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
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11