|
Eagles Crag Path, see Eagle Crag Loop |
||||
|
East Peak Trail |
631 |
SWHVIA |
circa 1917 |
|
|
East Ridge Trail |
350 |
BHVIA |
1919 |
|
|
Echo Lake Ledges |
126 |
SWHVIA |
circa 1970 |
|
|
Echo Lake Trail |
622 |
SWHVIA |
circa 1915 |
|
|
Eliot Mountain Trail to Map House |
516 |
NEHVIS |
circa 1885 |
|
|
East Face Trail, see Champlain East Face Trail, Emery Path, Schiff Path, |
or Mansell Mountain Trail |
|||
|
East Jordan Path, see Jordan Pond Path |
||||
|
East Peak from Great Pond |
631 |
SWHVIA |
1917 |
|
|
East Peak Trail, see Mansell Mountain Trail |
||||
|
East Ridge Trail, see Cadillac Mountain East Ridge |
Trail |
|||
|
Echo Lake Ledges |
126 |
SWHVIA |
1941 |
|
|
Echo Lake to Lurvey Spring |
625 |
SWHVIA |
1911 |
|
|
Echo Lake Trail |
622 |
SWHVIA |
1911 |
|
|
Echo Point Trail |
356 |
BHVIA |
1914 |
|
|
Eliot Mountain (Asticou Hill) |
||||
|
Eliot Mountain Trail, see Asticou Ridge Trail |
||||
|
Eliot Mountain Trail to Map House |
516 |
NEHVIS |
1885, 1896 |
|
|
Eliot Mountain to Thuja Lodge |
519 |
NEHVIS |
circa 1901 |
|
|
Emery Path/Dorr Mtn. E Face Trail |
15 |
BHVIA |
1916, 1934 |
|
|
Fawn Pond Path |
309 |
BHVIA |
1902, 1907, 1923, 1935 |
|
|
Flying Mountain Trail |
105 |
SWHVIA |
1871, 1938 |
|
|
Giant Slide Trail/ Pulpit Rock Trail |
63 |
NEHVIS |
1903-1904 |
|
|
Gilley Trail |
125 |
SWHVIA |
circa 1911 |
|
|
Goat Trail, Pemetic Mountain |
444 |
BHVIA |
circa 1896 |
|
|
Goat Trail, see Norumbega Mountain Trail |
||||
|
Golf Club Trail |
507 |
NEHVIS |
circa 1901 |
|
|
Golf Links to Norumbega Mountain |
530 |
NEHVIS |
1914 |
|
|
Gorge Path |
28 |
BHVIA |
1871, 1890, 1929 |
|
|
Gorge Path to Kebo, east side |
321 |
BHVIA |
1890 |
|
|
Gorge Path to Kebo, west side |
320 |
BHVIA |
circa 1903 |
|
348
Appendix B: Trail List
|
1 Trail Name |
Trail Number |
District |
Year Built |
|
Gorge Road Path |
365 |
BHVIA |
1760, circa 1913 |
|
Gorham Mtn. Trail (formerly Black Path) |
4 |
BHVIA |
1906, 1913 |
|
Gorham/Cadillac Cliffs Trail |
5 |
BHVIA |
1906 |
|
Grandgent Trail |
66 |
NEHVIS |
1932 (reopened by NPS 1980) |
|
Great Cave Path, see Cliff Path |
|||
|
Great Head Trail |
2 |
BHVIA |
1844, 1867 |
|
Great Hill from Cleftstone Road |
304 |
BHVIA |
1892 |
|
Great Hill from Woodbury Park |
303 |
BHVIA |
1892 |
|
Great Hill Path |
306 |
BHVIA |
circa 1901 |
|
Great Hill to Duck Brook |
310 |
BHVIA |
circa 1901 |
|
Great Meadow Loop |
70 |
BHVIA |
1999 |
|
Great Notch Trail |
122 |
SWHVIA |
circa 1915 |
|
Great Notch Trail, see also Sluiceway Trail |
|||
|
Great Pond Road/Path |
615 |
SWHVIA |
circa 1765 |
|
Great Pond to Beech Hill |
602 |
SWHVIA |
circa 1896 |
|
Great/Long Pond Trail |
118 |
SWHVIA |
1936 |
|
Great Pond Trail |
620 |
SWHVIA |
circa 1896 |
|
Green and Black Path |
358 |
BHVIA |
1901, 1924 |
|
Green and White Path |
327 |
BHVIA |
1875, 1892 |
|
Green Mountain Trail |
452 |
SHVIS |
circa 1896 |
|
Gurnee Path |
352 |
BHVIA |
1926 |
|
Hadlock Brook/ Waterfall Trail |
57 |
NEHVIS |
1871, 1915 |
|
Hadlock Ponds Path, see Hadlock Trail |
|||
|
Hadlock Trail, lower |
502 |
NEHVIS |
1901 |
|
Hadlock Trail, upper |
501 |
NEHVIS |
circa 1881 |
|
Hadlock Valley Path, see Jordan Pond Carry Path |
|||
|
Half Moon Pond Path |
312 |
BHVIA |
1885, 1896 |
|
Harbor Brook Trail, see Little Harbor Brook Trail |
|||
|
Harborside Inn Trail |
506 |
NEHVIS |
circa 1901 |
|
Harden Farm Path, see Stratheden Path |
|||
|
Hemlock Road/Spring Road |
377 |
BHVIA |
circa 1916 |
|
Hemlock Trail |
23 |
BHVIA |
1895 |
|
Homans Path |
349 |
BHVIA |
1916 |
|
Huguenot Head to Otter Creek Road |
341 |
BHVIA |
circa 1896 |
|
Hunters Beach Trail |
67 |
SHVIS |
circa 1893 |
|
Hunters Brook Trail |
35 |
SHVIS |
1919, 1937 |
|
Hunters Brook Trail, lower |
455 |
SHVIS |
1919 |
|
Hunters Brook Trail, upper |
454 |
SHVIS |
1937 |
|
Hunters Cove, South Ridge Trail connector |
439 |
SHVIS |
circa 1896 |
|
Indian Path, see Dry Mountain Path extension |
|||
|
Ingraham Rocks Path |
445 |
SHVIS |
circa 1896 |
|
Jesup Path |
14 |
BHVIA |
1760, 1895, 1916 |
349
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
|
1 Trail Name Trail Number |
District |
Year Built |
|
|
Jesup Path to Cromwell Harbor Road |
375 |
BHVIA |
1916 |
|
Jordan and Bubble Ponds Path, see Pond Trail |
|||
|
Jordan Bluffs Trail |
457 |
SHVIS |
circa 1930 |
|
Jordan Brook Path, see Jordan Stream Trail |
|||
|
Jordan Cliffs Trail/ Sargent East Cliff Trail |
48 |
SHVIS |
1896, circa 1926 |
|
Jordan Cliffs Trail, see Penobscot East Trail |
|||
|
Jordan Mountain Trail |
411 |
SHVIS |
circa 1871 |
|
Jordan Pond Carry Path |
38 |
BHVIA |
pre-1760, 1885, 1931 |
|
Jordan Pond Carry Spur |
40 |
SHVIS |
circa 1980 |
|
Jordan Pond House Trail |
46 |
BHVIS |
1980 |
|
Jordan Pond Loop Trail, see Jordan Pond Path |
|||
|
Jordan Pond Path |
39 |
BH/SH |
1896, 1898 |
|
Jordan Pond Nature Trail (current location) |
45 |
SHVIS |
1903 |
|
Jordan Pond Nature Trail (original location) |
463 |
SHVIS |
1929 |
|
Jordan Pond Seaside Trail, see Seaside Path |
401 |
SHVIS |
1893, 1901, 1903 |
|
Jordan Pond to Cliffs |
458 |
SHVIS |
circa 1941 |
|
Jordan Pond to Pemetic Ridge Trail, see Steepway Trail |
|||
|
Jordan South End Path |
409 |
SHVIS |
1896, 1914 |
|
Jordan Stream Trail |
65 |
SHVIS |
1760, 1901, 1908, 1931 |
|
Kaighn Trail |
606 |
SWHVIA |
1906 |
|
Kane Path/ Tarn Trail |
17 |
BHVIA |
1915 |
|
Kebo Brook Path |
364 |
BHVIA |
1907 |
|
Kebo Mountain Path/Dorr Mountain N & S Ridge |
21 |
BHVIA |
1871, 1890, 1896, 1898 |
|
Kebo Mountain Trail, from Kebo Valley Club |
322 |
BHVIA |
1907 |
|
Kebo Mountain, east side |
374 |
BHVIA |
circa 1871 |
|
Kebo Valley Club to Toll House |
319 |
BHVIA |
1902 |
|
Kurt Diederich's Climb |
16 |
BHVIA |
1915 |
|
Ladder Trail |
64 |
BHVIA |
1871, 1896, 1935 |
|
Ledge Trail |
103 |
SWHVIA |
circa 1915 |
|
Ledge Trail, South |
121 |
SWHVIA |
circa 1915 |
|
Little Brown Mountain Path |
522 |
NEHVIS |
1921 |
|
Little Brown Mountain Trail, see Parkman Mountain Trail |
|||
|
Little Harbor Brook to Eliot House |
518 |
NEHVIS |
circa 1901 |
|
Little Harbor Brook Trail |
55 |
NEHVIS |
1901 |
|
Little Hunters Beach Path from Boyd Road |
442 |
SHVIS |
1903 |
|
Little Hunters Brook Path to Cove |
438 |
SHVIS |
circa 1896 |
|
Little Notch Trail, see Sluiceway Trail |
|||
|
Little Precipice Trail, see Beehive Trail |
|||
|
Long Pond Road/Trail in Seal Harbor |
410 |
SHVIS |
1915 |
|
Long Pond Trail, see Great/Long Pond Trail |
|||
|
Long Pond Trail, see Great Pond Trail |
|||
|
Lovers Lane |
618 |
SWHVIA |
circa 1762 |
350
Appendix B: Trail List
|
| Trail Name Trail Number |
District |
Year Built |
|
|
Lower Hadlock Pond, east side |
511 |
NEHVIS |
1914 |
|
Mansell Mountain Trail |
115 |
SWHVIA |
1765, 1893, 1911 |
|
Maple Spring Trail |
58 |
NEHVIS |
1914-1915 |
|
McFarland Path |
524 |
NEHVIS |
1885, 1893 |
|
Mitchell Hill Path |
407 |
SHVIS |
1901, 1909 |
|
Mitchell Hill Road, see West Side Long Pond, Seal Harbor |
|||
|
Moss Trail, see Bernard Mountain South Face Trail |
|||
|
Murphy's Lane, see Blue Path |
|||
|
Newport Mountain Path, see Bear Brook Trail |
|||
|
North Bubble Trail |
41 |
SHVIS |
1871, 1897, 1929 |
|
North/Middle Bubble Cliff Trail |
459 |
SHVIS |
1929 |
|
Northwest Trail, see Bubbles-Pemetic Trail |
|||
|
Norumbega Mountain Trail/Goat Trail |
60 |
NEHVIS |
1881, 1885, 1903 |
|
Norumbega Lower Hadlock to Goat Trail |
69 |
NEHVIS |
circa 1941 |
|
Norwood Cove Trail |
617 |
SWHVIA |
circa 1765 |
|
Notch Trail |
406 |
SHVIS |
1901 |
|
Oak Hill to Bernard Mountain |
608 |
SWHVIA |
circa 1906 |
|
Oak Hill Trail |
634 |
SWHVIA |
circa 1937 |
|
Ocean Drive Trail, see Ocean Path |
|||
|
Ocean Cliff Path |
340 |
BHVIA |
1896, 1906 |
|
Ocean Path |
3 |
BHVIA |
1874, 1937 |
|
Old Farm Road/Sols Cliff Path |
363 |
BHVIA |
circa 1913 |
|
Old Trail, see Pemetic West Cliff Trail |
|||
|
Orange and Black Path |
348 |
BHVIA |
1913-1914 |
|
Otter Cliff Path, see also Ocean Path |
340 |
BHVIA |
1896, 1906 |
|
Otter Cove Road/Path |
441 |
SHVIS |
circa 1896 |
|
Otter Cove, trail to |
447 |
SHVIS |
1915 |
|
Ox Hill Path |
420 |
SHVIS |
1896, 1903 |
|
Ox Hill Summit to Day Mountain |
421 |
SHVIS |
circa 1896 |
|
Ox Hill Summit, east |
422 |
SHVIS |
circa 1903 |
|
Parkman Mountain Trail |
59 |
NEHVIS |
1921 |
|
Parkman to Gilmore |
61 |
NEHVIS |
circa 1932 |
|
Peak of Otter, see Ocean Cliff Path |
|||
|
Pemetic Mountain Trail/Southeast |
31 |
SHVIS |
1871, 1893, 1896 |
|
Pemetic Mountain, southeast side, see Valley Trail Connector |
461 |
SHVIS |
circa 1917 |
|
Pemetic Mountain Valley Trail |
462 |
SHVIS |
circa 1917 |
|
Pemetic West Cliff Trail/Old Trail |
30 |
SHVIS |
circa 1874 |
|
Penobscot East Trail |
50 |
SHVIS |
circa 1901 |
|
Penobscot Mountain Trail/Spring Trail |
47 |
SHVIS |
1871, 1896, 1917 |
|
Perpendicular Trail |
119 |
SWHVIA |
circa 1937 |
|
Pine Hill to Bernard Mountain |
606 |
SWHVIA |
circa 1906 |
|
Pine Hill to Deep Brook |
605 |
SWHVIA |
circa 1906 |
351
Acadia trails Treatment plan
|
1 Trail Name |
Trail Number |
District |
Year Built |
|
Pine Hill Trail |
633 |
SWHVIA |
circa 1937 |
|
Pine Hill Trail, see also Western Mountain Trail |
|||
|
Pine Tree Trail |
405 |
SHVIS |
circa 1896 |
|
Pines Path, see The Pines Path |
|||
|
Pipe Line Path |
448 |
SHVIS |
1901 |
|
Pond Hill Trail/Asticou Trail |
529 |
NEHVIS |
circa 1903 |
|
Pond Trail |
20 |
BH/SH |
1874, 1896, 1929 |
|
Pond Trail to Bubble Pond (original route) |
373 |
SHVIS |
1896 |
|
Potholes Path |
342 |
BHVIA |
1896, 1906 |
|
Potholes to Eagles Crag, see Eagles Crag Foot |
|||
|
Precipice Trail |
11 |
BHVIA |
1915 |
|
Pretty Marsh Picnic Area Trail/Road |
128 |
SWHVIA |
1938-1941 |
|
Pulpit Rock Trail, see Giant Slide Trail |
|||
|
Quarry Trail, Northeast Harbor |
505 |
NEHVIS |
1900 |
|
Quarry Trail, Southeast Harbor |
628 |
SWHVIA |
circa 1915 |
|
Razorback Trail |
112 |
SWHVIA |
1765, 1915, 1919 |
|
Red and Black Path, see Brigham Path |
|||
|
Red and White Path |
335 |
BHVIA |
circa 1893 |
|
Red and Yellow Path |
355 |
BHVIA |
circa 1896 |
|
Red Path |
328 |
BHVIA |
1892 |
|
Reservoir Trail |
504 |
NEHVIS |
circa 1896 |
|
Ridge Trail, see Kebo Valley Club to Toll House |
|||
|
Robinson Road |
627 |
SWHVIA |
1874, 1938 |
|
Royal Fern Path |
305 |
BHVIA |
1890 |
|
Saint Sauveur Trail |
102 |
SWHVIA |
1874, 1915 |
|
Sand Beach - Great Head Access |
9 |
BHVIA |
circa 1990 |
|
Sargent Brook Trail, see Giant Slide Trail |
|||
|
Sargent Mountain North Ridge Trail |
53 |
NEHVIS |
1903 |
|
Sargent Mountain South Ridge Trail |
52 |
NEHVIS |
circa 1871 |
|
Sargent Pond Trail |
456 |
SHVIS |
1896, 1921 |
|
SchiffPath |
15 |
BHVIA |
1926 |
|
Schoolhouse Ledge Trail |
503 |
NEHVIS |
circa 1896 |
|
Schooner Head Road Path |
362 |
BHVIA |
circa 1901 |
|
Schooner Head Road to Otter Creek Road, see Bicyc) |
le Path Connector |
||
|
Seal Cove Pond to Bernard Mountain |
607 |
SWHVIA |
circa 1906 |
|
Seal Cove Pond to Seal Cove Road |
609 |
SWHVIA |
1896, 1906 |
|
Seal Harbor Village path |
431 |
SHVIS |
circa 1906 |
|
Seal Harbor Village path |
432 |
SHVIS |
circa 1906 |
|
Seaside Path |
401 |
SHVIS |
1893, 1901, 1903 |
|
Ship Harbor Nature Trail |
127 |
SWHVIA |
1957 |
|
Shore Path, Bar Harbor |
301 |
BHVIA |
circa 1874 |
|
Shore Path, Hunters Beach |
436 |
SHVIS |
1901 |
352
Appendix B: Trail List
|
| Trail Name Trail Number |
District |
Year Built |
|
|
Shore Path, Northeast Harbor |
531 |
NEHVIS |
circa 1928 |
|
Shore Path, Seal Harbor |
427 |
SHVIS |
circa 1896 |
|
Shore Path, see Ocean Path |
|||
|
Shore Trail, Hunters Beach to Otter Cove |
437 |
SHVIS |
1912 |
|
Short Trail to Hunters Beach, see Hunters Beach Trail |
|||
|
Sieur de Monts-Tarn Trail/Wild Gardens Path |
18 |
BHVIA |
1913 (reopened by NPS 1990) |
|
Skidoo Trail |
509 |
NEHVIS |
1914 |
|
Slide Trail |
603 |
SWHVIA |
circa 1874 |
|
Sluiceway Trail |
110 |
SWHVIA |
circa 1911 |
|
Sols Cliff Path, see Old Farm Road |
|||
|
Somes Sound Road, see Southwest Valley Road Path |
|||
|
Somesville Carry Trail |
635 |
SWHVIA |
pre 1760 |
|
Somesville Road Trail |
629 |
SWHVIA |
circa 1915 |
|
South Bubble Cliff Trail |
451 |
SHVIS |
1928, 1931 |
|
South Bubble Trail |
43 |
SHVIS |
circa 1896 |
|
South End Path, see Jordan South End Path |
|||
|
South Face Trail, see Bernard Mountain South Face Trail |
|||
|
Southeast Trail, see Pemetic Mountain Trail |
|||
|
Southwest Pass |
414 |
BHVIA |
circa 1885 |
|
Southwest Shore Trail, see Eagle Lake Trail |
|||
|
Southwest Valley Road/Path |
316 |
BHVIA |
1867, 1893 |
|
Spring Road, See Hemlock Road |
|||
|
Spring Trail, see Penobscot Mountain Trail |
|||
|
Spring Trail/ CCC Trail |
621 |
SWHVIA |
circa 1911 |
|
Squirrel Brook Trail |
408 |
SHVIS |
1901 |
|
Stanley Brook Path |
433 |
SHVIS |
1903 |
|
Stanley Brook, Seaside Lower Connector |
434 |
SHVIS |
1911 |
|
Stanley Brook, Seaside Upper Connector |
435 |
SHVIS |
1903 |
|
Steep Trail |
508 |
NEHVIS |
circa 1941 |
|
Steep Trail, see Cadillac West Face Trail |
|||
|
Steepway Trail |
460 |
SHVIS |
1917 |
|
Stratheden Path |
24 |
BHVIA |
1895, 1913 (reopened by NPS 1990) |
|
Strawberry Hill to Otter Creek Road |
325 |
BHVIA |
1890 |
|
Sweet Fern Path |
360 |
BHVIA |
1890 |
|
Tarn Trail |
370 |
BHVIA |
1934 |
|
Tarn Trail, see Kane Path |
|||
|
Tea House Path |
368 |
BHVIA |
1897, 1903 |
|
The Pines Path |
611 |
SWHVIA |
1896, 1915 |
|
Thuja Lodge Trail, see Eliot Mountain Trail |
|||
|
Tilting Rock, trail to |
423 |
SHVIS |
1901 |
|
Toll House Path |
318 |
BHVIA |
1896 |
|
Triad Pass Path, see Triad Pass |
|||
353
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
|
| Trail Name Trail Number |
District |
Year Built |
|
|
Triad Pass Trail, see also Van Santvoord Loop Trail |
29 |
SHVIS |
1893 |
|
Triad Pass, south |
418 |
SHVIS |
1893, 1912 |
|
Triad Path, east |
419 |
SHVIS |
1896, 1912 |
|
Triad-Hunters Brook Trail, see Hunters Brook Trail |
|||
|
Turtle Lake and Jordan Pond Path, see Pond Trail |
|||
|
Upper Ladder Trail |
334 |
BHVIA |
1871, 1896 |
|
Valley Cove Trail/Road |
626, 105 |
SWHVIA |
1871, 1938 |
|
Valley Peak Trail |
104 |
SWHVIA |
1871, 1915 |
|
Valley Trail |
116 |
SWHVIA |
1762, 1930 |
|
Valley Trail Pemetic Connector |
461 |
SHVIS |
1917 |
|
Van Santvoord Trail, see also Triad Pass Trail |
450 |
SHVIS |
1915, 1917 |
|
Village Path to Ox Hill Ledge, see Ox Hill Path |
|||
|
Waldron Bates Memorial Path, see Chasm Path |
|||
|
Waterfall Trail, see Hadlock Brook Trail |
|||
|
Water Pipe Path |
361 |
BHVIA |
pre 1760, circa 1896 |
|
Water Pipe Trail/Golf Links to Lower |
510 |
NEHVIS |
circa 1901 |
|
Water Tower Trail/Harborside Trail, see Reservoir Trail |
|||
|
West Beehive, see Beehive West |
|||
|
West Jordan Path, see Jordan Pond Path |
|||
|
West Side Long Pond, Seal Harbor |
410 |
SHVIS |
1914 |
|
West Slope Trail, see Cadillac West Face Trail |
|||
|
Western Mountain Road/Path |
616 |
SWHVIA |
circa 1765 |
|
Western Mountain Trail |
120 |
SWHVIA |
circa 1911 |
|
Western Mtn. West Ledge Trail |
123 |
SWHVIA |
1937, (reopened by NPS 1993) |
|
Western Mountain West Ridge Trail, see Western Mountain West Ledge |
Trail |
||
|
Western Point, trail to |
446 |
SHVIS |
1915 |
|
White Path |
329 |
BHVIA |
circa 1893 |
|
Wild Gardens Path |
354 |
BHVIA |
1914 |
|
Wild Gardens Path, west |
324 |
BHVIA |
1913 |
|
Wild Gardens Path, see also Sieur de Monts-Tarn Trail |
|||
|
Wildwood Farm Trail |
417 |
SHVIS |
circa 1896 |
|
Wildwood, connector |
416 |
SHVIS |
circa 1896 |
|
Wire Gate Path |
339 |
BHVIA |
circa 1894 |
|
Witch Hole Path |
313 |
BHVIA |
1906 |
|
Witch Hole Pond Loop |
344 |
BHVIA |
1910, 1924 |
|
Wood Lane over Asticou Hill, see Asticou Ridge Trail |
|||
|
Woodbury Park Path |
302 |
BHVIA |
circa 1896 |
|
Woods Road Path |
613 |
SWHVIA |
circa 1915 |
|
Yellow and Black Path, see Orange and Black Path |
|||
|
Yellow and White Path |
336 |
BHVIA |
1875, 1893 |
|
Yellow and White Path, lower half, see Bowl Trail |
|||
|
Yellow Path |
338 |
BHVIA |
circa 1893 |
|
Youngs Mountain Trail |
359 |
BHVIA |
circa 1941 |
354
Appendix G Trail Naming Justification
APPENDIX C: TRAIL NAMING JUSTIFICATION
As discussed in Chapter 9, Section G, many trail names have changed over the past century. However, trail names are used on signs, maps, in guidebooks and other documents. Having one designated name reduces hiker confusion and can reflect the history and geography of the island. As part of this treatment plan, the current names were care- fully examined and evaluated, particularly with regard to their historic origin. The following recommenda- tions for trail naming were developed by Acadia's Trail Names Committee (Chris Barter, Judy Hazen Connery, Charlie Jacobi, Gary Stellpflug, Lee Terzis) in February 2002. Sources used during the decision-making process include:
• A Path Guide ofMDI, Maine (1915, Village Improve- ment Societies of Bar Harbor, et al.)
• Walks on Mount Desert Island (1928, Harold Peabody and Charles Grandgent)
• Paths and Trails of Northeast Harbor and Vicinity (1914, Northeast Harbor VIS)
• Pathmakers: Cultural Landscape Report, Volume 1 (2006, Margaret Coffin Brown)
• Path maps for Mount Desert Island (1896 to present)
• Extant historic signs and photographs that depict historic signs
• Recommendations of David Goodrich (open letter to Friends of Acadia, June 1995, and open letter to Gary Stellpflug, February 24, 2003).
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
The Acadia Trail Names Committee established a series of considerations that would inform their decisions as listed below.
Reasons to restore a historic name:
1. To restore another aspect of a trail to its historic character
2. When the old name tells a story, indicating some- thing meaningful about the past
3. When the old name honors someone, especially if funded as a memorial
4. If the currently used name is confusing
5. When the current name is the result of recent caprice
6. If the historic name is associated with physical features, such as carved stone markers or plaques
Reasons not to change a trail name:
1. When the return to an old name would be confusing
2. When the old name was taken from a place name that has since changed or a feature no longer present
3. When a substantial portion of the route has been changed
When only a portion of the original trail is being used as part of another route When name restorations would produce many small trail pieces with different names
4-
5-
USE OF "PATH" OR "TRAIL"
The use of the term "path" to refer to walking routes as highly constructed and extensive as those in Acadia may be unique to this trail system. "Path" was used by the VIA/VIS groups, and was a common term in literature and on maps until the 1930s, when the CCC and NPS began calling all walking routes "trails." The VIA/VIS path maps produced in the early 1900s labeled all trails as paths. However, even in early references such as the 1915 and 1928 path guides, not all trails were called paths, and there was inconsistency even within the same guidebook.
During the VIA/VIS period, the prevailing term for a certain kind of route was "path," as evidenced by carved stone markers at trailheads and the very term "Path Committee" used by the groups. A path was typi- cally highly constructed and not too rugged, though not necessarily flat. For instance, the Seaside and Emery routes are "paths," while the Goat and Precipice routes
35S
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
are "trails." An insight into the use of the term can be found on page 35 of Peabody and Grandgent's 1928 Walks on Mount Desert Island, describing the route of the A. Murray Young Trail as it becomes flatter and more easily walkable: "After passing small waterfall, trail becomes a path."
In those cases where both terms are used, it seems that "path" was often the proper name of a route, and that "trail" was a general term. Hence, the Bubble and Jordan Ponds Path was usually referred to as such, but the guidebook indicates, "Take the trail to Jordan Pond." To further complicate the issue, some routes in the VIA/VIS period use neither term, but instead, "carry," "climb," or "pass." This wasn't always consistent, either; the Jordan Pond Carry is sometimes referred to as "The Carry Path" in historic references.
We recommend returning to the term "path," and "climb," "carry," and "pass" in those specific cases in which they are appropriate. The term "path" will be used for those trails established by the VIA/VIS build- ers before 1934, where more or less continuous crafts- manship is evident, which are not rugged climbs, and which were traditionally called paths.
NAME TYPES
Below are seven types of trail names currently found in Acadia. The section that follows provides recommen- dations for preserving this historic typology.
1. Location Names
These trails were named for their location, such as the Jordan Pond Path or the Cadillac North Ridge Trail.
2. Colored Names
These trails were given individual color names, such as the Red and White Path. The colored system was devel- oped at the turn of the century by Herbert Jaques and is located east of Dorr Mountain. Colored names were no longer used after 1959 (Goodrich).
3. Memorial Names
These trails were named in honor of deceased persons, and their construction and maintenance was usually funded with the understanding the trail name would remain consistent. These paths were built in the first two decades of the twentieth century and represent some of the most highly crafted trail work in the system.
We understand this may cause confusion, especially as all the other routes will be called trails. However, we cite some compelling reasons for the change. First and foremost, the term "path" is unique to Acadia, and refers to trails whose craftsmanship is also unique to Acadia. This term, simply by being unique, will imme- diately suggest that there is something different about these trails and may lead hikers to a better understand- ing of the importance of Acadia's trail system. Further, "path" is the term used by the VIA/VIS groups who created most of the system as we know it, and use of that term preserves a part of the history of these groups. Finally, the term is used on a number of historic stone and brass monuments that are still extant on the trails themselves.
4. Person Names
These trails were named after individuals or families that were landowners and were not generally endowed. Examples include the McFarland Path up Sargent, Curran Path along Eagle Lake, and Kaighn Path on Western Mountain.
5. Route Names
These trails were named for the nature of their route. A strenuous route was often so indicated, as with the Precipice Trail and Goat Trail.
6. Feature Names
These trails were named for a specific feature on or along that trail, such as the Hemlock Path, Potholes Path, Giant Slide Trail, Jordan Cliffs Trail, and Spring Trail.
356
Appendix G Trail Naming Justification
7. Destination Names
These trails were named for one or both destinations of the trail, such as the Seaside Path, which traveled from Jordan Pond to the long-gone Seaside Inn near the beach at Seal Harbor, or the Asticou and Jordan Pond Path, which connects the two mentioned locales.
NAMING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TRAIL GROUPS
RIDGE TRAILS AND MOUNTAIN FEATURE-NAMED TRAILS
Historically, ridge trails running north-south were gen- erally named for the mountains they ascended, while trails climbing east-west routes, or some other route (such as circling the summit, or taking a route below the ridge), were often not. This is probably because ridge trails were established first, being the easiest ascents.
Use Current Mountain Names: Island-wide, most of the mountain names have changed since the historic period, and mostly the trail names have changed with them. There is little argument for returning trail names to mountain names that are no longer used and do not appear on contemporary maps. Such a renaming would not only be confusing, it would actually go against the historic precedent of naming ridge trails for their mountains.
Eliminate Redundancy: Historically, use of the word "mountain" in trail names has been inconsistent. For instance, Dry Mountain Trail versus Pemetic Trail. In addition, names that refer to mountain features, such as ridge trails or "face" trails, can become a mouthful when the word mountain is used as well — for example, The Cadillac Mountain North Ridge Trail. In fact, the word "mountain" is redundant when a mountain fea- ture (such as ridge, face, or cliff) has already been speci- fied in the name. We also found that the preponderance of historical names of mountain-feature type did not use the word "mountain," while most names that did not specify a feature of a mountain did use the word
"mountain." Hence, we decided to streamline the pro- cess and use the word "mountain" in all trails named for a mountain in which a feature of that mountain is not part of the name, and to not use the word when a feature of the mountain is already in the name.
Dorr (#21), Cadillac (#34 and #26), Bear Brook (#10), and Pemetic (#31) North and South Ridge Trails
Recommended names: Dorr, Cadillac, Champlain, and Pemetic North and South Ridge Trails
According to the earliest trail maps, only the ridge route over Cadillac Mountain was divided into two trails, a North and South Ridge Trail. However, a number of trails were referred to in the hiking guides as "north ridge"or "south ridge" trails, and so did historical signs. The problem of whether to continue the current practice of dividing many ridge trails into a "north" and "south" ridge trail was discussed at length in com- mittee. The initial thought was to restore ridge trails to their historic integrity in this regard: for instance, restoring the Dorr Mountain North and South Ridge Trails to one trail, Dorr Mountain Trail, since the origi- nal trail was called the Dry Mountain Trail. However, the issue of hiker confusion was raised. With all the trails on a mountain such as Dorr, many hikers would confuse the Dorr Mountain Trail with the other trails converging at the summit. As with most of the ridge routes, the original name referred to the only route up the mountain when the trail was constructed. Thus such confusion is a contemporary problem requiring a contemporary solution. We decided that as a general rule, on mountains that had both a north and south ridge trail, we would name those trails for their respec- tive ridges; this includes Dorr, Cadillac, Champlain, and Pemetic.
Bear Brook Trail (#10)
Recommended names: Champlain North Ridge Trail and Champlain South Ridge Trail
In the case of the Bear Brook Trail, we recommend renaming it according to the ridge-name principle. Currently a destination name, Bear Brook refers to an obscure feature which the trail no longer actually reaches. This is an irrelevant destination for hikers
357
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
beginning at The Bowl, who are interested in ascend- ing Champlain Mountain. Further, the name doesn't appear on maps until the 1960s, meaning it is not associated with the historic periods of significance. We recommend following the model of other ridge trails, and naming the route for the mountain name. Because of its popularity and the number of summit trails, we recommend Bear Brook Trail be renamed Champlain North Ridge Trail and Champlain South Ridge Trail.
Kebo Mountain Path/Trail (#21) Recommended name: Kebo Mountain Trail
We have separated the historic Kebo Mountain Path from the Dorr North and South Ridge Trail. However, because of its unconstructed character, we recommend Kebo Mountain Trail instead of Kebo Mountain Path.
Penobscot Mountain Trail (#47) and Jordan South End Path (#409)
Recommended names: Penobscot Mountain Trail (#47 upper end and #409), Spring Trail (#47 lower end)
Currently the ridge trail on Penobscot Mountain is truncated, and has been melded with the Spring Trail, once a discrete, east-west route. The entire trail is called the Penobscot Mountain Trail. The ridge trail was originally called the Jordan South End Path, and with the anticipated reopening of the Jordan South End, we have the opportunity to restore the original ridge route under one name, and would thus also have the opportunity to return the Spring Trail to a discrete route with its original name. Further, the character and level of craftsmanship on the Spring Trail suggests its difference from the ridge trail, and a change of names would highlight this.
ridge route, which will form a T intersection with the Spring Trail and continue past the summit to the Deer Brook Trail.
COLORED PATHS
A number of the colored paths, in part or in total, are still open, but all have been renamed. The new names are all location or destination names. The use of color names for trails was discontinued by 1950.
Jaques's colored path system was the most compre- hensive system of naming trails ever employed in the park. In many ways, it represents the first realization of a coherent network of trails, and the first attempt at naming such a network logically. The trails were marked with metal tags painted the trail's color, and some tags, recent replacements by unknown persons, are extant on abandoned paths. In the case of the Orange and Black Path, the name is associated with the school colors of Princeton University where its builder, Rudolph Brunnow, was a professor, and thus arguably tells part of a story.
However, annual reports of the Bar Harbor VIA men- tion that the colored system was confusing to hikers even from its initial implementation. None of the trail names give any indication of their locations or destina- tions. Further, once the primary colors were used, trails that connected two trails were named for both ends (i.e., Red and White), but once the connectors began criss-crossing, the system became convoluted. Today, with only a portion of the colored path system still maintained, much of the design no longer makes sense.
For the trail that will follow the route of the historic Jordan South End Path, we considered the historic name Jordan South End. The Jordan South End was in fact a feature of Jordan Mountain noted on old maps. However, this feature is no longer noted on maps. We feel such a name would be confusing and against the general principle of ridge names assuming their mountain's names. Hence, we suggest the name Penob- scot Mountain Trail simply be applied to the entire
An interesting consideration is that, with the one exception of the Orange and Black, the names have no relation to their trails, or the history of those trails themselves, only to each other. That is, the only reason the Black Path was named thus is because it was an available color. Recommendations for the Bear Brook Trail, formerly part of the Black Path, were discussed above under "Ridge Trails and Mountain Feature- Named Trails."
358
Appendix C: Trail Naming Justification
We recommend not restoring the historic color names to currently maintained trails, for the reasons cited above, mainly the confusion that would result from taking away a name like Gorham Mountain Trail and renaming it Black Path. Further, the reason for the attachment of a name like "Black" to such a trail is not at all apparent, and could cause hikers to ask, "What's so black about this trail?" A significant interpretive program would have to be launched to explain these changes.
portrayal of the trail's history — would be to restore the name Orange and Black Path to this part of the origi- nal Orange and Black. The original route included the Precipice Trail from the East Face intersection down, as well as abandoned portions, but restoring the Precipice portion to the name Orange and Black Path would be far too confusing.
MEMORIAL PATHS
Red Path (#328) and Green and Black Path (#358) Recommended names: Red Path (#328) and Green and Black Path (#358)
However, the desire to keep alive some kind of refer- ence to this important part of the trails' history led us to consider restoring historic color names to abandoned trails that may be reopened, where the colored name could work and should be used. This would consist of the Red Path and the Green and Black Path. The confu- sion to the general public should be less in these cases, as there are no modern names for these trails. Further, with such a small sample, trail signs could clearly indi- cate destinations, and interpretive signs could explain the reason for these names, thus allowing us the oppor- tunity to interpret that part of the system's history.
Champlain East Face Trail (#12) Recommended name: Orange and Black Path (#12 and #348)
Worthy of special consideration is the Champlain East Face Trail. Originally part of the Orange and Black Path, this trail is Brunnow's signature trail, which left from his house, "The High Seas," and was named for his school colors. The trail is one of the most remark- able in the system, for its unique craftsmanship which is characteristic of Brunnow's work, its precipitous route, and its astounding views. Much of the trail was on Brunnow's estate. The name should reflect the trail's history. Champlain East Face Trail seems too utilitarian a name for such a trail and is not histori- cal. We discussed the possibility of renaming the trail the Brunnow Path, but decided the best homage that could be paid this trail builder— and the most accurate
With the recent reestablishment of the Homans Path, all the memorial trails are currently being maintained except for two — the Van Santvoord Trail and the Gurnee Path. Of those in use, the Emery Path, Schiff Path, and Kane Path were renamed with location names sometime between 1941 and 1970 (probably in 1959, Goodrich), presumably to forestall hiker confusion. The Emery and Schiff Path became the Dorr Mountain East Face Trail and the Kane Path became the Tarn Trail.
The historic memorial path names honor individu- als who were a part of the island's history. Taken as a group, these path names tell a story of how a portion of the trail system came about— a story which is particu- larly relevant to the philanthropic heritage of Acadia National Park. Funding for trail construction was given with the understanding that the trail names would con- tinue to honor these people. Many extant features, such as plaques and stone markers, are directly connected to the historic names. Additionally, hikers are already familiar with and even use the historic names, which have recently turned up on some trail maps.
However, current location names may be more easily understood by trail users, and a change to historic memorial names could be confusing. Further, the Emery and Schiff Paths are two sections of one con- tinuous route to the summit of Dorr, and it may be confusing to have a name change partway.
359
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
Dorr Mountain East Face Trail (#15),
Kurt Diederich's Climb (#16), Tarn Trail (#17)
Recommended names: Emery Path (#15), SchiffPath (#15), Kurt Diederich's Climb (#16), Kane Path (#17)
Despite the concerns described above, given the historic importance of the memorial paths, we rec- ommend restoring all maintained memorial paths to their historic names. Any confusion can be remedied with trail signage. Interpretive signs or literature could explain the reasons for these names, though many of the plaques are currently serving that function already. The restoration of both Emery and Schiff seems essen- tial to the integrity of the memorial path system, as each was built in a distinct time period and is characteristi- cally different in construction. The meeting of Emery and Schiff is at an intersection with Kurt Diederich's Climb. This intersection will mark three trails after the name change (Emery Path, Schiff Path, and Kurt Diederich's Climb) instead of the current two (Dorr Mountain East Face Trail and Kurt Diederich's Climb).
informing hikers as to where they're going. Returning to the historic names would hardly be confusing, as it merely adds the second destination to the currently used destination. It should be apparent to hikers that a trail named for two destinations traverses between them rather than goes around either one. Thus the committee recommends changing the Asticou Trail to the Asticou and Jordan Pond Path and changing the Pond Trail to the Bubble and Jordan Ponds Path.
The route of the Pond Trail, to be renamed the Bubble and Jordan Ponds Path, is a misnomer at this point, as the current route of the Pond Trail goes to The Featherbed as its eastern destination. Historically the route led to Bubble Pond, before part of the route was obscured by a carriage road, and the section leading north to Bubble Pond was subsequently abandoned. Sometime between 1942 and 1970 (probably 1959), the western half of Canon Brook Trail was simply melded with the eastern part of the Pond Trail, under the name of the latter.
JORDAN POND TRAILS
The most important group of paths in the Seal Harbor system radiates from the south end of Jordan Pond in much the same way Dorr's signature paths radiate from Sieur de Monts. With Dorr's paths, the trail names are people names, while in the Jordan Pond area of the Seal Harbor system, destination or location names are predominant.
Asticou Trail (#49) and Pond Trail (#20)
Recommended name: Asticou and Jordan Pond Path (#49) and Bubble and Jordan Ponds Path (#20)
Two trails, currently know as the Asticou Trail and the Pond Trail, were named for the destinations at either end of the trails. These trail names have since been shortened for only one destination. The original names were Asticou and Jordan Pond Path and Bubble and Jordan Ponds Path. The double-destination path names are like no others in the system, as are the paths them- selves— smooth gravel walks with signature construc- tion features. The original names serve the purpose of
Despite the possible confusion, we recommend return- ing to historical double-destination names. The portion of the Bubble and Jordan Ponds Path route still extant beside the carriage road that leads toward Bubble Pond will be restored, and a T intersection reestablished at the intersection with historic Canon Brook Trail, which will be restored to its name. The rehabilitated section of trail will lead towards Bubble Pond, coming to the road just south of it. Hikers will follow the carriage road over the historic route, and then be able to hike the north- ernmost segment of the Bubble and Jordan Ponds Path where it separates again from the carriage road at the north end of Bubble Pond.
Jordan Pond Carry Trail (#38) Recommended name: Jordan Pond Carry (#38)
Another trail in the Jordan Pond area is the Jordan Pond Carry, which has acquired the title of "trail," making the denotation of "carry trail" redundant. We recommend restoring the historic name of Jordan Pond Carry without "trail."
160
Appendix C: Trail Naming Justification
Jordan Pond Seaside Path (#401)
Recommended name: Seaside Path (#401)
Connecting between the village of Seal Harbor and Jordan Pond is the Seaside Path, which was originally named the Jordan Pond Path, for its northern destina- tion. However, maps from 1917 on show "Seaside" in parenthesis, demonstrating that the term Seaside had already become an alternate name for this trail, no doubt due to confusion from the numerous trails in the area bearing the name "Jordan Pond." The Seaside Inn in Seal Harbor was the trail's southern destination.
Renaming the Seaside Path as Jordan Pond Path would restore its historic name. However, Seaside Path was also used in the historical period and may better describe the destination of that particular trail, as many trails end up at Jordan Pond. We recommend continu- ing the use of the name Seaside Path.
Reasons not to restore double-destination names include the name's length and repetition of names. Seeing the name Jordan Pond on so many trail signs may confuse hikers. Returning the Seaside Path to the Jordan Pond Path would be directional suicide.
Jordan Pond Loop Trail (#39)
Recommended name: Jordan Pond Path (#39)
The Jordan Pond Loop Trail appears on some old maps simply as the East and West Paths. The word "loop" was an ill-conceived addition by the NPS trails crew in the 1990s to avoid confusion, and should be dropped. The 1928 path guide refers to "the path along the east side of Jordan Pond," and "along the west side," but also to a sign which says, "Jordan Pond Trail," meaning that even by that time the route was often referred to as a single route named for the pond. Further, annual reports refer to "Jordan Pond Trail" in 1937. We considered restor- ing the historic east/west division of the trails, which would indeed reflect the different craftsmanship of each trail, but decided the confusion would be tremendous. Most hikers in this front-country setting want to hike the loop, and already have some trouble finding their way around. A name switch would only further confuse matters. We recommend the name Jordan Pond Path,
which reflects the trail's level of craftsmanship with the use of "path."
As discussed above, the Spring Trail, a destination- named trail that radiates from the south end of Jordan Pond (there is a spring in the area marked on old maps), will be returned to its historic name.
WESTERN MOUNTAIN TRAILS
The trails on and leading to Western Mountain, now Bernard Mountain, Knights Nubble, and Mansell Mountain, are a group that warrants discussion as a cluster with its own unifying principles and problems. This group of trails is particularly confusing. It's a tight cluster, and many small sections of trail have their own separate historical names. Hence, what is now considered the Bernard South Face Trail was histori- cally made up of the South Face Trail, Kaighn Trail, and Moss Trail. What is now called the Sluiceway Trail was made up of two sections, one by that name and the other, from the Gilley Trail intersection up, called the Little Notch Trail. The route of the Gilley Trail ends partway up Western Mountain in the middle of the woods, and other trails ascend from there; the historic route included a short loop north of where the trail now ends, and ascended a knoll called Lookout Point, which must have once been open, probably during, and just after, the logging era. On the other end, the Gilley Trail ends at the Gilley field, and the Cold Brook Trail continues the last 0.4 mile to Great/Long Pond. The name Cold Brook Trail is of dubious origin, and may in fact have once referred instead to the fishway trail constructed up Cold Brook by the CCC. Some of the historic names that are still used refer to altered routes. Hence the Razorback Trail ends at Mansell Mountain Ridge, while it used to extend along it to Great Notch.
Names like Gilley and Kaighn honor individuals or families from the area, Gilley was an early landowner while the Kaighn family built a summer cottage on the mountain; Moss may refer to a name or to the vegeta- tion. It seems to be a characteristic of this trail group that short sections of a route are given different names.
361
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
However, the area is confusing as it is, and restoring all the historic names would simply add to hiker confu- sion.
We recommend that any trail name referring to a moun- tain name which has changed will be changed appropri- ately, according to the general recommendation above. Routes should be restored so that they make sense. Thus, Mansell Mountain Trail should go all the way to the summit. The Razorback will resume its original destination, Great Notch. The short connection east of the top of the Razorback Trail will be considered part of the Razorback Trail for record-keeping.
Bernard Mountain South Face Trail (#111)
Recommended name: Bernard Mountain Trail
To cut down on confusion, we recommend not break- ing the Bernard South Face Trail into its components. Further, since this route now extends to Great Notch, we recommend renaming it Bernard Mountain Trail to lessen confusion. We recommend keeping the Sluice- way route as is, including the Little Notch Trail. We recommend extending the route covered by the name Great Notch Trail north to the intersection with the Long Pond Trail, as it was historically, and extending it farther northwest along what is now the Western Mountain Trail, a roadbed for which we could find no historic name. While the Gilley Trail will still end some- what illogically, by keeping its current western destina- tion we preserve at least one example of the tendency to switch trail names partway to any destination point. Further, it's an intersection of a number of extant trails and won't seem as odd. Cold Brook Trail will retain its name.
SPECIFIC TRAIL NAME/ROUTE RECOMMENDATIONS NOT ADDRESSED ABOVE
Sand Beach-Great Head Access Trail (#9) Recommended name: Satterlee Trail
This clumsy name was a 1990s stop-gap. The actual route of this trail, from the Great Head Parking area (not Great Head itself) to the Park Loop Road, turning
south and paralleling the road to the Sand Beach park- ing area (not Sand Beach), is the route of the original Ocean Drive Road, and the trail is the roadbed itself. We considered recommending the name Old Ocean Drive Trail to recognize the trail's heritage, but decided that this would be too confusing, as many people would think the name referred to Ocean Path, which goes along the current Ocean Drive. At the excellent sugges- tion of David Goodrich, we recommend the name Sat- terlee Trail, as the Satterlees donated some of the land of this trail corridor and the Great Head area.
Sieur de Monts-Tarn Trail (#18)
Recommended name: Wild Gardens Path (#18)
The name Sieur de Monts-Tarn Trail was chosen in the 1990s when this trail was reopened to identify the trail's destinations. However, this route was called the Wild Gardens Path by George Dorr in the 1910s and the VIA/VISs in the 1915 path guide, then the Tarn Trail by the CCC in 1930s reports when extensive work was done on the trail, and we recommend returning the trail to its historic VIA/VIS period name, in keeping with other path names ascribed by Dorr that radiate from Sieur de Monts Spring. As mentioned previously in the discussion of memorial path names, the Kane Path along the western shore of The Tarn was renamed the Tarn Trail by the Park Service in about 1959. We recom- mend changing the route back to its historic name, the Kane Path.
Canon Brook Trail (#19)
(No change recommended)
The oldest references to the trail (Rand, et al. maps) and brook spell them both Canon with an accent over the "o." Later maps show a tilde over the "n." Some maps put the "y" in, spelling it Canyon, as does the 1928 guidebook. Today, it's spelled Canon with no accent or tilde. The tilde may have been some kind of gentle- man's joke on the part of Rand, since there is no Span- ish heritage at Acadia; more likely, it was an adoption of a southwestern spelling. However, as Hank Raup has pointed out in a letter to the park, the U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN) policy is to avoid accent marks So the choice is between "Canon" (no tilde)
362
Appendix Q Trail Naming Justification
and the Americanized spelling "Canyon." The inten- tion was almost undoubtedly "Canyon" — the other word "canon" referring to church decree or a musical form. However, the brook for which the trail is named has also become "Canon" in USGS records, so restor- ing the original name to the trail would mean having a Canyon Brook Trail that goes up Canon Brook, and would be confusing and against our principle of chang- ing trail names as the feature for which they are named changes. We recommend retaining the current name, Canon Brook Trail, with no tilde. If the USGS can be persuaded to change the name of the brook to "Canyon Brook," we would gladly follow suit.
The historic route of the Canon Brook Trail continued west past The Featherbed, on what is now called the eastern end of the Pond Trail, and formed a T intersec- tion with the Bubble and Jordan Ponds Path where the two are now simply melded together. Once the aban- doned section of the Bubble and Jordan Ponds Path to Bubble Pond is reestablished, the historic route of the Canon Brook Trail will be restored, and the intersection will be as it was historically.
Pemetic West Cliff Trail (#30), Pemetic Mountain Trail (#31)
Recommended names: Pemetic North Ridge Trail (#31), Pemetic South Ridge Trail (#30), Pemetic East Cliff Trail (#31), Triad Trail (#31/part of #450)
The historic route of the Pemetic Trail is the route of the current Pemetic Mountain Trail from Bubble Pond, over the summit of Pemetic, to the intersection of the two trails that descend the southern end of Pemetic Mountain. While the historic Pemetic Trail went south here along the ridge, following what is now called the Pemetic Southwest Trail (a misnomer) to the Pond Trail, the current Pemetic Mountain Trail takes the more recent route to the southeast (a leg historically named East Cliff Trail), continues past the Pond Trail, passes over The Triad following a portion of the Van Santvoord Trail, then descends to the carriage road at the Wildwood Stables Bridge. The 1928 path guide and correspondence from David Goodrich refer to the southern ridge trail as being at one time called the Old
Trail. We recommend restoring the integrity of the origi- nal Pemetic Trail route, but under the names "Pemetic North Ridge" and "Pemetic South Ridge," in keeping with the ridge naming principle. While we considered naming this leg the Old Trail, we decided that there was not enough documentation of its use, found that this term was applied to other trails in the 1928 path guide, and felt that the name could be misleading. The name East Cliff Trail would be restored as Pemetic East Cliff Trail to the leg from the intersection with the Pemetic South Ridge Trail to the Bubble and Jordan Ponds Path. The trail from there south over The Triad and to the carriage road will be called the Triad Trail, as it is often referred to today.
Cadillac West Face Trail (#32)
(No change recommended)
The old maps show a route similar to the present-day route called Steep Trail. However, this is not the pres- ent route of the Cadillac West Face Trail, and therefore should be left intact — old route, old name, old cairns (still extant) together. Cadillac West Face Trail is descriptive, and we see no reason to change it.
Bubbles-Pemetic Trail (#36)
Recommended name: Pemetic Northwest Trail (#36)
Bubbles-Pemetic is a recent change (possibly 1950s), is clumsy, and doesn't describe the two endpoints accu- rately. The trail ends at the Park Loop Road, a long way from either Bubble. We recommend changing it to the historic name, Pemetic Northwest Trail, which better describes the actual location of the trail.
North Bubble Trail (#41)
and South Bubble Trail (#43)
Recommended names: Bubbles Trail (#41 and part of #43)
and Bubbles Divide Trail (part of #43)
As it is, the area is confusing, and the South Bubble Trail in particular is made up of a number of sections that are not linear. Two of them are more or less parallel to each other and will be very confusing when we implement the policy of signing ends of trails with their names. A reversion to the historic division of two trails — one
363
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
trail over The Bubbles and another crossing the first trail through the notch — makes much more sense, and should be less confusing to hikers. The historic names were the Bubble Mountain Trail and Bubble Divide Trail. However, since this area is now officially called The Bubbles, we feel references to a single Bubble in Bubble Mountain and Bubble Divide would be very confusing. Therefore, we recommend the Bubbles Trail for the route that traverses the summits, and Bubbles Divide for the route that travels through the gap between North and South Bubble. Raup points out that the term "divide" refers to a division of two watersheds, but the maps of the historic period consistently refer to this area as the Bubble Divide and we feel the name to be justified on that basis. Any confusion between North and South Bubble can be easily solved with signage. Signs at either end of the Bubbles Trail will list the two Bubbles in order, with distances, while the sign at the intersection with the Bubbles Divide will have an arrow pointing to each, with phrases such as "Bubbles Trail to North Bubble" and "Bubbles Trail to South Bubble." The use of "trail" rather than "path" reflects the lack of highly crafted construction on these trails.
Jordan Cliffs Trail (#48)
Recommended names: Jordan Cliff's Trail (southern end of #48) and Sargent East Cliffs Trail (northern end of #48)
First, the current name Jordan Cliffs Trail now refers to an amalgamation of at least three different historic trails. South of Deer Brook, the trail that travels along the cliffs and intersects with the Spring Trail follows a route of which the southern part was the Jordan Bluffs Path, built pre-1900. The northern part was the Jordan Cliffs Trail, which was built around 1932 to traverse the Jordan Cliffs (a specific feature) and intersect with the Bluffs Path. There it turned westward to the summit on a route now abandoned, reaching a destination actually called Jordan Bluffs. As Goodrich points out:, "In its present state, the major feature of this trail is clearly the Jordan Cliffs." It is also where the majority of the highly crafted work is located. Hence, after much consider- ation given to the name Jordan Bluffs Trail, used on some maps for this hybrid route (1952, for instance), we
propose leaving the route under the name Jordan Cliffs Trail.
The name of the leg that is north of the Deer Brook Trail and travels north and west to the summit of Sargent Mountain was historically called the East Cliffs Trail. We recommend reestablishing this name as the Sargent East Cliffs Trail, since the current name (Jordan Cliffs Trail) is a misnomer for this section and the rec- ommended name more historically correct. Also, since the trail was constructed at different times than the southern route, and in a different style, it should have its own name.
Hadlock Brook Trail (#57) (No change recommended)
The 1903 path map refers to the current route as the Hadlock Brook Trail, but maps in the 1910s and the 1915 and 1928 path guides refer to this same route as the Waterfall Trail. The argument to be made for restoring this second name is powerful. It originated at the time of the trail work on this trail, which includes a little- known substantial stone staircase along the waterfall, which is now abandoned but scheduled for rehabilita- tion. However, during discussion with the committee and conference with other resource specialists, the worry was raised that the name Waterfall Trail might attract a large number of people to an area that is cur- rently in a low-use part of the park. Also, some consid- ered the name misleading, as the waterfall (for which the carriage road bridge is also named) is only present after heavy rain. Because the name Hadlock Brook Trail is also justified historically, the final decision of the committee was to continue using this name.
Norumbega Mountain Trail (#60)
Recommended names: Norumbega Mountain Trail (southwestern end of #60) and Goat Trail (northeastern end of #60)
Locals already call the steep northern part of the Norumbega Mountain Trail by its historic name, the Goat Trail, and Northeast Harbor Signs refer to it as such. We recommend that the park make this change to preserve this historic term for a steep mountain trail.
364
Appendix C: Trail Naming Justification
Flying Mountain Trail (#105)
Recommended names: Flying Mountain Trail (southern end #105) and Valley Cove Trail (northern end #105)
Currently, the route of the Flying Mountain Trail begins at the southern entrance of the Valley Cove Road, ascends Flying Mountain, descends to the northwest, then continues nearly 2 miles further along the side of Valley Cove itself on a section of trail constructed in the 1930s by the CCC. We recommend separating this route into two trails, as it was initially. Flying Mountain Trail will refer to the portion traversing Flying Mountain. Valley Cove Trail will refer to the portion beginning at the head of Valley Cove at the intersection with the spur trail to the round turn and continuing on the CCC trail to the intersection with the Acadia Mountain Trail and the Saint Sauveur Trail where they intersect in the valley between the mountains. It makes sense to divide the Flying Mountain Trail into two parts and resume using the original CCC name for the trail they constructed along Valley Cove. Further, the CCC Valley Cove Trail is highly significant historically and structurally, exhib- iting a unique kind of trail construction. Separating it by name will be truer to its physical attributes. Most people still refer to this trail as the Valley Cove Trail, and the name's attachment to the Flying Mountain Trail is purely arbitrary.
Western Mountain Trail (#120)
Recommended name: Great Notch Trail (lower portion of #120)
There is no historic trail name for this old roadbed, and it should lessen confusion to name it for the route it fuses with and its destination.
365
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
APPENDIX D: SOUND MASONRY PRACTICES / STONE CUTTING
SOUND MASONRY PRACTICES
• The foundation of a wall, bridge abutment, or other stone structure is anchored on solid material, beneath any organic material. It is set on ledge, solid stone, or stable mineral soil. Wherever possible, it is set beneath the level of the surrounding ground so that the ground holds it in place.
• All rocks of a wall are laid so that they distribute their weight down through the foundation and toward solid material.
• Joints between rocks are broken by any rocks laid over them (principle of "one over two") so that the structure is one continuous weave of rocks.
• All building rocks in the wall or other stone struc- ture have contact with all abutting building rocks.
• Rocks are laid with their length into the structure ("header-style") so that they provide maximum strength for their size.
• Shims and small rocks are not used in the exterior of the structure.
• The interior of the structure is a core of laid rocks, not dirt or thrown material; the core uses plenty of clean rock that allows drainage through the structure.
• All gaps are filled with rocks that are locked in place.
• Interior rocks cannot escape through exterior rocks.
• Top stones are particularly large and well-set to prevent toppling or deterioration, and are sub- merged under surface material when possible.
• Courses that retain surface material have high contact.
STONE CUTTING
Lessons from Coastal Maine Granite Quarries
by Lester C. Kenway
The Maine coast was home to a flourishing granite industry throughout the 1800s and well into the first half of the twentieth century. High-quality gray gran- ite, formed from igneous intrusions of the Acadian Orogony during the late Devonian Period, was found in numerous locations along the coast. Quarries were opened in Rockland, Hurricane Island, Stonington, Black Island, Mt. Desert, Sullivan, and other coastal villages where quarried blocks of stone could be loaded onto schooners and shipped to the growing cities of Boston, New York, and Philadelphia to be used in the construction of public buildings, sidewalks, and streets.
These quarries cut slabs of granite, up to 20 feet thick, which were then cut into building stone, steps, facade, monuments, curbing, and paving stones. The methods were clever, and exploited the character of the material. Initially, all work was done by hand, later supplemented by pneumatic tools.
The demand for granite products was all but eliminated by the move to reinforced concrete architecture after World War II. Almost all of the Maine quarries are now closed, with a handful of craftsmen keeping the knowl- edge of these techniques alive.
Acadia National Park is one location where these skills are still in use. Acadia is engaged in a long-term program dedicated to preserve historic stonework throughout its trail system. This project seeks to duplicate high-stan- dard stone trail work completed by stone masons and CCC crews during the first half of the twentieth century. The Acadia trails crew, in partnership with Gibran Buell, of Sullivan Quarries, has incorporated these tradi- tional techniques into its current methods. The objec- tive of stone cutting is to produce clean, straight splits in the stone in order to provide useful pieces to build with. A summary of these methods follows.
366
Appendix D: Sound Masonry Practices/Stone Cutting
1. Read the grain.
This refers to discovering the three primary directions of likely breakage in a piece of granite by assessing evidence shown in the shape and surface character of the stone. These directions were sometimes referred to as "The Lift" (a plane parallel to the surface of the earth), "The Drift" (a plane perpendicular to the Lift), and "The Hard Way" (a plane at right angles to both the Lift and the Drift). Discovering these directions when stone is still in place in the earth is quite straightforward. Reading grain becomes more challenging when boul- ders are tumbled down slopes or relocated by glaciers. Evidence of the three directions can be discerned as follows:
1. Flakes on the surface of a rock often run parallel to a splitting plane.
2. Small ledges may indicate one of the planes.
3. Long cracks may indicate one of the planes.
4. The largest flat surface on the boulder is likely to be either parallel or perpendicular to one of the planes. If a boulder is very rounded, evidence will be hard to find. Look especially for two or more indicators to confirm the same splitting direction. These indicators do not have to point to the same exact spot, since numer- ous potential breaking planes exist in each of the three directions.
The safest strategy is to cut each stone into halves. These halves can then be cut in half again, until stones of usable size are produced.
3. Score the line.
Once the direction of split has been chosen, it is marked on the stone with crayon or chalk. Scoring means repeatedly striking along the line with a bevel- edged tool. The scoring serves to send shocks through the crystalline stone, which weakens the stone along the chosen plane. The scoring greatly increases the likelihood of a successful split and reduces the amount of force that needs to be applied with wedges to part the stone. Small stones can be cut without using wedges at all. A tool called a "rifting hammer" can be used to score big stones. One person holds the rifter in place, while a second one strikes it with a second hammer. The two workers score a line back and forth many times until a distinct groove is worn in the stone. Rift- ers are difficult to strike on a vertical surface, so a tool called a "tracer" can be used by one person to score a line. The tracer is like a wide chisel, and can be held with one hand and struck with a hammer. Tracers can also be used by themselves to cut smaller stones.
2. Plan the split — The 50 percent rule.
Since granite is a crystalline material, it tends to sepa- rate along the path of least resistance. If you should try to take a thin slice from one end, the crack will tend to run out to the parallel face, as opposed to running through to the far side of the rock. This will produce a
large unattract- ive "spalled" surface on the rock and a worthless curved flake.
4. Drill holes for wedges.
These holes can be drilled by hand with star drills (if you work in a wilderness area) or with various gas-, electric-, or air-powered drills that are available. The holes need to be spaced evenly along the score line and drilled in the same plane as has been defined by the scoring. Experience with the size and type of stone will determine optimum spacing for wedges. Typical spac- ing for smaller sets (3/4 to 1 inch) would be four to six inches apart, while spacing for larger sets (1-1/4 to 1-3/8 inch) would be 8 to 12 inches apart. The more sets of
367
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
wedges used in a split, the more pushing power avail- able to separate the stone.
a. Holes should be drilled as deep as the straight part of the shim or feather. Shallow holes will result in the feathers being bent by the wedge (or plug).
b. If holes are drilled deeper than the shim, the wedge can drive the shims down into the hole and straighten out the top of the shim.
c. Feathers can be used to spoon stone dust out of holes and to check the depth of the hole. Do not use a wedge to check hole depth, since it will be difficult to get it out of a hole if you drop it in.
5. Place feathers and wedges and split stone.
a. All wedge sets are placed in the holes oriented so they all push in the same plane in order to push the halves of stone apart.
b. All wedges are driven with a hammer until they are "loaded." This is indicated by each wedge emitting a tone or ringing sound. When all wedges are loaded, the stone is allowed to react to the pressure for 1 to 3 minutes.
c. Wedges are driven equally, a little bit at a time. The sound of the tone of each wedge, when it is struck, can indicate the relative tightness of each wedge. If the wedges seem to be going hard, more scoring can be done between the wedges.
d. Eventually, a crack will begin to show along the scored line. At this point, drive only one wedge so other wedges can be retrieved. You can then drive a lone wedge into the crack and retrieve the remaining wedge set. The two halves of stone can be separated with pry bars.
Deb Hofford, SCA-BSP crew of '97 pounds 6 inch wedges to begin splitting a 10-ton slab of granite.
368
Appendix E: Sample Trail Inventory
APPENDIX E: SAMPLE TRAIL INVENTORY
Homans Path (#349), Inventoried May 2001
|
I Trail Section Distance |
Length |
Feature |
Description |
|
|
349 |
1 0 |
RF |
Trail log from May 2001. Log goes from road west to top of work, then south to intersect with the Emery Path. |
|
|
0 |
RF |
Trail runs 320 degrees from magnetic north. |
||
|
1 |
CU |
Capstone culvert. Cut stone measures 38x52x6". Crosses drainage in road, begins trail. |
||
|
4 |
10 |
cw |
2 coping stones RHS (right-hand side) |
|
|
4 |
10 |
ST |
Uniform 36" width: slab laid; 24" rise; 2nd step is broken; all cut; one step is completely hidden; one step is a patio set-behind step |
|
|
17 |
CW |
RHS, 26" long |
||
|
24 |
CW |
RHS, 30" long |
||
|
29 |
39 |
CW |
4 on RHS, jumbled |
|
|
38 |
53 |
SP |
stone patio |
|
|
38 |
100 |
CW |
RHS on top of wall, largest up to 44" long, 16-18" high; is continuous abut- ting copers; nice straight line along treadway; natural stone |
|
|
38 |
100 |
RW |
Rubble wall RHS up to 42" high, batter 4 to 3. |
|
|
54 |
63 |
ST |
32" rise, most rise 6", avg run 15"; up to 40" wide, narrow as 28"; some cut marks, slab laid |
|
|
60 |
CU |
small opening LHS, runs under 4th step; coper fallen into hole; gravelled- over culvert; rock channel flowing into it on LHS; under steps |
||
|
62 |
100 |
CW |
sporadic, intermittent coping stones, LHS |
|
|
73 |
79 |
ST |
mostly cut, 34" rise, run 60"; avg 7" rise; 30" wide, one at 28" |
|
|
84 |
CU |
obscure, but must be; plugged; similar to one at 60, w/channel LHS; grav- elled-over; under tread, not steps |
||
|
92 |
96 |
ST |
16" rise, 4' run; no cut marks showing |
|
|
95 |
CU |
obsure, plugged; similar to last two; channeled LHS at 20 degree angle; grav- elled-over. |
||
|
100 |
RF |
tread width in here is 28-40"; this is a standard width for this trail. |
||
|
100 |
300 |
CW |
Estimated coping wall; need better figures; intermittent LHS and RHS, with remarkable portions to follow. |
|
|
109 |
113 |
ST |
28-31" wide; 20" rise/ 28" run; no visible cut marks |
|
|
110 |
118 |
CW |
2 large copers, 4' and 4'6" long, 2' wide, 16" high, on rubble laid wall |
|
|
110 |
118 |
RW |
under nice copers: "nice lookin' wall" |
|
|
128 |
CU |
obvious gravelled-over w/ exposed lintels; 17" wide opening; 25" wide across trail (stone missing?): 13" deep evenly across; RHS lintel 10x12x36" |
||
|
128 |
135 |
RW |
up to 4' high; rubble |
|
|
139 |
143 |
ST |
28" rise/42" run: 28-30" across |
|
|
142 |
RF |
coper on RHS fallen off; strong evidence on this staircase that some cut marks were removed with tool — why? |
||
|
155 |
170 |
ST |
5'6" rise/ 15' run; longest 39", shortest 28"; steps 4 and 5 are double wide w/ adjoining stairs at "Y", 68" wide here |
160
RF
huge boulder LHS
369
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
|
1 Trail Section Distance |
Length |
Feature |
Description |
|
|
349 |
1 160 |
RF |
Spur after 11 steps becomes obscure; seems to curve w/ earthen mound to north, some evidence of old bridge abutment at first drainage crossing. |
|
|
160 |
ST |
steps on spur at "Y": 1 and 4 are cracked: 5 is cut from boulder in treadway: 610" rise/ 17' run: 24-36"wide; 4 coping RHS |
||
|
171 |
TW |
rock-filled treadway: baseball to football size: probably smoothed with soil once: held by coping wall |
||
|
177 |
ST |
made from boulder riddled w/ cut marks |
||
|
179 |
ST |
32" wide: 2" rise |
||
|
179 |
183 |
RW |
16" high rubble wall, leads to large coper to follow |
|
|
184 |
189 |
cw |
LHS, large cut boulder; trail down to 25" wide gap |
|
|
189 |
195 |
ST |
top is boulder cut in place; 12-22" runs, rise 28" total |
|
|
196 |
205 |
CW |
large, nicely set coper |
|
|
202 |
209 |
ST |
3-10" rise: 34" rise/ 7' run: 20-36" wide: evidence of missing coper |
|
|
209 |
214 |
SP |
patio-style flat-laid stones |
|
|
211 |
RF |
cut nub LHS |
||
|
215 |
ST |
first step is 2 rocks, w/ a 33" run: total rise is 21"/ run is 47"; widest 34" |
||
|
224 |
RF |
wall/coper shifted outward on RHS |
||
|
226 |
228 |
ST |
8" and 4" rises: 32" wide: 8" maple on RHS |
|
|
230 |
232 |
SP |
2 flat-laid rocks |
|
|
230 |
254 |
RF |
24' of blowout: area where tree RHS blew over; treadway may have been soil, no wall: ledge now slopes off steeply to RHS: pin or build up wall? |
|
|
232 |
238 |
ST |
27" rise/ 6' run: 35" wide: cut marks: cobbled foundation visible (missing copers?) |
|
|
254 |
RF |
large boulder RHS: why is it here, pinching the tread width? fallen or slipped into trail |
||
|
254 |
ST |
at end of blowout; natural step? |
||
|
260 |
277 |
CW |
large blocks in coping wall, RHS, appear as if they have shifted, perhaps when tree went over and trail blew out |
|
|
270 |
300 |
CW |
some massive copers in here |
|
|
277 |
283 |
ST |
23" rise/ 6' run: all 2' wide; top step was probably slab that slid back and off; cut marks all |
|
|
283 |
296 |
SP |
rough rock paving |
|
|
296 |
ST |
uncut stone |
||
|
300 |
334 |
CW |
small, each side of steps |
|
|
300 |
334 |
RF |
switchback: trail shifts to 220 degrees from mag. north, an 80 degree bend in trail |
|
|
300 |
334 |
ST |
on curving switchback: tallest rise 11", total rise 8'6'7 total run 34'; 36" widest, 23" narrowest; small coping each side; at least one is set-behind |
|
|
337 |
390 |
RF |
throughout, some cut marks on steps and copers: shims and blocking occa- sionally visible, most steps ok, evidence of heavy water flow throughout |
|
|
337 |
390 |
ST |
beautiful curved steps are 21'3" rise/ 53' run; 1 block is 72" wide; many cut(?), rises and runs vary up to 10" rise; some set-behinds; #2 on shims |
|
|
337 |
395 |
CW |
large copers LHS for steps |
|
|
340 |
380 |
RF |
switchback to ? degrees mag. north: switchback #2 |
|
|
354 |
RF |
small shifting and blowout LHS |
370
Appendix E: Sample Trail Inventory
|
1 Trail Section Distance |
Length |
Feature |
Description |
|
|
349 |
1 363 |
RF |
nice large copers LHS |
|
|
370 |
385 |
GN |
a drainage that isn't a culvert: a hold for water to flow into boulders below steps; ample places for water to flow |
|
|
372 |
RF |
10' high cliff, LHS, "control point" |
||
|
400 |
RF |
Trail to 320 degrees from mag. north |
||
|
400 |
415 |
CW |
large boulders RHS, somewhat haphazard, leftovers? |
|
|
400 |
415 |
RF |
note all the drill marks, LHS, where rocks were cut away for effect |
|
|
400 |
450 |
RF |
trail goes through a defile: width is 30" to base of next steps |
|
|
418 |
RF |
rocks have slid into trail from LHS, covering steps, perhaps at 2' grade change under boulders |
||
|
440 |
450 |
GN |
the "overhang"; stack on RHS 7'6" high, 3 large blocks avg 10' long; dog holes top block suggest was set there (on N and E sides); all 3 set? |
|
|
440 |
450 |
RF |
Overhang, cont., overhang itself is 35" wide in the direction of trail, hangs 5'6" over trail from LHS; opening height is 63", tread width: 35" |
|
|
450 |
RF |
begin change in direction to 280 degrees mag. north |
||
|
450 |
479 |
CW |
piled coping wall, along steps, up to 24" high, cut marks |
|
|
450 |
479 |
ST |
12' rise/ 29'run: widest is 46", narrowest 24", much moss, water runs right over them, slab laid, steps in good shape in spite of water |
|
|
479 |
RF |
310 degrees mag. north |
||
|
492 |
SP |
1 flat-laid rock |
||
|
492 |
496 |
RF |
boulder RHS is 3'6" high |
|
|
496 |
503 |
ST |
35" rise/ 7' run: 35" widest, 24" smallest; #4 is slipped out; no coping wall, some cut marks |
|
|
510 |
RF |
change direction to 260 degrees mag. north; switchback #3 |
||
|
510 |
ST |
|||
|
512 |
541 |
CW |
w/ steps, low, collapsed from 523-527 |
|
|
512 |
541 |
ST |
total rise 12'3": 6-10" rises: 43" widest, 24" narrowest; some set-behind: w/ coping to follow |
|
|
528 |
RW |
piled retaining wall LHS, almost like scree |
||
|
541 |
RF |
direction change to 330 degrees mag. north |
||
|
541 |
548 |
SP |
flat laid stone(s) |
|
|
548 |
552 |
RW |
up to 40" high, RHS, vertical laid wall (?) |
|
|
548 |
556 |
ST |
36" rise: 45" widest, some cut marks |
|
|
557 |
565 |
RF |
large beautiful block 32" above tread on RHS |
|
|
563 |
579 |
RW |
a beautiful fitted wall up to 4' high, worked around massive angled boulder |
|
|
566 |
573 |
SP |
Flat laid stones pieced in, large in middle, small on sides; up to 6' wide, one rock is 40x56", slightly up-ramped |
|
|
567 |
579 |
RF |
Hole along trail LHS is filled w/rubble |
|
|
573 |
ST |
8" rise, big cut block is 40x50" |
||
|
573 |
579 |
SP |
second stone is a boulder with a flat place cut in it; it ramps up into its own coper on the RHS |
|
|
579 |
582 |
ST |
10 and 7" rise. cut. set-behind, 51" widest; drop off on LHS is 18", no wall, shims visible |
583 588 SP rip-rapped pattern, drill marks on the "topped out" boulder; tread is 54"
wide
371
|
Acadia Trails treatment plan |
||||
|
1 Trail Section Distance |
Length |
Feature |
Description |
|
|
349 |
1 584 |
590 |
CW |
RHS actually sticks above trail |
|
588 |
592 |
ST |
7 and 8" rises, big blocks up to 37" wide, set behind |
|
|
588 |
598 |
RW |
RHS, fitted, natural looking, how high? |
|
|
590 |
RF |
30" drop off LHS |
||
|
592 |
602 |
SP |
592-596 is two large blocks, 596 to end is pieced-in rock |
|
|
600 |
RF |
a "pinch" passageway |
||
|
602 |
610 |
RW |
Height? Fitted wall on both sides |
|
|
602 |
610 |
ST |
31" rise; slab-laid |
|
|
610 |
616 |
RF |
one huge flat block set along trail, probably, note rubble fitted wall underneath; block is 6' wide, 7' long |
|
|
616 |
RF |
spectacular construction on curve: switchback; to ? degrees; steps, wall, boulders to follow |
||
|
616 |
642 |
RW |
up to 6' high laid and rubble wall; vertical at first, then 1 to 1 battered rubble wall; fitted wall; RHS |
|
|
616 |
642 |
ST |
9'8" rise; largest is 52" wide; probably missing coping RHS; big blocks under steps similar to Brunnow; 1 and 3 have dogmarks |
|
|
640 |
RF |
more than a 90 degree switchback, a 40 degree angle; trail heads 175 degrees mag. north; almost due south; switchback #3 |
||
|
643 |
649 |
SP |
6x3' rip-rapped patio; note small seat-like rocks, and large 54" high flat boulder, RHS, all framing switchback |
|
|
647 |
672 |
ST |
switchback #4 at 660; total rise 10 feet/ run 25 feet; #4 has small patio behind; #8 cut from boulder in tread; up to 58" w; up to 12" rise |
|
|
649 |
657 |
RW |
Up to 4' high, and up to 2' above trail. RHS; rubble retaining wall; 2 blocks stacked inside switchback |
|
|
650 |
RF |
note rock on RHS w/ drill marks, underneath the big slab. Obviously the large pointed slab was set |
||
|
657 |
672 |
CW |
LHS around WB up to 2' high. Nice |
|
|
660 |
RF |
large overlook LHS; a flat bench rock 54x37" |
||
|
660 |
RF |
switchback to 325 degrees mag. north; 30 degree angle change; switch back #5 |
||
|
660 |
RW |
How high? Wall around SB on LHS |
||
|
664 |
720 |
RW |
Big rubble laid boulders from 4 to 10' high; wall is 4' high at sb; 1.5 to 1 batter. Very nice. Visible from trail below. |
|
|
672 |
689 |
SP |
some have small rise, step up; ramped up; avg 30" wide |
|
|
675 |
RF |
coper missing RHS? |
||
|
689 |
ST |
12" rise; cut stone; rock behind it is in cut in place |
||
|
695 |
703 |
ST |
8' long block, 6' across; this large block gains at least 1' elevation; ramped up |
|
|
700 |
RF |
note single drill hole on top of ramped-up block; why? Dog mark? Or where the derrick was pinned (good spot for it)? |
||
|
703 |
ST |
10" rise; maybe a dog hole ctr, RHS |
||
|
704 |
714 |
SP |
2 stones |
|
|
714 |
835 |
ST |
Wow. Long switchbacked section. 46'6" rise/ 121' run; encompasses 2 switchbacks; mix of slab and set-behind; details to follow |
728 753 RW LHS, rubble laid wall; height?; 749 to 753, missing piece w/ large rock below
it; wall comes under steps w/o coping, like Brunnow
172
Appendix E: Sample Trail Inventory
|
1 Trail Section Distance |
Length |
Feature |
Description |
|
|
349 |
1 730 |
RF |
switchback #6, trail goes to 185 degrees mag. north |
|
|
730 |
768 |
RW |
Low, rubble wall, intermittent to RHS; exact dimensions?; large rock at 756 |
|
|
746 |
779 |
ST |
all of these set-behind; probably the largest run of this type of lay |
|
|
750 |
765 |
ST |
7 steps in this area are extremely similar: big cut blocks, many drill holes, gapped set-behind (slipped?): large rectangles (dimensions?) |
|
|
753 |
764 |
RW |
up to 6' high, LHS, ties into previous; laid wall w/ blocks, cut stone; batter is vertical — 4 to 1? |
|
|
753 |
766 |
ST |
8 steps in a row w/ real shallow rises, almost stone paving |
|
|
764 |
775 |
RW |
Big blocks, LHS, lower batter, 3/2 |
|
|
768 |
RF |
RHS large 4x4x2.5' block w/ doghole. |
||
|
774 |
796 |
RW |
RHS, nice wall, some large boulders, some coping, lower end. Up to 10 feet high, laid wall: 3.5/ 1 batter: cut rocks throughout: last 10' is tiered. |
|
|
775 |
RF |
switchback #7: trail turns to 320 degrees mag. north |
||
|
775 |
ST |
steps revert to uncut |
||
|
775 |
789 |
CW |
filled rubble, LHS |
|
|
789 |
798 |
RW |
LHS, directly under steps and into crevice. Laid wall 4' high and 4' back into cave beneath crevice. Similar to "Hanging" steps on Orange & Black Path. |
|
|
793 |
ST |
This step is 5'9" wide |
||
|
796 |
RF |
steps enter the crevice; 12' tall ledges each side |
||
|
796 |
ST |
Steps in notch narrow to 24" wide; all appear cut, slab-laid, uniform 9 to 10" rises; 21 steps in notch; one missing |
||
|
813 |
820 |
RW |
RHS note low wall on top of block of crevice; holds lintel; wall is 16" high, topped by one large flat rock, 7 foot long, 8" high holding up lintel. |
|
|
814 |
GN |
The lintel; crosses crevice; 63x10x24" stone. |
||
|
828 |
913 |
CW |
Coping wall, RHS, blocks up to 7 foot long: many with dog marks, many set on wall or other large boulders. |
|
|
828 |
913 |
RW |
Guess at square footage; wall RHS supports massive coping blocks to follow, up to 5' high retaining wall. |
|
|
835 |
ST |
End of steps; many in this area have dog marks |
||
|
836 |
844 |
RF |
Large blowout; missing rocks; note large stumps and charcoal; trees prob- ably fell out; missing 18" deep of tread material. |
|
|
836 |
866 |
TW |
Cobbled treadway with some cuts stone in it; "rock filled" tread which prob- ably once was smoothed with soil. |
|
|
845 |
RF |
Tread width is 28-36"; right on target |
||
|
850 |
GN |
2 pins RHS, 10 and 12" tall, one is bent, hold coping wall, the shims under the coper, too. |
||
|
852 |
RF |
Note rocks wedged RHS 4' below trail to support copers/retaining wall. |
||
|
863 |
RW |
Wall is up to 5' tall in here |
||
|
866 |
908 |
ST |
Rise 17"; run 42'; widest is 48"; steps at 886 and 890 are cut from natural ledge |
|
|
885 |
894 |
RF |
2 large copers RHS appear to have slid out of place; note dogholes |
|
|
895 |
897 |
RF |
Note two dogholes on this large coping block (6.5x5x2'). This suggests strongly that this was set — therefore those above and below, too. |
|
|
904 |
908 |
RF |
Large block tipped out of wall on RHS |
|
|
908 |
914 |
SP |
3 large patio blocks, one is 6' long |
373
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
|
Trail |
Section Distance |
Length |
Feature |
Description |
|
349 |
1 914 |
RF |
trail turns abruptly le ft, west, uphill |
|
|
914 |
1063 |
ST |
55 ft rise; long curving, final staircase, up to 66" wide; most cut: Brunnow- style blocking; set-b and slab; follow contour of ledge |
|
|
933 |
RF |
Step #14 is out of place |
||
|
934 |
GN |
Iron pins holding step #15: horizontal pin out of boulder on LHS, 4" x 5/8"; RHS pin out of ledge, curves into side of step like Van Santvoord Trail; 11" |
||
|
936 |
997 |
CW |
LHS, low, often piled coping, mostly not above steps; 972-997 wall is larger, deliberate |
|
|
956 |
963 |
RF |
3 steps blown out. slid forward, #'s 27, 28, 29 |
|
|
961 |
964 |
RW |
One coper, RHS |
|
|
966 |
RF |
AT large, narrow step (#31), drill marks in ledge 20' to right of trail |
||
|
973 |
988 |
CW |
RHS, nice coper wall, sporadically above trail height. |
|
|
993 |
1098 |
CW |
RHS, at around 1018 it becomes small stuff scattered throughout; at 1055 becomes nicer where steps end, blueberries, bigger stones |
|
|
1010 |
1054 |
CW |
LHS; low rubble at 1017-1022; only one coper is above steps |
|
|
1021 |
RF |
At step 56, a double step, LHS, 26 and 30' off trail; 2 blocks w/ drill marks; proof of quarrying here |
||
|
1054 |
1059 |
TW |
Short span of gravel to last 2 steps in series. |
|
|
1063 |
RF |
End of stairs |
||
|
1063 |
RF |
Wall, both sides, is deteriorated in this area, just lying there |
||
|
1098 |
RF |
End of built work! end of wall, RHS; trail must have gone left... social path leads to Emery |
||
|
1600 |
RF |
End Homans at Emery Path. |
MEASURE
MEASURE
|
BR |
Trail Bridge |
Count |
PP |
Perforated-Pipe Drain |
Count |
|
BW |
Bogwalk |
Linear Feet |
RF |
Reference Point |
|
|
CA |
Causeway |
Linear Feet |
RHS |
Right-Hand Side |
|
|
CK |
Stone Check |
Count |
RL |
Relocation |
Linear Feet |
|
CR |
Crush Wall |
Square Feet |
RR |
Iron Rung |
Count |
|
cu |
Culvert |
Count |
RW |
Retaining Wall |
Square Feet |
|
CW |
Coping Wall |
Linear Feet |
SD |
Stone Side Drain |
Linear Feet |
|
DG |
Ditching |
Linear Feet |
SN |
Sign |
Count |
|
EP |
End Point |
SP |
Stone Paving |
Linear Feet |
|
|
GN |
Other |
SR |
Safety Rail |
Linear Feet |
|
|
GP |
Gravel Pave |
Linear Feet |
SS |
Stepstones |
Count |
|
IS |
Intersection Sign |
Count |
ST |
Rock Step |
Count |
|
LC |
Log Check |
Count |
SW |
Sidewall |
Linear Feet |
|
LG |
Log Cribbing |
Linear Feet |
TP |
Turnpiking |
Linear Feet |
|
LHS |
Left-Hand Side |
TW |
Treadway |
Linear Feet |
|
|
LR |
Ladder |
Count |
WB |
Water bar |
Count |
|
LS |
Log Sign |
Count |
WD |
Water Dip |
Count |
|
PL |
Plaque |
WN |
Work Needed |
?74
INDEX
INDEX
General Index
(trail index on page 381)
abandoned/unmarked, 3, 14, 755, 194, 227,
234, 246, 247, 250, 252, 266, 267, 323,
324,526,335,359,363,364 abutment, see bridge abutment Acadia National Park, history of, xiii-xiv,
16, 248, 249, 250, 256, 257, 260, 280,
290-91, 312-13, 322, 359 Acadia NP and Mount Desert Island, cur- rent visitation/use, xiv-xv, xvi, xvii Acadia Style trails, ix-x Acadia Trails Forever, cover/it, v, ix, 293 Acadia Youth Conservation Corps, xiv,
111,117,277,293 accessibility (ADA-accessible),77, 12, 19,
98, 242-43, 242, 312, 313, 314, 315, 317,
318, 319, 335, 344
See also ADA (Americans with Disabili- ties Act) trail ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act)
trail, 101, 242-43, 298, 335, 344 agriculture, 6, 15, 16 alignment, 4-14, 155, 335 Allen, Joseph, 8, 184, 205, 260, 261, 264,
266,291,305 alpine areas, 21, 25, 25, 121, 153, 227, 228,
244,245,247,283 AMC, see Appalachian Mountain Club AMC-style steps, 190,790, 191 angle of repose, 35 Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC), xiv,
xxi, 97, 99, 101, 153, 186, 190, 191, 221,
222,223,244,335,336,343 apron, 98, 99, 100, 335, 343 arch stone, 16 Arthur, Guy, 116 asphalt paving, 11, 32, 41, 43, 50, 57, 59, 66,
75,185,786 associated structure, 268-76 association, xvii Asticou Inn, 271
backed water bar, see water bar
backfill, 62, 142, 145, 167, 174, 335
bar, 98-100
Bar Harbor Village Improvement Associa- tion (VIA), xi, xiii, xvii, xxi, 6, 16, 22-23, 48, 54, 64, 72, 73, 105, 157, 181, 202, 219, 236, 248, 257, 259, 262, 265, 269, 281, 290,291,322,358
Baxter State Park, 99, 106
Bates, Waldron, xii, xxi, 2, 6, 16, 54, 72, 105, 149, 157, 181, 219, 220, 224, 230, 231, 255,257,304
Bates-style cairn, 2, 218, 223, 223, 224, 224, 225, 226, 227, 288, 335
Bates-style sign, 2, 230, 231
Bates-style steps, 54, 178, 180, 181, 184, 187,
789,191,792,794,195,196 batter, 95, 155-56, 158, 159, 160, 164, 165-66,
167, 767, 169, 174, 317, 335, 341, 372, 373 Beal, Don, 221 beaver dams/flooding, xvi, 12-13, 14, 60,
105,728 beaver fooler, 13 bedlog, 104, 108-10, 108-9, 335 bedrock, see ledge bellying, 181, 193, 335 bench, 18, 268-71, 269-70, 319
stone bench, 55, 256, 259, 270-71, 270,
275,291,292
wooden/log, xvi, 256, 268-70,269-70,
272,274,274,275 bench, memorial, xvi, 18, 256, 256, 259,
268, 269-70, 269, 272, 275, 276, 291, 292 bench, natural, 31, 145, 308, 309 bench cut, 4, 5, 10,29, 30-36,30-36, 43, 48,
51, 142, 149, 152, 153, 157, 159-60, 760,
283, 296, 327, 335 berm, 33, 34, 36, 46, 47, 51, 53, 144, 163, 768,
335, 344; living, 144, 768, 169, 344 blaze/marker, 218, 219-23, 219-20, 222, 227,
229, 244, 288, 301-2, 304, 306, 307, 309,
335 boardwalk, 13, 314 blocking, 138,739, 153,762, 179,779, 193,
197,322,328,329,335
See also packing bog-style stepping stones, 131,732, 134,737,
739, 140, 335 bogwalk, xvii, 11,74, 41, 44, 67, 104-10,704-
9,120, 132,736, 245, 293,294, 296, 298,
300,301,335,340 bogwalk bridge, 104-5, 704, 106-7, 107, 108,
708, 128, 340 borrow pit, xvii, 39, 42, 43, 48, 49, 51, 64,
304,335 boulder, 5, 14, 67, 93, 122, 157, 758, 196, 205,
224, 269-70, 271-72, 287, 367
as lintel/overhang, 327, 324,325, 326,
371
with memorial plaque, 259, 264, 291,
292, 302
overhanging, 7, 799, 201, 202, 205, 371
See also uncut stone bracing, see diagonal bracing; outrigger
bracing breaker (barrier), 98, 99 breaking joints, 758, 166, 335, 366 bridge, 299, 336, 337, 340, 342
bogwalk bridge, 104-5, 704, 106-7, 107,
108,708,128,340
iron bridge, 201, 207, 202, 203, 205
memorial bridge, 114, 128-29, 728
stone bridge, 114, 126, 259, 260
wooden bridge, xvii, xx, 2, 14, 44, 48,
70, 77, 104, 110-30, 777-30, 132, 134, 138,
203, 204, 246, 247, 268, 278, 289, 292,
293,298
See also wooden bridge bridge abutment, 119, 120-23, 722, 126, 128-
29, 164, 165, 335, 366, 370
See also log abutment; stone abutment Bridgham, Fanny Shermerhorn, 114, 259,
260, 265 bridle path, xi
broad path, xi, 38, 48-49, 50, 157, 192, 336 bronze plaque, maintenance of, 267-68 Brunnow, Rudolph, 7, 16, 55, 149, 158, 184,
202,358,359 Brunnow-style steps, 178, 184, 785, 786, 191,
195,196,336,372,374 brushing, 336
See also vegetation, clearing/removal of Building of the Arts, 271 bullrail, see curbrail
cable, wire rope, 208, 209
cairn, xii, xvi, xvii, 12, 67, 219, 220-24, 222,
223-29, 223-26, 229, 244, 304, 306, 307,
309, 336
Bates-style cairn, 2, 218, 223, 223, 224,
224,225,226,227,288
conical cairn, 224, 227, 229, 229, 336
piled cairn, 223, 224, 226, 227
sat-up cairn (upright single stone), 224,
224, 225
stacked cairn, 223, 224, 226, 227, 288,
342 cake sets, 37, 42, 84, 98, 99, 145, 336 cantilever, 336 capstone, see lintel/capstone capstone (closed) culvert, 69, 71, 73, 73, 74,
74, 75, 76, 77-78, 79-80, 79, 86, 114, 181,
196, 280, 283, 284, 285, 324, 329, 336,
338,369 carriage bolt, 121, 125 carriage road mix, 50, 51, 52 carriage roads, xiii, xv, xvi, 17, 50, 51, 52,
150,235,237,266,293 carry path/trail, xii, 5, 11, 356, 360 cart road/path, xii, 5-6, 6, 11, 63 catch basin, 71, 72, 85, 86, 74, 74, 75, 78, 86,
336 causeway, 5, 11, 37-47, 93, 104, 105, 121, 138,
139, 140, 156, 336
stone causeway, 37, 37, 39-40, 40, 41,
42, 44, 83, 131, 291, 297, 296, 298, 300,
301, 342
walled causeway, 37, 37, 38, 38, 40, 41,
42, 43, 44-46, 45, 94, 294, 312, 342, 344
wall-less causeway, 37, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41,
47, 42, 43, 43, 139, 740, 144, 169, 312, 314,
339,344 CCC-style signs, 232, 234
375
Acadia Trails treatment Plan
CCC-style steps, 178, 185-87, 186-89, 193, 195, 196
cement, hydraulic, 214, 215
Champlain, Samuel, 257, 262
Champlain Society, 22
character-defining features, xvii, 2, 12, 13, 22,44,51,58,59,178,336 See also historical characteristics/char- acter
check, 142-47, 142-47, 245, 285, 290, 300, 304, 307, 309, 317, 329, 336, 343 log check, 142, 143, 171, 173, 173, 178, 312 stone check, 5, 48, 51, 66, 68, 94, 95, 97, 142-47, 142-47, 312
chinked, 45, 46, 61, 62, 80, 81, 99, 336
Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), ix, xiii, xvi, xxi, 1, 4, 5, 9-10, 11, 16, 17, 23-24, 26, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35-36, 40-41, 43, 49-50, 57, 59, 60, 65-66, 68, 70, 73, 74-75, 77-79, 80, 82, 83, 87, 88, 89, 91, 93, 96, 97, 98, 114-17, 118, 119, 126, 129, 132-34, 137, 149, 151-52, 153, 159-60, 163, 178, 184-87, 191, 193, 195, 200, 207, 208-11, 212, 217, 218, 234, 236, 237, 240, 241, 247, 249, 250, 251, 260, 261, 271-72, 275, 281, 291, 323, 355, 362, 365
Civil Works Administration (CWA), xv
clearing, see lumbering/logging; vegetation, removal of
cliffside/"face" trails, 7, 159, 189, 200, 202, 207, 212, 304-6, 357
climb, 356
climbing turn, 31, 336
colored path system, 219, 221, 222, 231, 248,249,336,356
commemorative plaque, xvii, xx, 255, 256- 58, 256-67, 261, 262-68, 291, 292, 302, 336, 324, 325, 324, 355, 356, 359
compaction, xvii, 105, 290
conical cairn, 224, 227, 229, 229, 336
construction debris, removal/site cleanup, 125-26
contact, 45, 46, 60, 93-94, 155, 165, 166, 179, 198,336,366
control points, 5, 7, 8, 8, 9, 12, 13, 336, 337, 371
coping retaining wall, 18, 31, 33, 61, 88, 147, 149, 152, 156, 156, 157, 159, 178, 181, 182, 191, 193, 196, 304, 337, 370-74
coping stones, xiv, xvi, xvii, 31, 39, 42, 42, 44, 48, 63, 74, 75, 79, 79, 80, 82, 82, 122, 129, 129, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145-46, 145, 147-54,147-52, 158, 158, 159, 161, 170, 181, 182, 183, 184, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195-97, 195, 202, 205, 205, 206, 207, 210, 215, 221, 222, 229, 243, 244, 245, 285, 286, 287, 290, 293, 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 312, 313, 316, 317, 322, 324, 324, 328, 329, 330, 337, 369, 370, 373, 374
coping wall, 285, 337
See also coping retaining wall
copycatting, 227, 228, 229
corduroy bridge, 105, 112, 113, 115, 116, 116, 117,118,120,127-28,128,289
corduroy decking/tread, 105, 105, 107, 111,
112, 112, 113, 114, 116, 116, 128, 128, 337 core, 165, 166,167, 175, 195-97, 337, 344, 366 cradling, 46, 167, 167, 169, 337 creep, 59-60, 62, 337 crevice/rock cleft, 7, 110, 324, 373
See also passageway crib/cribbing, 5, 172-75,773-75, 337
See also log crib crimping, 214, 215 cross-slope, 30-31, 34, 70, 72, 109, 335, 337,
340, 342 cross-trail water flow, 87, 88, 89 crowned, 35, 38, 45, 46, 47, 53, 169, 337 crushed stone subgrade, 308, 45, 46, 47, 48,
53, 89, 90, 93, 94, 137, 138, 149, 169 crush wall, 67, 155, 157, 157, 161, 162, 163,
167-69,765-69,164,295-96, culvert, 31, 32, 33, 37, 44, 48, 70, 93, 104,
120, 121, 132, 134, 178, 193, 290, 296-99,
337
capstone (closed) culvert, 69, 71, 73, 73,
74, 74, 75, 76, 77-78, 79-80, 79, 86, 114,
181, 196, 280, 283, 284, 285, 324, 329,
336,338,369
closed culvert, 64, 71, 72, 74-75, 77, 102,
280, 283, 285, 299, 322, 300, 336
graveled-over closed stone culvert, 39,
41, 70, 71, 73, 73, 74, 74, 75, 76, 77-78,
80-82, 81, 82, 86, 762, 196, 285, 327, 328,
329,338,369
log culvert, closed, 43, 72, 73, 77, 112,
336
log culvert, open, 43, 72, 340
open culvert, 72, 298, 299, 329
pipe culvert, 41, 43, 71, 77, 72, 72, 73, 73,
75, 76, 77, 83, 83, 86, 88, 312, 313, 315,
316, 329, 339, 340
stepstone culvert, xvi, 71, 77, 73, 77, 85,
85,97,131,299,300,342
stone culvert, open, 43, 71, 77, 72, 83, 84,
92,298,299,340 curbrail/bullrail, 777, 772, 119, 123, 124, 125,
128,728,130,337 Curtis, Joseph Henry, 265 Cushing, Sarah, 259, 264, 270, 291, 302 cut stone, see stone, cut cyclic maintenance, 18, 27, 47, 53, 59, 100,
147, 337 cyclic replacement, 108, 110, 114, 130
Damrosch, Frank, 16
deadman, 775, 234
debris, see construction debris; vegetation
debris decking, 110-11, 123-25,723, 126-28, 130,
337 DeCosta, Benjamin F., 224 design, xvi
designed alignment, 4-5, 7, 337 destination points, 4, 6, 8, 9, 236, 337, 357,
358, 359, 360, 361, 363
See also signs, directional
diagonal bracing, 112, 773, 776, 724, 125, 126,
127 Diederich, Kurt, 263, 266 dip, see water dip direct alignment, 4, 5, 6, 11 directional signs, see signs, directional
(trail) ditch/ditching, 51, 63, 70, 72, 88, 90-91, 93,
95,194,312,315,324
See also side drain ditch and fill, 63, 66-67, 90, 91-92, 92 divide, 364 dog holes (dimples), 322, 337, 371, 372, 373
See also drill marks Dorr, George Bucknam, v, xii, xiii, 7, 8, 16,
17, 31, 54, 72, 87, 132, 149, 158, 181, 185,
191, 195, 203, 248-49, 257, 263, 265,
280-81,312,323 Dorr alignment, 7, 8 Dorr-style steps/pavement, 57, 57, 178, 180,
182, 183, 193, 196, 337 Downing, Andrew Jackson, 112-14, 268,
275 drainage, xx, 30, 31, 33, 36, 44, 45, 49, 50,
63, 66, 69-102, 107, 154, 181, 193-94, 196,
198, 245, 246, 283, 284, 285, 296-301,
309,314,315-17,329,366 drill marks (in cut stone), 211, 285, 322,
329,337,337,371,372,373 dry-laid, 155, 158, 338
education and interpretation, xvi, 10, 11, 22, 23, 24, 185, 228, 238, 240, 245, 306, 312-13
interpretive signs, 10, 18, 238-43,238- 40, 267, 313, 317, 339, 359, 360 ranger-led walks/tours, 240, 281, 313 See also nature trail, self-guided; path/ trail maps and guides
Eliot, Charles William, xii, 259-60, 265
Eliot Mountain Map House, 240, 247, 271, 276
endangered species, 12, 24, 25-26
endowed trails, xi, xiii, 80, 132, 158, 181, 191, 263, 264, 283, 309, 338, 356 See also memorial trails
engraved stone, 249, 256-57, 258, 259, 261, 262-65, 266, 267, 268, 338, 355, 356, 359
erosion, xiv, xvii, 12, 14, 26, 30, 33, 34, 34, 35, 36, 36, 55, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 88, 101, 105, 121, 125, 142, 143, 145, 154, 160, 171, 192, 198, 205, 211, 212, 213, 228, 247, 280, 283, 285, 286, 290, 293-95, 294, 299, 304, 306, 307, 309, 310, 313, 314, 376, 317, 322, 327, 329 See also gravel washout; gully; scouring
European settlers, xii, 5-6, 11, 15, 16, 22, 25
expansion bolt, 214, 275, 338
eyebolt, 202, 207, 338
face, wall, 159, 165, 765, 167, 338, 341, 344 fall line, 4, 11, 337, 338, 342 fall-line route, 4, 5, 6, 31, 34, 70
376
INDEX
Fait, Dan, 114
Fait, Gordon, 261
Farrand, Beatrix, 114, 128, 265
feather (stonecutting tool), 368
feeling, xvi, 213
fence, 246-47
fill, see ditch and fill
fines, 124
fire of 1947, xiv, 4, 16, 17, 23, 24, 25, 232,
327 fire control, 116-17 fire hazard reduction, 23, 25, 312 fire/observation tower, 272-73, 273, 275,
276 fitted wall, 155, 156, 159, 338, 371, 372 flat notch, 173, 774, 338 flat sign, 230, 232, 234, 235, 234-35, 237,
238,338 flooding, 12-13, 72, 78, 296
See also beaver dams/flooding floor, 338
footing, 84, 122, 138, 140, 163, 164, 338 foot traffic, see compaction; erosion forest floor, 63, 97, 192, 314, 316
See also unconstructed tread foundation, 164-65, 169, 170, 339, 366 Francklyn, Lilian Endicott, 260, 265 freezing, 60, 86, 109, 110, 114, 164, 165, 205,
324 French drain, stone, 2, 87, 88, 88, 89, 338 Friends of Acadia, v, ix, xiv
gazebo, 256, 268, 275
geological features, see rock formation
geotextile material, 76, 89, 89, 90, 111, 123, 124,130,375,338
gesture, 5, 7, 11, 58, 338
Good, Albert, 116, 121, 122, 241, 271, 341
Good, John, 313
Goodrich, David, 359, 362, 363, 364
grade string, see mason's line
grade, 4, 10, 12, 13, 14, 19, 36, 43, 45, 46, 53, 57, 62, 81, 97, 101, 109, 125, 130, 144, 146, 154, 155, 159, 174, 192, 193, 208, 315, 338, 343
granite-concrete surfacing, 185
gravel, aggregate, xvii
gravel, imported/manufactured, 26, 43, 50, 51,52,283,327
gravel, natural/bank-run, 46, 48, 49, 51, 327
graveled-over culvert, 39, 41, 70, 71, 73, 73, 74, 74, 75, 76, 77-78, 80-82, 81, 82, 86, 762,196,327,369
gravel extraction, xvii, 48, 327 See also borrow pit
gravel paving/surfacing, xii, 31, 32, 33, 37, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46-47, 47, 48-53, 48-50, 57, 59, 63, 66, 67, 75, 77-78, 80, 101, 111, 114, 116,776, 117, 119,720, 124-25, 127-30, 142, 143, 145, 146, 147, 149, 156, 159, 160, 169, 192, 205, 283, 292, 296-98, 299, 304, 309, 313, 314, 316, 327, 329, 337, 338; compacted, 46, 47, 53, 296-98
gravel pit, see borrow pit gravel treadway, see gravel paving/surfac- ing gravel washout, 49, 50, 51, 72, 93, 94, 99,
142,252,283,299,309,314
See also flooding Green (Cadillac) Mountain, xii, 202, 290 Green Mountain House, 271 guidance features, 12, 67, 142, 147, 148, 149,
153, 181, 184, 217-54, 301, 309-10, 317-19,
329,330,338
See also blazes; cairns; coping stones;
directional signs; steps; trail signs gully/gulch, 12, 66, 78, 110, 121, 142, 143,
144, 744, 154, 163, 173, 285, 294, 329, 338
Hancock County Trustees of Public Res- ervations (HCTPR), xiii, 16,248, 262, 280, 322
handrail, 111,773,775, 116, 117,775, 119, 120, 724, 125, 126, 127, 129, 246, 309, 338 See also railings
header, 77, 81, 83, 84, 84, 90, 94, 122, 123, 164,165,765,166,767,338
header-style, 37, 42, 42, 44, 45, 83, 84, 98, 99, 744, 145, 762. 765, 166, 169, 769, 197- 98, 338, 366
headwall, 75, 83, 83, 315
high contact, 45, 45, 46, 51, 85, 86, 94, 94, 98, 99, 744, 145, 146, 762, 336, 339. 366
highly crafted/constructed, ix, x, xiii, xvii, 7, 15, 29, 31, 33, 39, 48, 50, 54, 55, 62, 6, 64, 65-66, 73, 147, 149, 150, 153, 155, 158, 159, 171-73,777, 178, 181, 191, 205, 207, 210-11, 212, 280, 283, 285, 288, 302, 309, 322, 323, 329, 337, 340, 355, 356, 361, 364 See also memorial trails
Hiking Trails Management Plan, ix, xi, xviii, xix, 13, 18, 26, 228, 237, 249-51, 266, 267,323
historic, 339
historical, 339
historical characteristics/character, xv-xvi, xvii, 11, 12, 16, 18, 25, 33, 43, 44, 46, 50, 51, 58, 59, 61, 66, 68, 71, 72, 77, 88, 93, 97, 101, 104, 107, 108, 119-20, 143, 153, 154, 163, 172-73, 178, 190, 191-92, 210-11, 212-13, 221, 222, 227, 228, 236, 237, 241-42, 245, 247, 250, 275, 283, 285, 293, 297, 298, 309, 310, 323, 327, 329, 330, 336 See also character-defining features
historical significance, xv, xvii, 13
historic period, xv-xvi, 312, 339, 357-58, 360, 361, 364
historic structures, xx
Homans, Eliza, 323
How, Charles T., 257, 261, 262
hub, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 339
Hudson River School, xii, 15
ice, see freezing
inslope/insloping, 35, 43, 45, 46, 53, 81, 81, 82, 82, 83, 83, 94, 164, 339
integrated pest management, 26
integrity, historic, xv-xvii, xx, 13, 88, 357
integrity, structural, 44, 147, 337
interlaced, 79
interpretive sign, see signs, informational
interpretive trail, see nature trail, self- guided
intersection, see trail intersection
iron attachment, 214-15, 275
iron pin, 57, 57, 154, 158, 159, 759, 764, 183, 193, 194, 195, 196, 198, 799, 200, 201, 202, 203,204, 205,205, 206, 207, 207, 208, 210, 270, 213-14, 271, 283, 285, 287, 301, 322, 329-30, 331, 340, 374
ironwork, xiv, xv, xvi, 7, 8, 65, 154, 178, 191, 200-216, 280, 285, 301, 309, 322, 329- 30,339,344
See also iron bridge; iron pin; ladder; pipe railing; rung; stainless steel pin; stanchion
Jackson Laboratory, The, 18, 79 Jaques, Herbert, 219, 222, 336, 356, 358 Jesup, Morris K. and Maria DeWirt, 258,
263 Jordan Pond House, 6, 8, 41, 48, 271, 275,
276,290,293,296,302 jute mat, 43, 46
Kane, Annie Cottenet Schermerhom, 114,
259, 265 Kane, John Innes, 257, 262-63 Kari, Dave, 42 Kebo Golf Club, 271 Kenway, Lester, 99, 106, 107 keyed, 164, 165, 178, 779, 195, 197-98, 205,
339 Kittredge, Frank, xxi
ladder, xvi, xx, 7, 200, 201, 207, 203, 208-9,
209, 270, 211, 212, 213-14 ladder trail, xiv-xv, 200, 202 laid coping, 147, 148, 152, 153, 339 laid wall, 155, 755, 756, 157, 158, 158, 159, 160,
162, 762, 163, 164-66, 765, 779, 301, 339,
366, 369-73 lane, xi, 248
large-gesture alignment, 5, 7, 11, 58, 339 lead wool, 215, 216, 339 ledge, 7, 45, 122, 149, 164-65, 175, 192, 195,
203, 205 207, 269-70, 271-72, 276, 339 ledge treadway, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 27, 25, 25, 63,
63, 64, 65, 175, 184, 184, 187, 192, 193,
202, 208, 210, 270, 220, 222, 223, 224,
227, 281, 283-85, 286, 287, 304, 306, 307,
309, 314, 329 lining, see tiling/lining lintel/capstone, 43, 70, 71, 74, 74, 75, 76, 79-
80, 79, 81-82, 81, 82, 86, 223, 224, 226,
228-29, 229, 321, 322, 324, 325, 326, 329,
339, 369, 370, 373
377
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
Liscomb, Andrew, 16, 54, 181, 202
live edge, 70S, 109, 339
living berm/wall, 46, 144, 339, 344
location, xv-xvi
locked in, 79, 79, 80, 81, 81, 82, 84, 94, 99,
146, 167, 167, 169, 178, 179, 179, 181, 193,
195, 197, 228, 335, 341, 366 log abutment, 120-21, 122-23, 122 log bench, 272
See also bench log bridge, see bogwalk log check, 142, 143, 171, 173, 173, 178, 312 log crib (retaining structure), 37, 42, 66,
104, 142, 143, 163, 164, 171-75, 171-75,
178, 193, 312, 315, 339
See also treadway crib; turnpiking; wall
crib log crib (support structure), see log
pier/crib log culvert, 43, 72
closed log culvert, 72, 73, 77, 112, 336
open log culvert, 72, 340 log pier/crib (support structure), 104, 104,
107, 108, 108, 109-10, 111, 127, 292, 293 log scree, 67, 244, 245, 339 log sign, 211, 230, 233, 235, 235-36, 237,
238,339 log steps, see log check; log crib; pinned-
log steps/walkway; wooden steps log turnpiking, 37, 38, 42
See also log crib logwork, 171-73 lowland route, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 38, 40, 43, 44,
48, 339
See also wetland route lumbering/logging, 4, 6, 9, 15, 16, 17, 22, 25
Maine Conservation Corps, xiv
Maine State Historic Preservation Com- mission, x, xix, 12
maps, see path/trail maps and guides
map signs, 239, 240,240, 241
See also path/trail maps and guides
Martin, Clara B., 219
mason's line, 42, 169, 339
material, historic, xvi, xx, 60
materials, xvi, xx
Mather, Stephen, 260, 265
memorial plaque, see commemorative plaque
memorial trails, xi, xiii, 1, 5, 7, 8, 31, 49, 55, 62, 65, 66, 132, 148, 149, 152, 153, 159, 181, 185, 244, 248-49, 250, 257, 259, 262-66, 280, 283, 285, 288, 322, 323, 324, 336, 340, 355, 356, 359-60
monuments, 256-68,256-60, 302, 355, 356, 359
addition of, 267, 302 maintenance of, 267-68 See also commemorative plaque; engraved stone; bench, memorial
motor road system, xi, xii, xiii, xv, xvi, xx, 5, 17, 38, 185, 266
mountains, name changes of, xii, xiii, 234,
249,281,357,362 multi-tiered wall, 155, 157, 158, 160, 161,
163, 197-98, 343, 373
National Park Service (NPS), ix, xii, xiii, xiv, xvi, xvii, xviii, xix, xxi, 2, 11, 16, 17-18, 24-25, 32-33, 41-43, 50, 58-59, 73, 75-77, 87, 89, 91-93, 106-7, 117-19, 134, 143, 152-53, 160-61, 163, 171-72, 190-91, 207, 211-12, 218, 220-21, 227, 232, 235- 36, 241, 249-50, 260, 261, 274-75, 280, 293, 323, 355, 362
National Register of Historic Places nomi- nation and listing, ix, xv-xvii, xix, 339
National Trails System, 281
Native American footpaths and carry trails, xii, 5, 11
native flora/plants, 22, 23-24,24, 25, 26
nature trail, self-guided, 10, 11, 24, 25, 185, 239,259, 240, 241, 312, 313, 314, 317
Newport (Champlain) Mountain, 219
new trail, 22, 32-33, 67 See also rerouting
non-native species, 22, 24, 25, 26, 340
Northeast Harbor Village Improvement Society (VIS), x, xi, xiii, xvii, xxi, 6, 9, 105, 114, 181, 233, 234, 236, 241, 244-45, 249,250,269,274
notching of log joints, 107, 109, 122, 173-74, 173, 174, 234, 236 See also flat notch; saddle notch
NPS, see National Park Service
NPS/Mission 66, xiv, xix, 2, 10, 11, 16, 17, 22, 24, 32, 33, 41, 43, 50, 57, 66, 75, 77, 87, 91, 93, 96, 152, 153, 160, 163, 187, 218, 234, 236, 235, 240, 249, 250, 260, 273, 275, 312-13, 314
observation deck, 274, 275
observation tower, 256
off-trail drainage, 90, 91, 340
off-trail shortcut, see social path/trail
Olmsted Center for Landscape Preserva- tion, ii, v, x
one over two, see breaking joints
open culvert, 71, 72, 77, 340
outflow ditch, 86, 98, 98, 99, 100
outlet drain, see outflow ditch
outlook shelter, 16, 18, 256,256, 268, 271- 72,272,275,276
outrigger bracing, 112,113, 116,116, 117, 127, 129, 340
outslope/outsloping,32, 34, 35, 35, 53, 99, 164-65, 169, 340
overhang, 7, 199, 201, 202, 205, 371
packing, 179, 179, 193, 195-97, 198
See also blocking pass, xi, 248, 356 passageway, 281, 321, 322, 324, 325, 371,
372, 373 path, xi, 248-49, 250, 340, 355-56, 361
path/trail maps and guides, xiv, xv, 22, 23,
203, 218, 219, 222, 224, 225, 231, 239-40,
248, 250, 262, 264, 281, 291, 291, 292,
304, 305, 306, 305-6, 323, 355, 360, 361,
362, 363, 364 patio (flat laid), 179, 182, 192, 197, 369, 370,
371, 372, 373 pea-stone, 48, 89, 340 peg, stone, 59, 198 peregrine falcons, 305, 306, 310 perforated-pipe drain, 2, 53, 76, 87, 88, 89,
315, 340 picnic area, 16, 17, 247, 256, 268, 271, 272,
275, 276 picturesque style, see rustic/picturesque
style pier, 110, 340
See also log pier; stone pier piled cairn, 223, 224, 226, 227 piled coping, 147, 149, 371 piled retaining wall, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159,
159, 163-64, 167, 205, 340, 371 pin, retaining, xvi, xvii, 57, 57, 154, 158, 193,
194, 195, 198, 201, 212-15, 215, 285, 330,
331, 340
See also iron pin; stainless steel pin pinch sets, 192, 193, 197, 372 pinned-log steps/walkway, 8, 9, 31, 171, 178,
193, 200, 205, 206, 207, 211, 211 pinning, to anchor associated structure,
211,227,214,234,276 pipe culvert, 41, 43, 71, 71, 72, 72, 73, 73, 75,
76, 77, 83, 83, 86, 88, 312, 313, 315, 316,
329,339,340 pipe drain, 60 pipe (iron) railing, 117, 118, 201, 203, 203,
204, 211, 214, 216 planking, 111, 111, 112, 115, 130, 340 pointer (directional sign), 218, 219, 225,
230, 231 pointer stone, 223, 224, 228, 229, 335 pole bridge, see wooden bridge pondside route/trail, 60, 64, 105, 107, 164,
212,293-95,297,301 potholes, 7 preservation, xix, xx pressure-treated wood, 117, 120, 121, 124,
236,242,275 privy, 274, 274
railings
iron/pipe, xvi, 201, 201, 202, 203, 203,
204, 205, 208, 208, 211, 213-14, 216, 281
wooden, 111-12, 113, 115, 117, 118, 121, 126,
127,129,246-47,246
See also curbrail; handrail; pipe railing raised treadway, 38, 72-73, 80, 82, 105, 107,
134, 138, 314-15, 340, 344 ramp, bridge, 125, 130 Rand, Edward Lothrup, xii, 22, 259, 264,
362 ranger cabin, 272, 273 rare species, 12, 22, 24, 25-26
378
INDEX
reconstruction, xix, xx, 340
Recreational Development Area (RDA), xiii
rectilinear, 340
rehabilitation approach, xix-xx, 22, 58, 60, 84, 97, 104, 178, 340
rerouting, xvi, xx, 4, 11-14, 19, 26, 32-33, 44, 58, 60, 67, 68, 245, 250, 293, 295, 341
restoration, xix
retaining wall, xii, 5, 7, 18, 31, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35-36, 37, 48, 57, 60, 61, 62, 74, 79, 80, 84, 141, 142, 144, 145, 155-70, 155-62, 165, 167-70, 181, 191, 195, 202,205,270, 215, 283, 285, 287, 298, 301, 308, 309, 317, 318, 324, 328, 329, 330, 341, 342 coping retaining wall, 18, 31, 33, 61, 88, 147, 149, 152, 156, 156, 157, 159, 178, 181, 182, 191, 193, 196, 304, 337, 370-74 dry-laid wall, 155, 158, 338 fitted wall, 155, 156, 159, 338, 371, 372 laid wall, 155, 155, 156, 157, 158, 158, 159, 160, 162, 162, 163, 164-66, 165, 179, 301, 339, 366, 369-73
multi-tiered wall, 155, 157, 158, 160, 161, 163, 197-98, 343, 373 piled retaining wall, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159,759, 163-64, 167, 205, 340, 371 rubble wall, 155-56, 155-56, 157, 158, 159, 160,760, 161,767, 163, 167,767, 301, 329, 341, 369-73
sidewall, 31, 37, 37, 42, 44, 45-46, 61, 67, 64, 77, 72, 79, 80, 84, 85, 86, 94, 156, 756, 157, 160, 767, 195-97, 205, 207, 290, 299, 342, 343
single-tiered wall, 37, 155, 156, 157, 158, 163,779,197 support wall, 342
revegetation, 22, 23-24, 24, 25, 26, 87, 245, 290, 295, 296, 312, 313, 317, 341 See also living berm/wall; vegetation
ridge-line route, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 31, 341, 357, 363
Ridge Runners, 341
rifter, 367, 367
ripped, 107, 341
riprap, 163, 341
riprap pattern, 62, 341, 371, 372
riprap steps, 178, 779, 191, 193, 197, 341
rise, 61, 144-45, 155, 165, 174, 194, 194, 195, 795, 196, 197, 335, 341, 371, 372, 373
riser, 144, 744, 181, 184, 184, 185, 194, 795, 197
road crossing, 12, 230, 235, 237
roads, xi, xii, xiii, xv, xvi, xx, 5, 17, 38, 185 See also carriage roads
Rockefeller, John D., Jr., xiii, 260, 266
rockfall/rock slide, 7, 55, 212, 213, 306
rock formation, xx, 7, 8, 15, 16, 122, 248, 326,326,329
rock rubble, 38, 41, 43, 46, 70, 80-81, 83, 84, 88, 88, 89, 142, 145, 145-46, 173, 282, 283, 295-96, 327, 341 See also rubble wall
roots, see tree roots
route, xx, 4-19, 31, 44, 157, 222, 283, 293,
295, 306, 313, 324, 326, 329, 335, 341,
356
See also guidance features rubble, see rock rubble rubble wall, 155-56,755-56, 157, 158, 159,
160, 760, 161, 767, 163, 167, 767, 301, 329,
341, 369-73 run, 155, 159, 165, 184, 184, 185, 196, 335,
341, 371, 372, 373 rung, xvi, xx, 200, 201, 207, 202, 203, 204,
211, 212, 213-14, 215, 221, 222, 341 running joint, 158, 166, 341 Russian Tea House, 271 rustic/picturesque style, cover/ii, xii, xv,
xvi, 66, 112, 113, 114, 117, 268, 269, 275,
341
saddle, 7, 11
saddle notch, 722, 123, 173, 174, 775, 341
Satterlee's Tea House, 271,277
sat-up cairn (upright single stone), 224,
224, 225 scenic overlook (outlook point), 16, 17, 77,
18, 18, 55, 62, 239, 271, 276, 315 scenic, natural, and cultural features, xx Schiff,Jacob,281,283 scouring, 78, 95, 100, 102, 121, 122, 123,
126,341 scree, historic, 149, 243, 244, 341 scree, stone, 31, 58, 147, 149, 153, 154, 186,
790, 243-46, 244, 288, 301, 310, 310, 317,
318, 319, 341
See also log scree Seal Harbor Village Improvement Society
(VIS), x, xi, xiii, xvii, xxi, 6, 22, 23, 48,
105, 114, 84, 205, 236, 240, 259, 260,
264, 269, 291 Seaside Inn, 357 seating, 268-71
See also bench; bench, memorial Secretary's Standards, xix-xx, xxi seepage, 46, 53, 87, 89, 297, 298, 341 set-behind, 178,779, 181, 191, 192-93,792,
194, 794, 196, 197, 285, 324, 329, 341,
370, 371, 373 setting, xvi shelters, 240,240, 271-72,269-72
See also gazebo; outlook shelter shim, 46, 61, 62, 178-79, 180, 184, 184, 186,
193, 194, 196, 197, 228, 322, 329, 331, 341,
366, 370, 373 shim (stonecutting tool), 368 side drain, 31, 32, 33, 33, 44, 46, 51, 70, 73,
74, 85, 90-95, 97, 92, 94, 181, 196, 285,
290, 299, 312, 315, 316, 317, 341, 342
fully constructed side drain, 90, 91, 92,
94-95, 94, 338
U-shaped side drain, 90, 91, 95, 343
V-shaped side drain, 90, 91, 92, 94-95,
94, 344
walled side drain, 90, 91, 92, 93-94, 94
side-by-side pavers/steps, 61, 67, 62, 178 sidehill route, 4-5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11,29, 31, 32-
33, 34, 40, 48, 163, 197, 336, 342 sidewalks, xi
See also asphalt paving sidewall, 31, 37, 37, 42, 44, 45-46, 61, 67, 64,
77, 72, 79, 80, 84, 85, 86, 94, 156, 756,
157, 160, 767, 195-97, 205, 207, 290, 299,
342, 343 Sieur de Monts National Monument, xiii,
322
See also Acadia National Park, history
of Sieur de Monts Spring House, 270,277, 275 signpost, 234, 234, 236; pinning, 211, 277,
214,234 signs, directional, xiv, xvi, xvii, xx, 12, 211,
277, 218, 218, 219, 222, 230-38, 230-33,
236, 248, 249, 288, 310, 317, 330, 359
flat, 230, 232, 234, 235, 234-35, 237, 238,
338
trailhead (log), 211, 230,233, 235, 235-
36, 237, 238, 339, 343 signs, informational, xvi, 10, 238-43, 238-
40, 244, 310, 317, 330, 339
interpretive, 10, 18, 238-43,238-40, 267,
313, 317, 339, 359, 360
map, 239, 240, 240, 241
regulatory, 238, 239, 239, 240, 245
safety, 239, 242, 243, 293
trailhead exhibit, 238, 238 sill, 110,777, 120-21, 123,723, 130, 342 silt/siltation, 86, 87, 88, 89-90, 93, 94, 97,
100, 102, 124, 125, 138, 315, 342 single-tiered wall, 37, 155, 156, 157, 158, 163,
779, 197 slab-laid, 153, 178,779, 181, 184, 191, 192-93,
792, 193, 194, 794, 195, 795, 196, 202, 285,
287, 317, 324, 325, 329, 335, 342, 371, 371 slickrock, 342
See also ledge slope, 35, 53, 63, 67, 94, 95, 99, 109, 742,
143, 743, 144, 155, 164, 165, 774, 175, 335,
342
See also cross-slope; grade; inslope/
insloping; outslope/outsloping small-gesture alignment, 5, 7, 11, 342 Smith, Cornelius, 259 social path/trail, 14, 223, 245, 315, 326, 342,
374 sod, 46, 47, 53, 80, 82, 82, 90, 169 soil, imported, 26 soil treadway, 54
See also forest floor; woodland route/
trail Southwest Harbor Village Improvement
Association (VIA), xi, xiii, xvii, xxi, 6,
9, 181, 184 spike (timber screw), 107, 109, 709, 110, 122,
123, 125, 173 spill point, 101, 102, 342 stabilization, 142-44, 178, 194,795, 205, 229,
244,305,309,342
379
\< , adia Trails Treatment Plan
stack bond, 158, 166, 342
stacked cairn, 223, 224, 226, 227, 288, 342
stacking, 14
stainless steel pin, 193, 194, 200, 201, 211-13
staircase, see stone staircase
staking, 43,44-45, 109, 110
stanchions, 201, 201, 202, 203, 208, 209,
212,214,342 Stellpflug, Gary, 41, 96, 106, 127, 129, 132,
171, 172, 227, 230, 235 stepped-down railing, 112, 116, 342 stepping stones, 2, 5, 11, 14, 39, 39, 44, 54,
71, 72, 77, 85, 104, 105, 107, 114, 120, 130,
131-40, 131-37, 139, 281, 291,291, 296,
298, 299, 301, 306, 307, 309, 318, 319,
342 steps, xiv, xvi, xvii, xx, 2, 5, 67, 109, 144,
178, 268, 275, 324, 329, 330, 342
AMC-style steps, 190, 190, 191
Bates-style steps, 54, 178, 180, 181, 184,
187, 189, 191, 192, 194, 195, 196
Dorr-style steps, 57, 57, 178, 180, 182,
183, 193, 196
See also stone steps; wooden steps stone, cut, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 148, 149, 150,
158, 185, 187, 191, 196, 285, 301, 329, 337,
366-68,370-74
See also stonecutting stone, drilling, 367-68
See also drill marks stone, laying, 164-66, 165 stone, quarrying, 228
See also stonecutting stone, uncut, 54, 54-56, 61, 62, 148, 150, 152,
153, 158, 167, 181, 184, 184, 191, 194, 196,
329, 343, 370-74
See also boulder stone abutment, xvi, 108, 109, 110, 112, 113,
116,116,119, 120-23,122, 128,128, 129,
135, 164, 165; stone box, 42
stone bridge, 114, 126, 259, 260 stone causeway, 37, 37, 39-40, 40, 41, 42,
44, 83, 131, 291, 291, 296, 298, 300, 301,
342 stone check, 5, 48, 51, 66, 68, 94, 95, 97,
142-47,142-47,312 stone culvert, 71, 296, 298
capstone (closed) culvert, 69, 71, 73, 73,
74, 74, 75, 76, 77-78, 79-80, 79, 86, 114,
181, 196, 280, 283,284, 285,324, 329,
336, 338, 369
graveled-over closed stone culvert, 39,
41, 70, 71, 73, 73, 74, 74, 75, 76, 77-78,
80-82, 81, 82, 86, 162, 196, 285, 327, 328,
329,338,369
open stone culvert, 43, 71, 71, 72, 83, 84,
92,298,299,340
stepstone culvert, xvi, 71, 71, 73, 77, 85,
85,97,131,299,300,342 stonecutting, 228, 366-68, 367
See also stone, cut stone patio, see patio
stone pavement/paving, 7, 11, 29, 31, 37,
54-62, 60, 61, 70, 73, 77-78, 107, 150, 158,
159, 203, 218, 221, 222, 280, 281, 282,
283, 284, 285, 296, 298, 308, 314, 318,
319, 322, 325, 327-29, 342, 370
See also patio stone pavers, see stone pavement stone pier, 107, 108, 109, 128, 135 stone staircase, 8, 54, 64, 68, 70, 76, 97, 149,
151, 151-52, 153-54, 158,177, 178, 179,180,
181, 184, 185, 182-88, 190-97, 194, 195,
245, 285, 317, 364, 369-74
curved, 182, 183, 184, 184, 194, 196, 203,
210,210,328,370,372,374
See also stone steps stone steps, 7, 11, 49, 56, 66, 68, 70, 73, 149,
149, 177, 178, 179-98, 202, 207, 210, 211,
218, 221, 222, 222, 280, 281, 283, 285,
286, 287, 304, 307, 308, 322, 326, 329,
330-31
See also set-behind; slab-laid; stone
staircase stonework, collapsed/slipping, 42, 44, 59,
86, 138, 140, 160-61, 170, 193, 194, 198,
280, 283, 285, 286, 287, 317, 322, 326,
329, 330, 370, 371, 373 stonework, historic (stone construction),
xiv, xv, xvi, xvii, 7, 11, 65, 66, 171-73,
210, 211, 280, 296, 322, 323, 330, 366
See also stonecutting; stone pavement;
stone culvert; stone staircase; stone
steps; etc. stream crossing, 14, 70, 75, 103-40, 131, 132,
138, 140, 178, 296-99, 301, 309, 329
See also bogwalk; stone bridge; wooden
bridge streamside route, 5, 13, 54, 164 stream-style stepping stones, 39, 39, 70, 71,
121, 130, 131, 132, 134, 134, 135, 136, 138,
139, 342 stretcher style, 166, 338 string line, 144 stringer, 110-11, 111, 114,115, 116,116, 117,
120-22, 123, 123, 124-25, 126-29, 201,
342 Student Conservation Association, 98-100,
244 stump, 27 subgrade drainage, 37, 43, 46, 51, 53, 87, 88,
139,140,175,181,194,342 subsurface drain, 37, 51, 53, 87-90, 88, 89,
93, 299, 315,, 324, 338, 342 summit, marking of, 223, 224 226, 227, 228,
230, 231, 236, 237, 238, 239, 249 summit areas/trails, xvi, 6, 25, 63, 64, 67,
143, 151, 153, 185, 227, 228, 304, 357, 358 support wall, 342 swale, drainage, 66, 70, 343 switchback, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 14, 31, 32, 32, 33,
57, 59, 150, 152, 160, 185, 186, 210, 244,
325, 336, 343, 370, 372, 373 switchback route, 4-5, 7, 343
talus pavement, 31, 54, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60,
60, 61, 62 talus slope/field, 7, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 70,
160, 164, 175, 185-87,186, 293,294, 301,
304. 306. 324. 325, 329, 338, 343 tamper, vibrating, 46, 47, 53 terrace, 343
terrace steps, xvi, 144, 147, 315, 343
tier, 122, 343
tie rock, 165, 166,338,343
tiered wall, 155, 157, 158, 160, 161, 163, 197-
98, 343, 373 tiling/lining, xvi, 80, 95, 343 toast sets, 37, 42, 44, 84, 99, 145, 198, 343 tourism on Mount Desert Island, history
of, xii, xiii, xvi, 6, 15, 16, 22 tracer, 367, 367 trail, xi, 249, 250, 355-56 trail braiding, 12, 26, 68, 138, 290, 322, 343 trail closure, xvi, 12, 14, 26, 60, 281, 305,
307, 306, 310, 323 trail corridor/width, xx, 18, 25, 26, 35, 43,
61, 62, 67, 93, 169, 197, 222, 245, 295,
298, 312, 343 trail design, xvi trailhead (log) signs, 211, 230, 233, 235, 235-
36,237,238,322,339,343 trail intersection
guidance/signage at, 224, 230, 231, 236,
237, 240, 288, 317
offset intersection, 11, 12, 340
road crossings, 12, 230, 235, 237 trail map, see path/trail maps and guides trail names, xx, 248-54, 256
changing of /renaming, 218, 234, 249-
50, 251-54, 266-67, 281, 288, 302, 304,
310, 336, 355
historic names, restoration, xx, 250-54,
267,302,355-65 trail phantom, 233, 236, 323, 358 trail reopening, 322, 323, 326, 330, 331, 358,
359 trail system
history of, ix, xii-xiv, 5-11
integrity of, xv-xvii, xx
marked and maintained trails, xi,
xiv-xvi
trail inventory and documentation, xi,
xiv-xv, xxi, 18, 249, 271, 322
trail maintenance program, xiv
trail numbering, xi, 231, 288
treatment approach, ix-x, xvii, xix-xx
unmarked/abandoned trails, 3, 14, 155,
194, 227, 234, 246, 247, 250, 252, 266,
267. 323. 324. 326, 335, 359, 363, 364 trail terminology, xi-xii
trail treatment specifications, 2
trail widening, xiv, xvi, xvii, 18, 25, 26, 30,
93, 138, 245, 247, 290, 293, 295, 295, 313,
317, 327 tread, see treadway tread pavement, 48-53, 54, 54, 55, 56, 57,
59, 61, 62
380
INDEX
treadlog 104, 104, 106,106, 108,108-9
See also treadway crib treadway, xvi-xvii, xx, 29-68, 29, 35, 51,
142, 245, 283-85, 296, 314-15, 327-29,
337, 343, 366
See also asphalt; granite-concrete
surfacing; gravel pavement/surfacing;
stone pavement; stone steps; uncon-
structed tread treadway, natural, see unconstructed tread treadway crib, 171,777, 172, 173-74,775-74,
312, 315, 317, 343
See also pinned logs tree roots, 63, 171, 173
exposed, 12, 30, 49, 65, 67, 68, 78, 104,
105, 107, 167-69, 168, 169, 290, 293, 294,
295-96,299,313,314
removal/cutting, 34, 53, 67, 68, 164, 174,
775, 243, 295-96 trees, large/important, 14, 23, 23, 34, 93, 164
grove/grouping of, 5, 27, 23, 29 trees, removal, 170
See also vegetation tributaries, 343 truss, 117, 121, 125, 129, 343 turnout, see scenic overlook turnpiking, 37, 38, 42, 296, 300, 343
unconstructed tread (natural treadway), 46, 48, 51, 59, 63-68, 63-68, 171, 181, 222, 309, 314, 316, 327, 327, 329, 383-85, 43
uncut stone, see stone, uncut
Universal Trail Assessment Process (UTAP), 242-43
unmarked trail, 323, 324
vandalism, 211, 218, 227, 228, 229, 235, 237,
238, 270, 276, 313, 317 Van Santvoord, John, 8, 259 varied woodland route, see woodland
route, varied vegetation, 21-27, 283, 293-96, 306, 313,
325, 327
for retention and harmonizing with
landscape, 24, 25, 80, 82, 82, 169, 770,
173,174,775
See also living berm; revegetation; sod vegetation, clearing/removal of, 16, 17, 18,
18, 19, 23, 25, 26-27, 47, 140, 170, 198,
223, 283, 312, 327 vegetation debris, removal, 27 vegetation, fragile, protection/loss of, 706,
107, 121, 153-54, 210, 270, 247, 322, 327
at summit areas, 27, 25, 25, 121, 153, 227,
228, 244, 245, 247, 284, 306, 307 vegetation, invasive, 198
See also non-native species veneer wall, 344 view, 7, 15-19, 25, 305, 306, 307, 323, 324,
329, 344
See also scenic overlook; vista/views-
hed
village connector trails, xiii, xv-xvi, xx, 6, 11,48-49,50
Village Improvement Societies/ Associa- tions (VIS/VIA), x, xi, xiii, xv-xviii, xx, 2, 4, 6-9, 11, 15-16, 22-23, 30, 31, 33, 34, 38-40, 43, 48-49, 50, 54-57, 59, 60, 61- 62, 64-65, 66, 70, 72-74, 77-78, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 87, 88, 89, 91, 93, 96, 97, 101, 105, 107, 114, 117, 119, 126-27, 131-322, 134, 135-36, 138, 146-50, 153, 157-60, 163, 179-84, 191, 193, 195, 200, 202-7, 212, 218, 219, 224-27, 230, 231-34, 236, 237, 239-40, 241, 243-44, 245, 247, 248- 49, 250, 251, 256, 257-60, 261, 269-71, 275, 278, 304, 306, 308, 309, 322-23, 355-56, 362
Joint Path Committee, xi, xiii, xxi, 218, 231,241,323
vista/viewshed, 4, 15, 18, 26, 238, 272, 276, 313, 344
wall crib, 161, 762, 163, 164, 171, 777, 172, 772,
174,775,296,500,344
See also turnpiking walled causeway, 37, 37, 38, 38, 40, 41, 42,
43, 44-46, 45, 94, 294, 312, 342, 344 wall-less causeway, 37, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 41,
42, 43, 43, 139, 740, 144, 169, 312, 339,
344 washout, see gravel washout water bar, 63, 67, 68, 70, 95-100, 285, 309,
317, 329, 342, 343, 344
backed water bar, 95, 95, 98; log, 66, 95,
95, 96, 96-97, 98-100, 171
stone water bar, 95, 95, 97, 98, 99-100,
191 water dip, 63, 67,68, 70, 74, 78, 82, 93,
96-98, 101-2, 702, 119, 191, 194, 285, 301,
317,342,343,344 waterfall, 7, 364 water flow, cross-trail, 87, 88, 89
See also drainage water quality, 12 Webster, Mary, 259 wedge (stonecutting tool), 367, 368 wedging, 145, 214,275, 344 wetland route, 38, 40, 44, 54, 66-67, 72,
104, 106, 706, 108, 131, 138, 296, 298
See also bogwalk; bog-style stepping
stones; lowland route wheelchair accessible, 335, 344
See also accessibility; ADA trail Wild Gardens of Acadia Corporation, 280,
323 wooden bridge, xvii, xx, 2, 14, 44, 48, 70,
77, 104, 110-30,777-50, 132, 134, 138, 203,
204, 246, 247, 268, 278, 289, 292, 293,
298
arched bridge, coverlii, 114,775, 116, 117,
720,127,727,259
cedar-pole bridge, 2, 72, 104, 105, 107,
114, 775, 117, 126, 755, 289, 301, 340
corduroy bridge, 105, 772, 775, 775, 116,
776, 117,775, 720, 127-28,128, 129,129,289
gravel-surfaced bridge, 705, 114, 116,776,
117, 119, 720, 124-25, 126, 128, 129-30,
301
log bridge, 306, 309
plank bridge, 72, 772, 114,117
rustic/picturesque style, xii, xvi, 112,775,
114,775,117,301
See also bogwalk bridge; iron bridge;
stone bridge wooden steps, 190, 191, 192, 317 woodland route, varied (woodland trails),
xi, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 74, 29, 34, 35, 44, 54, 55,
56, 59, 63, 64, 105, 143, 145, 171, 172, 181,
213, 221, 222, 227, 228, 244, 245, 248,
314,576,343 wood path, 248,248 woodwork, xiv, xv, xvi
See also log cribbing; water bar, wood workmanship, xvii Works Progress Administration (WPA), xv
Young, Andrew Murray, 259, 264 Youth Conservation Corps, see Acadia Youth Conservation Corps
381
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
Trail Index
Acadia Mountain Trail (#101), 186, 190,
212, 345 Amphitheatre Trail (#56), 126, 127-28, 345 Amphitheatre Trail, north (#523), 345 Amphitheatre Trail, south (#528), 345 A. Murray Young Path (#25), xiii, 11, 55-57,
57, 67, 132, 136, 149-50, 150, 158, 181, 207,
252,259,259,264,309,345 Anemone Cave Trail (#369), 10, 11, 17, 23,
41, 75, 91, 152, 160, 161, 187, 21, 249, 345 Asticou and Jordan Pond Path, 345, 357,
360
See also Asticou Trail Asticou Brook Trail (#514), 115, 128,233,
274,274,345 Asticou Hill [Eliot Mountain] to Little
Harbor Brook (#517), 9, 345 Asticou Inn Trail (#513), 345 Asticou Path, see Asticou Trail Asticou Ridge Trail (#520), 345 Asticou Trail (#49), xi, 6, 23, 38, 38, 39, 42,
72, 73, 80, 91, 91, 95, 105, 112, 131, 132,
132, 135-36, 148, 149, 157, 181, 240, 240,
243, 253, 271, 345, 360 Asticou Trail, see Pond Hill Trail Aunt Bettys Pond Path (#526), 345 Bald Peak Trail (#62), 345 Bar Island Trail (#1), 345 Barr Hill Path (#404), 269 Barr Hill/Redfield Hill to Jordan Pond
(#403), 345 Bass Harbor Head Light Trail (#129), 50,
50, 274, 345 Beachcroft Path (#13), ix, xi, xiii, 1, 7, 25, 29,
55, 56, 58, 65, 67, 73, 149, 150, 150, 152,
158, 158, 159, 159, 161, 162, 163-64, 181,
183, 187, 188, 190, 205, 212, 248-49, 250,
251, 257, 258, 280, 309, 322, 324, 345 Beachcroft Trail, see Beachcroft Path Bear Brook Trail (#10), 6, 6, 19, 64, 171, 172,
211, 219, 220, 224, 236, 250, 345, 357-58 Beech Cliff Ladder Trail (#106), xiii, 75,
151, 171, 172, 208, 209, 211, 214, 247, 249,
251,263,345 Beech Cliff Loop Trail (#114), 75, 91, 96,
345 Beech Cliff Trail to Lurvey Spring, see
Echo Lake to Lurvey Spring Beech Cliff Trail, 15, 16, 345
See also Canada Cliffs Trail Beech Cliff, path along (#604), 345 Beech Hill Road, see Valley Trail Beech Mountain Loop Trail (#113), 6, 10,
33, 75, 76, 96, 143, 151, 151, 160, 161, 273,
273,274,274,276,345 Beech Mountain Road Path (#624), 345
See also Valley Trail Beech Mountain South Ridge Trail (#109),
5, 50, 57, 187, 188, 345 Beech Mountain Trail, see Beech Moun- tain Road Path and Valley Trail
Beech Mountain Trail, see Beech Moun- tain West Ridge Trail Beech Mountain West Ridge Trail (#108),
10, 32, 41, 66, 75, 79, 90, 91, 91, 95, 107,
107, 111, 345 Beechcroft Path, see Beachcroft Path Beehive Trail (#7), xiii, 7, 149, 184, 185, 200,
201, 202, 203,204, 212, 236, 345 Beehive, West (#8), 106, 345 Bernard Mountain Ski Trail, see Bernard
Mountain South Face Trail Bernard Mountain South Face Trail (#111),
184, 253, 271, 345, 361-62 Bernard Mountain Trail, see Bernard
Mountain South Face Trail Bicycle Path (#331), 38, 72, 87, 345 Bicycle Path Connector (#372), 345 Birch Brook Trail (#429), 37, 345 Birch Spring Trail, see Amphitheatre Trail Black and Blue Path (#353), 346 Black and White Path (#326), xi, 250, 251,
346 Black Path, 232, 249, 250, 251, 346, 358
See also Bear Brook Trail; Bowl Trail;
Cadillac Cliffs to Otter Creek; Gorham
Mountain Trail Black Woods Trail (#440), 8, 346 Blue and White Path (#337), 346 Blue Path (#330), 346 Bluff Trail, see Jordan Cliffs Trail Bowl Trail (#6), 11, 14, 50, 96, 131, 133, 236,
250, 346 Boyd Road/Path (#449), 346 Bracken Path (#307), 22, 114, 346 Bracken Path extension (#371), 346 Bracy Cove Road/Path (#402), 346 Breakneck Road/Path (#314), 346 Brigham Path/Red & Black Path (#378),
346 Brigham to Beehive Connector (#366),
202,309,346 Brown Mountain Path, see Norumbega
Mountain Trail Brown Mountain Path, North (#521), 346 Brown Path (upper half), see Bowl Trail Brown Path, see Beehive, West Brown to Beehive Connector (#351), 346 Bubble and Jordan Ponds Path (#20), 251,
346, 356, 360, 363
See also Pond Trail Bubble Mountain Path, 252
See also North Bubble Trail Bubble Mountain South Cliff Trail, see
South Bubble Cliff Trail Bubble Pond Carry (#412), 346 Bubble Pond Path, see Pond Trail Bubble Rock, trail to, 8, 9, 346 Bubbles Divide, 252, 346, 363-64
See also South Bubble Trail Bubbles Trail, 346, 363-64
See also North Bubble Trail; South
Bubble Trail
Bubbles, abandoned route to, 3 Bubbles-Pemetic Trail/Northwest Trail
(#36), 172, 252, 346, 363 Burnt Bubble Path, see Burnt Bubble South
End Path Burnt Bubble South End Path (#413), 346 Cadillac Cliffs to Otter Creek/Black Path
(#346), 346 Cadillac Cliffs to Thunder Hole (#345),
181. 346
Cadillac Cliffs Trail, 251
See also Gorham/Cadillac Cliffs Trail Cadillac Mountain East Ridge Trail
(#350), 346 Cadillac Mountain North Ridge Trail
(#34), 4, 11, 65, 238, 239, 241, 346, 356,
357 Cadillac Mountain South Ridge Trail
(#26), 31, 63, 92, 346, 357 Cadillac Path (#367), 346 Cadillac Summit Loop Trail (#33), 185, 186,
190,238,260,265,346 Cadillac West Face Trail/ Steep Trail
(#32), 252, 346, 363 Cadillac-Dorr Trail (#22), 346 Canada Cliffs Cutoff (#632), 64, 346 Canada Cliffs to Dog Connector (#637),
346 Canada Cliffs Trail (#107), 5, 11, 346 Canada Ridge Trail, see Canada Cliffs Trail Canon Brook Trail (#19), 54, 72, 73, 119,
131, 133, 250, 251, 259, 309, 347, 360,
362-63 Canon Brook Trail, eastern end (#333),
347 Canyon Brook Path, see Canon Brook
Trail Canyon Path, see Canon Brook Trail CCC Trail, see Spring Trail Cedar Swamp Mountain Cutoff (#527),
347 Cedar Swamp Mountain Trail, see Sargent
Mountain South Ridge Trail Cedar Swamp Mountain, path up (#515),
347 Center Trail (#623), 347 Champlain East Face Trail (#12), 54, 55,
159, 159, 186, 248, 251, 270-71, 347, 359 Champlain Monument Cutoff (#426), 347 Champlain Monument Path (#453), 248,
269. 347
Champlain North Ridge Trail, 347, 357
See also Bear Brook Trail Champlain South Ridge Trail, 347, 357
See also Bear Brook Trail Champlain Trail, to Birch Brook/Seal
Harbor Tennis Courts (#428), 347 Chasm Brook Trail, see Chasm Path Chasm Path/Waldron Bates Memorial
Path (#525), xiii, 230, 248, 257, 262, 347 Church Lane Path (#610), 347 Circular Trail (#630), 347 Cliff Path, see Gorham/Cadillac Cliffs Trail
382
INDEX
Cliff Path/path to Great Cave (#347), 202,
205. 347
Cliff Trail (#512), 347
Cliff Trail, see Precipice Path
Cold Brook Fish Hatchery, trail, 112, 119, 120,726,129,729
Cold Brook Trail (#117), 253, 347, 361, 362
Conners Nubble Path, see Burnt Bubble South End Path
County Road Cutoff (#425), 347
Cross Roads Path (#612), 347
Cross Trail, Birch Brook to Upland Road (#430), 347
Cross Trail, south of Mitchell Hill (#443), 347
Curran Path (#315), 309, 347, 356
Curren Path, see Curran Path
CutoffPath(#614),347
Cutoff Trail between Pond Trail and Sea- side Trail (#415), 347
Dane Path (#445), 347
Day Mountain Caves Trail/Valley Trail (#424), 8, 347
Day Mountain Trail (#37), 256, 257, 262, 347
Day Mountain Trail, Lower, see Champ- lain Monument Path
Deep Brook Trail (#601), 347
Deer Brook Trail (#51), 92, 92, 192, 297, 304,305
Dog Mountain Trail, see Saint Sauveur Trail
Dole Trail (#619), 347
Dorr Mountain Branch (#323), 347
Dorr Mountain East Face Trail, 251, 280, 281, 288, 347, 359, 360 See also Emery Path; Schiff Path
Dorr Mountain North and South Ridge Trails (#21), 252, 347, 357 See also Kebo Mountain Path
Dorr property paths (#376), 348
Dorr Woods Bicycle Path, see Bicycle Path
Dry Mountain Branch, see Dorr Mountain Branch
Dry Mountain Path extension (#332), 348
Duck Brook Path (#311), xii, 65, 112, 113,
269. 348
Eagle Cliff Trail, see Valley Peak Trail Eagle Crag Loop (#27), 7, 7, 31, 64, 348 Eagle Lake Connector (#308), 348 Eagle Lake Trail (#42), 54, 55, 83, 131, 131 Eagle Lake West Shore, see Eagle Lake
Trail Eagle Lake, East Shore, north section
(#317), 348 Eagles Crag Path, see Eagle Crag Loop Eagles Crag Foot Trail (#343), 149, 156, 157,
180,181,226,348 East Face Trail, see Champlain East Face
Trail; Emery Path; Schiff Path; Mansell
Mountain Trail East Jordan Path, see Jordan Pond Loop
Trail
East Peak from Great Pond (#631), 348 East Peak Trail, see Mansell Mountain
Trail East Ridge Trail, see Cadillac Mountain
East Ridge Trail Echo Lake Ledges (#126), 348 Echo Lake to Lurvey Spring (#625), 348 Echo Lake Trail (#622), 348 Echo Lake Trail, see Beech Cliff Loop Trail Echo Point Trail (#356), 348 Eliot Mountain Trail, see Asticou Hill to
Little Harbor Brook; Asticou Ridge
Trail Eliot Mountain Trail to Map House
(#516), 259-60,260, 265, 348 Eliot Mountain Trail/Thuja Lodge, trail to
(#519), 247, 265, 348 Emery Path (#15), ix, 5, 7, 18, 56, 73, 73, 74,
75, 79, 90, 91, 97, 149, 150, 158, 164, 180,
181, 182, 199, 205, 206, 225, 248-49, 251,
261, 262, 263, 265, 270, 271, 280, 281,
281, 282, 288, 322, 324, 326, 329, 348,
355, 359, 360 Fawn Pond Path (#309), 17, 114, 128-29,
128,259,260,261,348 Flying Mountain Trail (#105), 49, 79, 132,
136, 185, 187, 190, 210, 253, 348, 365
See also Valley Cove Trail George Dorr's Bicycle Path, see Bicycle
Path Giant Slide Trail/Pulpit Rock Trail (#63),
7, 149, 149, 180, 181, 230, 248, 348, 356 Gilley Trail (#125), 348, 361, 362 Goat Trail, 253, 364
See also Norumbega Mountain Trail Goat Trail, Pemetic Mountain (#444), 8,
180, 181, 202, 203, 205, 248, 348, 355-56 Golf Club Trail (#507), 348 Golf Links to Norumbega Mountain
(#530), 348, 348 Gorge Path (#28), xiii, 11, 23, 33, 54, 55, 67,
207,251,259,260,309,348 Gorge Path to Kebo, east side (#321), 348 Gorge Path to Kebo, west side (#320), 348 Gorge Road Path (#365), 349 Gorham Mountain Trail (#4), 26, 131, 132,
232, 235, 250, 251, 257, 262, 349
See also Black Path Gorham/Cadillac Cliffs Trail (#5), 7, 7, 16,
114, 149, 157, 225, 251, 255, 262, 349 Grandgent Trail (#66), 26, 65, 349 Great Cave Path, see Cliff Path Great Head Trail (#2), 63, 161, 163, 349 Great Hill from Cleftstone Road, (#304),
349 Great Hill from Woodbury Park (#303),
349 Great Hill Path (#306), 349 Great Hill to Duck Brook (#310), 349 Great Meadow Loop (#70), 11, 43, 88, 113,
116, 117, 118, 126, 129, 349 Great Meadow Nature Trail (#365), 40, 41,
89,116,117,126,129,349
Great Notch Trail (#122), 26, 253, 349,
362, 365
See also Sluiceway Trail Great Pond Road/Path (#615), 349 Great Pond to Beech Hill (#602), 349 Great Pond Trail (#620), 349 Great/Long Pond Trail, xiii, 250, 349
See also Long Pond Trail Green and Black Path (#358), 218, 248,
349, 359 Green and White Path (#327), 232, 349 Green Mountain Gorge Path, see Gorge
Path Green Mountain Road/Path, see Cadillac
Mountain North Ridge Trail Green Mountain South Ridge Trail, see
Cadillac Mountain Green Mountain Trail (#452), 349 Gurnee Path (#352), 31, 31, 49, 55, 73, 80,
81-82, 81, 91, 149-50, 155, 158, 159, 159,
160, 205, 246, 247, 249, 259, 270, 309,
349,359 Hadlock Brook/Waterfall Trail (#57), 149,
247,253,349,364 Hadlock Ponds Path, 248, 253
See also Hadlock Trail, Lower; Hadlock
Trail, Upper Hadlock Trail, Lower (#502), 64, 65, 115,
128,181,248,270,349 Hadlock Trail, Upper (#501), 105, 105, 128,
181,248,349 Hadlock Valley Path, see Jordan Pond
Carry Path Half Moon Pond Path (#312), 349 Harbor Brook Trail, see Little Harbor
Brook Trail Harborside Inn Trail (#506), 349 Harden Farm Path, 264
See also Stratheden Path Hemlock Road/Spring Road (#377), 324,
325,326,349 Hemlock Trail (#23), 23, 249, 252, 326,
349,356 Homans Path (#349), 7, 8, 16, 62, 65, 67, 73,
74, 79, 149, 150, 158, 181, 182, 183, 200,
205,206, 248-49, 257, 280, 281, 282,
321-31, 321-22, 324-28, 330-31, 349, 359,
369-74 Huguenot Head to Otter Creek Road
(#341), 349 Hunters Beach Cliff Trail, see Hunters
Beach Trail Hunters Beach Trail (#67), 349 Hunters Brook Trail (#35), 252, 269, 349 Hunters Brook Trail, lower (#455), 269,
349 Hunters Brook Trail, upper (#454), 349 Hunters Cove, South Ridge Trail connec- tor (#439), 349 Indian Path, see Dry Mountain Path exten- sion Ingraham Rocks Path (#445), 202, 349 Isle au Haut, trails on, xi
383
ACADIA TRAILS TREATMENT PLAN
Jessup Path, 249
See also Jesup Path Jesup Path (#14), xi, 5, 11, 37, 40, 42, 49, 71,
72, 73, 73, 74, 80, 91, 149, 248-49, 257,
255, 263, 269, 269, 280, 322, 349 Jesup Path to Cromwell Harbor Road
(#375), 263, 350 Jordan Bluffs Trail (#457), 54, 57, 207, 350,
364
See also Jordan Cliffs Trail Jordan Brook Path, see Jordan Stream Trail Jordan Cliffs Trail, see Penobscot East
Trail Jordan Cliffs Trail/ Sargent East Cliff Trail
(#48), 8, 57, 63,158, 205, 207, 231, 253,
303-10, 303-8, 310, 350, 356, 364 Jordan Pond Carry Path (#38), 5, 31, 83,
96, 107, 107, 111, 119, 131, 252, 291, 350,
356,360 Jordan Pond Carry Spur (#40), 39, 95, 350 Jordan Pond Loop Trail, xii, 105, 106,706,
126-27, 127, 134, 137, 252, 297, 350, 361
See also Jordan Pond Path Jordan Pond Nature Trail (#45), 240, 241,
270,270,313,350 Jordan Pond Nature Trail (original loca- tion) (#463), 23, 240, 350 Jordan Pond Path (#39), cover/ii, xii, 5, 26,
37, 38, 39, 39-40, 41, 42, 42, 43, 43, 49,
50, 54, 57, 58, 64, 67, 71, 72, 76, 76, 78,
83, 83, 85, 85, 87, 89, 91, 92, 94, 95, 101,
109, 109, 114, 119,720, 149, 157, 159, 161,
762, 168, 172, 191, 792, 252, 260, 267, 265,
269, 277, 278, 289-302, 290-92, 294-95,
297-300, 350, 356, 361 Jordan Pond Seaside Path (#401), 254, 361
See also Seaside Path Jordan Pond Shore Trail, see Jordan Pond
Loop Trail Jordan Pond to Cliffs (#458), 350 Jordan Pond to Pemetic Ridge Trail, see
Steepway Trail Jordan South End Path (#409), 181, 250,
350, 358
See also Penobscot Mountain Trail Jordan Stream Path (#65), 72, 105, 705, 114,
775,126,253,269,350 Kaighn Trail (#606), 350, 356
See also Bernard Mountain South Face
Trail Kane Path (#17), xiii, 11, 55, 58, 58, 70, 71,
72, 73, 80, 82, 91, 105, 132, 133, 134, 149,
233, 248-49, 251, 257, 257, 258, 262, 263,
280, 322, 324, 350, 359, 360, 362 Kebo Brook Path (#364), 350 Kebo Mountain Trail, from Kebo Valley
Club (#322), 350 Kebo Mountain Trail/ Dorr North and
South Ridge Trails (#21), 252, 350, 358 Kebo Mountain, east side (#374), 350 Kebo Valley Club to Toll House (#319),
350
Kurt Diederich's Climb (#16), 7, 55, 56, 73,
83, 85,134, 149, 159,777, 181,752, 248-49,
257,255, 263, 266, 280, 281, 282, 322,
324, 350, 360 Ladder Path, xi, 248, 350
See also Ladder Trail Ladder Trail (#64), xi, 31, 57, 57, 73, 87, 88,
132-34,137, 152, 158, 187,189,201, 202,
203, 206, 209, 270, 281, 282, 283, 288,
304,350
See also Upper Ladder Trail Lakewood, 128, 259, 265See also Fawn
Pond Path Ledge Trail (#103), 58, 220, 224, 350 Ledge Trail, South (#121), 350 Little Brown Mountain Path (#522), 350 Little Brown Mountain Trail, see Parkman
Mountain Trail Little Harbor Brook to Eliot House/
Route 3 (#518), 350 Little Harbor Brook Trail (#55), 233, 350 Little Hunters Beach Path from Boyd
Road (#442), 350 Little Hunters Brook Path to Cove (#438),
269, 350 Little Notch Trail, 253, 362
See also Sluiceway Trail Little Precipice Trail, see Beehive Trail Long Pond Road/Trail in Seal Harbor
(#410), 350 Long Pond Trail (#118), xii, xiii, 10, 11, 40,
41, 41, 42, 42, 49, 50, 57, 65-66, 67, 75,
76, 76, 80, 87, 91, 92, 93, 96, 106, 706,
115, 117,775, 119,720, 126, 129,729, 152,
756, 762, 210, 249, 250, 254, 362
See also Great Pond Trail Long Ridge Trail, see Beech Mountain
South Ridge Trail Lovers Lane (#618), 350 Lower Hadlock Pond, east side (#511), 351 Mansell Mountain Trail (#115), 97,232,
254, 362 Maple Spring Trail (#58), 5, 114,775, 126-28,
149, 181, 247, 351 McFarland Path (#524), 248, 351, 356 Mitchell Hill Path (#407), 351 Mitchell Hill Road, see West Side Long
Pond, Seal Harbor Moss Trail, 253, 361
See also Bernard Mountain South Face
Trail Murphy's Lane, see Blue Path Newport Mountain Path, xi
See also Bear Brook Trail North Bubble Trail (#41), 66, 172, 252, 351,
363-64 North/Middle Bubble Cliff Trail (#459),
202,205,351 North Ridge Trail, see Cadillac Mountain
North Ridge Trail Northwest Trail, 252
See also Bubbles-Pemetic Trail
Norumbega Lower Hadlock to Goat Trail
(#69), 233, 351 Norumbega Mountain Trail/Goat Trail
(#60), 63, 64, 65, 351 Norumbega Mountain-North, see Brown
Mountain, North Norwood Cove Trail (#617), 351 Notch Trail (#406), 351 Notch Trail, see Pine Tree Trail Oak Hill to Bernard Mountain (#608), 351 Oak Hill Trail (#634), 351 Ocean Drive Trail, see Ocean Path Ocean Drive, 251, 362
See also Sand Beach-Great Head
Access Ocean Path (#3), xiii, 10, 70, 17, 18, 26, 40,
41, 42, 50, 70, 75, 80, 87, 91, 101, 742, 145,
745, 146, 152-53, 752, 755, 172, 187, 187,
188, 191,797, 192,239, 260,267, 351 Old Farm Road/Sols Cliff Path (#363), 351 Old Indian Path, see Dry Mountain Path
extension Old Trail, see Pemetic West Cliff Trail Orange and Black Path (#348), 5, 16, 55,
65, 184, 755, 207, 202, 203, 250, 251, 351,
358,359
See also Champlain Mountain East
Face Trail Otter Cliff Path (#340), xiii, 351
See also Ocean Path Otter Cliff Trail, see Ocean Path Otter Cove Road/Path (#441), 351 Otter Cove, trail to (#447), 351 Ox Hill Path (#420), 72, 351 Ox Hill Summit to Day Mountain (#421),
351 Ox Hill Summit, to east (#422), 351 Ox Ledge, see Ox Hill Parkman Mountain Path, see Little Brown
Mountain Path Parkman Mountain Trail (#59), 65, 212,
351 Parkman to Gilmore (#61), 351 Peak of Otter, see Otter Cliff Path Pemetic East Cliff Trail, 363
See also Pemetic Mountain Trail Pemetic Mountain Trail/Southeast (#31),
4, 64, 252, 267, 351, 357, 363 Pemetic Mountain Valley Trail (#462), 351 Pemetic North Ridge Trail, see Pemetic
Mountain Trail Pemetic Northwest Trail, 363
See also Bubbles-Pemetic Trail Pemetic Path, see Pemetic Mountain Trail Pemetic South Ridge Trail, 363
See also Pemetic West Cliff Trail Pemetic West Cliff Trail/Old Trail (#30),
252, 257, 351, 363 Penobscot East Trail (#50), 272, 272, 306,
309, 351 Penobscot Mountain Trail/Spring Trail
(#47), 117, 775, 149, 181, 205, 247, 253,
270, 306, 358
384
INDEX
Perpendicular Trail (#119), xiii, 10,25, 32,
49, 57, 57, 65-66, 66, 67, 68, 74, 75, 78,
79, 80, 91, 92, 97, 148, 151, 152, 185, 186,
187, 192,200, 209, 210, 210, 222, 351 Pine Hill to Deep Brook (#605), 351 Pine Hill Trail (#633), 352 Pine Hill Trail, see Western Mountain
Trail Pine Tree Trail (#405), 352 Pines Path, see The Pines Path Pipe Line Path (#448), 352 Pond Hill Trail/Asticou Trail (#529), 352 Pond Trail (#20), 4, 31, 33, 76, 76, 95, 96,
104, 106-7,107, 109,112, 154, 181, 191,
251,256,352,360,363 Pond Trail to Bubble Pond, see Bubble and
Jordan Ponds Path Potholes Path (#342), 16, 21, 25, 64, 225,
352, 356 Precipice Trail (#11), xi, xiii, 7, W, 65, 117,
118, 149, 153, 184, 200, 202, 203,204,
211, 212, 214, 240, 249, 352, 355-56, 359 Pretty Marsh Picnic Area Trail/Road
(#128), 352 Pulpit Rock Trail/Pulpit Trail, see Giant
Slide Trail Quarry Trail, Northeast Harbor (#505),
352 Quarry Trail, Southwest Harbor (#628),
352 Razorback Trail (#112), 253, 352, 361-62 Red and Black Path, see Brigham Path Red and White Path (#335), 352, 356, 358 Red and Yellow Path (#355), 352 Red Path (#328), 38, 39, 49, 352, 359 Red/Schooner Head Road Path (#362), see
Schooner Head Road Path Redfield Hill, see Barr Hill Reservoir Trail/Harborside Branch
(#504), 352 Ridge Trail, see Kebo Valley Club to Toll
House Robinson Mountain Trail, see Acadia
Mountain Trail Robinson Road (#627), 352 Royal Fern Path (#305), xi, 22, 352 Saint Sauveur Trail (#102), 352, 365 Sand Beach-Great Head Access (#9), 251,
3352, 62 Sargent Brook Trail, see Giant Slide Trail Sargent East Cliffs Trail, 364
See also Jordan Cliffs Trail Sargent Mountain North Ridge Trail
(#53), 231, 253, 352 Sargent Mountain South Ridge Trail (#52),
226,253,352 Sargent Northwest Trail, see Sargent
Mountain North Ridge Trail Sargent Pond Trail (#456), 352 Satterlee Trail, 362
See also Sand Beach-Great Head
Access Trail
Schiff Path (#15), 55, 62, 64, 65, 69, 73, 79,
141, 149, 158, 181, 182, 225, 248, 251, 279-
88, 279-82, 284, 286-87, 288, 322, 352,
359, 360 Schoodic Peninsula, trails on, xi, 220 Schoolhouse Ledge Trail (#503), 352 Schooner Head Road Path (#362), 38, 39,
39, 42, 49, 72-73, 80, 82, 82, 87, 91, 157,
352 Schooner Head Road to Otter Creek
Road, see Bicycle Path Connector Seal Cove Pond to Bernard Mountain
(#607), 352 Seal Cove Road to Pond (#609), 352 Seal Harbor Village path (#431), 352 Seal Harbor Village path (#432), 352 Seaside Path (#401), 6, 31, 64, 72, 72, 73, 73,
80, 83, 87, 91, 157,224, 243-44,243, 253,
259,259,264,269,352,355 Ship Harbor Nature Trail (#127), xiv, 10,
17, 24, 41, 43, 75, 91, 96, 152, 160, 161,
187, 189, 239, 239, 241-41, 311-19, 311-16,
318, 352, 356, 361 Shore Path, Bar Harbor (#301), xii, 6, 156,
235,239,239,241,352 Shore Path, Hunters Beach (#436), 352 Shore Path, Northeast Harbor (#531), 353 Shore Path, Seal Harbor (#427), 114, 115,
126,202,203,205,353 Shore Path, see Ocean Path Shore Trail, Hunters Beach to Otter Cove
(#437), 353 Short Precipice Trail, see Beehive Trail Short Trail to Hunters Beach, see Hunters
Beach Trail Sieur de Monts Spring, trail network, 7,
8, 31, 40, 54, 103, 114, 117, 125, 126, 129,
149, 203-5, 240, 248-49, 249, 257, 257-
58, 263,270, 280, 283, 322, 323, 353
See also Emery Path; Sieur de Monts-
Tarn Trail; Wild Gardens Path Sieur de Monts-Tarn Trail (#18), 251, 353,
362
See also Wild Gardens Path Skidoo Trail (#509), 247, 353 Slide Trail (#603), 353 Sluiceway Trail (#110), 253, 353, 361, 362 Sols Cliff path, see Old Farm Road Path Somes Sound Road, see Southwest Valley
Road/Path Somesville Carry Trail (#635), 353 Somesville Road Trail (#629), 353 South Bubble Cliff Trail (#451), 9, 202,
205-7,207,205,209,353 South Bubble Trail (#43), 4, 5, 6, 9, 172,
232,244,252,353,363-64 Southeast Trail, see Pemetic Mountain
Trail South End Path, see Jordan South End
Path South Face Trail, 253
See also Bernard Mountain South Face
Trail
South Ridge Trail, see Cadillac Mountain
South Ridge Trail Southwest Pass (#414), 353 Southwest Shore Trail, see Eagle Lake Trail Southwest Valley Road/Path (#316), 353 Spring Road, see Hemlock Road Spring Trail, 253, 353, 356, 358, 361
See also Penobscot Mountain Trail Spring Trail/CCC Trail (#621), 190, 353 Squirrel Brook Trail (#408), 353 St. Sauveur Trail, see Saint Sauveur Trail Stanley Brook Path (#433), 353 Stanley Brook-Seaside Path Lower Con- nector (#434), 353 Stanley Brook-Seaside Path Upper Con- nector (#435), 353 Steep Trail (#508), 247, 353 Steep Trail, see Cadillac West Face Trail Steepway Trail (#460), 353 Stratheden Path (#24), 40, 49, 103, 119, 126,
128,747, 149, 154, 159, 192,248,249,
252,257,263-64,326,353 Strawberry Hill to Otter Creek Road
(#325), 353 Sweet Fern Path (#360), 248, 248, 353 Tarn Trail (#370), 251, 353, 359, 360, 362
See also Kane Path; Wild Gardens Path Tea House Path (#368), 353 The Pines Path (#611), 353 Thuja Lodge Trail, see Eliot Mountain
Trail Tilting Rock, trail to (#423), 8, 8, 16, 353 Toll House Path (#318), 353 Town Slip Paths (#636), 353 Triad Pass Trail, see Triad Pass Triad Pass, (#29), 112, 252, 354
See also Van Santvoord Trail Triad Pass, south (#418), 354 Triad Path, east (#419), 354 Triad Trail, 363
See also Van Santvoord Trail Triad-Hunter's Brook Trail, see Hunters
Brook Trail Turtle Lake and Jordan Pond Path, see
Pond Trail Upper Ladder Trail (#334), 64, 64, 65, 148,
149, 180, 181, 187, 189, 193, 281, 354 Valley Cove Trail (#105), 49, 79, 91, 187,
210, 253, 354, 365
See also Flying Mountain Trail Valley Cove Trail/Road (#626), 185-87,
187, 354 Valley Peak Trail (#104), 354 Valley Trail (#116), 6, 23, 32, 32, 33, 34, 78,
80, 87, 91, 151, 152, 154, 187, 188, 210, 354 Valley Trail Pemetic Connector (#461),
354 Van Santvoord Trail (#450), 8, 64, 65, 150,
181, 184, 200, 205, 207, 226, 259, 259,
264,267,354,359,363
See also Triad Pass Trail Village Path to Ox Ledge, see Ox Hill Path
385
Acadia Trails Treatment Plan
Waldron Bates Memorial Path, xiii, 248,
257,262
See also Chasm Path Water Pipe Path (#361), 354 Water Pipe Trail/Golf Links to Lower
Hadlock(#510),354 Water Tower Trail/Harborside Trail, see
Reservoir Trail Waterfall Trail, 253, 364
See also Hadlock Brook/Waterfall Trail West Beehive, see Beehive, West Western Mountain Road/Path (#616), 11,
354 Western Mountain Trail (#120), 67, 91, 92,
253,354,362,365 Western Mountain West Ledge Trail
(#123), 354 Western Mountain West Ridge Trail, see
Western Mountain West Ledge Trail Western Point, trail to (#446), 354 Western Trail, see Western Mountain Trail West Jordan Path, see Jordan Pond Loop
Trail West Side Long Pond, Seal Harbor (#410),
354 West Slope Trail, see Cadillac West Face
Trail White Path (#329), 49, 114, 250, 354 Wild Gardens Path (#18), 240, 241, 251,
354,362
See also Sieur de Monts-Tarn Trail Wild Gardens Path (#354), xi, 31, 49, 67,
149,157,158,274,274,354 Wildwood Farm Trail (#417), 354 Wildwood, connector (#416), 354 Wire Gate Path (#339), 354 Witch Hole Path (#313), 54, 354 Witch Hole Pond Loop (#344), 354 Wood Lane over Asticou Hill, see Asticou
Ridge Trail Woodbury Park, path to (#302), 354 Woods Road Path (#613), 354 Yellow and Black Path, see Orange and
Black Path Yellow and White Path (#336), 250, 354 Yellow and White Path (lower half), see
Bowl Trail Yellow Path (#338), 250, 354 Youngs Mountain Trail (#359), 354
386
BAR HARBOR
Producod by
National Park Service
Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation
Legend
I I Existing marked, maintained trails
~| Historic trails oo longer marked [1 Roads and carriage roads I | Acadia National Park lands K I J
National Park Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation 99 Warren Street, Brookline, Massachusetts 02445 Web: www.nps.gov/oclp/
Acadia National Park
PO Box 177, Bar Harbor, Maine 04609-0177 Phone: 207-288-3338 Web: www.nps.gov/acad/
ISBN 0-9779833-1-5