Schoodic

Draft General Management Plan Amendment

and Environmental Impact Statement

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Acadia National Park - Maine

Northeast Region
Cover Illustration: Detail of Thomas Cole, View across Frenchman’s Bay, from Mt. Desert Island, Maine, after a Squall, 1845. 

Cincinnati Art Museum, gift of Miss Alice Scarborough.
Schoodic

Draft General Management Plan Amendment

and Environmental Impact Statement

Acadia National Park – Maine

Northeast Region

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

2004

Acadia National Park | National Park Service iii

ABSTRACT

This Draft General Management Plan

Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement

(DGMPA/EIS) documents the proposed management options for the Schoodic District of Acadia

National Park over the next 15–20 years. As

Acadia's General Management Plan (National

Park Service 1992a) does not address the transfer

of the navy base at Schoodic Point to the NPS,

there is a need to provide guidance for future

park use of navy facilities. This draft plan provides the foundation for decision making

regarding, among other things, resource management, cooperative efforts and partnerships,

visitor use, and operational efficiencies so that

future opportunities and challenges can be

effectively addressed. In addition, the environmental effects of each of the three alternatives

are analyzed. 

The three management alternatives include a

"no action" alternative (continued current 

management) and two "action" alternatives for

managing the resources and visitor uses of the

Schoodic District. All include the revision of

"management zoning" designed to conserve and

protect natural and cultural resources within the

Schoodic District, while allowing for visitor

experience of such resources. The preferred

alternative (C) would establish the Schoodic

Education and Research Center (SERC) at the

former navy base. The center would facilitate

science and learning through partnerships

among various organizations. Compared with

the other two alternatives, this proposal anticipates the highest number of visitors and staff at

the Schoodic District, while increasing opportunities for education and research. 

PUBLIC COMMENT

This draft document has been designed to 

evaluate the impacts of the three alternatives

considered and to provide the public an opportunity to comment. The public comment period

for the DGMPA/EIS will end 60 days after the

notice of availability is published in the Federal

Register. Please send comments to the office

and email addresses below. Please note that

names and addresses of people who comment

become part of the public record. 

John T. Kelly, Park Planner

Acadia National Park

P.O. Box 177

Bar Harbor, Maine 04609

John_T_Kelly@nps.gov

For additional information, visit the project

website:

http://www.nps.gov/acad/schoodic/home.htm 
Aerial photograph of Schoodic (source: U.S. Navy)
Acadia National Park | National Park Service v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

The Schoodic District of Acadia National Park 

was added in 1929. Between 1935 and 2002, the

Schoodic peninsula was home to a U.S. Navy

base located on 100 acres at Schoodic Point on

the far southern tip of the peninsula. In 2002

the base property was transferred from the Navy

to National Park Service (NPS) jurisdiction.

With the Navy's departure, NPS must now

decide how to convert this property from 

military to appropriate park use. 

The purpose of a general management plan is to

provide NPS with a basic framework for decision-making related to a variety of issues over a

period of 15–20 years. A general management

plan describes broad goals and objectives for the

park. In addition, management prescriptions for

the achievement of these goals and objectives

are provided within the document. 

Acadia's General Management Plan states that

NPS will manage the Schoodic District to retain

opportunities for low-density recreation, 

current (1992) use levels and parking lot capacities, and the existing naturalness and solitude.

In addition, the plan states that NPS will not

actively promote the Schoodic District or add

facilities to the area. All of the Schoodic

District is zoned as a "Natural Area," which

directs NPS to manage the area to conserve and

protect natural resources and ecological

processes, and provide for their use and enjoyment by the public.

PARK SETTING

Acadia National Park is located on the coast of

Maine and includes approximately 35,500 acres.

Most of the park is located on Mount Desert

Island. The park includes large portions of Isle

au Haut (15 miles southwest of Mount Desert

Island) and the Schoodic Peninsula (5 miles east

of Mount Desert Island). The Draft Schoodic

General Management Plan Amendment and

Environmental Impact Statement addresses the

2,366-acre Schoodic District of Acadia National

Park, which is the only portion of the park

located on the mainland. 

The study area lies within the Eastern Coastal

Region of the State of Maine, which extends

from Mount Desert Island to Canada in a 

20-mile-wide band along the Gulf of Maine

(McMahon 1990). The climate of the Eastern

Coastal Region is strongly moderated by the

Gulf of Maine. Winter temperatures are

warmer relative to those a few miles inland and

summer temperatures are relatively cooler. The

park lies in a broad transition zone between

southern deciduous and northern coniferous

forests. The combination of the climate and

varied topography has resulted in rich plant and

animal species diversity at Schoodic. 

Human occupation of the Maine area dates from

11,500 years ago. Coastal groups living

3,000–6,000 years ago were separate from interior

groups and are represented archeologically

primarily by shell middens. Early historic use of

the area was based on fishing and lumbering 

dating back to the late 1700s. Much of the study

area (the Schoodic Peninsula) remained uninhabited by non-native people. In 1929, the Schoodic

parklands were donated to NPS. By 1935, a Navy

radio communications station on Mount Desert

Island had been moved to the tip of the Schoodic

Peninsula and the associated 6-mile Schoodic

Loop Road on Schoodic had been completed.

Beginning at the northwestern boundary of the

park at Frazer Creek, the road provides visitors

with a classic Maine coast vista of rocky shoreline, islands and a lighthouse. The proposed

Schoodic Peninsula Historic District (not including the former navy base or coastal islands) is

eligible for listing in the National Register of

Historic Places as a significant cultural 

landscape. 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PLAN

The purpose of this Draft Schoodic General

Management Plan Amendment and Environmental

Impact Statement is to define direction for the

management of the entire 2,366-acre Schoodic

District of the park, including the former navy

base property. The plan provides the foundation

for decision making regarding resource management, cooperative efforts and partnerships,

visitor use, and operational efficiencies so that
vi Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

future opportunities and challenges can be effectively addressed. It also describes the existing

and desired conditions for park resources to

ensure the park's adherence to its mission statement. The intent of this plan is to uphold the

goals of the 1992 General Management Plan

while carrying out the new legislative mandates

for establishing a research and education center

at Schoodic.

As Acadia's current General Management Plan

does not address the closure and transfer to

NPS of the navy base at Schoodic Point, there is

a need to provide guidance for future park use

of navy facilities. The recent addition of the

navy base property offers many opportunities

for resource protection and visitor use. Its 

historic buildings and other facilities have great

potential to support the park's mission; 

however, they also present management dilemmas for the entire Schoodic District. While 

legislative direction calls for a research and 

education center at Schoodic, details about the

scale and operation of the center are left to NPS

to determine. Those details appear in each of

three alternatives analyzed in this Draft General

Management Plan Amendment and

Environmental Impact Statement.

INITIAL ACTIONS

The NPS is undertaking a number of initial

actions at the former navy base to prepare it for

park use as well as to provide continuity of

certain services. Immediate needs include modifications to facilities for health and safety, 

providing for limited public use, maintaining

buildings and utilities, conducting educational

programs, housing researchers, and managing

resources. 

CRITICAL ISSUES

Planning efforts for the Schoodic District

included consultation with resource experts,

visitors, park neighbors, local and state governments, and members of the public in order to

identify their concerns and hopes for the area.

As a result, the following issues were identified

as critical for park management. 

• resource management, 

• visitor use/interpretation, 

• cooperative efforts/partnerships, and 

• operational efficiencies. 

All are considered of importance to the park's

mission and goals and were instrumental in the

formulation of management prescriptions

(statements of desired future conditions) and

alternatives. 

ALTERNATIVES

Three long-range management alternatives for

managing the resources and visitor uses of the

Schoodic District are analyzed in detail in this

EIS, including a "no action" alternative

(continued current management) and two

"action" alternatives. All include the revision of

"management zoning" designed to conserve and

protect natural and cultural resources within

the Schoodic District, while allowing for visitor

experience of such resources. Some

management prescriptions (statements of

desired future conditions) for the four critical

issues noted above are consistent for all three

alternatives. 

In addition, Acadia National Park has been

selected to house a research learning center as

part of a nationwide NPS initiative called the

"Natural Resource Challenge." Called the

Schoodic Education and Research Center

(SERC), this new center will be the primary use

for the newly acquired facilities at Schoodic.

SERC is common to all the alternatives

described in this plan, but its management,

scale, and cooperation with partners will

vary.

ALTERNATIVES ADDRESSED IN THE

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Alternative A

No Action

The No Action Alternative reflects existing park

conditions. It includes ongoing activities while

serving as a baseline for comparison of impacts

with the action alternatives. Under this

approach, the Schoodic District, including the

former navy base, would continue to be 

managed by NPS as in the past, with some

minor changes related to the Navy's departure.

This would likely result in the continuation of

visitors' enjoyment of a quiet, uncrowded experience. Five additional staff members are 

proposed under this approach, allowing for only
Acadia National Park | National Park Service vii

occasional visitor programs on the former navy

base. Park information and interpretation

would remain at current levels. 

Overall visitor day use for the entire Schoodic

District would increase by about 1% per year, in

addition to some 1,800 new annual program

participants at the former navy base.

Accommodations for 20 program participants

would be available in dormitories. Traffic,

already significantly reduced as a result of the

Navy's departure, is expected to remain well

below 2001 conditions as a result of this alternative. Management of navy base facilities would

be minimal and focused on the protection and

maintenance of existing facilities. The historic

Rockefeller Building and powerhouse would be

preserved according to The Secretary of the

Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic

Properties (NPS 1995).

Alternative B

National Park Service Management

This alternative would combine the continuation of the park's current operation with some

expansion to include the use of navy base facilities for park use, primarily through additional

visitor programming. Overall management of

the Schoodic District facilities, programming,

maintenance, etc., including the former navy

base, would be the responsibility of NPS.

Priority would be focused on existing research

and education and the preservation of historic

structures. Unnecessary navy base structures

would be removed. Over time, almost half of

the base could be restored to natural conditions.

Thirty additional staff members are proposed

under this approach, allowing for a more

intense use of the navy base for programming,

research, and education. Educational and

interpretive visitor information would be

increased under this alternative.

A 1% per year increase in visitor day use for the

entire Schoodic Unit is expected, in addition to

some 13,500 new annual program participants at

the former base. Overnight accommodations for

90 program participants would be available. As

a result of the Navy's departure, traffic volumes

under this alternative will still have been significantly reduced but they are slightly higher than

those under the No Action Alternative. The historic Rockefeller Building and powerhouse

would be preserved and rehabilitated according

to The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the

Treatment of Historic Properties (NPS 1995). The

building would include offices and other space

related to increased programming and visitor use.

Removal of some unused buildings on the base

could result in up to 40 acres of disturbed lands

being restored to native plant communities. 

Alternative C

Collaborative Management (Preferred)

This alternative would establish the Schoodic

Education and Research Center (SERC) with 

multiple partners and is believed to be the one

that best meets park goals set forth in the Draft

General Management Plan Amendment. The

approach relies on collaborative partnerships

among the park and other entities designed to

promote broad-based research and education. A

new nonprofit organization would function as

coordinator of programming/activities and would

assist in site management (food, lodging, meeting

coordination). Navy base facilities would be used

for meetings, retreats, and special events consistent with the mission of SERC. The park would

continue to sponsor research and work with

other partners in developing laboratory, library,

computing, and other facilities as a part of SERC.

Sixty additional staff members are proposed

under this approach, allowing for the most

intense use of the navy base for programming,

research, and education of all alternatives.

Educational and interpretive visitor information

would be increased under this alternative.

An annual increase of about 1% per year in 

visitor day use for the entire Schoodic Unit is

expected. In addition, approximately 31,500 new

annual program participants are expected at the

former navy base. Approximately 190 program

participants could be housed overnight in dorms

and apartments. Traffic volumes would be lower

than those experienced during navy base operations, but higher than those expected under the

other two alternatives. The historic Rockefeller

Building and powerhouse, along with the 

commissary and medical clinic, would be 

preserved and the interiors rehabilitated for

expanded program use. Where National Register

of Historic Places eligible structures are involved,

rehabilitation would adhere to The Secretary of

the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of

Historic Properties (NPS 1995). Non-historic and

ineligible structures would be evaluated for
viii Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

use/removal. Removal of unused buildings on

the base could result in up to 16 acres of

disturbed lands being restored to native plant

communities. 

ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED

FROM FURTHER STUDY

The following alternatives were considered but

not analyzed in detail as they were considered

impractical or undesirable and did not meet

NPS goals identified for the study area:

• Conversion of the navy base property into an

independent Navy Morale, Welfare, and

Recreation facility for active-duty and retired

military personnel. 

• Restoration of the navy base property back

to its 1935 appearance when the Navy first

opened the radio station at Schoodic.

• Restoration of the navy base to pre-1935 conditions.

The potential consequences of the actions of

each alternative were evaluated as to the effects

they may have on natural and cultural resources,

visitor experience, and the socioeconomic environment of the Schoodic District. Effects are

categorized as beneficial or adverse and according to their intensity (negligible to major). In

addition, cumulative impacts were evaluated for

each topic. Cumulative impacts are defined as

additive and indicate the extent of damage (or

benefit) that is already ongoing at a site, as well

as information about past, present, and future

trends.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The following discussion summarizes impacts of

the three alternatives. As a significant number

of proposed actions/impacts are common to all

alternatives, these are discussed as such immediately below, followed by impact discussions of

specific alternatives. All impacts are summarized in detail in Table 2. For a complete discussion, please refer to Part Four. 

IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL 

ALTERNATIVES

Natural Resources

The implementation of public transportation

options (buses, shuttles) would result in minor

benefits to local air quality within the Schoodic

District. Limiting parking spaces in the park

could potentially reduce emissions, but this

potential benefit could be offset by visitors

unaware of the space reduction inadvertently

increasing emissions as their cars idle while

waiting for parking. The proposed use of base

structures containing less than 1% asbestos

would result in a negligible risk to human health

under No Action; similar, but slightly higher,

risks are expected under Alternatives B and C.

Revegetation of social trails on Little Moose

Island would result in minor, localized benefits

to soils in the area. Construction of a 0.75–mi.

trail on Little Moose Island would result in

localized, negligible to minor adverse impacts to

soils. Implementation of visitor use controls in

critical habits may reduce erosion, a positive

impact to soils. Moderate to major impacts to

soils would occur from the general increase in

use of the Schoodic District (unrelated to base

use) over the next 10–15 years. Significant

reduction of fuel storage, vehicle maintenance,

and hazardous material handling would result in

minor or moderate, localized benefits to soils at

the base; negligible to minor regional benefits to

soils would be realized.

Inventory/monitoring of vegetation resources,

determination of acceptable visitation levels,

and implementation of appropriate zoning

could result in major localized benefits for vegetation compared to existing conditions on Little

Moose Island; minor to moderate benefits could

be realized in other less disturbed vegetative

communities on the peninsula. Revegetation of
Acadia National Park | National Park Service ix

social trails on Little Moose Island and the 

construction of a 0.75–mile trail could result in

major local benefits for rare plants and coastal

headland vegetation. Monitoring/control of

aggressive non-native plants will likely result in

small benefits for freshwater wetlands. The

acquisition of a conservation easement to the

north of the Schoodic District could provide

minor to major benefits to forest vegetation on

the peninsula. Minor to moderate localized

benefits to vegetation are expected by the

removal of unused structures (e.g., fencing) in

the study area. Ongoing disturbance of soils

and vegetation as a result of facility construction

continues to be a minor impact to the peninsula.

The general increase in visitation over the next

10–15 years would result in possible major

impacts to vegetation along some trails.

However, reduction in use related to base 

closure could create a moderate benefit to vegetation in such areas. 

Inventory/monitoring of coastal resources,

determination of acceptable visitation levels,

and implementation of appropriate zoning could

result in minor to moderate benefits to coastal

resources in intertidal areas of the peninsula.

Similar efforts for the evaluation of coastal

wildlife (including the common eider and other

nesting seabirds) could result in moderate or

major localized benefits. Revegetation of social

trails on Little Moose Island and construction of

a 0.75–mile trail could have moderate, localized

benefits for coastal vegetation. 

Inventory/monitoring of wildlife resources,

determination of acceptable visitation levels, and

implementation of appropriate zoning could

result in major localized benefits for wildlife,

including the bald eagle. Minor to major benefits

to wildlife are possible through the acquisition of

a conservation easement to the north of the

Schoodic District. Negligible to minor benefits

for wildlife are expected as a result of implementation of public transport options (buses) and by

the base closure. 

Cultural Resources

The inventory/monitoring of cultural resources

in the study area, as well as the determination of

acceptable visitor levels, would result in minor

to major benefits to cultural resources.

Revegetation of social trails on Little Moose

Island to their native state could result in minor

to major, site-specific benefits to cultural

resources. At the same time, ground-disturbing

revegetation activities associated with trail construction on the island could result in negligible

to minor impacts, particularly to archeological

resources. Preparation of the National Register

of Historic Places nomination form for the 

proposed Schoodic Peninsula Historic District

would result in minor to moderate regional 

benefits. The use of The Secretary of the

Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic

Properties (NPS 1995) for guidance when evaluating new public transportation options will

result in a benefit of unknown degree to the

cultural landscape of the peninsula. Rezoning

of certain lands on the peninsula from "Natural

Environment Subzone" to "Preservation

Subzone" would result in minor to moderate,

localized to regional benefits for the cultural

landscape. Negligible to minor, site-specific

benefits are expected for the Schoodic Point

restroom as a result of maintenance activities

conducted according to The Secretary of the

Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic

Properties (NPS 1995). Minor, site-specific 

benefits to the Rockefeller Building are

expected as a result of proposed zoning

(Preservation/Adaptive Use). In addition,

adherence to these standards in planning maintenance/preservation activities would result in

minor to moderate benefits to the National

Register of Historic Places–eligible structure.

The NPS acquisition of navy archives and collections is considered a minor, regional benefit

to cultural resources. 

Visitor Experience

The determination of acceptable levels of visitation and implementation of management zoning

could result in minor to moderate impacts to

visitors; however, improved visitor information

regarding sensitive park resources may offset

this impact. Revegetation of social trails and

construction of a maintained trail on Little

Moose Island would result in an overall benefit

to visitors, while creating minor adverse impacts

for those who frequented social trails in the

past. Negligible to minor benefits to visitor

experience would be realized by the connection

of other trails on Schoodic with existing base

trails. 
x Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION

Natural Resources

Reductions in vehicular use at Schoodic related

to base closure, coupled with the reduced use of

boilers on base, would result in negligible,

regional benefits to air quality, while providing

major localized benefits. 

Reduction in use/demand for drinking water

related to base closure is expected to have negligible to minor benefits to ground water 

supplies. Similar reductions in wastewater 

discharge are expected to have an unknown

benefit (possibly moderate to major) to water

quality in Arey Cove.

Negligible to minor benefits are possible for the

common eider and other seabirds due to

reduced human use of the area resulting from

base closure.

The general increase in visitation over the life of

the plan will likely result in negligible to minor

impacts to wildlife around trails though these

could be offset by unknown benefits of the 

significant decrease in human activity around

the base.

Cultural Resources

The combined effects of base closure, the addition of a very small number of vehicle trips by

program participants, and the limited park 

traffic unrelated to new programs are considered minor benefits to the cultural landscape,

particularly to the Schoodic Loop Road, in that

they would help in delaying major road maintenance activities.

Visitor Experience

Despite the slow increase in visitors, minor to

moderate impacts to Schoodic Point and trails

around Schoodic Head will likely occur at 

midday as a result of crowding. Minor impacts

may occur at Frazer Point. The notable decrease

in traffic as a result of base closure will provide

negligible or minor benefits to visitors. The less

military and more natural appearance of the 

former navy base and its much smaller human

presence will contribute to a quieter, more

peaceful visitor experience, a minor benefit

when compared to 2001 conditions. 

Socioeconomic Environment

The expected 1% annual visitor increase to the

Schoodic District, coupled with the small 

number of proposed program participants (1800

per year) and staff (5), would result in negligible

to minor benefits to the socioeconomic environment of the area relative to conditions under

base closure. Other economic benefits of

unknown magnitude will likely occur from

employee/visitor spending in nearby communities and rental housing by staff. However, these

are offset by significant cumulative adverse

impacts to spending, jobs, personal income,

community infrastructure, housing, schools, and

the social fabric of the region resulting from

base closure.

ALTERNATIVE B: NPS MANAGEMENT

Natural Resources

Reductions in vehicular use at Schoodic, 

coupled with the reduced use of boilers on the

base, would result in negligible, regional benefits to air quality while providing major localized benefits (effects similar to those under the

No Action Alternative). Proposed use of base

structures containing less than 1% asbestos

would create slightly higher risk than would the

No Action proposal (negligible risk) as more

buildings would be occupied under this

approach.

When compared to the No Action Alternative,

the slightly increased demand under this alternative for drinking water and wastewater 

discharge would result in negligible to minor

impacts to groundwater resources and moderate

adverse impacts to Arey Cove water quality. 

The impact of slightly increased visitor program

use on existing trails would create negligible to

minor soil impacts when compared to No

Action. However, ongoing, localized impacts to

soils could increase to major. Impacts to soils

of overall trail use in the study area are negligible. Removal of base buildings and restoration

of 40 acres of disturbed lands would result in a

major, localized benefit to both soils and vegetation. As is also the case under Alternative C,

implementation of a comprehensive hiking plan

for the peninsula could create a minor to moderate reduction in soil erosion when compared

to No Action.
Acadia National Park | National Park Service xi

Trail use by program participants could result in

minor to moderate localized impacts to soils

and vegetation when compared to No Action. 

The addition of directed programming to sensitive, infrequently used intertidal areas could

result in minor to locally major impacts to coastal

resources; monitoring and use restrictions may

mitigate the impacts to negligible or minor.

Unrestricted use of intertidal areas by program

participants may have additive and adverse

impacts to common eiders and other seabirds.

Impacts could be mitigated to negligible or minor

by allowing only guided tours and limiting numbers of participants in these areas. 

A minor, localized benefit to wildlife is possible

from the removal of some base structures and

the restoration of 40 acres of vegetation to a

more natural state. The general increase in visitation over the life of the plan, including the

addition of 150 program participants per day,

may result in negligible to minor impacts to

wildlife. Increased overnight programming at

the base could have additional minor or moderate impacts to some nocturnal mammals when

compared to No Action. Directed or unregulated program use of the islands could result in

minor or moderate impacts to wildlife; however,

guided use or restrictions could reduce impacts

to minor. Implementation of daily ferry service

to the peninsula could have minor to moderate

impacts to feeding eagles, though no critical

habitat would be affected and no impacts at the

park level to the eagle population would result.

Cultural Resources

Expected increases in traffic are still lower than

when the base was in operation and impacts

would remain minor to the cultural landscape of

the peninsula, particularly the Schoodic Loop

Road. Negligible to minor, site-specific impacts

to buried cultural resources are possible as a

result of building removal on base; impacts may

be mitigated to negligible by the involvement of

a professional cultural resource specialist in

advance of such activities. Increased educational/interpretive visitor information related to

historic preservation would have negligible to

moderate benefits. Restoration to natural 

conditions of 40 acres of base land would result

in a negligible or minor benefit to the cultural

landscape of the potentially eligible Schoodic

Peninsula Historic District. Landscaping sympathetic to the original 1934 design around the

National Register of Historic Places–eligible

Rockefeller Building is a minor, site-specific

benefit to the resource. 

Visitor Experience

The increased visitor use of the peninsula under

this approach could result in major adverse

impacts for visitors to Schoodic Point during

peak-use times. Minor impacts could also

occur at Frazer Point. Overnight visitor use of

the base would create only negligible impacts to

views of the nighttime sky. A general reduction

of traffic from the baseline year of 2001 is offset

by the construction traffic (highest under this

alternative), resulting in overall net negligible or

minor benefits to traffic levels. Slow–moving

construction traffic could create minor impacts

to visitors, particularly along the Schoodic Loop

Road. 

Removal of up to 15 base buildings, as well as

the rehabilitation of other structures, could

have short-term, minor to major impacts (dust,

noise) for program participants. Restoration of

about 40 acres of disturbed landscaping would

have a minor or moderate benefit to visitors.

Minor benefits to visitor experience would

occur by creating a more campus-like and 

natural feel to the base area. Rehabilitation of

the Rockefeller Building for education/interpretive programs and redesign of its landscaping

could have minor to moderate localized benefits

on visitor experience. Minor benefits for visitors would be realized as a result of improved

parking and circulation at the base.

Socioeconomic Environment

The expected 1% annual visitor increase to the

Schoodic District, coupled with an increased

number of program participants (13,500 per

year and staff (30), would result in major benefit

to area socieconomics compared to No Action.

Other economic benefits of unknown magnitude will likely occur from employee/visitor

spending in nearby communities. Housing

rentals by park staff may lend a negligible to

minor benefit to the local economy. However,

these benefits are offset by cumulative adverse

impacts to spending, jobs, personal income,

community, infrastructure, housing, schools,

and the social fabric of the region resulting

from base closure. These cumulative adverse

impacts related to base closure are not as

intense as those associated with No Action but

are greater than those expected under

Alternative C.
xii Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

ALTERNATIVE C:

COLLABORATIVE MANAGEMENT

(PREFERRED)

Natural Resources

Vehicle use and use of boilers on the base, 

compared to when it was occupied by Naval

personnel, would both be reduced, although

both would be increased compared to No

Action. Compared to No Action, impacts would

be minor and adverse. Proposed use of base

structures containing less than 1% asbestos

would create slightly higher risk than would the

other two alternatives (negligible) as more

buildings would be occupied under this

approach.

When compared to No Action, the increase in

wastewater discharge to Arey Cove would result

in moderate to major adverse impacts to water

quality. However, when compared to prior navy

operations, a minor or moderate benefit is realized. Demand for drinking water is greatest

under this approach, resulting in negligible or

minor impacts when compared to No Action. 

Soil impacts caused by additional program trail

use would be minor compared to No Action. 

Additional visitors could increase the likelihood

of off-trail erosion with negligible to minor soil

impacts. Impacts to soils from overall trail use

in the study area are negligible to minor.

Removal of base buildings and restoration of 16

acres of disturbed lands could result in a 

moderate, localized benefits to both soils and

vegetation. As is also the case under Alternative

B, implementation of a comprehensive hiking

plan for the peninsula could result in a minor to

moderate reduction in soil erosion when compared to No Action.

Increased trail use by program participants to

and from Schoodic Head and elsewhere on the

peninsula could create minor to major localized

impacts to vegetation when compared to No

Action. Directed program trail use could

increase impacts to major, and limited access to

guided tours could keep them to moderate. 

A negligible to minor benefit to wildlife could

occur from the removal of some base structures

and restoration of 16 acres of land to a more

natural state. The general increase in visitation

over the life of the plan, including the addition

of 350 program participants per day, will likely

result in minor impacts to wildlife in the vicinity

of the base and adjacent trails. Increased

overnight use of the former base facilities could

have additional moderate impacts on some 

nocturnal mammals. As under Alternative B,

directed or unregulated program use of the

islands could result in minor or moderate

impacts to wildlife; however, guided use or

restrictions could reduce impacts to minor. 

Cultural Resources

Even with increased programming, vehicular

traffic would be less than when the navy base

was operational. Minor to moderate impacts

are expected to the cultural landscape, particularly the Schoodic Loop Road for which maintenance needs are greater than under the other

two alternatives. As is the case under

Alternative B, negligible to minor, site-specific

impacts to buried cultural resources are possible as a result of building removal on base;

impacts may be mitigated to negligible by the

presence of a professional cultural resource 

specialist during activities. Increased educational/interpretive visitor information related to

historic preservation would result in negligible

to moderate benefits, as is the case under

Alternative B. The restoration to natural conditions of 16 acres of base land would result in

negligible or minor benefits to the cultural landscape of the potentially eligible Schoodic

Peninsula Historic District. Minor, site-specific

benefits to the Rockefeller Building would be

realized by landscaping sympathetic to the original 1934 design, a similar benefit as that under

Alternative B.

The Collaborative Partnership Alternative C

would expland maintenance capacity and thus

provide greater protection for cultural

resources.

Visitor Experience

As under Alternative B, the increase in visitor

use of the peninsula may result in major adverse

impacts to visitor experience for Schoodic Point

during peak-use times. Moderate impacts are

expected at Frazer Point. When compared to

No Action, overnight use of the base could have

minor adverse impacts on views of the night sky. 

Reductions in traffic related to base closure

would provide negligible to minor benefits to
Acadia National Park | National Park Service xiii

visitors; however, increases in traffic related to

additional programming could result in moderate to major impacts to the visitor experience.

These impacts may be offset by the proposed

expansion of ferry and other public transit

options. Construction traffic would be less

severe than under Alternative B, resulting in

only negligible to minor impacts to visitor 

experience. As is also true under Alternative B,

minor benefits to visitor experience would

result from creating a more campus-like and

natural feel to the base area. Removal of 5–10

base buildings, as well as the rehabilitation of

other structures, could result in minor to major

impacts to visitor experience, an improvement

over the impacts associated with Alternative B.

Restoration of 16 acres of disturbed landscape

at the base would have a negligible to minor

benefit to visitor experience. As is the case

under Alternative B, rehabilitation of the

Rockefeller Building for education/interpretive

programs and landscaping sympathetic to the

1934 design could have minor to moderate localized benefits on visitor experience. Minor 

benefits for visitors would be realized under

both Alternatives B and C as a result of

improved parking and circulation at the base.

Socioeconomic Environment

Compared to the other two alternatives,

Alternative C would result in the most significant benefits to the socioeconomic environment

of the general area. The expected 1% annual

visitor increase to the Schoodic District, 

coupled with an even greater increase in 

program participants (31,500 per year) and staff

(60), would result in a minor benefit to the

socioeconomic environment when compared to

the No Action alternative. Other economic

benefits of unknown magnitude will likely

occur from employee/visitor spending in nearby

communities. Housing rental by park staff may

create a negligible to minor benefit to the local

economy, an effect similar to that under

Alternative B.

The significant adverse impacts of base closure

on spending in the area would be partially

offset by additional revenue generated under

this approach. Compared to No Action, minor

benefits may be realized under this alternative

for unemployment, housing vacancies, and the

unfilled capacities of community infrastructure,

schools, and the social fabric of the region. 

COSTS SUMMARY *

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

No Action NPS Management Collaborative Management

Annual

Operating $ 1,057,000 $ 2,014,000 $ 2,364,000**

Construction

(Non-recurring) $ 0 $ 9,547,000 $ 11,538,000

* Cost estimates are preliminary Class C based on year 2004 dollars. See Appendix B for more detail.

** for Alternative C, it is assumed that the nonprofit organization would provide

an additional $812,000 for maintenance and utilities.

CONTENTS 

ABSTRACT iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v

PART ONE: FOUNDATION FOR THE PLAN 

Background and Introduction 1 

Purpose and Need for the Plan 1 

Park Setting 3

Park Mission, Purpose, and Significance 12

Schoodic Legislative History 14

Initial Actions 16

Planning Issues 17

Management Goals 18

Environmental Issues 19

Mandatory Impact Topics 21

Alternatives Eliminated from Further Study 22

PART TWO: THE ALTERNATIVES AND THEIR COMMON ELEMENTS 

Management Zoning 29

Management Prescriptions Common to All Alternatives 30

Alternative A: No Action 35

Alternative B: National Park Service Management 36

Alternative C: Collaborative Management (Preferred) 40

Environmentally Preferred Alternative and Compliance with 

Section 101 and 102(1) of the National Environmental Policy Act 71

PART THREE: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Natural Resources 77

Cultural Resources 90

Visitor Experience 93 

Socioeconomic Environment 94

PART FOUR: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Methodology 97

Laws, Regulations, and Policies 104

Impacts to Natural Resources 108

Impacts to Cultural Resources 135

Impacts to Visitor Experience 143

Impacts to Socioeconomic Environment 150

PART FIVE: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

Summary of Planning 161

List of Draft General Management Plan Amendment Recipients 163

List of Preparers 164

GLOSSARY 165

BIBLIOGRAPHY 167

APPENDICES

A. Parkwide Interpretive Themes 171

B. Cost Estimates 172

C. Alternate Transportation Study Summary 175

D. Navy Base Building Reuse Tables 179

E. Design Guidelines for Schoodic Education and Research Center 182

F. Section 106 Consultation Requirements for Plan Undertakings 183

G. Schoodic Education and Research Center under Alternative C 184
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Rockefeller Building 

Figure 2. Map of Acadia National Park 

Figure 3. Schoodic Peninsula and Surrounding Islands 

Figure 4. Acadia National Park: Schoodic District 

Figure 5. Federally Protected Coastal Lands 

Figure 6. Existing Features: Schoodic District 

Figure 7. Existing Features: Former Schoodic Navy Base 

Figure 8. Schoodic Management Zoning 

Figure 9. Alternative A: No Action 

Figure 10. Alternative B: National Park Service Management 

Figure 11. Alternative C: Collaborative Management (Preferred) 

Figure 12. Schoodic Education and Research Center 

Figure 13. Conceptual Site Plan, Lower Campus: Alternative C (Preferred) 

Figure 14. Schoodic Today

Figure 15. Schoodic Education and Research Center Campus 

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Baseline and Projected Use Data 

Table 2. Comparison of Alternatives by Goals 

Table 3. Total 1998 Emissions for Naval Security Group Activity Winter Harbor 

Table 4. Former Navy Buildings with Greater than 1% Asbestos 

Table 5. Plants of State Concern Located Within the Schoodic District 

Table 6. Wildlife Habitats of State Concern Located Within and Bordering the Schoodic District 

Table 7. Amphibians and Reptiles Found on the Schoodic Peninsula 

Table 8. Mammals Found on the Schoodic Peninsula 

Table 9. Proposed Schoodic Peninsula Historic District Contributing Resources 

Table 10. Summary of Impacts 
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 1

PART ONE: FOUNDATION FOR THE PLAN

BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION

Acadia National Park includes 2,366 acres on

the Schoodic Peninsula, approximately 45 miles

by road from Bar Harbor, Maine, but only five

miles by water across Frenchman Bay. Added to

Acadia in 1929, the Schoodic District receives

far fewer visitors than Mount Desert Island and,

as a result, offers opportunities for quiet

enjoyment. Visitor amenities include a 6–mile

scenic drive along the coast, the Frazer Point

picnic area, hiking trails, and a gravel road to

Schoodic Head, the highest point on the

peninsula, which offers panoramic views of the

region. Schoodic Point, a popular destination at

the southernmost end of the peninsula, draws

those who seek to experience the ever-changing

waters of the Atlantic Ocean from a rough pink

granite shore laced with veins of basalt. The

Schoodic District also includes Little Moose,

Pond, Rolling, and Schoodic Islands. 

Coastal Maine has long been a magnet for

important American artists including Thomas

Cole, who in his 1836 "Essay on American

Scenery" called upon his fellow citizens to

"appreciate the treasures of their own country."

He sketched and painted Schoodic and inspired

others, including Frederic Church and Fitz

Hugh Lane, to experience a place as yet undiscovered by tourists. Working artists continued

to spend time in the region through the 19th and

20th centuries, providing a fine visual record of

its scenery. 

Since 1935, the peninsula has also been home to

the United States Navy, when a radio station was

constructed to replace a similar facility on

Mount Desert Island that stood in the way of

construction of the Park Loop Road. The navy

base, most recently known as Naval Security

Group Activity Winter Harbor (NSGA), was

located on 100 acres at Schoodic Point that had

been part of Acadia National Park. When the

navy announced its intention to close the base at

Schoodic, the National Park Service (NPS)

began planning to receive property that by law

would revert back to NPS. The transfer took

place on July 1, 2002.

This plan is being prepared while the Schoodic

Peninsula is undergoing a great deal of change

due to the navy's departure. Much of that

change, while directly affecting the park, is

being driven by a panoply of local, state, and

other interests. The NPS is actively engaged in

this ongoing dialogue about the future of

Schoodic, and is grateful for the information

provided and willingness of community leaders

to participate in this planning process. 

The base closure also involved 23 acres in

Winter Harbor containing 80 units of housing

and 451 acres in Corea, part of the town of

Gouldsboro, where two operations buildings are

surrounded by an important ecological area.

These properties have transferred to the Town

of Winter Harbor and U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service. Planning for their transition is being

done in consultation with NPS, but is not

described in this plan.

Plans for the Schoodic District acknowledge the

significant loss of jobs and economic activity

associated with closing of the navy base and

support state and local economic development

efforts while ensuring that new uses within the

park are consistent with the laws and policies

governing Acadia National Park.

PURPOSE AND NEED

FOR THE PLAN

The purpose of a general management plan is to

provide the National Park Service with a basic

foundation for decision making over a period of

10–15 years. A general management plan

describes broad goals for the park and the 

management prescriptions (i.e., desired

resource conditions and visitor experiences)

that should be achieved and maintained over

time. The purpose of the Draft Schoodic

General Management Plan Amendment and

Environmental Impact Statement is to describe

the issues identified during the public planning

process, and to present alternatives for longrange management actions to address them. 

The intent of this plan is to uphold the goals of
2 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

the 1992 General Management Plan while establishing a research and education center at

Schoodic. The document also analyzes the 

possible environmental impacts associated with

implementation. After public review and 

comment, the National Park Service will adopt a

final General Management Plan Amendment for

the Schoodic District that will amend the 1992

General Management Plan now in effect.

Acadia's General Management Plan did not

anticipate the closure of the Naval Security

Group Activity Winter Harbor, nor that there

would be legislative direction for a research and

education center at Schoodic, so it did not 

provide guidance for future use of navy buildings and land. With the U.S. Navy's departure,

NPS must now decide how to convert this property from military to national park use. An

added challenge is that the U.S. Navy provided

important services to the park and adjacent

communities, including snow plowing of park

roads and assistance with fire protection and

emergency response. Acadia National Park and

the towns must now address these needs while

dealing with the loss of a major generator of

economic activity for the region.

Acadia's 1992 General Management Plan states

that NPS will manage the Schoodic District to

retain opportunities for low-density recreation,

current use levels and parking lot capacities,

and the existing naturalness and solitude. In

addition, the plan states that NPS will not

actively promote the Schoodic District nor add

facilities to the area. All of the Schoodic

District is zoned as a "Natural Area," which

directs NPS to manage the area to conserve and

protect natural resources and ecological

processes, and provide for their use and enjoyment by the public. Because the navy property

was an inholding not owned by NPS, it was not

zoned.

The recent addition of the navy base property

to Acadia National Park offers many opportunities for resource protection and visitor use. Its

historic buildings and other facilities have great

potential to support the park's mission; however, they also present management dilemmas

for the entire 2,366-acre Schoodic District.

While legislative direction calls for a research

and education center at Schoodic, details about

the scale and operation of the center are appropriately left to NPS to determine. The NPS

conducted feasibility studies for the center as

part of this planning process, and the resultant

alternatives are based on operational assumptions developed during those studies as well as

on natural and cultural resource information.

The NPS is undertaking a number of initial

actions at the former navy base to prepare it for

civilian use. Immediate needs being addressed

include modifications to facilities for health and

safety, providing for limited public use, maintaining buildings and utilities, and managing

resources. 

Because implementation funding is available

now for buildings and site work on the former

navy property, this document also serves as a

development concept plan. It includes program

assumptions about the nature of activities

expected, design goals and guidelines, and a

conceptual site plan for the initial work

expected to take place within the next few

years. 

SCHOODIC EDUCATION AND

RESEARCH CENTER

Acadia National Park has been selected to house

a research learning center as part of a nationwide NPS initiative called the "Natural

Resource Challenge." Called the Schoodic

Education and Research Center (SERC), this

will be the primary use for the newly acquired

facilities at Schoodic. Basic operational funding

for the center is being provided and a range of

possible activities is being studied in concert

with this planning process. The centers offer

on-site facilities for research and education and

provide housing for program participants. The

centers are also expected to involve collaborations with partners such as universities and

research institutes, and to offer public 

programming for learners of all ages.

Most activities under consideration for SERC

will be developed through partnerships with

one or more organizations with goals compatible to those of Acadia National Park. Many

such partnerships exist now but have been 

constrained by the lack of facilities for research

and education elsewhere in the park. 
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 3

The former navy base at Schoodic was identified

as having the potential to provide the necessary

facilities and support functions for an exceptional learning and research community (Figure

1). SERC is common to all the alternatives

described in this plan, but its management,

scale, and cooperation with partners will vary. 

The purpose of SERC is to promote and 

facilitate education and research that is consistent with the mission of NPS. This plan

describes three different scenarios for how

SERC might develop. SERC's programs and

activities would enhance the purposes and 

values for which Acadia National Park was

established. A more detailed description of

SERC under Alternative C is provided in

Appendix G.

PARK SETTING

This section gives an overview of the natural

and cultural resources of the Schoodic District

of Acadia National Park and a brief chronology

of its history and development. Also included

are descriptions of existing park facilities and of

the visitor experience. For more detailed information on those resources that might be

affected by the actions proposed in this plan,

please see Part Three: Affected Environment.

GEOGRAPHY AND CLIMATE

Acadia National Park is located on the coast of

Maine and includes approximately 35,500 acres

(Figure 2). Most of the park is located on

Mount Desert Island and covers about half of

its area. The park also includes about 2,400

acres on the Schoodic Peninsula; 2,700 acres on

Isle au Haut; and all or parts of 16 smaller

coastal islands (Figure 2). The NPS also manages about 180 conservation easements that

protect over 11,000 acres on islands in Knox

County, and on islands and the Schoodic

Peninsula in Hancock County.

The general management plan amendment and

environmental impact statement address the

2,366–acre Schoodic District of Acadia National

Park, which is the only portion of the park

located on the mainland. The Schoodic District

is located entirely within the Town of Winter

Harbor on the southern tip of the Schoodic

Peninsula. The peninsula lies within the

Eastern Coastal Region of the State of Maine,

which extends from Mount Desert Island to

Canada in a 20–mile–wide band along the Gulf

of Maine (McMahon 1990). 

Figure 1. The historic Rockefeller Building could be a focal point of the Schoodic Education and Research Center.
4 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

The climate of the Eastern Coastal Region is

strongly moderated by the Gulf of Maine.

Winter temperatures are warmer relative to

those a few miles inland and summer temperatures are relatively cooler. The area is often

shrouded in fog brought by onshore winds,

which help keep humidity comparatively high.

The range of temperature extremes is narrower

than in inland Maine, and the frost-free season

is longer with less snowfall overall. The mean

annual temperature at Acadia National Park for

1940–1980 was 46oF (8oC) (Kahl et al. 2000).

Annual precipitation for the same period averaged about 48 inches and ranged from 39 to 73

inches. In summer, the area experiences convective storms with intense rainfall of short

duration. During the rest of the year, the area

experiences broad frontal systems of less

intense, longer-lasting rainfall (Kahl et al. 2000).

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Geology and Topography 

The Schoodic Peninsula is a product of geological upheavals, glacial scouring, and inundation

by the sea. The bedrock of the Schoodic

Peninsula and most of the surrounding islands

consists of fine-grained pinkish granite. Huge

fractures have occurred in the granite along the

shoreline, creating gigantic slabs and blocks.

Within some of these fractures are black basalt

dikes, which are the product of intrusive, solidified magma. Measuring up to 25 feet thick,

these dikes are very prominent at Schoodic

Point. Wave action has eroded the relatively

softer basalt in many spots, resulting in deep,

narrow chasms and sea cliffs. This wave action

has also rounded block-like fragments into cobbles at pocket beaches on the peninsula's eastern shoreline.

The topography of the peninsula is varied and

rugged. The highest point on the peninsula is

Figure 2. Acadia National Park
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 5

Schoodic Head, at an elevation of 440 feet (134

m). Another prominent feature is The Anvil,

which is located in the southeast portion of the

peninsula near Blueberry Hill. The most recent

period of glaciation was 18,000 years ago and

contributed to the sheer cliffs at Schoodic by

plucking off granite blocks as they advanced.

Glaciers also modified ridges through scouring

to form hills sloping more gently to the north

and northwest and more steeply to the south

and southeast, as seen on Schoodic Head. 

The effect of the area's geologic history is a

diverse landscape complete with many small

bogs and wetlands, upland forests, ridges, and

rugged coast that offers a variety of habitats to

intertidal plants and animals. There are several

intermittent streams that flow west from the

peninsula's interior to feed the wetlands and

ponds. The largest of these is Frazer Creek,

which drains to the northwest into Mosquito

Harbor at Frazer Point (See Figure 4).

The Schoodic District includes four islands in

addition to the mainland area (Figure 3). Little

Moose Island is 54 acres (22 ha) and lies on the

southeastern tip of the peninsula. Pond Island

is 14 acres (5.8 ha) and lies immediately west of

the peninsula. Schoodic Island is 67 acres (27

ha) and lies 0.75 miles (1.2 km) southeast of the

peninsula. Rolling Island is 5 acres and centered off the east side of the peninsula. 

Adjacent Lands

The park boundary encompasses only a portion

of the Schoodic Peninsula. Lands immediately

north of the boundary are largely undeveloped

and possess many of the same characteristics as

those within the park. Vegetation is similar and

the forested upland and coastal resources 

provide habitat for the same plants and animals

observed within the park. While some of the

privately owned islands off Schoodic are 

protected by conservation easements, their level

of protection varies and NPS has no jurisdiction

over their future use. Maine Shoreland Zoning

Figure 3. Schoodic Peninsula and surrounding islands
6 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

and other local and state regulations provide a

certain degree of protection, but future use of

these lands for incompatible purposes could

threaten park resources. 

Plants 

The park lies in a broad transition zone between

southern deciduous and northern coniferous

forests. The combination of the climate and

varied topography has resulted in rich species

diversity at Schoodic. A two-year study of vascular and forest plant species of the Schoodic

Peninsula found 343 species, including 75

non-native species (Mittelhauser et al. 1995,

Spencer-Famous and Perera 1999). The most

abundant vegetative community on the peninsula is the maritime spruce and fir forest. The

most common species is red spruce, and associated tree species include primarily balsam fir,

paper birch, and white spruce. Some of the

more common species in the understory include

blueberry, mountain cranberry, mountain ash,

starflower, Canada mayflower, bunchberry, and

wild raisin. For the most part, the herb and

shrub layer in these forests is poorly developed,

and it is mosses instead which are abundant in

the understory, especially where the microclimate is humid and cool. 

The Maine Natural Areas Program (MNAP),

which is administered by the Maine Department

of Conservation, has identified two "Rare or

Exemplary Natural Communities" at the

Schoodic District: Jack Pine Woodland and

Maritime Shrubland. The Jack Pine Woodland

is rare (20–100 occurrences) in Maine because

the dominant tree species, jack pine, is at the

southeastern limit of its range. A significant

stand of jack pine is located on the eastern face

of Schoodic Head. The southern half of Little

Moose Island contains an exemplary Maritime

Shrubland community, which is a shrub–

dominated habitat along seaside bluffs exposed

to onshore winds and salt spray. The MNAP has

also documented five rare plant locations on the

southern portion of the Schoodic Peninsula,

including two on Little Moose Island.

Animals

The Schoodic District provides habitat for a

variety of animals. Common mammals include

moose, deer, fox, coyote, bat, beaver, weasel,

vole, shrew, squirrel, and hare. Ninety-six

species of migrating and breeding birds were

counted in studies conducted on the Schoodic

Peninsula between 1995 and 1996, including 

cormorant, osprey, eider, heron, gull, and many

species of small woodland birds. Ponds and

wetlands provide habitat for amphibians and

reptiles, such as salamanders, frogs, and snakes.

The intertidal zone provides critical habitat for

as many as 40 species of invertebrates. The

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and

Wildlife has identified a number of critical

wildlife habitats at Schoodic, which are areas

that are essential to the conservation of state

endangered or threatened species, including the

bald eagle. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Research and Documentation

Section 110 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act requires federal land managers,

in consultation with State Historic Preservation

Officers (SHPO), to establish programs to

locate, inventory, and nominate to the National

Register of Historic Places all properties that

appear to qualify. The U.S. Navy and National

Park Service have initiated or completed a 

number of these studies within the former navy

base and NPS lands on the Schoodic Peninsula.

The U.S. Navy completed a Historic and

Archaeological Resources Protection Plan in

1996, and a Cultural Resources Survey in 1999.

The latter study consisted of an archeological

reconnaissance and a survey of buildings and

structures on the former navy base at Schoodic

Point, as well as at the Winter Harbor and Corea

properties. The report found that only two

properties—the Rockefeller Building and its

associated powerhouse—were eligible for listing

in the National Register. In supplemental documentation submitted to the SHPO in 2000, the

Navy also recommended that there were no

buildings or structures deemed significant in a

military history sense, or in Cold War historic

context. The SHPO concurred with these findings. 

The report identified a historic farmstead that

had likely been obliterated by the construction

of a baseball field. Overall, the report stated

that the potential for archeological resources

was low. The SHPO also concurred on this

assessment. The Navy then completed a
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 7

survey, a historic structure report for

Rockefeller Building and powerhouse, and a

cultural landscape report for the Schoodic

District. The NPS will also develop of other

relevant historical contexts, such as American

Indian (Wabanaki) use and early Euro-American

settlement, to evaluate archeological resources

in particular.

Archeological Resources

Although a comprehensive survey of archeological resources on the Schoodic Peninsula is yet

to be completed, evidence of human occupation

of areas of Maine and the rest of New England

is known to date from as far back as 11,500

years ago when ice began to withdraw from the

Gulf of Maine region. Coastal groups living

3,000– 6,000 years ago were separate from interior groups in what is now Maine.

Archeological sites in the study area are primarily shell middens (i.e., waste piles of shells

from clams, oysters, and other shellfish), which

indicate American Indians occupied the

Schoodic Peninsula at least seasonally to gather

shellfish and other marine resources. Although

tribes were primarily nomadic and followed

food sources, evidence suggests the possibility

that some coastal people occupied sites year

round, especially in areas accessible by boat

(Berger & Assoc., Inc. 1999). Other archeological sites related to 18th- and 19th-century settlements exist in several areas within the Schoodic

District. 

Early Settlement

Many European explorers in the 16th and 17th

centuries reported contact with the American

Indians in what is now Maine, and both France

and Britain had small colonies in Hancock

County and claimed the land as theirs during

the 17th century. The economy of the area was

based on fishing and lumbering, as the soils

were poor for growing grains. By the 19th 

century, alternative agricultural crops such as

cranberries and orchard fruits, along with meat

and dairy products were cultivated in the

region. By 1860, the seven coastal villages of

Gouldsbor-ough (sic), which at the time

included Winter Harbor, had roads, but this was

not true of the southern reaches of the peninsula where the park is located today. 

National Register nomination for the

Rockefeller Building and powerhouse, which the

SHPO reviewed. The NPS will submit the final

nomination to the Keeper of the National

Register of Historic Places. In addition, NPS

undertook a cultural landscape inventory of the

former navy base property in 2000. It recommends that the base (excluding the Rockefeller

Building and powerhouse) contains no significant cultural landscape components and is not

eligible for listing in the National Register. 

Four NPS projects are underway that will document and evaluate many of the cultural

resources in the Schoodic District as a whole.

An ethnographic overview of Acadia National

Park (including the Schoodic District) is being

prepared in consultation with the Maine tribes.

This effort will document the tribes' historic

and present links with the landscape. The information will include traditional cultural places,

resource use, and other activities, place names,

and significant events. If sacred sites are identified, they will be designated for preservation by

NPS and remain confidential. Secondly, a parkwide archeological overview and assessment is

being prepared. Based on preliminary archival

research, all known and potential sites at the

Schoodic District have been recorded and

described. All known sites have been located in

the field and mapped with a geographic positioning system (GPS). This project will recommend a strategy for completing a comprehensive

field survey of the entire Schoodic District. A

third project nearing completion is a draft

National Register nomination of the Schoodic

Peninsula Historic District. This nomination

captures historical information on significant

landscape features and buildings that date from

the late-19th to mid-20th century. The fourth

study in progress is a cultural landscape inventory of the Schoodic District, which mirrors the

National Register nomination and recommends

that the district be considered eligible for the

National Register. 

A number of ongoing studies to be completed

within the next year or two will identify and

document many of the cultural resources in the

Schoodic District. However, there are research

gaps that need to be filled. The following projects are planned for Acadia National Park at

Schoodic: a comprehensive archeological field
8 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

The first recorded non-American Indian settler

in the study area was Thomas Frazer, an African

American who established a salt works near the

mouth of Frazer Creek by 1790. The same area

was later inhabited by a small fishing community

of about 50 people. The lower peninsula had no

permanent inhabitants until the 19th century

when the Arey family built two homes and

another family occupied Little Moose Island. By

the turn of the 20th century, a house and barn

were built near what is today the ball field on the

former navy base.

By the early 1890s, in response to demand for

summer "cottages" in the area, Maine native

and Wall Street financier John G. Moore 

purchased much of the land that is now inside

the park on Schoodic. In preparation for its

development, he constructed a scenic road

which ran from Frazer Creek south to West

Pond Cove and east to Schoodic Head. Moore

died before he could begin development of the peninsula, and

this—combined with grassroots

efforts to conserve Mount Desert

Island and later the Schoodic

Peninsula—kept the land from

development well into the 20th 

century. His daughters donated the

property to the Hancock County

Trustees of Reservations.

Park Development

In 1916, conservation efforts

resulted in the establishment of

Sieur de Monts National Monument

on Mount Desert Island, which

later expanded to become Acadia

National Park. Congressional legislation in 1929 allowed for the acquisition of land for the park in other

parts of Hancock County. Within a

month of the enactment of the law,

the Hancock County Trustees of

Reservations donated approximately 2,050 acres to the NPS.

Near the same time as the donations of land at Schoodic, John D.

Rockefeller, Jr. was working with

the park to help create a park loop

road on Mount Desert Island. The

road would follow the coastline and

provide access to many scenic vistas. However, a

complete park loop road was not possible

because of the U.S. Navy's radio communications station at Otter Cliffs. As a result, NPS

arranged for the U.S. Navy to move the station

to Schoodic and constructed most of the visitor

facilities that exist today outside of the former

navy base, including a 6-mile Schoodic Loop

Road in 1933-1935. 

The labor supplied by the Civilian Conservation

Corps under the New Deal also completed four

hiking trails with trailheads on Schoodic Head.

These trails each follow their historic alignment

and illustrate the high quality of workmanship

and adherence to NPS standards and specifications. The development of a parking area, rest

room, and pumphouse at Schoodic Point, the

primary destination for most visitors to the

Schoodic District, appears much as it did when

construction was completed in the 1930s. This is

Figure 4. Acadia National Park: Schoodic District
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 9

true for a small parking area and entrance road

at Blueberry Hill and the summit overlook at

Schoodic Head. A second construction phase in

the study area took place during the mid-1960s

in response to the 50th anniversary of the

National Park Service. The Mission 66 program

work included a modern bridge over Frazer

Creek and a picnic area at Frazer Point.

Navy Base Development

The history of the navy base dates back to the

early 20th century. Allessandro Fabbri operated

a small amateur radio receiving station at Otter

Cliffs on Mount Desert Island and wanted to

assist his country during World War I. The U.S.

Navy offered Fabbri a commission in exchange

for the station and soon found the station to be

a critical link in maintaining transatlantic messages during weather conditions where other

receiving facilities along the coasts were unable

to operate. Over the years, the facility grew into

a radio communications station for the U.S.

Navy. 

Congress authorized an exchange of land

between NPS and the U.S. Navy in 1935. In

addition to the original transfer of 26 acres, NPS

transferred an additional 152 acres to the U.S.

Navy in 1947 to allow for the expansion of the

base during the Cold War. As part of the

arrangement, NPS constructed the initial navy

facilities, including the Rockefeller Building,

which Grosvenor Atterbury designed in the

same style used for the two carriage road gatehouses in the park on Mount Desert Island. 

The construction of buildings during the 1940s

and 1950s included a multipurpose administration building, barracks, commissary, gatehouse,

pumphouse, and communications receiving 

station. In the early 1960s, the U.S. Navy completed the construction of an antenna array in

nearby Corea and relocated all of the operational activities from Schoodic to this new site.

At that point, new developments at Schoodic

consisted primarily of amenities, such as the ball

field, picnic shelter, and gymnasium. In the

1970s, the Schooner Club, a medical clinic,

bowling alley, and theater were added. In 1977,

the U.S Navy returned approximately 81 acres of

land along the shoreline to NPS. In the past 20

years, additions have primarily been housing

related. Schoodic Shores is a housing project

completed in 1980, the barracks were expanded

in 1989, and three duplex recreational cabins

were added in 1990. 

As of 1997, the navy base employed 500 personnel; however, in 2001 the U.S. Navy announced

its intent to close the base, which occurred on

June 30, 2002. The base closure also involved 23

acres in Winter Harbor containing 80 units of

housing and 451 acres in Corea, part of the

town of Gouldsboro, where two operations

buildings are surrounded by a critical ecological

area. These properties will transfer to the towns

of Winter Harbor and Gouldsboro and the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service.

Historic Properties

A proposed Schoodic Peninsula Historic

District, including all of the national park lands

in the Schoodic District except the 100-acre 

former navy base property and four coastal

islands, is considered eligible for listing in the

National Register of Historic Places as a significant cultural landscape. The proposed

Schoodic Peninsula Historic District is historically significant because it was conceived and

designed as a park and recreation area beginning in the late 19th century. The National

Register nomination was prepared by NPS in

consultation with the Maine Historic

Preservation Office and will be forwarded to the

keeper of the National Register.

The Rockefeller Building and powerhouse are

the only two buildings located on the former

navy base that have been determined eligible for

listing in the National Register of Historic

Places. They were designed by Grosvenor

Atterbury, architect of the distinctive French

Norman–style gatehouses on the Park Loop

Road on Mount Desert Island. The original

landscape surrounding the buildings lacks historic integrity (NPS Cultural Landscape

Inventory, 2001).

The buildings are historically significant

because they are closely associated with important persons and events concerning the development of Acadia National Park and the establishment of the U.S. Navy radio station. They

also embody distinctive characteristics of design

and construction that possess high aesthetic

qualities. The buildings were nominated to the

National Register by the U.S. Navy with the concurrence of the Maine Historic Preservation

Office (Letter of 9/20/2000). 
10 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

PARK FACILITIES

The primary means of access to the Schoodic

District is via the Schoodic Loop Road, which is

a 6-mile scenic drive that skirts the rugged

coastline (Figure 4). The road and scenery have

changed little since their initial construction

between 1933 and 1935. Beginning at the northwestern boundary of the park at Frazer Creek,

the road provides visitors with a classic Maine

coast vista of rocky shoreline, islands, and a

lighthouse. Frazer Point provides a picnic area

with parking, restrooms, interpretive waysides,

and a seasonal dock for small recreational boats.

The road continues one-way in a counterclockwise direction around the peninsula using a 

harmonious mix of local materials and was

designed to take advantage of the dramatic

ocean views. A 1-mile gravel spur road leads to

the top of Schoodic Head where a small circular

drive provides parking for an overlook and trailhead. A ranger station and several related structures are located off the road to Schoodic Head.

A two-way paved spur road leads to Schoodic

Point at the southern end of the peninsula. This

popular destination offers parking, restrooms,

and interpretive waysides. Blueberry Hill is a

parking area located just beyond Schoodic Point

that provides access to the shoreline and a trailhead.

The park maintains 2.6 miles of hiking trails that

emanate from Schoodic Head. The four named

trails (i.e., Anvil Trail, Alder Trail, East Trail, and

Schoodic Head Trail) offer a variety of hiking

opportunities and panoramic views. A network

of informal social trails on Little Moose Island

poses challenges for resource protection if fragile vegetation is to be protected from trampling.

The former navy base occupies a large portion of

Big Moose Island, which is actually connected

by a wetland to the Schoodic Peninsula (Figure

6). The former navy base contains 46 buildings

(212,300 square feet), 350 parking spaces, and

other infrastructure that includes offices, housing, recreational facilities, and support and utility systems. The base is heavily forested, with

winding roadways opening into large clearings

containing buildings and parking areas of varying sizes. The site was developed over 67 years,

and the buildings and structures range in date

from 1935 to 2001. As a result, the built environment is very heterogeneous, with buildings constructed in varying styles and forms using many

different building materials, including wood,

brick, metal, and concrete. Most of the former

navy structures are utilitarian, and lack historical reference to Acadia National Park or the

early buildings of the station itself.

All buildings on the former navy base are

accessible by road and served by ample parking areas. There is no formal pedestrian circulation system and many of the buildings are

inaccessible to the handicapped. Pedestrians

must share the roads with automobiles, and

informal foot trails run through the wooded

areas connecting some of the buildings. The

U.S. Navy constructed walking trails to provide access from the base to various points

along the shoreline of Big Moose Island. 

Although much of the former navy base

remains heavily wooded, the built areas are a

conglomeration of varying building types 

surrounded by asphalt drives and parking

areas, with little or no vegetation. The

Rockefeller Building and its generator house

are the only structures that show a definite

relation to Acadia National Park. 

VISITOR EXPERIENCE

The Schoodic District is zoned as a "Natural

Area" in the 1992 General Management Plan

and managed primarily for conservation and

resource protection with limited public facilities. In 2000, the Schoodic District of the park

experienced approximately 235,000 recreation

visits. This is slightly lower than the annual

average of 254,000 recreation visits over a 

13-year period (1990–2002). A recent study

(DOT 2001) predicted visitation to Schoodic

would increase slowly, by about 500 per year

to average nearly 247,000 in 2005 and nearly

280,000 in 2015.

The University of Vermont completed the

Schoodic Peninsula, Acadia National Park,

Visitor Study 2000-2001 (Manning et al. 2002)

to gather information to assist NPS in developing a new management plan for the

Schoodic District of Acadia National Park.

The objectives were to collect information on

the number and type of visitors and to gain

information that will help formulate standards

of quality for visitor experiences.
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 11

Most visitors stay on the Schoodic Peninsula

only one day and spend nearly three hours at a

time in the Schoodic District. The most popular

locations to visit are Frazer Point, Schoodic

Point, and Blueberry Hill. Visitor and automobile

counts indicate that peak visitation occurs at the

selected count sites between 1:00 p.m. and 4:00

p.m. In the Schoodic District, the primary activities for typical visitors are watching the surf and

driving on the scenic loop around the end of the

peninsula. Other common activities include 

photography, observing nature, bicycling, and

picnicking. However, visitors stated that taking

in the natural scenic beauty was their primary

pastime. 

The most frequently cited positive qualities of

Schoodic are the pristine natural beauty and

scenery coupled with the quiet atmosphere and

low levels of visitation. People come to

Schoodic with the expectation that it will be

more peaceful and less crowded than the Mount

Desert Island portion of Acadia National Park.

Most visitors leave the Schoodic District with

their expectations fully met. Those who are not

fully satisfied cite overcrowding at Schoodic

Point as a problem.

Schoodic District—Baseline Data Visitor &

Vehicular Use in 2000

3 Peak Months

(July/Aug/Sept)

9 Other

Months Total

Average daily recreation visits 1,369 416 653 

Annual recreation visits 122,345 112,555 234,900

Average daily recreation vehicles 452 154 229

Annual recreation vehicles 40,782 41,764 82,546

Average daily non-recreation vehicles 350 350 350

Annual non-recreation vehicles 31,446 94,338 125,784

Average daily vehicles 802 504 579

Annual vehicles (all) 72,228 136,102 208,330

Schoodic District

Projected Use Data for 2010–15 Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Total program participants on typical day 

(staff + students)

20 150 350

Annual program participants 1,800 13,500 31,500

Staff (NPS + partners) 5 30 60

Lodging for participants & staff (single occupancy per

bedroom)

22 90 190

Total parking spaces 350 350 350

Projected average day recreation use1 718 + 20 = 738 718+150 = 868 718+350 = 1068

Projected peak day recreation use1 1,526 1,656 1,858

Projected total recreational use 258,500 272,000 290,000

Projected average daily vehicles (all) 454 519 619

Projected annual vehicles (all)2 154,592 160,442 169,442

1 Assumes 3 months at high rate of use; lower rest of the year

2 Assumes recreational vehicles increase by 10%; program users arrive 2 per car on average and that non-rec vehicles are reduced by

50% from baseline year

TABLE 1. BASELINE AND PROJECTED USE DATA
12 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

PARK MISSION, PURPOSE,

AND SIGNIFICANCE

PARK MISSION

Acadia National Park’s mission statement is

based on the park’s enabling legislation and its

General Management Plan (1992) which remains

in effect. 

The National Park Service at Acadia National

Park protects and preserves outstanding scenic, natural, scientific, and cultural values for

present and future generations through programs, facilities, and services. It also provides programs and opportunities for nonconsumptive, resource-based recreation and

education for an increasingly urban population (NPS 1992a).

PURPOSE

Acadia National Park has three main purposes.

One is to protect and conserve the land and

water resources, the scenery, the natural and

historic objects, the wildlife, and the undeveloped character of the lands within the legislated

park boundary. Another is to promote and regulate the use of the park for the benefit and

enjoyment of the public in such manner and by

such means as will leave the park resources

unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. Finally, NPS is directed to protect and

preserve the scenic, ecological, historic, archeological, and cultural resources of the Acadian

archipelago and to limit development of the

islands and preserve their natural qualities and

traditional resource-based land uses. 

SIGNIFICANCE

A rich combination of cultural and natural 

features and exceptional scientific, educational,

and recreational opportunities contribute to the

character and significance of Acadia National

Park, the first national park east of the

Mississippi and the only national park in New

England.

When President Woodrow Wilson set this area

aside as a national monument, he cited the 

historic interest associated with Samuel de

Champlain's 1604 landing on Mount Desert

Island. He also cited the great scientific interest

of the island's topography, geology, wildlife, and

vegetation. Acadia National Park has a variety of

significant resources, including its landscape,

air and water quality, biological diversity, cultural heritage, historic properties and museum

collection. The park's coastal and island landscape is unequaled along the Atlantic shore of

the United States. Mountains, lakes, and

wooded valleys add character to the land. The

park's islands provide nesting sites and critical

habitat for a great diversity of plants and 

animals, including species of state and national

significance.

The cultural heritage of the park is equally

important and includes resources related to

American Indians, French and British settlers,

and the wealthy Americans of the late 1800s and

early 1900s who established summer colonies,

founded the park, and contributed to the 

creation and development of the conservation

movement. The surviving historic features and

designed landscapes, such as those of the park's

trail system and Schoodic Loop Road, are

important because of their history, durability,

and uniqueness. They commemorate those who

designed and built them.

Acadia National Park also offers scientific

research value; the park provides a variety of

opportunities to conduct research and monitor

resources. There is a multidisciplinary database

at the park that serves as the scientific foundation for ecosystem research and monitoring 

programs. An extensive scientific bibliography

dates back to the late 19th century. Today, an

expanding geographic information system and

ongoing air, water, wildlife, and vegetation monitoring programs demonstrate the park's continuing and important role in scientific endeavors.

Acadia National Park offers excellent opportunities for educating visitors about significant

and varied resources. Access to an array of sites

with scenic, scientific, natural, and historic

interest is provided by a network of carefully

designed hiking trails, carriage roads, and 

scenic drives. Visitors participate in numerous

recreational activities such as camping, hiking,

bicycling, cross-country skiing, horseback and

carriage riding, kayaking, canoeing, and sightseeing. People of all ages are attracted to a
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 13

broad spectrum of interpretive activities, including guided walks, amphitheater presentations,

environmental education programs, and outreach activities.

Schoodic District

The Schoodic District exemplifies the values and

resources described in Acadia National Park's

mission and purpose statements. Visitors cherish

Schoodic for its peaceful character and outstanding scenic beauty. Schoodic offers visitors

exceptional views of the rocky coast and surrounding islands. It is a favored spot for watching high surf and enjoying views to the open

ocean from its lightly traveled scenic road that

ends at Schoodic Point. The summit of Schoodic

Head, which is accessible by gravel road and

hiking trails, provides another outstanding 

scenic overlook. 

Studies reveal that most of the Schoodic District

(outside of the 100-acre former navy base property) is eligible for listing in the National

Register of Historic Places as a historic district

based on its significant cultural landscape. The

proposed Schoodic Peninsula Historic District is

historically significant because it was conceived

and designed as a park and recreation area

beginning in the late 19th century. Outside of the

base, the appearance and visitor experience of

the Schoodic District has remained relatively

unchanged since 1940, when NPS completed its

first period of development (NPS, National

Register Nomination for Schoodic Peninsula,

2001).

The Rockefeller Building and powerhouse are

the only two buildings located on the former

navy base that are eligible for listing in the

National Register of Historic Places. The buildings are historically significant because they are

closely associated with important persons and

events concerning the development of Acadia

National Park and establishment of the U.S.

Navy radio station. The buildings also embody

distinctive characteristics of design and construction that possess high aesthetic qualities.

The Schoodic District contains many areas of

critical habitat for a variety of plant and animal

species, including five state-listed rare plants,

and the federal and state threatened bald eagle.

The State of Maine has also designated two

"Rare or Exemplary Natural Communities" at

Schoodic: a Jack Pine Woodland on Schoodic

Head and a Maritime Shrubland on the southern portion of Little Moose Island. The state

has identified extensive habitat within the

Schoodic District that is essential or significant

for wildlife, including the shorelines of West

Pond, East Pond, and Schoodic Point; the Frazer

Creek estuary; and Schoodic and Rolling

islands. The more remote areas of Schoodic's

shoreline contain pristine intertidal zones that

are robust with plant and invertebrate species

from lack of human disturbance.

The Schoodic District also protects exemplary

geologic features, such as sea cliffs, sea stacks,

cobble beaches, diabase dikes, and a glacially

carved landscape. 

SCHOODIC LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 

Acadia National Park began with the establishment of Sieur de Monts National Monument by

Presidential Proclamation 1339 in 1916 (40 Stat.

1173), which was followed by the redesignation

of the national monument as Lafayette National

Park in 1919 (45 Stat. 1083). In 1929, legislation

(45 Stat. 1083) changed the named to Acadia

National Park and established NPS's authority

to expand the park through donations of property within Hancock County and certain islands

in Knox County. This allowed NPS to accept the

donation of more than 2,000 acres on the

Schoodic Peninsula as an addition to Acadia

National Park.

Acadia’s boundary was fixed in 1986 by Public

Law 99-420. The law authorizes the Secretary

of the Interior to acquire conservation 

easements on parcels of land adjacent to the

park on Schoodic Peninsula, and on the islands

of Hancock County, by purchase from a willing

seller or by donation. The law sets out criteria

for such parcels, which must possess one or

more of the following characteristics: (A)

important scenic, ecological, historic, archeological, or cultural resources; (B) shorefront

property; or (C) largely undeveloped entire

islands.

In addition to the enabling legislation for Acadia

National Park, several laws have been enacted

that are specific to the Schoodic District. In
14 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

1935, the first of these laws (49 Stat. 795) 

provided for the exchange of land between NPS

and the U.S. Navy. The act transferred the control and jurisdiction of the original 26-acre site

within the Schoodic District to the U.S. Navy for

"naval radio purposes." In 1947, legislation (61

Stat. 519) transferred an additional 152 acres to

the U.S. Navy with the provision that the land

would revert to the park should it become "surplus to the needs of the Department of the

Navy." In 1977, the U.S. Navy exercised this provision and transferred 81 acres back to the park.

Finally in 2002, Section 2845 of Public Law 107-

107 authorized transfer of the original parcel

back to the park without consideration, along

with personal property associated with the land.

The law directed the U.S. Navy to transfer this

parcel concurrently with the remaining land it

had acquired in 1947. The U.S. Navy transferred

control and jurisdiction of its remaining land

within the park (100.1 acres) to NPS on July 1,

2002. 

Other legislation related directly to the

Schoodic District involves the appropriation

and use of funds from the Department of

Defense. Public Law 107-117, enacted on January

10, 2002, provided an appropriation of

$4,000,000 to the Department of Defense,

Office of Economic Adjustment, for the Naval

Security Group Activity Winter Harbor. Public

Law 107-206, enacted on August 2, 2002, clarified the intended use of the funding. The legislation directed the Secretary of Defense to obligate the funds made available under P.L. 107-117

for the conversion of the navy base at Schoodic

to a research and education center for Acadia

National Park. This includes the preparation of

Figure 5. Research and education programs will be enhanced by the presence of several federally

protected areas in the Schoodic vicinity.
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 15

a plan to reuse the navy base for purposes that

will benefit the local communities and visitors

to the park, and stimulate important research

and educational activities. Additional clarification was needed to provide a portion of the

funding directly to the local community for 

economic readjustment. Public Law 107-248,

enacted on October 23, 2002, authorized the

Secretary of Defense to use the funding for

community adjustment activities related to the

closure of the navy base and the reuse of the

base as a research and education center consistent with the purposes of Acadia National Park. 

Acadia's General Management Plan (1992) 

provided the first broad management direction

for the Schoodic District. The goals for the

Schoodic District are to retain opportunities for

low-density recreation, and preserve its existing

naturalness and solitude. The plan stated that

NPS will "preserve the relatively undeveloped

quality of the park on the west side of Mount

Desert Island and on Schoodic Peninsula and

the islands." It also specified that "High density

recreation will be supported in specific areas on

the east side of Mount Desert Island, but the

present character elsewhere on the island, on

Schoodic Peninsula, and on the offshore islands

will be retained. No new high-density recreation

areas will be developed." This plan will amend

Acadia's General Management Plan to address

the reuse of the former navy base and mitigate

the potential impacts of its reuse. The intent of

this plan is to uphold the goals of the 1992

General Management Plan while carrying out the

new legislative mandates to establish a research

and education center at Schoodic. This plan

does not supersede the guidance and policies

provided by the park's Commercial Services Plan

(April 2000), Water Resources Management Plan

(April 2000), and Hiking Trails Management Plan

(February 2002) as they may apply to the

Schoodic District.

In addition to the property located within the

Schoodic District, the former navy base includes

23 acres in the Town of Winter Harbor and 451

acres in the Town of Gouldsboro. Public Law

107-107 authorizes the transfer of these properties to the respective towns. In preparation for

the transfer, the Eastern Maine Development

Corporation (EMDC) completed a reuse study

in 2001, “Reuse Opportunities and Strategies:

Corea Naval Base and Navy Housing in Winter

Harbor,” to examine the range of opportunities

for their economic redevelopment (EMDC

2001). The study addresses the reuse of 80 units

of housing in Winter Harbor and two large

operation buildings in the village of Corea

(Gouldsboro). 

In July 2003, the U.S. Navy completed an environmental assessment for the transfer and reuse

of these properties based on potential reuses

identified in EMDC's study, which resulted in a

Finding of No Significant Impact. The Town of

Gouldsboro plans to release approximately 400

acres of undeveloped land at the Corea site to

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as an addition

to the Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge.

Known as Corea Heath, this area is unusually

rich in species diversity because it has had

hardly any human use for the past 70 years. The

NPS has cooperated with the towns, EMDC,

and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on their reuse

plans and will continue to coordinate the reuse

of the former navy properties, but the Winter

Harbor and Gouldsboro sites are not within the

direct purview of this plan (Figure 5). 

The action alternatives presented in this plan

support the State of Maine’s initiative to build a

knowledge-based economy and raise per capita

income to the national average. As outlined in

the State Planning Office strategic plan, “30 and

1000” (Maine State Planning Office 2001), the

basis of the initiative is to increase the percentage of Maine’s adults with four-year degrees to

30% and increase the amount of research

spending to $1,000 per employee in the state.

Both action alternatives include establishing a

NPS research learning center that would promote education and advance science at Acadia

National Park.
16 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

INITIAL ACTIONS

INTERIM USE POLICY

The visitor experience in the Schoodic District

has not changed dramatically with the addition

of the former navy lands, although more NPS

personnel are now assigned to the district to

handle increased operational demands.

Considerable effort is going into the preparation

of background studies of natural and cultural

resources, and visitor use and transportation

analyses to provide baseline information to

assist future decision making. Newly acquired

facilities are being used for offices, meetings,

education programs, housing, and park operations. Until this plan is adopted, only shortterm uses will be allowed on the former navy

property in accordance with permitting procedures in effect at Acadia National Park.

The NPS received the navy property at

Schoodic on July 1, 2002. Acadia National Park

is now operating the property as part of the

larger Schoodic District, with responsibility for

general maintenance, oversight of utility

systems, waste disposal, security, fire

protection, and public safety.

While most of the Schoodic District is open to

public use, the former navy facilities are open

only on a limited, case-by-case basis through

the issuance of special use permits. Permits are

issued in accordance with Acadia National Park

regulations. 

The U.S. Navy and the State of Maine had

responsibility for environmental issues associated with transfer of the base to NPS. The U.S.

Navy completed an environmental assessment in

preparation of the transfer of land, which NPS

verified. As a condition of the transfer, the U.S.

Navy addressed cleanup of problem areas such

as buildings containing asbestos or lead paint.

The U.S. Navy has completed the remediation of

a minor PCB contamination near building 45,

which was the only remaining contamination

identified in the environmental assessment for

clean-up. The U.S. Navy has repaired the porch

and façade of the Rockefeller Building, which

were deteriorating due to water damage. 

The public works building is now the Schoodic

District office and base of operations. Several

buildings are being used for research and education programs with lodging for participants in

nearby housing units. Former navy buildings not

expected to be used immediately have been

secured and utilities partially shut off. A minimum level of heat will be maintained to protect

against deterioration of buildings expected to

be reused.

The NPS will also continue to develop the

park's Research Learning Center (i.e., the

Schoodic Education and Research Center) by

completing a business plan, preparing an 

economic feasibility study, and researching

potential partners.

Other early actions expected to be taken

include:

• Signs: Update obsolete directional and

informational signs; install a new entrance

sign for the base and additional signs where

needed to minimize conflicts among pedestrians, cyclists, and motor vehicles.

• Security: Update communications system to

allow for efficient monitoring with small

number of personnel. Install gate at base

entrance to control vehicular access.

• Fire Detection and Suppression: Evaluate

sprinklers and fire alarms and modify as necessary to ensure that occupied and unoccupied buildings can be monitored efficiently.

• Accessibility: Analyze buildings to develop

a list of needed modifications for universal

accessibility. 

• Water and Sewage Systems: Make necessary modifications to operate systems at

reduced capacity.

• Telephone: Update obsolete equipment and

modify system for efficient operation.

• Transportation: Test pilot programs to

explore the potential for use of shuttles,

buses, and water transportation.

• Interim Storage: Locations are being identified and prepared to store navy artifacts

and documents related to Schoodic, which

are being transferred to NPS. Some of this

storage may be temporary until permanent

use of space is allocated.
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 17

• Design Studies: Conduct preliminary design

studies for education and research facilities

and site circulation in accordance with

design guidelines.

PLANNING ISSUES

This plan focuses on a broad vision for Schoodic

for the next 10–15 years. The planning team

consulted with resource experts, visitors, park

neighbors, local and state governments, and

interested members of the public to identify

their concerns and hopes for Schoodic. This

consultation pointed up a number of critical

issues to be addressed by the plan. Listed below,

these issues are organized into four categories

corresponding to National Park Service mission

goals. This structure is used throughout the plan

for ease of reference.

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

• How will NPS protect Schoodic's critical

habitats?

• What are the proposed treatments of the historic Rockefeller Building, powerhouse, and

contributing resources of the proposed

Schoodic Peninsula Historic District?

• How will cultural landscapes in the Schoodic

District be protected and potential conflicts

with natural resource goals be resolved?

• How should management zoning in the 1992

plan be modified for Schoodic?

• How should lands adjacent to the park be

protected to prevent negative impacts to park

resources and values?

VISITOR USE AND INTERPRETATION

• How is the quiet, natural visitor experience

best protected?

• What level of visitor services will be provided and where?

• How can the number of motor vehicles in the

park be minimized?

• How can circulation systems (i.e., paths,

sidewalks, and roads) be improved to avoid

conflicts?

• How should the navy base be reconfigured

to feel more like a campus for the Schoodic

Education and Research Center (SERC),

NPS research learning center?

COOPERATIVE EFFORTS AND

PARTNERSHIPS

• How will the Schoodic Education and

Research Center (SERC) be managed and

what will be the NPS role?

• What are the facility needs for SERC programs versus those for general park purposes?

• What responsibilities will NPS undertake

relative to fire suppression and emergency

response with towns?

OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY

• What is the best management model to

operate new programs at Schoodic and

maintain the physical infrastructure?

• How will partners be selected to become

part of SERC?

• What facilities, equipment, and staff will be

needed for initial and long-term operations?

• How will decisions be made about buildings

not needed for SERC or general park purposes?

• What standards and criteria will guide reuse

of existing facilities, new facilities, and site

changes?

• How will potential revenues be maximized

so that they are available to offset operational costs?
18 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

MANAGEMENT GOALS

At the start of planning for the Schoodic

District, NPS identified several guiding principles. They incorporate Acadia National Park's

mission and state that the Schoodic plan will be

based on thorough study of the area's natural

and cultural resources and the desire to maintain the current quiet, natural visitor experience

enjoyed by users. The NPS is committed to an

open public process for decision making and to

understanding and respecting the concerns of

surrounding communities. National Park

Service laws and policies limit the range of

permissible and appropriate uses at the

Schoodic District.

Goals for Schoodic are based on the studies and

consultations conducted by NPS as part of the

planning process. The goals were identified to

focus discussion and analysis of proposed alternative courses of action. They were discussed at

public meetings and scoping sessions where

preliminary findings were presented and appear

to have a great deal of support.

An important source of information were the

visitor studies conducted in 2000 and 2001 by a

team under the direction of Dr. Robert

Manning of the University of Vermont, a recognized expert on park carrying capacity studies.

The studies (Manning et al. 2002), which 

sampled current users, give an excellent picture

of who visits Schoodic and why. Users in 2000

came from nearby towns (19%), elsewhere in

Maine (16%), other states (62%) and other

countries (2%). In general, visitors were

extremely pleased with their experience at

Schoodic, remarking that it was far less crowded

than they expected. The most desirable qualities

of the Schoodic District were "pristine

beauty/naturalness/scenery" (57%) and "not

crowded/quiet" (33%). When asked what they

would change about park management, 38%

responded that they wouldn't change anything,

19% suggested more information and interpretation, and 13% requested additional facilities

such as parking, restaurant, or gift shop. Overall,

visitors were quite satisfied with their trip, with

92% rating their experience 8 or higher on a 

satisfaction scale where a score of 10 was "most

satisfied." 

When asked specifically about future uses for

the navy base, 22% suggested an educational

facility such as a museum or nature center, 11%

thought the property should be returned to

nature, 7% desired a visitor center, 5% a campground, and 4% overnight lodging. A large 

number of people simply said that it should be

returned to Acadia National Park (26%) without

specifying how it should be used. 

When asked for their reaction to Acadia's

General Management Plan objective to "retain

current use levels and the existing naturalness

and solitude of this part of the park," a

resounding 95% of those surveyed expressed

support for the goal on which the preferred

alternative of this plan is based. 

Other critical sources of ideas are consultations

with residents and local governments of neighboring communities, meetings with tribal representatives, and members of the general public.

The goals were developed after consultation

with many people who attended public meetings, read park newsletters, and followed press

accounts of the planning process. Public meetings were held in July 2001 and June 2002 to

identify issues so that the planning team could

develop this draft plan.

Acadia National Park is fortunate to be part of a

strong network of organizations and individuals

dedicated to protecting the natural and cultural

resources so integral to the quality of life in

Downeast Maine. The goals and proposals in

this plan were prepared in consultation with our

many partners, which include educational institutions like the University of Maine and College

of the Atlantic, research organizations, and

museums as well as advocacy groups like the

Friends of Acadia, and the National Parks

Conservation Association. 

The following management goals set the overall

direction for management of NPS lands in the

Schoodic District.

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

• Schoodic District's natural, cultural, and

scenic resources and associated values are

protected, restored, and maintained in good

condition and managed within their broader

ecosystems and cultural context.
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 19

• Design guidelines are used to ensure that

changes to the landscape or structures are

appropriate to the zone in which they are

located.

VISITOR USE AND INTERPRETATION

• The quiet, natural visitor experience of the

Schoodic District, offering opportunities for

low-density recreation and solitude, is maintained. 

• Visitors have a safe and enjoyable visit.

• Educational and interpretive programs are

offered.

• Research opportunities consistent with the

park mission are supported and encouraged.

• The former navy base is adapted as a campus

for the Schoodic Education and Research

Center (SERC), the Acadia National Park

research learning center.

• Recreational and other uses do not impair

natural or cultural resources or the visitor

experience.

COOPERATIVE EFFORTS AND 

PARTNERSHIPS

• Acadia National Park maintains and establishes partnerships to develop research and

education programs and to foster stewardship of park resources and values both

within and beyond park boundaries.

• Acadia National Park consults with neighboring communities on matters of mutual concern.

• Commercial services (e.g., for-profit retail,

restaurant, and lodging) are not offered

within the Schoodic District as these are

more appropriately sited in nearby town centers.

OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY

• Existing buildings are retained if they can be

reused in ways that are operationally efficient, environmentally and economically sustainable, and supportive of the mission of

Acadia National Park and the Schoodic

Education and Research Center.

• The Schoodic District has adequate personnel and equipment to fulfill operational

responsibilities.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 

Environmental issues are potential problems

that might occur for various resources if any

one of the alternatives is implemented. Each of

the issues described below has a corresponding

analysis in Part Four, the discussion of impacts.

Environmental issues are developed with NPS

staff and the public.

Issues Associated with Air Quality

• Changes in the number of people or the distribution of visitors to the Schoodic

Education and Research Center may result in

differences in the concentrations of air pollutants associated with automobile or bus

traffic. These include nitrous oxide, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide, some of which are precursors to ozone

and/or contribute to changes in visibility and

acid precipitation.

• Building removal and construction work on

existing buildings may require grading, digging, or other actions that could cause temporary dust or larger particulates.

• The base operated several generators for

which it had air quality permits. Continued

operation of these generators would result in

emissions associated with diesel engines,

including those listed above.

• Radon, a human carcinogen, is naturally

occurring in the granite bedrock underlying

the peninsula. Indoor air may need to be

tested and mitigation measures installed in

buildings occupied by park staff, students,

visitors, or lessees to prevent exposure to

unsafe levels.

• Asbestos, also a known human carcinogen

when inhaled, is present in the building
20 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

materials used to construct some of the

buildings on the base. 

Issues Associated with Water Resources

• Reuse of the navy base could result in

changes in the demand for water or in the

amount of wastewater treated and discharged by the park; continued effluent discharge from wastewater treatment plan at the

former navy base into Arey Cove may create

long-term water quality problems and impact

the intertidal zone of the cove.

• Increased exploration of the base and peninsula by students and visitors could result in

damage to the hydrologic characteristics,

water quality, or riparian vegetation of

ephemeral or perennial streams or watersheds.

• Activities associated with building removal

could result in damage to streams or riparian

areas.

Issues Associated with Soils

• Activities associated with the reuse of the

navy base could result in the removal, compaction, or other changes to soils in previously undisturbed areas.

• Reuse of the navy base creates the potential

for soil contamination through spills, leaking

of gasoline or fuel oil, and other unintended

releases. 

• Development and other human activities are

limited by thin soils in the region.

Issues Associated with Vegetation

• Activities associated with the removal and

reuse of the buildings could adversely affect

wetland values.

• Vegetation may be removed, thinned, or

replaced with landscaping to create a more

campus-like feel at the former navy base.

• Removal of some of the existing buildings in

the study area, and in particular on the base,

could create suitable conditions for regrowth

of vegetation.

• Increased exploration by students or visitors

of fragile or rare vegetative communities,

such as riparian areas, unusual woodlands,

or habitat of rare plants, could result in

impacts to soils, hydrology, or the plants

themselves from trampling, collecting specimens, sliding soils, etc.

Issues Associated with Coastal Resources

• Increased exploration of the shoreline by

visitors could result in human-related

impacts to intertidal plants and animals.

Issues Associated with Wildlife

• Frequency and duration of disturbance by

visitors could impact wildlife in habitat that

is now experiencing little or no human presence.

• Visitors could trample vegetation or otherwise degrade habitat for wildlife.

• Research on wildlife may disturb or displace

species and degrade habitat during exploration.

• Noise associated with construction may disturb and temporarily displace wildlife within

hearing distance.

• Removal of some unused buildings at the

base and restoration of habitat may result in

the reoccupation of these areas by wildlife.

Issues Associated with Cultural Resources

• Grading, digging, or other construction and

building removal activities may unearth or

disturb archeological or historic resources.

• Any actions that involve resources that are

eligible for the National Register of Historic

Places are subject to review to ensure that

potential adverse effects are avoided, minimized, or mitigated.

• A thorough archeological survey of the

Schoodic District has not been completed;

therefore, NPS lacks knowledge on possible

locations and conditions of archeological

resources, which is necessary to protect

them.

Issues Associated with the Visitor Experience

• Reuse of the navy base may increase visitation to the Schoodic District and impact the

quiet, natural visitor experience.
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 21

Issues Associated with Socioeconomic

Environment

• A large percentage of workers at the Naval

Security Group Activity Winter Harbor were

local civilians who may be looking for new

employment opportunities in the area. Some

of the employment lost due to the naval base

closing may be replaced by employment

opportunities related to the proposed reuse

alternatives. New jobs would likely be in the

service sector, and the education and

research sectors, serving visitors at the former navy base, an undetermined number of

which could be available to Hancock County

residents and others in the region.

• The alternatives at Schoodic could generate

spinoff impacts in the local community in

addition to direct employment.

• There would be cumulative economic

impacts to the area with the reuse of the navy

housing in Winter Harbor and operations

site in Corea. Some impacts might represent

economic losses, while others might be longterm gains.

MANDATORY IMPACT TOPICS

The National Environmental Policy Act requires

that agencies consider several different possible

issues to determine whether they require

detailed analysis as impact topics. The following

is a discussion of the mandatory impact topics

NPS considered initially, but did not analyze

further, either because they were irrelevant to

the alternatives, would have negligible impacts,

or required no more detailed work to understand impacts.

Conformity with Local Land Use Plans

The existing and proposed land uses of the

Schoodic District of Acadia National Park are in

conformance with local land use plans. In addition, no conflict is expected with existing state

or Tribal planning efforts. No conflict with

these plans is expected as a result of the implementation of the draft plan or any of the analyzed alternatives.

Prime and Unique Agricultural Lands

No unique agricultural soils are believed to

exist within the Schoodic District of Acadia

National Park. While some alternative agricultural crops (cranberries, orchard fruits) were

cultivated in the 19th century, soils are believed

to be relatively poor for traditional agriculture.

In fact, agricultural use of the parklands on

Schoodic has not existed for decades. No such

soils are expected to be impacted by the implementation of the plan or any of the proposed

alternatives.

Energy, Natural or Depletable Resource

Requirements, and Conservation Potential

None of analyzed alternatives would result in

the extraction of resources from Schoodic 

parklands. Under all alternatives, conservation

principles would be applied to ensure the park's

natural resources are maintained. All alternatives include the use of fewer base structures,

equating to reduced energy needs than when

the Navy occupied the base. Alternatives B and

C also include energy audits of base structures,

as well as modifications to maximize energy

efficiency according to Design Guidelines for

Schoodic Education Research Center (see

Appendix E). Only those buildings deemed

operationally efficient and environmentally and

economically sustainable will be reused. Where

possible, NPS will convert electric heat to a

more sustainable energy source. Fuel used in

vehicles is also reduced under all alternatives

when compared with that used during navy base

operations. Under certain proposals, ground

water recharge will be improved as a result of

asphalt and structure removal at the base. 

Environmental Justice

All federal agencies are required to incorporate

environmental justice into their missions by

identifying/addressing disproportionately high

and adverse human health or environmental

effects of their programs and policies on

minorities and low-income populations

(Executive Order 12898). In compliance with

the order, the plan and all analyzed proposals

were assessed during the planning process and

it was determined that none would result in 

significant direct or indirect adverse effects on

any minority or low-income populations or

communities. 
22 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

Sacred Sites and Indian Trusts

No known sacred sites (Executive Order 13007)

or Indian trust resources (ECM95-2) are

involved in the plan or proposals. The EIS also

included for further analysis several of the

impact topics identified by NPS and CEQ as

mandatory to consider. These are described

above under "Environmental Issues" and listed

here:

• Historic and cultural resources and the

design of the built environment

• Wetlands and floodplains, especially if

development would occur in them

• Endangered or threatened plants and animals and their habitats

• Important scientific, archeological, and

other cultural resources, including historic

properties listed or eligible for the National

Register of Historic Places

• Ecologically critical areas, Wild and Scenic

Rivers, or other unique natural resources

• Public health and safety

ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM

FURTHER STUDY

While developing the alternatives, several 

possible approaches were considered but not

finally analyzed, as they were considered

impractical and not able to meet the goals identified for Schoodic. Other approaches were

eliminated because they were inconsistent with

the park’s enabling legislation.

One possibility was for the Navy Morale,

Welfare, and Recreation (MWR), which until

2002 operated facilities at the base, to convert

the property into an independent MWR destination for active-duty and retired military personnel. This option was evaluated by MWR and

rejected for reasons of financial feasibility.

Costs for adding and maintaining amenities far

exceeded projected revenues. It was recognized

that the visitor season in this part of Maine is

short, and that significant investment would be

needed to convert facilities to civilian use. This

further discouraged pursuit of options involving

major enhancements associated more with a

destination resort than with a national park.

Survey results and public comment further 

discouraged consideration of commercial 

lodging, dining, or recreational facilities. It was

clearly stated in public meetings and in surveys,

that people did not wish to see the property

turned into a resort, or used for recreational

activities that might generate excessive noise

and traffic.

Furthermore, this alternative would be inconsistent with NPS Management Policies, which state

that the concession operations must be necessary and appropriate.

Another alternative considered but not analyzed

in great detail, was to restore the property back

to its appearance in 1935 when the U.S. Navy

first opened the radio station at Schoodic. This

was eliminated from further analysis because it

would have required the removal of many sound

buildings with productive lives remaining. This

alternative would have been nearly as expensive

as the alternatives proposed, but would not have

provided adequate space to support the

research learning center. 

Only a few people suggested, in surveys and at

public meetings, considering "restoring the base

back to nature" or to its condition before the

navy base was built, but the public overwhelmingly opposed this alternative. While this was

examined, it presented a host of problems. First,

NPS could not have responsibly demolished the

National Register–eligible Rockefeller Building

complex. Nor could NPS recommend demolition of the buildings and infrastructure necessary to operate the research learning center,

such as the maintenance facility, firehouse,

water system, and roads. Finally, restoring the

property back to its pre-navy base condition

would have been contrary to congressional

legislation and intent.
Acadia National Park

Wetland

Pond

Paved road

Gravel road

Trail

Park conservation 

easement 

(no public access)

LEGEND

Sundew

Trail

Schoodic District

0 1000 ft 2000 ft

Acadia National Park

U. S. Department of the Interior

National Park Service

EXISTING FEATURES

north

DRAFT Schoodic General Management Plan Amendment

ROLLING I.

LITTLE 

MOOSE I.

BIG MOOSE I. SCHOODIC I.

POND I.

SCHOODIC 

HEAD (440 ft)

FRAZER POINT

SPRUCE

POINT

SCHOODIC

POINT

BLUEBERRY

HILL

Parking area.

Parking area.

Parking area and restroom.

Ranger

Station

Dock, picnic area, 

restroom and parking.

Wonsqueak Road

Former navy base

Arey

Cove Schoodic Point Road

(two-way)

Schoodic

Harbor

Wonsqueak

Harbor

West Pond

East Pond

Schoodic Loop Road (one-way >)

AlderTrail

Anvil Trail

East Trail

Schoodic

Head Road

CCC Truck Trail

(no vehicles)

Schoodic HeadTrail

Moore Road

Winter 

Harbor

Figure 6
Arey

Cove

Schoodic Loop Road (one-way >)

Schoodic Point Road (two-way)

165 Gas Station

205 Warehouse

225 Sand/Salt 184-203 Schoodic Shores Housing

3 Chapel

164 Child Development

162 Bowling Alley

141 Water Tower

172 Storage

138 Gymnasium

213 Car Wash

216 Public Works

39 Commissary

1 Rockefeller

84 Dormitory

105 Galley

9 Gate House

219 Fire Cache

183 Wastewater TP

137 Firehouse

8 Auto Hobby

10 Administration

2 Generator

19 Tennis

148 Medical

Mobile Homes (removed)

Mobile Homes (removed)

106 Ballfield

149 Tennis

Helipad

143 Schooner Club

220, 221, 222 Cabins

182 Campground

139 Picnic Shelter

228 Potable Water TP

140, 205 Toilet/Shower

Enlarged

Area

Schoodic

Peninsula

Former Navy Base

Acadia National Park, Maine

U. S. Department of the Interior

National Park Service

EXISTING FEATURES

north

0 150 ft 300 ft

DRAFT Schoodic General Management Plan Amendment

Figure 7
0 0.25 mile 0.50 mile 

north

Acadia National ParkU.S. Department of the InteriorNational Park Service

MANAGEMENT ZONING 

NATURAL ZONE

NATURAL ENVIRONM

PROTECTED NATURA

CULTURAL ZONE

PRESERVATION SUBZ

DEVELOPED ZONE

ADAPTIVE USE SUBZ

Rolling I.

Little Moose I.

Big Moose I.

Schoodic I.

Pond I.

Schoodic Head

Frazer Point

Spruce Point

Schoodic Point

Blueberry Hill

Scho

odic Loop Road

AlderTrail

Anvil Trail

East Trail

SchoodicHead Road

CCC Truck Trail(no vehicles)

Schoodic

Head Trail Schood

i

c

L

oop Road

Note: Boundaries of management zones shoare generalized.
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 29

PART TWO: THE AL TERNATIVES 

AND THEIR COMMON ELEMENTS

This chapter describes proposed policies and

actions for the Schoodic District that are 

analyzed in subsequent parts. Presented first

are proposed policies that would apply regardless of the management alternative selected.

Management zoning is a technique used in general management plans to delineate how various

portions of a park will be managed to meet

desired future resource conditions. In this plan,

which amends Acadia's 1992 General Management

Plan, management zoning recommendations do

not differ among the alternatives. 

Management prescriptions that are the same for

all alternatives are presented next, under the

heading “Management Prescriptions Common to

All Alternatives,” followed by sections explaining what is unique to each of three

alternatives—Alternative A: No Action,

Alternative B: National Park Service

Management, and Alternative C: Collaborative

Management.

MANAGEMENT ZONING

Management zoning provides guidance to park

managers on how each part of the park should

be managed. It is one of the most important

parts of this plan as it governs how and where

the identified management goals will be

achieved. It is used in combination with other

policies governing proposed changes to parklands.

Under Acadia's General Management Plan, the

Schoodic District is managed primarily as a

Natural Zone to conserve and protect natural

resources and ecological processes while 

providing for their use and enjoyment by the

public. Since that plan was adopted, we have

learned more about the natural and cultural

resources of Schoodic through research and are

proposing changes to the zoning scheme to

reflect that knowledge. The five basic management zoning categories from Acadia's General

Management Plan remain unchanged, but those

zones are applied differently in this plan.

Management zoning is the same for all alternatives (See Schoodic Management Zoning:

Common to All Alternatives, Figure 8). 

Placement in a management zone, e.g. natural

zone, is intended to emphasize the importance

of natural resource values in that zone. When a

cultural resource such as an historic building is

located in a natural zone, both cultural and 

natural resource management policies are 

followed.

The Protected Natural Area Subzone of the

Natural Zone would be expanded under all

alternatives to protect resources of unusual

fragility or ecological significance. This 

subzone would include wetlands, shorebird

habitat, significant intertidal zones, coastal

islands (i.e., Schoodic, Little Moose, Pond, and

Rolling), and Maine Natural Area Program

"Rare or Exemplary Natural Communities" (i.e.,

Jack Pine Woodland on the east side of

Schoodic Head and Maritime Shrubland on the

southern portion of Little Moose Island). This

zone perpetuates geological or ecological values

with minimal or no human intrusion and would

allow scientists to conduct further research.

In documentation prepared to nominate potentially eligible resources of the Schoodic District

to the National Register as a historic district,

the circulation system of roads and trails is

highlighted. The system is considered eligible

for listing in the National Register, and zoning

has been amended to reflect this. Designed and

built in the early years of the park, the road and

trail system (outside of the former navy base)

would be rezoned as cultural resources to

ensure that their character-defining features are

protected during normal maintenance. The

roads and hiking trails would be placed in the

Preservation Subzone of the Cultural Zone

which would include the parking areas at

Schoodic Point and Blueberry Hill, and the

gravel pull-offs along the Schoodic Loop Road,

all important features of the road system.

The Rockefeller Building and powerhouse,

along with the surrounding landscape, would be

placed in the Adaptive Use Subzone of the

Cultural Zone. While the buildings retain their

historical integrity, the surrounding landscape

has been substantially altered. The Adaptive

Use Subzone reflects this reality and directs

managers to "perpetuate the characteristics that
30 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

qualify these resources for listing in the

National Register of Historic Places" while

allowing necessary modifications for public or

administrative use. This will allow the

Rockefeller complex to be reused as a focal

point of the educational and research campus.

Its zoning differentiates it from the rest of the

surrounding Developed Zone.

The Developed Zone is the location for facilities

and services to support the park. Most of the

former navy property falls into this zone, as

does the Frazer Point picnic area and dock. 

MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS

COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

"Management prescriptions," in National Park

Service (NPS) terminology, are statements of

desired future conditions that describe how the

park's goals will be achieved. These statements

describe the resource conditions and visitor

experiences that are to be achieved and maintained over time, and the kinds and levels of

management activities, visitor use, and development that are appropriate for the park. Some of

the prescriptions help to achieve multiple goals.

They are grouped in broad categories for ease of

reference.

Following each management prescription (in

boldface), are a series of actions that might be

taken over the next 15 years to meet the goals

stated in the plan. These actions explain how

progress would be made, and are intended to be

representative of the methods that would be

used by NPS and its partners. 

Regardless of which alternative is ultimately

chosen and implemented, many prescriptions

for management will be applicable to the

Schoodic District as a whole, and, since this

plan amends Acadia's General Management

Plan, its prescriptions also remain in effect

except where amended. Those with particular

applicability to Schoodic will be restated in the

amendment.

In general, NPS will continue to provide basic

resource management, maintenance, administrative and visitor services at Schoodic, expanding

operations as funding permits. The Schoodic

Loop Road will be open year-round. 

Under all alternatives, visitors would continue

to enjoy an uncrowded park experience providing opportunities for solitude in a relatively

natural environment. Ongoing research would

continue to inform management and opportunities would continue to expand as the Schoodic

Education and Research Center evolves. There

would be increased interpretive and educational

opportunities. The park's interpretive themes

(Appendix A) would be used to guide this

expansion, which could include the history of

the park and of the U.S. Navy's presence at

Schoodic.

Visitor information materials will be updated to

reflect changes. Current informal or "social"

trails, especially on Little Moose Island, will be

evaluated for resource damage and revegetation

plans developed where needed. 

The Schoodic District was evaluated as part of

parkwide alternative transportation planning,

and work would continue to explore enhanced

service as part of the Island Explorer 

inter-modal system that will include parking,

shuttle buses, and ferry connections. Expansion

of this system at Schoodic is dependent upon

future use levels.

The system of roads, paths, parking lots, and

open space on the former navy base was 

examined and draft design recommendations

made to reduce pedestrian-vehicular conflicts

and to create a setting more appropriate for an

educational and research campus within a

national park (see Appendix E for proposed

design guidelines and see Figure 13 for a 

conceptual site plan showing how they might be

applied). Park operations are based at the public

works building and include offices, storage,

garages, and a meeting room. Additional operational space needs would depend upon the

alternative selected for implementation.
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 31

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

All resource management decisions are based on

full consideration of the best available natural and

cultural resource information, and are made by

professional staff supplied with requisite technical

and research support.

• Natural and cultural resources are inventoried and monitored. 

• The U.S. Navy collection (documents, photographs, objects, and electronic and magnetic

media) at the former navy base is preserved

for current and future use by researchers and

the public.

• Using the NPS Visitor Experience and

Resource Protection methodology, baseline

data is obtained to identify indicators,

develop standards, and determine acceptable

levels of impacts from visitation that can be

monitored over time.

• The Rockefeller Building, powerhouse, and

proposed Schoodic Peninsula Historic

District are listed in the National Register of

Historic Places, and historic structure and

cultural landscape reports are completed to

determine treatments for historic resources.

• Determine the extent to which tidal flows

may be resticted on the inland side of the

Schoodic Loop Road, particularly at the Big

Moose Island causeways, and quantify any

resulting ecological changes. If warranted,

restore natural hydrologic regimes to mitigate impacts based on the results of the

investigation.

• Evaluate the potential for restoring the

ranger station to a condition that would

qualify it as a contributing resource to the

proposed Schoodic Peninsula Historic

District (NPS 2001b). Complete necessary

treatment according to The Secretary of the

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of

Historic Properties.

• Archeological and ethnographic resources

are inventoried and documentation is available before ground-disturbing activities are

proposed.

Management zoning guides use of the Schoodic

District, and is used along with design guidelines

and carrying capacity guidelines to shape 

management actions.

• Critical habitats are identified and located in

proper management zones, and visitor use is

managed to protect resources (e.g., rare

plants, Jack Pine Woodland, eagle and

seabird nesting sites, wildlife corridors,

islands, intertidal zone). 

• Designate Research Natural Areas consistent

with NPS guidelines to preserve largely

undisturbed ecological community types for

non-manipulative research and educational

use. Research Natural Areas will serve as

benchmarks for assessing long-term ecological changes in other locations. Research

Natural Areas will be managed to prevent

any activity that could alter existing natural

conditions and processes. Management

actions may include limiting access to all

uses other than non-manipulative research.

Areas within the Protected Natural Area

Subzone (see Figure 8), particularly the

Maritime Shrubland Community on Little

Moose Island and the intertidal zone, will be

evaluated for Research Natural Area designation.

• Carrying capacity indicators and standards

are established for zones and monitored over

time to protect resources and the visitor

experience. 

• Adopt design guidelines to ensure design

consistency and quality so that SERC will

have a unique identity compatible with

Acadia National Park.

Schoodic District's natural lightscape is preserved.

• Preserve, to the greatest extent possible, the

night sky of the Schoodic District by

restricting the use of artificial lighting to

those areas where security, human safety,

and other site management requirements

must be met.

• Utilize minimal impact lighting techniques,

and shield the use of artificial lighting where

necessary to prevent the disruption of the

night sky. Remove or retrofit inappropriate

outdoor lighting to preserve the night sky.
32 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

Schoodic District's natural soundscape is 

preserved.

• Maintain Schoodic's quiet character and natural soundscape with minimal disruption

from human activities.

• Preserve, to the greatest extent possible, the

natural soundscapes of the Schoodic

District. The natural soundscape is the

aggregate of all the natural sounds that occur

in parks in the absence of human-caused

sound.

• Prevent or minimize all noise that, through

frequency, magnitude, or duration, adversely

affects the natural soundscape or other park

resources or values, or that exceeds levels

that have been identified as being acceptable

to, or appropriate for, visitor uses at the

Schoodic District. 

Vegetation is restored to a natural condition in

areas that have been or may be altered by human

activity.

• Revegetate areas that have been or may be

disturbed by human activity, including areas

where buildings and other facilities may be

removed and not replaced by other development. Use seeds, cuttings, or transplants

representing plant species and gene pools

native to the Schoodic District, as feasible.

• Where necessary to preserve and protect the

desired condition of specific cultural

resources and landscapes, plants generally

will be managed to reflect the character of

the landscape that prevailed during the historic period. Efforts should be made to

extend the lives of specimen trees dating

from the historic period being commemorated.

• Selective vegetation will be periodically

removed from around buildings to maintain

defensible space that will protect buildings

in the event of a wildfire.

• Remove perimeter chainlink fence and

revegetate disturbed area.

Land use on the Schoodic Peninsula and 

surrounding islands is compatible with Acadia

National Park values and purposes.

• Monitor land use proposals and changes to

surrounding lands, and evaluate their potential impacts.

• Participate in the land use planning and regulatory processes of neighboring jurisdictions to encourage compatible adjacent land

uses and avoid or mitigate adverse impacts to

park resources and values.

• Work cooperatively with surrounding

landowners, local and state governments,

land trusts, and others so that the use of

non-park lands on the Schoodic Peninsula is

compatible with park resources and values.

The NPS will consider all available land protection techniques and options.

• Cooperate with landowners and land trusts

to protect lands of value to the park, pursuant to the 1986 boundary legislation (P.L.

99-420) and the park's Land Protection Plan.

VISITOR USE AND INTERPRETATION

Visitors understand the significance of the

resources in the Schoodic District.

• Provide visitor information and interpretive

messages through various media, including

Internet websites.

Public facilities are safe and universally accessible.

• Building and facilities open to the public will

be evaluated and modified to meet current

life safety standards.

• All buildings and facilities will be accessible

to, and usable by, persons with disabilities to

the greatest extent reasonable, in compliance

with all applicable laws, regulations, and

standards. 

• Buildings and facilities will be modified to

ensure that public programs can be provided

in accessible locations.
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 33

The impacts of private motor vehicles on

park resources and the visitor experience are

monitored and minimized.

• The Schoodic Loop Road will be maintained as a one-way scenic drive beginning in Winter Harbor off State Route

186, with a two-way spur to Schoodic

Point before rejoining State Route 186 in

Gouldsboro. 

• Develop alternative transportation system approaches to minimize use of private motor vehicles in the park.

Consider the use of shuttle buses and

improvements to expand bicycling (See

Appendix C for more information on

alternative transportation proposals for

Schoodic). 

• Limit parking to the capacity of existing

lots. The current capacity at the former

navy base is 350 cars and this would not

be exceeded, although lots might be

relocated within the site. Parking will

be permitted only in designated spaces

in established lots, and vehicle size will

be restricted in lots where turning space

is limited. The cooperation of the state

and neighboring towns will be sought in

developing parking facilities outside of

the park for use in connection with an

alternative transportation system.

• Prevent parking along roadsides where

resource damage may occur or limited

parking is desirable, including roads

adjacent to Little Moose Island/East

Pond and Pond Island/West Pond. 

Visitor use is compatible with the Schoodic

District's resources and values.

• Provide opportunities for forms of

enjoyment that are uniquely suited and

appropriate to the resources of the

Schoodic District, and defer to local

and state governments, private industry,

and non-governmental organizations to

meet the public's broader spectrum of

recreational needs and demands. 

• Visitor use, including recreational activities,

will be appropriate to the purpose for which

the park was established. Activities should

foster an understanding of, and appreciation

for, park resources and values, or promote

enjoyment through a direct association and

interaction with park resources without

causing unacceptable impacts to park

resources or values.

• The dock at Frazer Point will be available for

recreational purposes and NPS administrative use only. No ferry or commercial docking will be allowed.

Manage trails according to guidance provided in

the park's Hiking Trails Management Plan (2002).

• Retain the configuration of trails in the

Schoodic District and preserve their character-defining features by applying the appropriate historic preservation treatment.

• Revegetate most of the social trails on Little

Moose Island. Rehabilitate selected social

trails to establish a 0.75-mile loop trial. The

trail would be sensitive to the vegetation and

preserve the visitor experience. 

• Management actions to preserve opportunities for solitude and protect vegetation on

Little Moose Island will include, but are not

limited to, temporary closures, group size

limits, and overall visitation limits, as well as

increased education efforts. To the degree

possible, access to Little Moose Island will

be confined to a single point of crossing to

reduce impacts on resources.

• Minimize potential resource impacts to the

shoreline accessible from former navy base

trails, including but not limited to, temporary closures, group size limits, and overall

visitation limits. Visitor education efforts

will include providing "Leave No Trace"

information at trailheads located on the former navy base.

• Visitor education efforts will include providing "Leave No Trace" information at trailheads located on the former navy base.
34 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

• The Sundew Trail will be improved according to NPS trail construction standards and

designated for administrative use only. The

Sundew Trail will not be promoted or appear

on NPS maps. 

• Designate the Alder Trail for bicycle use if

determined to be feasible and appropriate.

Implement a comprehensive sign program. 

• In cooperation with neighboring towns and

the Maine Department of Transportation,

implement a comprehensive sign plan for the

Schoodic District consistent with NPS

design criteria and standards under the

UniGuide Program (2002). The plan will

minimize the number of signs inside and

outside the park while increasing their effectiveness. Signs within the Schoodic

Education and Research Center (SERC) will

be distinctively designed to reflect the character and functions of the site, while maintaining compatibility with NPS standards

(see design guidelines in Appendix E).

• Signs will be held to the minimum number,

size, and wording required to serve their

intended functions, so as to minimally

intrude upon the natural and historic settings. They will be placed where they do not

interfere with park visitors' enjoyment and

appreciation of park resources. 

• Traffic signs along the Schoodic Loop Road

and within the SERC campus will be reduced

to the minimum necessary to meet information, warning, and regulatory needs, and to

avoid confusion and visual intrusion. 

COOPERATIVE EFFORTS AND 

PARTNERSHIPS

Acadia National Park and neighboring towns

assist each other in emergencies.

• Mutual aid agreements for medical emergencies and fire protection are maintained with

neighboring towns.

OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY

All park functions, infrastructure, and 

programs are programmatically and physically sustainable, with principles of conservation applied.

• Facilities are audited for energy efficiency and modified to maximize energy

efficiency.

• Proposed program costs are evaluated

and business plans prepared to show

how funding will be obtained.

Visitors to the Schoodic District possess the

appropriate park entrance pass and 

understand how NPS uses park entrance fees.

• Inform visitors of park entrance fees

and how the NPS uses fees to protect

resources and improve visitor facilities. 

• Issue park entrance passes at the

Schoodic District and publicize their

availability.

• Implement, as may be needed, specific

park entrance fee policies and procedures for the Schoodic Education and

Research Center.

Operational budget increases provide for

increased responsibilities.

• Budget increases will be sought to meet

the park's responsibilities for administration, resource management, interpretation, maintenance, and protection.
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 35

ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION

OVERVIEW

The National Environmental Policy Act requires

that NPS identify and evaluate alternative

approaches to meeting its goals. For comparison, the No Action Alternative describes

existing conditions at Schoodic and represents

what would happen if current operations were

continued without major change. Please refer to

the map and summary at Figure 9 for an illustration of Alternative A and remember that it also

includes actions common to all alternatives such

as the application of Management Zoning as 

illustrated in Figure 8 (further information and

cost estimates are found in the Appendices). In

general, the Schoodic District would be managed

as it has been with some changes related to the

departure of the U.S. Navy and as a result of

newly obtained resource information. 

Although capacity would exist for as many as

200 people for a special event on the campus,

this would be extremely unlikely under this

alternative due to staffing constraints. A typical

day during the peak season would see only park

staff on site, with an occasional program for 20

participants. Accommodations would be 

available for 20 program participants in dormitories, and a small number of apartments would

be used for park employee housing. Overnight

use would be greatly reduced from the 350–400

people who lived on the base when the U.S.

Navy was present.

There would be some 1,526 people per day in

the entire Schoodic District during the peak

months of July, August, and September.

Throughout the year, visitation would average

around 738 per day, with an annual projected

total of 258,500. It is expected that overall, the

Schoodic District of the park would experience

a moderate increase in visitor day use (1% per

year) in addition to some 1,800 new program

participants. 

Traffic volumes on park roads have dropped

significantly since the departure of the U.S.

Navy. In 2000, 60% of the vehicles on Schoodic

park roads were non-recreational. While there

will always be a certain amount of traffic associated with deliveries and services to the

campus, it is expected that the 350 typical

non-recreational vehicles per day would be

cut in half in the future. Average daily

vehicles in 2000 ranged from 802 during the

peak summer months to 504 during the rest

of the year for an average of 579 vehicles

per day and a total of 208,330 vehicles per

year. Projected vehicles for this alternative

are 154,592 total with average daily totals of

approximately 454. 

The number of cars seen at one time is an

important indicator of visitor satisfaction,

according to the Schoodic Peninsula Visitor

Study (Manning 2002). Interviewed in

2000, visitors were pleasantly surprised to

see an average of 2.8 cars at one time on

Schoodic Loop Road, although they

expected to see an average of 4.1. They

reported that they would tolerate a maximum of 12.7 cars at one time, but would

prefer to have the road managed to see no

more than 8.5 at once. It would appear that

the current levels allow ample room for

expansion of programs and low-impact

recreational uses.

The management prescriptions described in

the previous section "common to all 

alternatives" apply to this alternative, in

addition to the management prescriptions

and actions listed below.

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

The historic Rockefeller Building and 

powerhouse are maintained for future

preservation and adaptive reuse.

• The treatment approach for the

Rockefeller Building and powerhouse

will be "preservation," as provided

under The Secretary of the Interior's

Standards for the Treatment of Historic

Properties (1995). This treatment

focuses on the protection and stabilization of existing historic materials.

Because this alternative would not

include removal of pavement nor

unneeded buildings, landscape restoration would not occur. 
36 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

VISITOR USE AND INTERPRETATION

Under this status quo alternative, visitors would

continue to enjoy the quiet, uncrowded 

experience they value today. 

• Information and interpretation would be

limited to the current system of wayside,

road, and trail signs, park fact sheets, and

occasional contact with interpretive, protection, and maintenance staff and volunteers.

The Frazer Point picnic area and restrooms

at Frazer and Schoodic Point would be maintained.

• There would be few programs for the general

public, although there might be some limited

use of base facilities for educational activities, such as the park's education camp. 

• Former navy facilities would be closed to the

public for safety reasons and buildings

would be secured and closed down.

National park personnel would have a somewhat higher presence than they have currently, primarily to respond to emergencies.

Contractors or park staff would provide

snow plowing and would maintain roads and

utility systems.

Circulation on the base would remain dominated

by vehicles, with large paved areas and minimal

provisions for pedestrians. 

• Military structures would predominate, making it difficult to offer a park experience to

educational program participants. Access to

the shoreline at Big Moose Island would

remain limited, as approximately half of it can

be reached only from trails originating within

the base.

COOPERATIVE EFFORTS AND 

PARTNERSHIPS

Planning for the Schoodic Education and Research

Center would continue with efforts made to

identify research and education partners.

• Although design studies would continue for

buildings targeted for early program and

partner use such as the former Commissary,

Medical Building, and Rockefeller Building,

they would not be available for use.

OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY

Management would concentrate on maintaining

facilities at the lowest possible cost to protect

them until an overall direction has been 

determined and funding is available to reuse or

remove buildings. 

• Drain pipes and set heating systems at lowest

possible temperatures until new uses are

known. Buildings and systems would be

secured from the weather. Fire detection

systems would be deactivated and fire

sprinkler systems would be drained.

ALTERNATIVE B: NATIONAL

PARK SERVICE MANAGEMENT

OVERVIEW

This alternative represents the approach that

would be taken if NPS were to continue to

operate its current programs, expanding them

somewhat to use the facilities of the navy base.

The Schoodic Education and Research Center

(SERC) would be the primary use at the former

navy base property, but its scope and scale

would be more limited. It would focus on

research and programs directly related to Acadia

National Park and would be managed almost

exclusively by NPS. Please refer to the map and

summary at Figure 10 for an illustration of

Alternative B and remember that it also includes

actions common to all alternatives such as the

application of Management Zoning as illustrated in Figure 8. (Further information and

cost estimates are found in the Appendices). 

The approach would be similar to but far more

modest than what is described in Alternative C.

Priority would be given to existing research and

education programs and to preserving historic

structures. Programs would be unlikely to fill

all buildings available for reuse. Buildings not

needed by the park would be secured and mothballed for future use or removed as funding 

permitted. Over time, almost half the base

property could be restored to natural 

conditions. 
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 37

The NPS would handle all major management

responsibilities, including maintenance, allocating of space, planning, design and construction

of any changes to buildings, developing and

scheduling programs, and operating services

and facilities. While other organizations would

participate in research and education at

Schoodic, they would not have management

responsibilities but would have more limited

roles. If partner organizations were to locate at

SERC, they would do so through cooperative

agreements or leases with NPS.

Although capacity would exist for as many as

400 people for a special event on the campus, a

typical day during the peak season would see

150 program participant users on site per day.

Accommodations would be available for 90

program participants in dormitories and apartments. Some participants might use the 12

campsites, while others would come from

nearby towns and not require onsite lodging.

Overnight use would be much reduced from the

350–400 people who lived on the base when the

U.S. Navy was present.

Combined with a projected visitor day use of

1,526 people, there would be some 1,656 people

per day in the entire Schoodic District during

the peak months of July, August, and September.

Throughout the year, visitation would average

around 868 per day, with an annual projected

total of 272,000. It is expected that overall, the

Schoodic District of the park would experience

a moderate increase in visitor day use (1% per

year) in addition to some 13,500 new program

participants. 

Traffic volumes on park roads have dropped 

significantly since the departure of the U.S.

Navy. In 2000, 60% of the vehicles on Schoodic

park roads were non-recreational and most of

these were associated with navy use. While

there will always be a certain amount of traffic

associated with deliveries and services to the

campus, it is expected that the 350 typical nonrecreational vehicles per day will be cut in half

in the future. Average daily vehicles in 2000

ranged from 802 during the peak summer

months to 504 during the rest of the year for an

average of 579 vehicles per day and a total of

208,330 vehicles per year. Projected vehicles for

this alternative are 160,442 total with average

daily totals of approximately 519. 

The number of cars seen at one time is an

important indicator of visitor satisfaction,

according to the Schoodic Peninsula Visitor

Study (Manning 2002). Interviewed in 2000,

visitors were pleasantly surprised to see an 

average of 2.8 cars at one time on the park road,

although they expected to see an average of 4.1.

They reported that they would tolerate a 

maximum of 12.7 cars at one time, but would

prefer to have the road managed to see no more

than 8.5 at once. It would appear that the 

current levels allow ample room for expansion

of programs and low-impact recreational uses.

Management under this alternative would be

almost exclusively by NPS, which would rely on

available funds to support a full range of

responsibilities.

The management prescriptions described in the

previous section "common to all alternatives"

apply to this alternative, in addition to the 

management prescriptions and actions listed

below.

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Disturbed lands are restored after removal of

pavement or buildings.

• It is estimated that approximately 40 acres of

disturbed landscape could be restored to

appropriate native plant communities upon

the removal of structures not needed for

park use. Many of the buildings on the base

would be removed.

The historic Rockefeller Building complex is 

preserved and the interior rehabilitated for 

program use. 

• The Rockefeller Building which now 

contains apartments and offices would be

adapted to include more offices, a conference room, a small visitor contact and

exhibit space, and restrooms. While the

exterior of the building would be preserved,

the interior would be modified to accommodate programs. Minimal reconfiguring of the

interior spaces would be required, as new

uses would fit the residential scale of the

building without necessitating any major

structural changes. 
38 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

The surrounding landscape is designed and 

reconfigured to provide a suitable setting for the

Rockefeller Building as a primary focal point of

the campus.

• Removing asphalt and redesigning the landscape around this building would help provide a setting suitable for a campus within a

national park. The landscape around the

building was designed in the 1930s in consultation with NPS landscape architects and

included native plantings. Grading and

planting plans from 1934 are available and

should be referenced while creating a contemporary design for the space to address

functional needs such as reducing pedestrian

and vehicular circulation conflicts. See

Figure 12 for illustrations of the future SERC

campus.

VISITOR USE AND INTERPRETATION

Circulation system has minimal conflicts and

allows visitors access to the former navy base

property. 

• Existing parking and circulation are evaluated and redesigned to make the base more

hospitable to pedestrians in accordance with

design guidelines see Appendix E for suggested design guidelines). Parking is consolidated and screened so that pavement may be

removed and the landscape restored. 

The navy base feels like a campus within a

national park setting. 

• Removal of pavement and redesigning the

landscape will help change the military setting

to one more suitable for education and interpretation within a national park. In addition,

design standards will be adopted for compatible paving, sidewalks, lighting, benches, signs,

and related elements (see Appendix E).

Incompatible elements that diminish enjoyment of the night sky and natural soundscape

would be mitigated or removed.

New uses support and enhance the quiet, natural

visitor experience and the mission of Acadia

National Park.

• Criteria would be set and proposed new programs evaluated to ensure consistency with

park mission and acceptable levels of use in

the various management zones. Activity levels similar to those present in 2000 would be

acceptable, as they were compatible with

nearby park use as evidenced by visitor surveys and resource studies. New uses might

include a wide variety of activities including

research, education for students of all ages,

artist-in-residence, conferences, retreats,

and special events.

Acadia National Park provides facilities and 

support for a modest amount of day use and 

residential programs.

• The Rockefeller Building would provide

offices for partner program organizations,

which would be supplemented by program

and meeting space in the chapel, medical

clinic, Schooner Club, and commissary. A

small exhibit area, visitor contact station,

and restrooms would be located in the

Rockefeller Building and could include a

book sales operation. The galley would provide food service to occupants of the barracks and other housing units.

• Some buildings on the base would be used

for park programs or for related operation

and maintenance.

• Accommodations would be available for 80

program participants and 10 staff members

in dormitories, apartments, and campsites.

Dormitories would house younger students

while adult students and staff would use

apartments.

• Camping facilities would be available for

research learning center–related programs

and activities and to support park operations. A public campground would not be

operated at Schoodic.
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 39

Visual intrusions on the Schoodic District's highly

valued scenery, including views to and from the

peninsula, are minimized.

• New development will not compete with or

dominate park features, or interfere with visitor enjoyment of the scenery. 

• The installation of towers and other structures taller than tree height will be limited to

those that are directly related to the mission

and programs of NPS or SERC. The design

and siting of towers and other structures will

be integrated into the park landscape to minimize visual impacts. The total number of

towers and similar structures will be minimized by sharing facilities to the extent possible. 

• Towers and similar structures will not be

located outside of the Developed Zone of the

former navy base.

• Evaluate the option of removing the water

tower and replacing it with a ground-level

storage tank. Replace the water tower if it is

economically, operationally, and environmentally feasible.

COOPERATIVE EFFORTS AND

PARTNERSHIPS

Park manages programs and facilities.

• Park staff would manage programs and facilities under this alternative, with cooperation

from organizations, agencies, and educational institutions.

OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY

Buildings are evaluated for their reuse potential

for Acadia National Park and Schoodic Education

and Research Center needs.

• All buildings are assessed for their reuse

potential. Operating and maintenance costs

are reviewed. 

Unneeded buildings are removed to reduce 

operational costs, improve site conditions, and

allow for maximum native plant restoration.

• Buildings would be used for park operations

or SERC purposes as shown in the accompanying site plan for Alternative B (Figure 10). 

• Buildings and structures ineligible for the

National Register of Historic Places would

be evaluated for removal when NPS determines that there is no viable and cost–effective use related to the mission and purpose

of Acadia National Park or SERC. The NPS

would remove buildings when the necessary

approvals and compliance documents were

completed, and funding was available. 

• Buildings and structures designated for

removal would be secured in the interim.

Small storage, maintenance, and obsolete

utility buildings would be removed to

improve the appearance and campus-like

character of the former navy base property,

and to allow for a more efficient use of

space. In addition to the minor buildings

identified for immediate removal under this

alternative, the park would remove structures not needed by SERC such as the

hockey rink and mobile home pads, to allow

for native plant restoration or the relocation

of existing parking spaces. 

New programs demonstrate financial 

viability.

• All proposed SERC programs would be

expected to show how operating costs would

be generated from user fees, donations, and

appropriated and other funds. A full range

of revenue-generating options would be

explored to offset program costs. Options to

be examined might include sales items, program fees, and contributions by sponsoring

organizations. Non-NPS programs will be

expected to pay rent for office and program

spaces and contribute to the use of shared

SERC facilities, such as conference rooms.
40 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

ALTERNATIVE C:

COLLABORATIVE MANAGEMENT

(PREFERRED)

OVERVIEW

Under this alternative, the Schoodic Education

and Research Center (SERC) would facilitate

education and research to promote the understanding, protection, and conservation of

natural and cultural resources of the National

Park System and related research at the

regional, national, and international levels.

Please refer to the map and summary at Figure

11 for an illustration of Alternative C and

remember that it also includes actions common

to all alternatives such as the application of

Management Zoning as illustrated in Figure 8

(further information and cost estimates are

found in the Appendices). 

A separate nonprofit organization would

develop and manage the research learning center in cooperation with NPS. The nonprofit

would serve as an umbrella organization to

coordinate the use of the facilities by partners

participating in educational and research activities. It would have sufficient autonomy to be

creative and flexible in developing and managing SERC while fully protecting the interests of

NPS.

Schoodic Education and Research Center would

play a major role in coordinating the activities

described in this alternative. Preliminary

queries suggest that there are many groups

interested in basing research and education

activities at Schoodic. A mix of activities could

enliven the former navy base and expand educational opportunities. Programs could be offered

for people of all ages in the fields of natural and

cultural history, conservation, science, music,

and art. Facilities would exist for small conferences, retreats, and special events. By pooling

the financial capabilities of partners, existing

buildings would be reused more quickly than in

the other alternatives.

Once criteria and standards are set, proposals

would be requested from partners seeking to

join SERC as founding partners. The nonprofit

would coordinate programs, select new partners, and manage shared services such as food,

lodging, and meeting space for program participants. 

The NPS role would be to plan and manage the

Schoodic District to ensure that resources are

protected and to offer educational and interpretive programs along with those sponsored by

other SERC partners. The actions described

earlier in the section "Management

Prescriptions Common to All Alternatives"

would guide management, along with those

listed below. The park would continue to 

sponsor research and could develop laboratory,

library, computing, and other facilities in 

collaboration with partners as part of SERC (see

Appendix G). 

A typical day during the peak season would see

no more than 350 program participant users on

site per day. Accommodations would be 

available for 190 program participants and staff

in dormitories and apartments. Some participants might use the 12 campsites, while others

would come from nearby towns and not require

onsite lodging. Overnight use would be much

reduced from the 350–400 people who lived on

the base when the U.S. Navy was present.

Combined with a projected visitor day use of

1,526 people, there would be some 1,858 people

per day in the entire Schoodic District during

the peak months of July, August, and September.

Throughout the year, visitation would average

around 1,068 per day, with an annual projected

total of 290,000. It is expected that overall, the

Schoodic District of the park would experience

a moderate increase in visitor day use (1% per

year) in addition to some 31,500 new program

participants. 

Traffic volumes on park roads have dropped

significantly since the departure of the U.S.

Navy. In 2000, 60% of the vehicles on Schoodic

park roads were non-recreational. While there

will always be a certain amount of traffic associated with deliveries and services to the campus,

it is expected that the 350 typical non-recreational vehicles per day will be cut in half in the

future. Average daily vehicles in 2000 ranged

from 802 during the peak summer months to

504 during the rest of the year for an average of

579 vehicles per day and a total of 208,330
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 41

vehicles per year. Projected vehicles for this

alternative are 169,442 total with average daily

totals of approximately 619. 

This concept is the one that best meets the goals

set out earlier in this plan. It is termed 

"preferred" because it is the alternative toward

which NPS is leaning, pending public and

agency review of this draft plan and the 

accompanying environmental impact statement.

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

The exterior of the historic Rockefeller Building

complex is preserved and the interior rehabilitated

for program use. 

• The Rockefeller Building which now contains

apartments and offices would be adapted to

include more offices, a conference room, a

small visitor contact and exhibit space, and

restrooms. While the exterior of the building would be preserved, the interior would

be modified to accommodate programs. 

• Minimal reconfiguring of the interior spaces

would be required, as new uses would fit the

residential scale of the building without

necessitating any major structural changes. 

The surrounding landscape is designed and 

reconfigured to provide a suitable setting for the

Rockefeller Building as a primary focal point of the

campus.

• Removing asphalt and redesigning the landscape around this building would help provide a setting suitable for a campus within a

national park. The landscape around the

building was designed in the 1930s in consultation with NPS landscape architects and

included native plantings. Grading and

planting plans from 1934 are available and

should be referenced while creating a contemporary design for the space to address

functional needs such as reducing pedestrian

and vehicular circulation conflicts.

Disturbed lands are revegetated after removal of

roads or buildings.

• It is estimated that approximately 16 acres of

disturbed landscape could be revegetated with

appropriate native plant communities upon the

removal of structures not needed for park use.

This could take time to achieve, as the decision

to remove a building, which may still have a

useful life, is not one to be made hastily.

VISITOR USE AND INTERPRETATION

Circulation system has minimal conflicts and allows

visitors access to the former navy base property. 

• Existing parking and circulation are evaluated

and redesigned to make the base more hospitable to pedestrians in accordance with

design guidelines (see Appendix E for suggested design guidelines). Parking is consolidated and screened so that pavement may be

removed and landscape restored. 

The navy base feels like a campus in a national

park setting. 

• Removal of pavement and redesigning the

landscape will help change the military setting

to one more suitable for education and interpretation within a national park. In addition,

design standards will be adopted for compatible paving, sidewalks, lighting, benches, signs,

and related elements. Incompatible elements

that diminish enjoyment of the night sky and

natural soundscape would be mitigated or

removed.

New uses support and enhance the quiet, natural

visitor experience and the mission of Acadia

National Park.

• Criteria would be set and proposed new programs evaluated to ensure consistency with

park mission and acceptable levels of use in

the various management zones. Activity levels

similar to those present in 2000 would be

acceptable, as they were compatible with

nearby park use as evidenced by visitor surveys and resource studies. New uses might

include a wide variety of activities including

research, education for students of all ages,

artist-in-residence, conferences, retreats, and

special events.
42 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

Acadia National Park and its partners provide

facilities and support for day use and residential

programs.

• Most buildings on the base would be used

for park or partner programs or for related

operation and maintenance.

• The commissary would be converted to

large, flexible meeting space for up to

approximately 125 people with state-of-theart telecommunications and multiple computer stations. The medical clinic would be

converted to laboratory and office space for

researchers. The barracks and galley would

be renovated to serve as the primary shortterm residential facility and cafeteria by

making improvements to meet fire protection

codes and accessibility requirements for

people with disabilities.

• The Rockefeller Building, Schooner Club,

and chapel would be rehabilitated to meet

accessibility requirements, abate asbestoscontaining materials and lead-based paint,

and upgrade/reconfigure building interiors

for improved safety and efficiency. The interior of the historic Rockefeller Building

would be modified for use as the primary

visitor contact station for the Schoodic

District. The first floor would be used for

visitor information and orientation, SERC

program registration, and interpretive

exhibits. Other apartments in the

Rockefeller Building would be converted to

office space for the park and SERC partners.

The Schooner Club would be rehabilitated to

function as a dining and meeting facility and

for other purposes.

• Fire protection deficiencies would be corrected in buildings at SERC. Improvements

would consist of installing and upgrading

fire suppression and detection systems;

installing fire pumps to increase the pressure

of water supplies for sprinkler systems; and

improving the reliability of power and communications systems.

• Accommodations would be available for up

to 170 program participants and 20 staff

members in dormitories, apartments, and

campsites. Dormitories would house

younger students while adult students and

staff would use townhouse apartments.

• Camping facilities would be available for

research learning center–related programs

and activities and to support park operations. A public campground would not be

operated at Schoodic.

Visual intrusions on the Schoodic District's highly

valued scenery, including views to and from the

peninsula, are minimized.

• New development will not compete with or

dominate park features, or interfere with visitor enjoyment of the scenery. 

• The installation of towers and other structures taller than tree height will be limited to

those that are directly related to the mission

and programs of NPS or Schoodic Education

and Research Center. The design and siting

of towers and other structures will be integrated into the park landscape to minimize

visual impacts. The total number of towers

and similar structures will be minimized by

sharing facilities to the extent possible. 

• Towers and similar structures will not be

located outside of the Developed Zone of

the former navy base.

• Evaluate the option of removing the water

tower and replacing it with a ground-level

storage tank. Replace the water tower if it is

economically, operationally, and environmentally feasible.

COOPERATIVE EFFORTS AND

PARTNERSHIPS

Nonprofit organization manages programs and

facilities.

• A nonprofit, with appropriate mandates from

NPS, would assist in carrying out the mission of SERC by promoting research and

education, cultivating and facilitating partnerships, and managing certain facilities at

Schoodic. 
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 43

• The nonprofit organization would assist in

site management by coordinating schedules

for shared facilities, such as meeting rooms

and lodging. The nonprofit would also manage services such as food and hospitality,

using generated revenues to offset program

and site operational costs. 

• Responsibilities of partners would be identified in short and long-term agreements,

which would ensure adherence to NPS standards and criteria. 

OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY

Unneeded buildings are removed to reduce 

operational costs, improve site conditions, and

allow for maximum native plant restoration. 

• Buildings would be used for park operations

or SERC purposes as shown in the accompanying site plan for Alternative C. 

• NPS would lease or assign SERC buildings,

and other facilities as may be appropriate, to

a nonprofit for management and operation.

• Non-historic buildings and structures would

be evaluated for removal when NPS determines that there is no viable and cost effective use related to the mission and purpose

of Acadia National Park or SERC. The NPS

will remove buildings when the necessary

approvals and compliance documents are

completed, and funding is available. 

• Buildings and structures designated for

removal will be secured in the interim. Small

storage, maintenance, and obsolete utility

buildings would be removed to improve the

appearance and campus-like character of the

former navy base property, and to allow for a

more efficient use of space. In addition to

the minor buildings identified for immediate

removal under this alternative, the park

would remove structures not needed by

SERC, such as the hockey rink and mobile

home pads, to allow for native plant revegetation or the relocation of existing parking

spaces. 

New programs demonstrate financial 

viability.

• All proposed SERC programs would be

expected to show how operating costs would

be generated from user fees, donations, and

appropriated and other funds. A full range of

revenue-generating options would be

explored to offset program costs. Options to

be examined might include sales items, program fees, and contributions by sponsoring

organizations. Non-NPS programs will be

expected to pay rent for office and program

spaces and contribute to the use of shared

SERC facilities, such as conference rooms.
A

AreyCove

Schoodic Loop Road (one-way >)

165 Gas Station

205 Warehouse

185, 187-189Schoodic Shores Housing

225 Sand/Salt 

3 Chapel

164 Child Development

162 Bowling Alley

138 Gymnasium

213 Car Wash

216 Public Works

39 Commissary

1 Rockefeller

2 Powerhouse

84 Dormitory

105 Galley

9 Gate House

219 Fire Cache

183 Wastewater  Treatment Plant

137 Firehouse

8 Auto Hobby

10 Administration

148 Medical

143 Schooner Club

220-222 Cabins

228 Potable Water  Treatment Plant

Schoodic Education and ResearcSite operationsSecured indefinitely

POSSIBLE BUILDING REUSE:3 CHAPELProgram space. Office.9 GATEHOUSEVisitor contact.143 SCHOONER CLUBMeeting rooms.164 CHILD DEVELOPMENTProgram space.165 GAS STATION

 Scientific monitoring station.

185, 18Housi216 POfficeNPS m220-2Housi225 SMaint

Schoodic Point Road (two-way)

172 Storage

232Ground Maintenance Storage

45Diesel Gen. House

0 150 ft 300 ft

north

Acadia National ParkU. S. Department of the InteriorNational Park Service

Ancillary buildings and structures are not highlighted.Building numbers and names refer to former navy use.
A

AreyCove

Schoodic Loop Road (one-way >)

165 Gas Station

186-189Schoodic Shores Housing

225 Sand/Salt 

3 Chapel

164 Child Development

162 Bowling Alley

138 Gymnasium

213 Car Wash

216 Public Works

39 Commissary

1 Rockefeller

2 Powerhouse

84 Dormitory

105 Galley

9 Gate House

219 Fire Cache

183 Wastewater  Treatment Plant

137 Firehouse

8 Auto Hobby

10 Administration

148 Medical Clinic

143 Schooner Club

220-222 Cabins

228 Potable Water Treatment Plant

Ancillary buildings and structures are not highlighted.Building numbers and names refer to former navy use.

POSSIBLE BUILDING REUSE:1 ROCKEFELLEROffices and meeting space. Visitor orientation and exhibits.3 CHAPELClassrooms, meeting space.9 GATEHOUSEVisitor contact.39 COMMISSARYMeeting space.84 DORMITORYHousing.105 GALLEYFood service.143 SCHOONER CLUBMeeting rooms, classrooms.148 MEDICALResearch laboratories, offices, library.164 CHILD DEVELOPMENTProgram space.

Schoodic Education and ResearcSite operationsRemoved if determined to be un

16

 S132E18H2SM2ONS2H2S

172 Storage

Acadia National ParkU. S. Department of the InteriorNational Park Service

north

0 150 ft 300 ft

205 Warehouse

Schoodic Point Road (two-way)

45Diesel Gen. House

232Ground Maintenance Storage
A

AreyCove

Schoodic Loop Road (one-way >)

165 Gas Station

184-191 Schoodic Shores Housing

225 Sand/Salt 

3 Chapel

164 Child Development

162 Bowling Alley

138 Gymnasium

213 Car Wash

216 Public Works

39 Commissary

1 Rockefeller

2 Powerhouse

84 Dormitory

105 Galley

9 Gate House

219 Fire Cache

183 Wastewater  Treatment Plant

137 Firehouse

8 Auto Hobby

10 Administration

148 Medical

143 Schooner Club

220-222 Cabins

228 Potable Water  Treatment Plant

POSSIBLE BUILDING REUSE:1 ROCKEFELLERNPS and partner offices, meeting space.Visitor orientation and exhibits.3 CHAPELClassrooms, meeting space.9 GATEHOUSEVisitor contact.39 COMMISSARYFlexible indoor and outdoor space foreducation. State-of-the-art telecommunications and computer stations.84 DORMITORYHousing.105 GALLEYFood service.138 GYMNASIUMAssembly space and offices.Athletic facilities.137 FIREHOUSENPS emergency vehicle storage.219 FIRE CACHENPS emergency vehicle storage. 

Schoodic Education and Research Site operationsRemoved if determined to be un

172 Storage

45Diesel Gen. House

232Ground Maintenance Storage

north

143 M148 Reoff162 Re164 Pr

 Sc184Ho20StoM216 OfNPSto22Ho22Sa

Acadia National ParkU. S. Department of the InteriorNational Park Service

0 150 ft 300 ft

205 Warehouse

Schoodic Point Road (two-way)

Ancillary buildings and structures are not highlighted.Building numbers and names refer to former navy use.
ROCKEFELLER BUILDING:In Alternatives B and C this distinctive building would be the place to greet program participants. It would also house partner offices, one or two conference rooms, small exhibits, and other facilities to be shared by Schoodic Education and Research Center programs.

EDUCATION BUILDING: In Alternative C this building would provide meeting rooms and flexible indoor and outdoor space for education programs.
Preservation/Adaptive Use Zone:Preserve RockefellerBuilding (reception, office)Site redesign sympatheticto historic setting.

new paths foraccessibility

new parkingand drop-off

Education

Building

Rockefeller

Building

D

Dormitory

Schoodic District

Administration

Gymnasium

Research

Building

to uppercampus

outdoor

classroom

path

SITE DESIGN GOALSImprove Circulation and Safety- reduce pedestrian/vehicle conflicts- clear and attractive signs- redesign campus entrance- organize parking areas for  specific user groups- limited number of permanent spaces- overflow parking for special events- new barrier-free paths- maintain proper access to buildings for  fire protection- reduce vehicular use by exploring suitable  bike and pedestrian connections to  Schoodic District.

Create Campus Character- historic Rockefeller Building used for reception  and partner offices- new design, furnishings, and construction materials reflect  Acadia's history and tradition- wildflower meadows and views to ocean- create/restore scenic vistas- paths and trails connecting to Schoodic District are managed- low maintenance- uniform sign system- change roadway lighting design to preserve night sky- remove pavement to reduce runoff and improve  groundwater recharge
choodic Today

dic District offers opportunities for quiet enjoyment. These views show the importance of

eration with neighboring communities to protect habitat and vistas that extend beyond park

s.
choodic Education and Research Center Campus

 the Schoodic Education and Research Center campus can be adapted for park and program use.

os were taken from 2000-2002 during preparation of this plan.
ALTERNATIVE B: NPS MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE C: COLLABORATIVE MANAGEMENT (PREFERRED)

 be managed as

parture of the Navy

Modest expansion of Schoodic Education and Research Center(SERC), the Acadia National Park research learning center, using former navy base facilities. Priority given to existing research partners.

Schoodic Education and Research Center (SERC) is a nonprofit organization under which many organizations advance the mission of AcadiaNational Park and share management responsibilities. 

Some building reused. Buildings not needed by the park or SERC are secured or removed. Reuse most buildings. Revenues generated by programs offset most operational costs.

se campus. NPS manages Schoodic District and SERC with minimal partnership help. Nonprofit assists NPS to manage SERC campus and programs.

150 SERC program participants per day. 90 overnight accommodations.Schoodic District annual recreation visits 272,000.

350 SERC program participants per day.190 overnight accommodations.Schoodic District annual recreation visits 290,000.

 and associated values are protected, restored, and maintained in good condition and managed within their broader ecosystems and cultural context.

s to the landscape or structures are appropriate to the management zone in which they are located.

d on full consideration of the best available natural and cultural resource information, and are made by professional staff supplied with requisite technical

dic District, and is used along with design guidelines and carrying capacity guidelines to shape management actions.

rved.

erved.

in areas that have been or may be altered by human activity.

urrounding islands is compatible with Acadia National Park values and purposes.

d monitored. 

hs, objects, and electronic and magnetic media) at the former navy base is preserved for current and future use by researchers and the public.

Protection methodology, baseline data is obtained to identify indicators, develop standards, and determine acceptable levels of impacts from visitation that can be

osed Schoodic Peninsula Historic District are listed in the National Register of Historic Places, and historic structure and cultural landscape reports are completed to

e restricted on the inland side of the Schoodic Loop Road, particularly at the Big Moose Island causeways, and quantify any resulting ecological changes. If war

gate impacts based on the results of the investigation.

ation to a condition that would qualify it as a contributing resource to the proposed Schoodic Peninsula Historic District (National Park Service, 2001b). Complete

of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.

ventoried and documentation is available before ground-disturbing activities are proposed.

h NPS guidelines to preserve largely undisturbed ecological community types for non-manipulative research and educational use. Research Natural Areas will serve as

hanges in other locations. Research Natural Areas will be managed to prevent any activity that could alter existing natural conditions and processes. Management

er than non-manipulative research. Areas within the Protected Natural Area Subzone (see Figure 8), particularly the maritime shrubland community on Little Mosse

or Research Natural Area designation.

per management zones, and visitor use is managed to protect resources (e.g., rare plants, Jack Pine Woodland, eagle and seabird nesting sites, wildlife corridors,

tablished for zones and monitored over time to protect resources and the visitor experience.

ency and quality so that SERC will have a unique identity compatible with Acadia National Park.

soundscape with minimal disruption from human activities.

t sky of the Schoodic District by restricting the use of artificial lighting to those areas where security, human safety, and other site management requirements must be

hield the use of artificial lighting where necessary to prevent the disruption of the night sky. Remove or retrofit inappropriate outdoor lighting to preserve the night

otect lands of value to the park, pursuant to the 1986 boundary legislation (P.L. 99-420) and the park's Land Protection Plan.
ON ALTERNATIVE B: NPS MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE C: COLLABORATIVE MANAGEMENT (PREFERRED)

al soundscapes of the Schoodic District. The natural soundscape is the aggregate of all the natural sounds that occur in parks in the absence of human-caused sound.

ncy, magnitude, or duration, adversely affects the natural soundscape or other park resources or values, or that exceeds levels that have been identified as being acceptable

District. 

ed by human activity, including areas where buildings and other facilities may be removed and not replaced by other development. Use seeds, cuttings, or transplants repre

Schoodic District, as feasible.

red condition of specific cultural resources and landscapes, plants generally will be managed to reflect the character of the landscape that prevailed during the historic

s of specimen trees dating from the historic period being commemorated.

rom around buildings to maintain defensible space that will protect buildings in the event of a wildfire.

disturbed area.

unding lands, and evaluate their potential impacts.

y processes of neighboring jurisdictions to encourage compatible adjacent land uses and avoid or mitigate adverse impacts to park resources and values.

, local and state governments, land trusts, and others so that the use of non-park lands on the Schoodic Peninsula is compatible with park resources and values. The NPS

ues.

- The exterior of the historic Rockefeller Building is preserved and the interior rehabilitated for program use.- The surrounding landscape is designed and reconfigured to provide a suitable setting for the Rockefeller Building as a primary focal

point of the campus. 

ouse are maintained for

ing and powerhouse will

 the Interior's Standards

s treatment focuses on

c materials. Because this

nt or unneeded build

• The Rockefeller Building which now contains apartments and offices would be adapted to include more offices, a conference room, a small

visitor contact and exhibit space, and restrooms. While the exterior of the building would be preserved, the interior would be modified toaccommodate programs. Minimal reconfiguring of the interior spaces would be required, as new uses would fit the residential scale of thebuilding without necessitating any major structural changes. 

- Disturbed lands are revegetated after removal of roads or buildings.

• 40 acres of disturbed landscape are revegetated. • 16 acres of disturbed landscape are revegetated.• Removing asphalt and redesigning the landscape around the Rockefeller Building would help provide a setting suitable for a campus within a

national park. The landscape around the building was designed in the 1930s in consultation with National Park Service landscape architectsand included native plantings. Grading and planting plans from 1934 are available and should be referenced while creating a contemporarydesign for the space to address functional needs such as reducing pedestrian and vehicular circulation conflicts. 

dic District, offering opportunities for solitude now enjoyed by the public, is maintained.

e increased.

mission are supported and encouraged.

the Schoodic Education and Research Center, the Acadia National Park research learning center.

al or cultural resources or the visitor experience. 

sources in the Schoodic District.

sible.

k resources and the visitor experience are monitored and minimized.

istrict's resources and values.

ovided in the park's Hiking Trails Management Plan.

 Schoodic District.
ALTERNATIVE B: NPS MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE C: COLLABORATIVE MANAGEMENT (PREFERRED)

ll be provided through various media, including Internet websites.

evaluated and modified to meet current safety standards.

d usable by, persons with disabilities to the greatest extent reasonable, in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and standards. 

 that public programs can be provided in accessible locations. 

 one-way scenic drive beginning in Winter Harbor off State Route 186, with a two-way spur to Schoodic Point before rejoining State Route 186 in Gouldsboro. 

ches to minimize use of private motor vehicles in the park. Consider the use of shuttle buses and improvements to expand bicycling. 

current capacity at the former navy base is 350 cars and this would not be exceeded, although lots might be relocated within the site. Parking will be permitted only

le size will be restricted in lots where turning space is limited. The cooperation of the state and neighboring towns will be sought in developing parking facilities out

rnative transportation system.

damage may occur or limited parking is desirable, including roads adjacent to Little Moose Island/East Pond and Pond Island/West Pond. 

t are uniquely suited and appropriate to the resources of the Schoodic District, and defer to local and state governments, private industry, and non-governmental

um of recreational needs and demands. 

propriate to the purpose for which the park was established. Activities should foster an understanding of, and appreciation for, park resources and values, or promote

action with park resources without causing unacceptable impacts to park resources or values. 

eational purposes and NPS administrative use only. No ferry or commercial docking will be allowed.

District and preserve their character-defining features by applying the appropriate historic preservation treatment.

se Island. Rehabilitate selected social trails to establish a new 0.75-mile loop trial. The trail would be sensitive to the vegetation and preserve the visitor experience.

r solitude and protect vegetation on Little Moose Island will include, but are not limited to, temporary closures, group size limits, and overall visitation limits, as well

sible, access to Little Moose Island will be confined to a single point of crossing to reduce impacts on resources.

line accessible from former navy base trails, including but not limited to, temporary closures, group size limits, and overall visitation limits. 

Leave No Trace" information at trailheads located on the former navy base.

NPS trail construction standards and designated for administrative use only. The Sundew Trail will not be promoted or appear on NPS maps.

ined to be feasible and appropriate.

Maine Department of Transportation, implement a comprehensive sign plan for the Schoodic District consistent with National Park Service design criteria and stan

plan will minimize the number of signs inside and outside the park while increasing their effectiveness. Signs within the Schoodic Education and Research Center will

nd functions of the site, while maintaining compatibility with NPS standards (see design guidelines in Appendix E).

nd wording required to serve their intended functions, so as to minimally intrude upon the natural and historic settings. They will be placed where they do not inter

n of park resources. 

within SERC campus will be reduced to the minimum necessary to meet information, warning, and regulatory needs, and to avoid confusion and visual intrusion.

uld continue to

alue today. 

ed to the current

fact sheets, and

n, and mainte

picnic area and

 be maintained.

 public, although

ties for educa

camp. 

ted by vehicles

s for pedestrians.

- Circulation system has minimal conflicts and allows visitors access to the former navy base property.- The former navy base feels like a campus within a national park setting.- New uses support and enhance the quiet natural visitor experience and the mission of Acadia National Park.- Acadia National Park provides facilities and support for a modest amount of day use and residential programs.- Visual intrusions on the Schoodic District's highly valued scenery, including views to and from the peninsula, are minimized.- For Alternative C only, Acadia National Park and its partners provide facilities and support for day use and residential programs.

lic for safety rea

down. National

esence than they

es. Contractors or

d maintain roads

• Existing parking and circulation are evaluated and redesigned to

make the base more hospitable to pedestrians in accordance withdesign guidelines (see Appendix E for suggested design guidelines).Parking is consolidated and screened so that pavement may beremoved and the landscape restored. 

• Existing parking and circulation are evaluated and redesigned to

make the base more hospitable to pedestrians in accordance withdesign guidelines (see Appendix E for suggested design guidelines).Parking is consolidated and screened so that pavement may beremoved and landscape restored. 
ALTERNATIVE B: NPS MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE C: COLLABORATIVE MANAGEMENT (PREFERRED)

difficult to offer a

nts. Access to the

ed, as approxi

iginating within

• Removal of pavement and redesigning the landscape will help

change the military setting to one more suitable for education andinterpretation within a national park. In addition, design standardswill be adopted for compatible paving, sidewalks, lighting, benches,signs, and related elements (see Appendix E). Incompatible elements that diminish enjoyment of the night sky and natural soundscape would be mitigated or removed.

• Criteria would be set and proposed new programs evaluated to

ensure consistency with park mission and acceptable levels of usein the various management zones. Activity levels similar to thosepresent in 2000 would be acceptable, as they were compatible withnearby park use as evidenced by visitor surveys and resource studies. New uses might include a wide variety of activities includingresearch, education for students of all ages, artist-in-residence,conferences, retreats, and special events.

• The Rockefeller Building would provide offices for partner program organizations, which would be supplemented by program and

meeting space in the chapel, medical clinic, Schooner Club, andcommissary. A small exhibit area, visitor contact station, and restrooms would be located in the Rockefeller Building and couldinclude a book sales operation. The galley would provide foodservice to occupants of the barracks and other housing units.

• Some buildings on the base would be used for park programs or for

related operation and maintenance.

• Accommodations would be available for 80 program participants

and 10 staff members in dormitories, apartments and campsites.Dormitories would house younger students, while adult studentsand staff would use apartments.

• Camping facilities would be available for research learning

center–related programs and activities and to support park operations. A public campground would not be operated at Schoodic.

• New development will not compete with or dominate park features, or interfere with visitor enjoyment of the scenery. • The installation of towers and other structures taller than tree

height will be limited to those that are directly related to the mission and programs of the NPS or Schoodic Education andResearch Center. The design and siting of towers and other structures will be integrated into the park landscape to minimize visualimpacts. The total number of towers and similar structures will beminimized by sharing facilities to the extent possible. 

• Towers and similar structures will not be located outside the

Developed Zone of the former navy base.

• Evaluate the option of removing the water tower and replacing it

with a ground-level storage tank. Replace the water tower if it iseconomically, operationally, and environmentally feasible.

• Criteria would be set and proposed new programs evaluated to

ensure consistency with park mission and acceptable levels of usein the various management zones. Activity levels similar to thosepresent in 2000 would be acceptable, as they were compatible withnearby park use as evidenced by visitor surveys and resource studies. New uses might include a wide variety of activities includingresearch, education for students of all ages, artist-in-residence,conferences, retreats, and special events.

• Removal of pavement and redesigning the landscape will help change

the military setting to one more suitable for education and interpretation within a national park. In addition, design standards will beadopted for compatible paving, sidewalks, lighting, benches, signs,and related elements. 

• Incompatible elements that diminish enjoyment of the night sky and

natural soundscape would be mitigated or removed.

• Most buildings on the base would be used for park or partner programs or for related operation and maintenance.• Accommodations would be available for up to 170 program participants and 20 staff members in dormitories, apartments, and campsites. Dormitories would house younger students, while adult students and staff would use townhouse apartments.• The commissary would be converted to a large, flexible meeting

space for up to approximately 125 people with state-of-the-arttelecommunications and multiple computer stations. The medicalclinic would be converted to laboratory and office space forresearchers. The barracks and galley would be renovated to serve asthe primary short-term residential facility and cafeteria by makingimprovements to meet fire protection codes and accessibility requirements for people with disabilities.

• The Rockefeller Building, Schooner Club, and chapel would be rehabilitated to meet accessibility requirements, abate asbestos-containing

materials and lead-based paint, and upgrade/reconfigure buildinginteriors for improved safety and efficiency. The interior of the historic Rockefeller Building would be modified for use as the primaryvisitor contact station for the Schoodic District. The first floor wouldbe used for visitor information and orientation, SERC program registration, and interpretive exhibits. Other apartments in theRockefeller Building would be converted to office space for the parkand SERC partners. The Schooner Club would be rehabilitated tofunction as a dining and meeting facility and for other purposes.

• Camping facilities would be available for research learning

center–related programs and activities and to support park operations. A public campground would not be operated at Schoodic.

• Fire protection deficiencies would be corrected in buildings at SERC.

Improvements would consist of installing and upgrading fire suppression and detection systems; installing fire pumps to increase the pressure of water supplies for sprinkler systems; and improving the reliability of power and communications systems.

• New development will not compete with or dominate park features,

or interfere with visitor enjoyment of the scenery. 

• The installation of towers and other structures taller than tree height

will be limited to those that are directly related to the mission andprograms of the National Park Service or Schoodic Education andResearch Center. The design and siting of towers and other structures will be integrated into the park landscape to minimize visualimpacts. The total number of towers and similar structures will beminimized by sharing facilities to the extent possible. 

• Towers and similar structures will not be located outside the

Developed Zone of the former navy base.
ALTERNATIVE B: NPS MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE C: COLLABORATIVE MANAGEMENT (PREFERRED)

• Evaluate the option of removing the water tower and replacing it with

a ground-level storage tank. Replace the water tower if it is economically, operationally, and environmentally feasible.

• Criteria would be set and proposed new programs evaluated to ensure

consistency with park mission and acceptable levels of use in the various management zones. Activity levels similar to those present in 2000would be acceptable, as they were compatible with nearby park use asevidenced by visitor surveys and resource studies. New uses mightinclude a wide variety of activities including research, education forstudents of all ages, artist-in-residence, conferences, retreats, and special events.

artnerships to develop research and education programs and to foster stewardship of park resources and values both within and beyond park boundaries.

ommunities on matters of mutual concern.

rant, and lodging—are not offered within the park, as these are more appropriately sited in nearby town centers.

assist each other in emergencies.

and fire protection are maintained with neighboring towns.

earch Center

 research and 

- Park manages programs and facilities. - Nonprofit organization manages programs and facilities.

eted for early pro

sary, medical build

• Park staff would manage programs and facilities under this alterna- tive, with cooperation from organizations, agencies, and educa- tional institutions.

• A nonprofit, with appropriate mandates from the National Park

Service, would assist in carrying out the mission of SERC by promoting research and education, cultivating and facilitating partnerships,and managing certain facilities at Schoodic. 

• The nonprofit organization would assist in site management by coordinating schedules for shared facilities, such as meeting rooms and

lodging. The nonprofit would also manage services such as food andhospitality, using generated revenues to offset program and site operational costs. 

• Responsibilities of partners would be identified in short and longterm agreements, which would ensure adherence to NPS standards

and criteria. 
ng facilities at

 an overall direc

lable to reuse or

- Buildings are evaluated for their reuse potential for Acadia National Park and SERC needs.- Unneeded buildings are removed to reduce operational costs, improve site conditions, and allow for maximum native plant restoration. - New programs demonstrate financial viability.

sible temperatures

would be secured

be deactivated and

• All buildings are assessed for their reuse potential. Operating and maintenance costs are reviewed. • Buildings would be used for park operations or SERC purposes as shown in the accompanying site plans for Alternatives B and C. In

Alternative C only, NPS would lease or assign SERC buildings, and other facilities as may be appropriate, to a nonprofit for management andoperation.

• Buildings and structures ineligible for the National Register of Historic Places would be evaluated for removal when NPS determines that there

is no viable and cost effective use related to the mission and purpose of Acadia National Park or the SERC. The NPS would remove buildingswhen the necessary approvals and compliance documents were completed, and funding was available. Buildings and structures designated forremoval would be secured in the interim. 

• Small storage, maintenance, and obsolete utility buildings would be removed to improve the appearance and campus-like character of the former navy base property, and to allow for a more efficient use of space. In addition to the minor buildings identified for immediate removal

under these alternatives, the park would evaluate potential amenities such as the ballfield, tennis courts, and hockey rink for their utility toSERC. If not needed, they might be removed to allow for the native plant revegetation or to permit the relocation of existing parking spaces. 

• All proposed SERC programs would be expected to show how operating costs would be generated from user fees, donations, and appropriated and other funds. A full range of revenue-generating options would be explored to offset program costs. Options to be examined might

include sales items, program fees, and contributions by sponsoring organizations. Non-NPS programs will be expected to pay rent for officeand program spaces and contribute to the use of shared SERC facilities, such as conference rooms.

ms are programmatically and physically sustainable, with principles of conservation applied.

ppropriate park entrance pass and understand how the NPS uses park entrance fees.

eased responsibilities.

odified to maximize energy efficiency.

ess plans prepared to show how funding will be obtained.

S uses fees to protect resources and improve visitor facilities. 

ct and publicize their availability.

nce fee policies and procedures for SERC.

ion-related responsibilities for maintenance and protection.

ed in ways that are operationally efficient, environmentally and economically sustainable, and supportive of the mission of Acadia National Park and SERC.

d equipment to fulfill operational responsibilities.
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 71

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED

ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLIANCE

WITH SECTION 101 AND 102(1) OF

THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL

POLICY ACT

In its regulations implementing the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council

on Environmental Quality indicates agencies

must evaluate alternatives and evaluate each for

the degree to which they meet certain policy

statements, namely sections 101 and 102(1) of the

Act (40 CFR 1502.2d). The NPS NEPA regulations indicate this requirement is met by disclosing how each alternative meets the criteria

of section 101(b) of NEPA, and noting any

inconsistencies with other environmental laws

or policies. Because the six criteria in Section

101(b) of NEPA are also used to determine the

environmentally preferred alternative, the following narrative both summarizes how alternatives meet sections 101 and 102(1) of NEPA and

provides support for the selection of

Alternatives B or C as environmentally preferred. None of the alternatives would conflict

with any other environmental law or policy.

The environmentally preferred alternative is

defined as the alternative(s) that best meets the

criteria or objectives set out in Section 101 of the

National Environmental Policy Act. In the

appendix to its regulations (Appendix B: Forty

Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's

National Environmental Policy Act Regulations),

the Council on Environmental Quality interprets

these criteria as meaning "...causes least damage

to the biological and physical environment and

best protects, preserves and enhances historic,

cultural and natural resources."

The mission statement for Acadia National Park

summarizes the National Park Service's commitment to the protection and conservation of

scenic, natural, and cultural resources for

present and future generations, as well as its

commitment to advancing nonconsumptive

recreation, education, and scientific research

opportunities (see Part One: Purpose and Need

for further detail). In addition, it is the stated

intent of NPS to uphold the goals of the 1992

General Management Plan to the greatest extent

in the preparation of this draft plan. Goals for

the Schoodic District in that plan include

retaining opportunities for low-density recreation, and preserving its existing naturalness

and solitude. While high–density recreation will

be supported on the east side of Mount Desert

Island (to the west of the study area), the intent

is to retain the present character in other areas

of the park, including the Schoodic Peninsula,

where no new high-density recreation would be

developed (NPS 1992). 

Using both the CEQ's interpretations of the

Section 101 criteria and the alternatives impact

information provided in this document, the

three alternatives analyzed in this EIS were evaluated as to their consistency with the criteria set

forth in Section 101. The assessment is based on

comparison of the three alternatives to determine how well each met or furthered Section 101

objectives. A ranking system of 0–4 (0 = no contribution to the objective; 4 = major contribution to the objective) was used to compare the

alternatives. Topics/issues used to evaluate consistency with Section 101 were addressed under

only one objective to avoid redundancy, despite

the fact that some may have potentially been

appropriately reviewed under several topics.

Attempts were made to analyze each topic under

that objective which it most influenced. 

All alternatives propose, among other things,

the following major actions: 

· The identification of acceptable levels of

visitation over time could result in some visitor restrictions. 

· The implementation of management zoning

to provide for resource protection and

preservation. 

· Inventory/monitoring of natural and cultural resources to benefit all resources.

· Acquisition of a conservation easement to

the north of the existing Schoodic parklands, to benefit natural resource conservation, particularly wildlife and vegetation.

· Preparation of the NRHP nomination form

for the proposed Schoodic Peninsula

Historic District, likely to benefit the region

in minor to moderate ways. 
72 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

· Implementation of transit options (buses,

shuttles) and study of bicycle connections to

benefit natural resources and cultural

resources.

· Use of Secretary of the Interior's

Standards for maintenance, preservation

and rehabilitation activities to benefit cultural resources.

· Universal accessibility would be provided

to all structures proposed for visitor use, a

benefit to the visitor experience.

· Use/storage of hazardous materials would

be reduced on former base.

· Revegetation of social trails on Little

Moose Island.

· Maintenance of mutual aid agreements

with local communities for medical emergencies and fire protection.

· Preservation and maintenance of Schoodic's

night sky and natural soundscape.

As each of these actions, regardless of alternative, would result in identical contributions to

the accomplishment of Section 101 objectives,

they are not used in the ultimate evaluation of

the environmentally preferred alternative. 

SECTION 101 CRITERIA/OBJECTIVES

The following summarizes the evaluation of

how effectively the alternatives meet the six

objectives of Section 101. As stated in Section

101(b) of the National Environmental Policy Act,

federal agencies are required to, to the greatest

practicable means: 

1. Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as

trustee of the environment for succeeding 

generations.

The Schoodic District contains unique and

varied natural resources which remain relatively unimpacted when compared to other

parts of Acadia National Park. The area contains two state-designated "Rare or

Exemplary Natural Communities" (Jack Pine

Woodland and Maritime Shrubland) and one

designation of "Significant Wildlife Habitat"

(migratory shorebird staging area, seabird

nesting, tidal waterfowl and wading bird

areas, and bald-eagle nesting sites). 

Issues relevant to this objective include

wastewater discharged to Arey Cove, drinking water demand, soil erosion, reduction of

vehicular traffic and effects on vegetation,

wildlife and coastal resources. The No

Action Alternative would result in somewhat

greater benefits for water resources (less

wastewater discharge and potential to

degrade surface water quality), air quality

(fewer emissions), wildlife (less general

use/habitat impact), and coastal resources

(less use of sensitive intertidal areas) than

would implementation of the other two proposals. These benefits are primarily realized

through the minor increase in numbers of

visitors and vehicles to the Schoodic District,

including the base, when compared to

Alternatives B and C. 

2. Assure for all Americans, safe, healthful, 

productive, and aesthetically and culturally 

pleasing surroundings.

Each alternative has been designed to provide

safe and healthful surroundings for visitors

and staff. Most of the issues that address this

objective fall under actions common to all

alternatives resulting in identical contributions toward the objective. However, aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings are provided to varying degrees under

the three alternatives. Issues involved in the

assessment of how adequately this objective

is met under the three proposals are visitor

experience, perceptions of crowding and

quiet enjoyment, visual quality, night sky, and

the natural soundscape. As actions related to

the latter two issues are common to all alternatives, they are not discussed again here. 

From a recent visitor study (Manning et al.

2002), it was determined that visitors to the

Schoodic District benefit from a variety of

experiences, with the most highly rated activity being the enjoyment of the natural scenic

beauty. Positive qualities cited by visitors

were the pristine natural beauty and scenery,
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 73

the quiet atmosphere, and the low level of

visitation. Visitors using the Schoodic

District expect it to be more peaceful, and

less crowded than the Mount Desert Island

portion of the park. While most visitors do

not believe improvements are necessary at

this time, a few mentioned litter, trail erosion,

crowding, and traffic as problems. The study

also showed that while visitors may prefer a

smaller number of vehicles and visitors in the

park, they believed higher numbers should be

allowed by NPS (please refer to Part Three:

Visitor Experience for more details).

Visitor impacts perceived as being caused by

increased traffic and visitors would be minimized under the No Action Alternative when

compared to increased numbers proposed

under Alternatives B and C. As a result, the

No Action Alternative is more beneficial

regarding perceptions of crowding and quiet

enjoyment of the park area than the other

two proposals. While the No Action

Alternative would result in a much smaller

human presence and a quieter, more peaceful

visitor experience, it should be reiterated that

many believe additional users as proposed

under Alternatives B and C are acceptable. 

Visual impacts on the Schoodic cultural landscape toward and from the former base are

improved under Alternatives B and C when

compared to No Action in their potential to

provide esthetically and culturally pleasing

surroundings (e.g., structure removal, vegetation restoration, use of design guidelines). 

Major benefits are realized under Alternatives

B and C through the creation of a more campus-like and natural feel to the base area, as

well as improved base parking and circulation

designed to be more pedestrian-friendly. No

such benefits are realized under No Action,

which proposes negligible use of the base and

a situation where many sound buildings

would begin to deteriorate due to minimal

maintenance.

Each of the three alternatives would contribute to a similar degree to consistency with

this objective. The No Action Alternative

contributes primarily through its effect on

perceptions of crowding (lack of) and quiet

enjoyment of the park. The other two alternatives contribute primarily through

improvements made to the base and its

effects on the cultural landscape and visitor

use.

3. Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of

the environment without degradation, risk to

health or safety, or other undesirable and 

unintended consequences.

Only those uses that would not result in environmental degradation or undesirable consequences are included in the evaluation of

how the alternatives fulfill this objective.

Relevant topics include actions proposed

under all alternatives (see above), including

transit options, a conservation easement,

inventory/monitoring of natural and cultural

resources, management zoning, acceptable

visitor levels, and social trail revegetation. As

the proposed actions are common to all alternatives, no variation exists among them

regarding their potential to contribute positively to the objective. 

4. Preserve important historic, cultural, and 

natural aspects of our national heritage; and

maintain, wherever possible, an environment

which supports diversity, and variety of individual

choice.

Issues relevant to the accomplishment of this

objective include cultural resources, visitor

educational materials, the development of

educational opportunities (SERC), and reuse

of base structures.

The Schoodic District contains a remarkable

number of cultural resources, most of which

retain a significant degree of integrity. In particular, much of the peninsula encompasses a

cultural landscape proposed for nomination

to the National Register of Historic Places as

a district. The preservation of the cultural

landscape is of great interest to park staff and

visitors. Levels of impact to this resource

vary among alternatives, with the least impact

anticipated under the No Action Alternative.

Minor to moderate impacts to the cultural

landscape of the Schoodic Peninsula, particularly to the Schoodic Loop Road, are

expected under both Alternatives B and C.

Higher levels of adverse effects are antici-
74 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

pated under Alternative C due to the higher

numbers of visitors expected. However,

under both Alternatives B and C, measures

which have the potential to mitigate impacts

are also proposed (limiting parking, transit

options, etc.), though they would still result

in greater impacts than would the No Action

Alternative. 

The rehabilitation and reuse of the

Rockefeller Building and powerhouse would

be beneficial under Alternatives B and C,

allowing for numerous visitors to experience

the NRHP-eligible structure. Maintenance

and preservation of the structure is proposed

under the No Action Alternative; however,

very few visitors would have the opportunity

to enjoy the structure under this proposal. 

The use of the base as the focus for educational offerings (SERC) will contribute to the

preservation of the area's historic context, as

well as providing diversity and variety of

individual choice for visitor activities. The

greatest benefits are provided under

Alternative C which proposes the largest visitor presence on base, the greatest variety of

educational opportunities, and greatest reuse

of base structures. Alternative B provides

similar benefits to a lesser degree (smaller

number of visitors, fewer educational offerings, and reuse of fewer base buildings). The

No Action alternative provides negligible

benefits in this regard due to its nominal educational offerings and minimal base use. 

The increase in visitor educational and interpretive information proposed under

Alternatives B and C would result in benefits

to cultural and natural resources by providing

information regarding conservation, preservation, and historic context. Very little new

visitor information would be provided under

the No Action Alternative.

Alternatives B and C offer notable benefits

toward the accomplishment of this objective,

with Alternative C providing slightly higher

benefits. These result primarily from

enhanced educational offerings (SERC),

increased visitor information, and the rehabilitation and reuse of the Rockefeller

Building and other base structures. The No

Action Alternative offers fewer benefits

related to this objective; however, it provides

the most significant benefit to the preservation of the Schoodic Peninsula cultural landscape.

5. Achieve a balance between population and

resource use which will permit high standards of

living and a wide sharing of life's amenities.

This objective refers to a balance between

resource use and preservation. Socioeconomic and recreational topics are considered

relevant to the accomplishment of this objective. Recreational topics include hiking, scenic driving, and quiet enjoyment of the park

area. As the latter two have been previously

addressed under another objective, only hiking is evaluated here.

The socioeconomic climate anticipated varies

under the three proposals. Unrelated to the

effects of the Draft General Management Plan

Amendment, the socioeconomic state of

Hancock County was significantly impacted

with the departure of the Navy in 2001. Prior

to this closure, the County's economy was

focused on the service and self-employed

sectors. Today, the economy of Winter

Harbor–Gouldsboro is focused on fishing

and logging, as well as the resort economy,

seasonal homeowners, and retirees. The navy

base closure resulted in significant adverse

impacts to spending, jobs, personal income,

community infrastructure, housing, schools,

and the social fabric of the region. 

All alternatives anticipate small visitor

increases to the study area unrelated to the

proposed use of the base for education and

research (SERC). These increases would

result in negligible to minor benefits to the

local economy. However, the proposed educational programming varies among the three

alternatives, resulting in significant differences in the potential to influence the

socioeconomic state of the area. 

Under the No Action Alternative, very few

program opportunities/participants and staff

are anticipated to participate in educational

offerings at the base. With fewer

visitors/staff expected on Schoodic parklands, the local economy will continue to

experience the significant adverse impacts

created as a result of the base closure in 2001.

Alternative C proposes the highest number of

SERC program participants and staff, which

is expected to result in minor socioeconomic

benefits to the area. While Alternative B, a
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 75

mid-range proposal with fewer program participants and staff than Alternative C, would

result in adverse impacts, it would go further

in reversing socioeconomic losses experienced with the base's closure than would the

No Action Alternative.

The implementation of a comprehensive trail

system proposed under Alternatives B and C

would provide a balance between users and

resources in its ability to direct visitors away

from sensitive cultural and natural resources

areas and to discourage off-trail use, regardless of the increase in visitors to the area.

These benefits are not realized under the No

Action Alternative. In addition, with the base

remaining closed to the majority of visitors

under the No Action Alternative, access to

trails linking the shoreline of Big Moose

Island with the base would be limited. 

Alternative C is believed to best accomplish

this objective, primarily due to its combined

beneficial effects on the local socioeconomic

climate and the implementation of a comprehensive trail system. Alternative B offers similar benefits, only slightly lower due to the

decreased socioeconomic effect of fewer program participants. The No Action Alternative

is anticipated to have very little effect on the

socioeconomic climate of the area. In addition, its less comprehensive approach to the

Schoodic hiking trails jeopardizes resources

which exist along these facilities to a greater

degree than do the other two proposals.

6. Enhance the quality of renewable resources and

approach the maximum attainable recycling of

depletable resources.

The proposed energy audits of base structures, conversion of electric heat to more sustainable fuel sources, ground water recharge,

and use of design criteria/guidelines are relevant issues for the fulfillment of this objective. Reduction in vehicular use/emissions,

related to the energy conservation focus of

this objective, has been previously addressed

in its relationship to air quality (Objective 1)

and is not further discussed here. 

Alternatives B and C propose the use of

numerous base structures, with the highest

use proposed under Alternative C. All such

facilities would undergo energy audits and be

modified to maximize energy efficiency

according to Design Guidelines for Schoodic

Education Research Center (see Appendix E).

Under both alternatives, buildings reused

would be those that are deemed operationally

efficient and environmentally and economically sustainable. Where possible, electric

heat will be converted to a more sustainable

energy source. In contrast, the No Action

Alternative proposes little use of the base

facilities and, therefore, would not contribute

in a similar way to the fulfillment of this

objective. Although the No Action Alternative

would result in most of the buildings being

boarded up and not used, which would result

in a reduction in the amount of heating fuel

used on base, these sound structures would

not be used, resulting in negligible benefits to

this objective.

Ground water recharge will be improved as a

result of asphalt and structure removal under

both Alternatives B and C, with Alternative B

providing a greater contribution (larger area

of impermeable surface removal). The No

Action Alternative proposes no impermeable

surface removal and, therefore, does not contribute in a similar manner to the objective.

Due to the proposed reuse of the highest

number of base structures, which could

result in the greatest use of operationally efficient and environmentally and economically

sustainable structures, Alternative C is

believed to best accomplish this objective.

Alternative B offers only slightly fewer benefits. The No Action Alternative does not contribute in the same way to the objective.

SUMMARY CONCLUSION

Information gleaned from a recent visitor study

(Manning et al. 2002) was used to help determine which historic, cultural, and natural

resources were most important to Schoodic

users. NPS management goals for Schoodic of

low–density recreation, preservation of naturalness and solitude, and establishment of a

research/learning center have already been

endorsed by the public, and so are assumed to

carry weight in the distinction between alternatives. 
76 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

The less-intense use of the Schoodic District

proposed under the No Action Alternative

would somewhat benefit natural resources when

compared to the other two proposals, particularly air quality, water resources, coastal

resources, and wildlife. The cultural landscape

of Schoodic, however, might suffer from lack of

maintenance now that the Navy is no longer

present to help. The addition of partners in the

Collaborative Partnership Alternative would

expand capacities for maintenance.

Both Alternatives B and C would have different,

but valued positive effects by providing

enhanced visitor information, completing a

comprehensive hiking trail system, offering a

variety of educational and research opportunities on base, and through the rehabilitation and

reuse of base structures, including the NRHPeligible Rockefeller Building. The former base

appearance would be positively affected under

Alternatives B and C by the creation of a more

natural setting, thereby decreasing visual

impacts to the peninsula's cultural landscape.

The socioeconomic climate of the area, as well

as the potential to enhance the use of renewable

resources and recycling, would both be

improved under Alternatives B and C. 

Because Alternative B (National Park Service

Management) and Alternative C (Collaborative

Management) best protect resources, cause the

least damage to physical and natural resources,

and appear to be most consistent with visitor

and community input received to date, they are

identified as the environmentally preferred

choices. 
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 77

PART THREE: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

This section describes the resources that could

or would be changed under the alternatives.

The environmental issues or problems that

could occur under any of the alternatives are

stated at the beginning of each subsection.

NATURAL RESOURCES

AIR QUALITY

Issues Associated with Air Quality

• Changes in the number of people or the distribution of visitors to the Schoodic

Education and Research Center (SERC) may

result in differences in the concentrations of

air pollutants associated with automobile or

bus traffic. These include nitrous oxide,

hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and carbon

dioxide, some of which are precursors to

ozone and/or contribute to changes in visibility and acid precipitation.

• Building removal and construction work on

existing buildings may require grading, digging, or other actions that could cause temporary dust or larger particulates.

• The base operated several generators for

which it had air quality permits. Continued

operation of these generators would result in

emissions associated with diesel engines,

including those listed above.

• Radon, a human carcinogen, is naturally

occurring in the granite bedrock underlying

the peninsula. Indoor air may need to be

tested and mitigation measures installed in

buildings occupied by park staff, students,

visitors or lessees to prevent exposure to

unsafe levels.

• Asbestos, also a known human carcinogen

when inhaled, is present in the building

materials used to construct some of the

buildings on the base. 

Air Quality in the Study Area

Acadia National Park is one of 48 units of the

National Park System designated as a mandatory

Class I area, defined by Congress as any national

park unit over 6,000 acres and its additions

established by August 1977. These areas are

afforded the greatest degree of air quality

protection under the Clean Air Act, and the

National Park Service (NPS) is required to do

all it can to ensure that air quality–related 

values (including flora, fauna, soil, water and

visibility) are not adversely affected by air 

pollutants. To this end, NPS reviews any permit

applications for industrial or other facilities that

wish to locate or expand nearby and that may

contribute to the deterioration of the air shed. 

Visibility - Visibility is affected by very fine

particulates, organics, and aerosols of nitrates

and sulfates. Regional haze from the midwestern United States is the primary source of visibility problems at the park (NPS 2001 Joseph

memo). Reductions in visibility affect both how

far visitors can see from a particular viewpoint

as well as the clarity of the view itself.

Monitoring shows that sulfate is the largest contributor to reductions in visibility at Schoodic,

and accounts for 62% of light extinction (i.e.,

the point at which light can no longer be seen

because of fog, clouds, smoke, air pollution,

etc.). Visibility at Schoodic is generally best in

the fall and worst in the summer months.

Despite a statistically significant improvement

in sulfate concentrations in precipitation at the

park in recent years, visibility on good days (the

best 10% of the year) and average days has

improved only slightly. Monitoring from 1990

through 1999 shows an improving trend in days

with poor visibility (the worst 10%), although the

data indicate that the trend is not statistically

significant. 

Mobile Sources - Automobiles use

internal–combustion engines for the most part.

These engines produce the pollutants nitrous

oxide, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and

carbon dioxide, some of which are precursors to

ozone and/or contribute to changes in visibility

and acid precipitation. While the number of

visitors shows a high degree of seasonal fluctuation, a recent traffic study estimated that in

2000, an average of 800 cars per day travel the

1-mile Moore Road leading from State Route

186 into the park, continue on around the 6-mile

Schoodic Loop Road, and exit back to State
78 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

Route 186 via the 1.9-mile Wonsqueak Road out

of the park. Assuming the national average for

vehicle emission rates (U.S. Department of

Transportation 2002), these cars add about 6.5

tons of hydrocarbons, 58 tons of carbon

monoxide, and 4 tons of nitrogen oxides each

year to the immediate vicinity of the Schoodic

Peninsula. 

Stationary Sources - The U.S. Navy conducted

activities at its Schoodic and Corea sites that

contributed to emissions, including painting,

incinerating solid waste, using solvents and

degreasers, dispensing and storing gasoline,

operating boilers for building heat, and running

diesel generators. The primary sources of emissions were the emergency generators at the

Corea site, which is located about five miles east

of the Schoodic District. The total emissions

from all activities at the Naval Security Group

Activity Winter Harbor are listed in Table 3. 

Ozone - Some of the pollutants emitted from

cars, such as hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides,

can contribute to ground-level ozone or

"smog." In addition, the precursors to ozone are

emitted from industrial and other stationary

sources to the south and west of the park, and

are carried to the park via long-range transport.

The pollutants emitted on a given day from the

Philadelphia–New York City–Boston region

often do not reach the park until between 6:00

p.m. and midnight, a time which often corresponds to maximum daily ozone levels at Acadia

National Park. Ozone in the park has been

monitored since 1982. In the summer, ozone

concentrations periodically reach 85 parts per

billion (ppb) or greater (NPS 2001). This is 

typical of most areas along the Maine coast, but

is among the highest in the eastern U.S. Ozone

concentrations are worst in the summer, and the

Environmental Protection Agency standard for

an 8-hour average ozone concentration (80 ppb)

was exceeded in the park five times in 1997,

eight times in 1998, six times in 1999, three

times in 2000, and ten times in 2001. While

peak concentrations can periodically be high for

a few hours, the average daily levels are usually

35–40 ppb and well within the "good" range on

the ozone health index. Cumulative seasonal

ozone concentrations are relatively low, and the

park has shown an improvement in daily maximum ozone levels over the years 1990–1999.

Research conducted by the park indicates some

particularly sensitive vegetation (such as broadleaf aster, quaking aspen, and jack pine) may

experience injury at typical ambient ozone concentrations found at Acadia National Park (NPS

2001).

Acid Precipitation - Rain, snow, or fog can be

acidified through chemical reactions in the

atmosphere involving sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. These gases are emitted from the

burning of petroleum products from both stationary and mobile sources. Although mobile

sources in the vicinity of the park may contribute a minor amount of sulfur dioxide or

nitrogen oxides, by far the largest contributors

come from industrial and urban sources upwind

of the park. Based on National Atmospheric

Deposition Program (NADP) modeling, pH in

rain and snow at the park has averaged 4.5 since

1982, with a range of 3.2–7.0 (NPS 2001).

Unpolluted precipitation has a slightly acid pH

of about 5.6 (Schindler 1988). Since 1990, there

has been a significant reduction in sulfate deposition (largely due to emissions controls required

by Clean Air Act amendments), and a slight

improvement in nitrate concentrations. Testing

Pollutant 1998 Emissions (tons/yr.) License Allowable (tons/yr.)

SOx (sulfur dioxide) 8.26 14.65

NOx (nitrogen oxides) 11.43 50.3

CO (carbon monoxide) 2.03 10.3

PM10 (particulates smaller than 10

microns)

3.0 12.8

VOC (volatile organic

compounds—hydrocarbons)

0.48 2.8

TABLE 3. TOTAL 1998 EMISSIONS FOR NAVAL SECURITY GROUP ACTIVITY WINTER HARBOR 

(Source: NSGA 2000)
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 79

of lakes, ponds, and streams in the park show

that most are non-acidic, although some shortterm acidification occurs during spring melt or

during high periods of runoff (NPS 2001). Fog,

which is not measured by the NADP, tends to be

more acidic than rain or snow, and may be a

major source of acidity to park vegetation (NPS

1999a). 

Mercury - Elevated mercury concentrations in

freshwater fish throughout Maine have led to

statewide consumption advisories and research

into the source of the problem and its ecological

impacts on park resources. The source is most

likely atmospheric and originating some distance from the park. No activities proposed in

any of the alternatives would affect mercury

levels; it is mentioned only to understand cumulative impacts to the air quality at Schoodic.

Indoor Air Quality - Radon is naturally occurring

in the bedrock underlying Schoodic. In late

1994, the U.S. Navy tested radon levels in several

of the housing structures at the base and found

levels higher than the Environmental Protection

Agency recommended action guideline of 4.0

picocuries/liter (pCi/l) in buildings 84, 184–186,

191. Radon mitigation systems were installed in

these units, and indoor air quality was subsequently measured from 12/08/97 to 6/24/98.

Results indicated the mitigation was successful

in lowering radon levels to well below the

Environmental Protection Agency standard.

All results were in the range of 1.2–1.9 pCi/l

(NSGA 2000). 

A 1992 survey found several buildings containing more than 1% asbestos. Most were

classified as posing a risk of 3 or 4 on a scale

of 4 to 1, with 1 posing the highest risk. Some

posed a higher risk, and the U.S. Navy

removed asbestos in buildings 39, 138, and 148

before turning the base over to the National

Park Service. Buildings posing a risk of 3 or 4

will be monitored and the risk managed, but

asbestos will not be removed unless disturbed

by rehabilitation or other activities (Table 4).

WATER RESOURCES

Issues Associated with Water Resources

• Reuse of the navy base could result in

changes in the demand for water or in the

amount of wastewater treated and discharged by the park; continued effluent

discharge from the wastewater treatment

plant at the former navy base into Arey

Cove may create long-term water quality

problems and impact the intertidal zone

of the cove.

Building No. Building Name Risk Assessment Code

1 Rockefeller 3

3 Chapel 3–4

9 Gate House 4

10 Administration 3–4

39 Commissary 4

45 Generator House 4

105 Galley 4

137 Transportation/Fire House 4

138 Gymnasium 3–4

143 Schooner Club 4

148 Medical Clinic 4

164 Child Development Center 4

165 Gas Station 4

184–191 Schoodic Shores Housing 4

223 Storage 3

TABLE 4. FORMER NAVY BUILDINGS WITH GREATER THAN 1% ASBESTOS

(Source: NSGA 2000)
80 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

• Increased exploration of the base and peninsula by students and visitors could result in

damage to the hydrologic characteristics,

water quality, or riparian vegetation of

ephemeral or perennial streams or watersheds.

• Activities associated with building removal

could result in damage to streams or riparian

areas.

Water Resources in the Study Area

Water and Wastewater - Water is currently

supplied to base personnel from a 150-foot well

at Schoodic Head. The well is sized to produce

140,000 gallons per day and service up to 500

people. Sodium hypochlorite is added at the

water treatment plant to disinfect it before

pumping it to a 150,000-gallon water tower for

storage. Treatment problems include the 

presence of radon, which is naturally occurring

in groundwater in the area, and the leaching of

metals such as lead and copper from the water

distribution system at the base. Radon is

treated with a bubbler/stripper effective enough

to reduce levels averaging 7,000pCi/L to near

zero. The likelihood of stripping of metals from

water pipes is lessened by adding a chemical

(zinc orthophosphate) at the water treatment

plant which inhibits corrosion. 

The wastewater treatment plant was constructed

in 1980. The plant is sized at about 65,000

gallons per day, but is designed to handle a

maximum flow of 45,000 gallons under normal

conditions. Wastewater is collected not only

from all occupied buildings, but from miscellaneous floor drains and oil/water separators, as

well. Wastewater receives standard secondary

treatment, including biological contact, clarification, aeration, and chlorination. Under a

Maine Department of Environmental Protection

permit, effluent is discharged into Arey Cove

between the east coast of Big Moose Island and

the west shore of Little Moose Island. Solids

that settle during the wastewater treatment

process are currently treated in an outdoor reed

bed. In other areas along the New England

coast, discharge from septic systems or wastewater treatment plants have resulted in

increased nitrogen discharge to coastal waters,

with resulting algal blooms, periphytic algae,

and declines in eelgrass abundance (NPS 1999a).

Storm water is collected and drains directly into

the Atlantic Ocean. 

Streams and Hydrology - Most of the park's

drainages are small, short, and steep. The 

average distance between headwaters and

stream outflow to the ocean is 3 miles (NPS

1999a). The Schoodic Peninsula has few streams

and no defined hydrologic sub-basins. A yearround stream, Frazer Creek, drains into

Mosquito Harbor at the entrance to the

Schoodic District. While no perennial surface

streams exist on Big Moose Island, seeps,

springs, and artesian springs are present and

contribute to the wet forests in some parts of

the property. Soils are generally thin and poor

at holding moisture, so runoff following storms

occurs quickly and does not last long. Frequent

sea fogs help to maintain water levels for much

of the year, but stream flows are low during late

summer and early fall. 

Soils are also poorly buffered and acidic in

nature. Rain and snow become weakly acidic

during runoff, and can contribute to the acidity

of streams, ponds, and lakes. The low buffering

ability means surface waters in the park are less

able to neutralize acids leached from the soil or

deposited from atmospheric sources. Seasonal

upland streams are particularly vulnerable to

episodes of acidification during runoff from

storms or snowmelt (NPS 1999a). The park's

freshwater resources tend to be nutrient poor,

unproductive, and highly transparent. 

Groundwater - Groundwater occurs in surface

deposits and in cracks and joints in bedrock at

the park. Yields from wells installed on the 

surface deposits, such as in glacial till, fluvial

deposits or alluvium, tend to be low and on the

order of 0–10 gallons per minute (gpm). 

Although the yield from groundwater in

bedrock varies, it tends to be much higher, and

in the range of 0.5–100 gpm, with an average of

10 gpm. The well supplying the base produces

100 gpm. Groundwater quality tends to be generally good and of sufficient quality for domestic use.
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 81

SOILS

Issues Associated with Soils

• Activities associated with the reuse of the

navy base could result in the removal, compaction, or other changes to soils in previously undisturbed areas. 

• Reuse of the navy base creates the potential

for soil contamination through spills, leaking

of gasoline or fuel oil, and other unintended

releases. 

• Development and other human activities are

limited by thin soils in the region.

Soils in the Study Area

Soils on the Schoodic Peninsula are a function

of the area's geology and vegetation. Some of

the rocks in the park are ancient schists more

than 500 million years old. These have been

eroded, covered by the ocean, and buried with

accumulated sand and mud which in turn

formed sandstone and shale. Over many

millions of years beginning about 420 million

years ago, molten granite intruded, and the

overlying rock was weathered away. Today, the

granite is exposed or covered with a thin soil,

and is the bedrock underlying most of the park.

Subsequent intrusive activity injected diabase

into the granites—these are the "dikes" or veins

of dark rock, found at Schoodic Point. 

Many types of granites have been mapped at the

park. While Mount Desert Island is primarily

underlain by a pink coarse-grained type,

Schoodic bedrock is finer-grained granite,

which is highly chemically resistant. This resistance, which causes rapid runoff, means most

surface water in the park has low alkalinity and

low nutrient concentrations. 

For the most part, soils in the park are relatively

young. This is primarily due to the scouring of a

series of glaciers, with the most recent beginning its retreat about 14,000 years ago. The 

glaciers left behind extensive areas of bare rock,

and a thin veneer (6–20 inches) of surficial 

glacial/soil material on the park's upland areas,

ridges, and along much of the shoreline. The

surface soil is gravelly, fine sandy loam that is

easily blown away if it is exposed. 

Naskeag soils are found in depressions between

shallow ridges in wet areas. They are moderately deep, usually level or gently sloping and

poorly drained. The surface is fine sandy loam

and gravelly loamy sand. The top layer of soils

forms slowly as the fallen needles of dominant

vegetation, spruce and fir, are difficult for

microorganisms to break down. Soils tend to be

acidic, and are characterized by accumulated

iron, aluminum, and organic matter. 

Soils have been excavated and manipulated to

accommodate the development and operation of

the navy base, including the construction of

buildings, roads, antennas, recreational facilities, and other infrastructure. All together, this

development has probably removed or disturbed 80–100 acres of soil during the 67 years

of the U.S. Navy's use of the site. The U.S. Navy

has classified most of the soils at the base as

"2d," that is, they pose a slight erosion hazard

and moderate constraint on the use of heavy

equipment. Trees growing on these soils may be

exposed to winds, and have a moderate likelihood of uprooting from wind. Some soils near

the northern central part of the base are classed

"2x," which is similar to 2d except equipment

limitations are slight. Other soils on the base

are considered "excessively thin," and unable to

support most vegetation (NFAC 1987). 

The U.S. Navy has used hazardous fuels and

chemicals at the base and has had some spills

and leaks associated with underground storage

tanks. In 1993, the U.S. Navy moved six underground storage tanks and filled a seventh tank

in place. The leaking tanks had contaminated

about 450 cubic yards up to 14 feet below

ground with gasoline. A non-point source

located well down-gradient from the spill was

found to contain very small amounts of MTBE,

a fuel additive. Because MTBE levels were

lower than those determined by the Maine

Department of Environmental Protection remediation standards, no action was taken. The

base has 11 underground fuel storage tanks and

20 above-ground tanks. Most have been

replaced in the last decade, and all are doublewalled tanks (NSGA 2000). 

Several small spills of petroleum products (fuel

oil, gasoline, diesel fuel, etc.) have been documented, most in the 1–5 gallon range and all less
82 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

than 25 gallons. Between 1994 and 1998, 14 such

spills were recorded. Soils on site also contain

abandoned underground coaxial antenna cable.

The U.S. Navy removed approximately 5,000

feet of the cable in 2002, but thousands of feet

are likely to remain just below the surface. Soils

also contain buried pressurized cylinders and

possibly a landfill at the ball field consisting of

construction and demolition debris (sections of

brick walls, pieces of concrete, and metal pipes

and wire) that do not constitute an environmental hazard (Weston 2002). 

The base also had short-term storage facilities

on site for other hazardous waste, such as 

medical waste, maintenance chemicals, etc.,

which is kept for up to 90 days before it is

removed to a licensed hazardous waste facility.

No spills or accidents involving these wastes

have been reported.

VEGETATION

Issues Associated with Vegetation

• Activities associated with the removal and

reuse of the buildings could adversely affect

wetland values.

• Vegetation may be removed, thinned, or

replaced with landscaping to create a more

campus-like feel at the former navy base.

• Removal of some of the existing buildings in

the study area, and in particular on the base,

could create suitable conditions for regrowth

of vegetation.

• Increased exploration by students or visitors

of fragile or rare vegetative communities,

such as riparian areas, unusual woodlands,

or habitat of rare plants, could result in

impacts to soils, hydrology, or the plants

themselves from trampling, collecting specimens, sliding soils, etc.

Vegetation in the Study Area

The park lies in a broad transition zone between

southern deciduous and northern coniferous

forests, and so has several plant species and 

vegetative communities which are existing at the

northern or southern edge of their range. This

also makes for a more diverse flora than areas to

the north or south of this part of coastal Maine. 

The Maine Natural Areas Program (MNAP),

which is administered by the Maine Department

of Conservation, offers a comprehensive source

of information on the state's important natural

features. MNAP collects, interprets, and 

disseminates information on rare or exemplary

natural communities, and rare, threatened, and

endangered plant species. MNAP has identified

144 natural communities in Maine.

The Schoodic District contains two statedesignated "Rare or Exemplary Natural

Communities": Jack Pine Woodland and

Maritime Shrubland. The Jack Pine Woodland

is located on the east slope of Schoodic Head

and consists of approximately 100 acres, which

is significantly larger than the average stand of

40 acres found in Maine. The Jack Pine

Woodland is rare (20–100 occurrences) in

Maine because the dominant tree species, jack

pine (Pinus banksiana), is at the southeastern

limit of its range. 

The southern half of Little Moose Island 

contains an exemplary Maritime Shrubland

community, which is a shrub-dominated habitat

along seaside bluffs exposed to onshore winds

and salt spray. Although MNAP describes the

rarity of the Maritime Shrubland community in

Maine as "apparently secure," two rare plants

(i.e., marsh felwort and blinks) occur within the

area designated on Little Moose Island. 

Upland Forests - The most abundant vegetative

community on the peninsula is the Maritime

Spruce and Fir Forest, which exists on glacial

till and exposed bedrock in locations exposed

to cool coastal temperatures, higher humidity,

and frequent fogs. The most common species is

red spruce, and associated trees species include

primarily balsam fir, paper birch, and white

spruce. Some of the more common species in

the understory include blueberry, mountain

cranberry, mountain ash, starflower, Canada

mayflower, bunchberry, and wild raisin. On

islands in the study area, as well as at the navy

base, white spruce occurs in higher percentages

than red spruce (Mittelhauser et al. 1996, NFAC

1987). Coastal forests consisting primarily of

white spruce are rare in Maine, and resemble

full development of the boreal forest in northwest Canada (Drury 1980). For the most part,

the herb and shrub layer in these forests is

poorly developed, and it is mosses instead
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 83

which are abundant in the understory, especially

where the microclimate is humid and cool. 

Of note are a few small stands of Northern

White Cedar Seepage Forest community on the

northern side of Big Moose Island. These relatively rare forest communities are found on gentle slopes where the forest floor is saturated

with cold groundwater (Maine Department of

Conservation 1998). In some cases, this seepage

of groundwater can form rivulets or small

spring-fed brooks, or it may remain under the

surface of a thick layer of peat mosses and

shade-tolerant ferns. Twelve species were found

in the understory of the cedar seepage forest

stands on Big Moose Island, including

starflower, sarsaparilla, and common currant.

While 62% of the basal area of the forest is 

represented by mature northern white cedar, no

seedlings of this species were recorded. Instead,

thousands of red spruce seedlings were documented (Mittelhauser et al. 1995), indicating a

change in the composition of these forests. The

presence of old-growth cedar and spruce

(180–200-year-old trees) indicate the stands of

this species are particularly worthy of monitoring and protection from impact.

Mixed hardwood-conifer forests are also found

in the study area, including one significant stand

on Little Moose Island. This forest type is transitional between spruce/fir and northern hardwood forests. Common tree species include

spruce, red maple, paper birch, balsam fir,

northern red oak, and yellow birch. Understory

includes shrubs of currants and blueberry, and

is low in herbaceous material, but high in leaf

litter (Glanz et al. 1999). 

Vascular Plants - A two-year study of vascular

plants of the Schoodic Peninsula reported 343

species, including 75 non-native species

(Mittelhauser et al. 1995, Spencer-Famous and

Perera 1999). These include 265 species on the

Schoodic Peninsula, 136 species on Pond Island,

139 species on Schoodic Island, and 174 species

on Little Moose Island (Rolling Island was not a

part of the study) (Mittelhauser et al. 1996). 

Although surveys in the mid-1990s found 75

species of non-native plants in the study area,

none were considered common or aggressive

enough to pose a significant threat to native

plant species or plant communities

(Mittlehauser et al. 1995). Purple loosestrife, an

aggressive non-native species found in many

wetlands in the eastern United States, has not

been found in the Schoodic District. 

As discussed above, the Maine Natural Areas

Program (MNAP) collects, interprets, and 

disseminates information on rare, threatened,

and endangered plant species. MNAP has documented five rare plant locations on the southern portion of the Schoodic Peninsula, including two on Little Moose Island (Table 5). 

Bryophytes - Because bryophytes (i.e., mosses

and similar vegetation) are often an integral part

of the forest understory in this area, they have

been surveyed on the peninsula, and results of

the survey are summarized in this environmental impact statement. A recent survey (SpencerFamous and Perera 1999a) found 131 bryophyte

species in the study area. Of these, 81 were

mosses. Most species were found in terrestrial

communities and 65 were found only in these

Species State Rank State Status* Proposed State Status**

Screwstem (Bartonia paniculata) S1 Endangered Threatened

Marsh felwort (Lomatogonium

rotatum)

S2 None Threatened

Blinks (Montia fontana) S2 None Special Concern

Fragrant cliff wood-fern

(Dryopteris fragrans)

S3 None Special Concern

Sea-beach sedge (Carex silicea) S3 None Special Concern

TABLE 5. PLANTS OF STATE CONCERN LOCATED WITHIN THE SCHOODIC DISTRICT

(Source: Maine Natural Areas Program 2003)

* based on 1988 data

** based on current 1998 data
84 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

communities. Some were in both upland and

wetland communities, and seven were found

only in wetlands. Upland habitats where

bryophytes were more common included vertical rock cliffs, spruce fir forests, upland shrubs

and developed areas on filled wetland or

upland. Palustrine (wet forests or shrublands)

habitats included shrub swamps, spruce/fir

swamps, and swales dominated by sedges and

grasses. Bryophyte species were also common

in the small, steep gradients associated with first

order rocky streams in the study area. 

Four bryophytes of special interest were found

in the study area. Isothecium eumyosuroides is

rare because it is only found in a specific type of

habitat associated with a restricted maritime

range. Two species, Dicranum majus and

Diplophyllum albicans, are maritime species

found at the southern limit of their range at

Schoodic. Sphagnum pylastii exists in the spray

zone, suggesting some tolerance of salinity, and

is an extremely rare sphagnum species (SpencerFamous and Perera 1999a).

Freshwater Wetlands - Wetlands provide an

important habitat for a variety of wildlife,

including amphibians, fish, and waterfowl.

They also help improve water quality through

pollution abatement, sediment removal, and

chemical and nutrient absorption. Wetlands are

classified into five major groups. Three of these

are freshwater wetlands: palustrine (isolated

wet areas, including marshes, swamps, and

bogs), lacustrine (associated with lakes), and

riverine (associated with rivers and streams).

The other two types of wetland, marine and

estuarine, are discussed in the "Coastal

Resources" section. The Schoodic District does

not contain lacustrine or riverine wetlands, but

palustrine wetlands are common (SpencerFamous and Perera 1999a, NPS 2002). Forested

palustrine wetlands are the most abundant wetland class in the park and constitute the majority of the mapped wetlands. They are located

along streams, in isolated depressions, and in

conjunction with other types of wetlands.

Forested palustrine wetlands can be dominated

by hardwoods, evergreens (especially red

spruce, black spruce or northern white cedar),

or a mixture of the two.

COASTAL RESOURCES

Issues Associated with Coastal Resources

• Increased exploration of the shoreline by

visitors could result in human-related

impacts to intertidal plants and animals.

Coastal Resources in the Study Area

The marine environment at the Schoodic

District consists of the rocky intertidal zone and

estuarine systems. The Schoodic Peninsula is

bounded to the west by Frenchman Bay and to

the east by the Gulf of Maine. 

Marine System - The Gulf of Maine watershed

encompasses 43,000 square miles of land in

Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts.

Rivers in Maine alone add about 250 billion 

gallons of fresh water to the Gulf each year.

The gulf is productive and contains large shoal

areas where water is well mixed from tidal influences and ocean currents. The greatest productivity occurs in the summer over Georges Bank,

where ocean depths are 9 feet or less in many

places, and sunlight can easily penetrate (U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service 2001, NPS 2000).

Many marine mammals inhabit waters off the

Schoodic Peninsula, including harbor porpoise,

minke whale, finback whale, and harbor seal.

Rocky Intertidal Zone - The intertidal zone is the

stretch of coast that lies between high and low

tide. The average tidal range at Schoodic is

8–12 feet (NPS 2000). At the high end of the

intertidal zone, in an area covered only during

the highest tides, barnacles, diatoms, and green

algae are common. Slightly further down are

brown algae, including bladderwrack and knotted wrack, which attach by root like holdfasts to

the rocks. Many intertidal organisms occupy

this rockweed zone. Tide pools occur throughout the intertidal zone's levels. In the high

intertidal zone, spiral wrack (Fucus spiralis) and

brown seaweed (Fucus distichus) are abundant at

Schoodic. Beds of blue mussels, smooth periwinkle, and dog whelks are common especially

in lower areas of the tidal zone. The low intertidal zone is dominated by red algae (e.g., Irish

moss) and sea anemones, and the sub-tidal zone

hosts many species of sponges, kelps, red algae,

brown algae, worms, sea stars, urchins, and fish.

Young lobsters grow in the kelp beds in the 

sub-tidal zone. 
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 85

The cool climate and nutrient-rich waters of the

Gulf of Maine, a relatively high tidal amplitude,

and a rocky shoreline full of microhabitats have

created an intertidal zone with diverse marine

life. In some areas of coastal Maine, up to 40

species of invertebrates may occupy a particular

location (Maine State Planning Office 1989).

The rocky intertidal zone is divided into several

subzones depending on the degree to which they

are influenced by tidal waters. Factors that

define subzones include wave energy and site

exposure, tidal range, slope, and substrate 

texture. The highest zone is above the spray

zone and constitutes the upland forest described

above. However, at its very edge, nutrient-rich

water can collect in rocky hollows and host

green algae blooms, which die as the water

dries. The spray zone is the transition between

upland areas and the ocean. Only droughttolerant species can survive here, and they must

be able to withstand the force of wind, salt, surf,

summer drying, and winter freezing. The most

common organism in the spray zone is

Xanthoria, a crusty yellow lichen (NPS 2000). 

Estuarine Systems - Estuarine systems are defined

as tidal rivers and adjacent wetlands that are

inundated by seawater that is measurably diluted

with fresh water from land drainage. Two

notable estuarine systems are located in the

study area. One is the remnant of a marsh that

once separated Big Moose Island from the rest

of the Schoodic Peninsula. When the Schoodic

Loop Road was built in 1933-1935, a portion of

this marsh was diked as a causeway to complete

the road (Berger & Assoc., Inc. 1999). Now,

brackish water wetlands sit both to the northwest and southeast of the road in West Pond and

East Pond coves. A palustrine wetland lies along

the road and between the two brackish coves

(NPS 2002). A steep slope leads up from the

wetland and separates it from Big Moose Island

near the northeast boundary of the U.S. Navy's

property on Big Moose Island (Berger & Assoc.,

Inc. 1999). Mosquito Harbor, which is fed by

Frazer Creek, is also classified as an estuarine

system (National Wetlands Inventory 2002).

The majority of this cove is a marine subtidal

environment and remains submerged even at

low tide. The perimeter of the cove is an intertidal mud flat, which is occasionally used for

clamming and possibly for collecting marine

worms (G. Mittlehauser, personal communication, September 2002).

WILDLIFE

Issues Associated with Wildlife

• Frequency and duration of disturbance by visitors could impact wildlife in habitat that is

now experiencing little or no human presence.

• Visitors could trample vegetation or otherwise degrade habitat for wildlife.

• Research on wildlife may disturb or displace

species and degrade habitat during exploration.

• Noise associated with construction may disturb and temporarily displace wildlife within

hearing distance.

• Removal of some unused buildings at the

base and restoration of habitat may result in

the reoccupation of these areas by wildlife.

Wildlife in the Study Area

Prior to 1994, information on even the basic 

biological resources at Schoodic was scarce. A

preliminary inventory of plants and animals on

the peninsula was started in 1994 and continued

through 1996 (Mittelhauser et al. 1995,

Mittelhauser et al. 1996). This work coincided

with similar inventorying on the park's small

islands, including three of the four in the study

area (Rolling Island was privately owned at the

time and not included in the study). The studies identified several species of concern (e.g.,

bats, birds, and small mammals) that use the

Schoodic Peninsula during migration and the

summer. Importantly, no state or federally

threatened or endangered amphibians, reptiles,

or mammals were found to inhabit the Schoodic

Peninsula based on these studies.

Maine's Endangered Species Act (1975) includes

provisions to protect "Essential Wildlife

Habitat," which are areas that currently or 

historically provide physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of state

endangered or threatened species. According to

the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and

Wildlife, these areas may require special management considerations to perpetuate conditions

that are favorable to endangered or threatened

species. The state designated "Essential Wildlife

Habitat" in the Schoodic District recognizes the

importance of Schoodic and Rolling islands as

bald eagle nesting sites. 
86 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

Maine's Natural Resources Protection Act (1998)

includes provisions to protect "Significant

Wildlife Habitat," which are areas designated to

prevent further degradation or destruction of

certain natural resources of state significance.

The "Significant Wildlife Habitats" in the

Schoodic District include migratory shorebird

staging (i.e., feeding and roosting) areas; seabird

nesting islands with 25 or more nests, or with

one or more seabirds that is a state endangered

or threatened species; and tidal waterfowl and

wading bird areas (e.g., emergent wetlands,

mudflats, and eelgrass beds) used for breeding,

feeding, and roosting (Table 6).

Invertebrates - Invertebrates can be important

for several reasons, including their position as

an essential part of both the upland and aquatic

food chain. They are also responsible for the

release of nutrients through decomposition.

Mites are particularly important in this regard

in evergreen forests such as those that cover

much of the study area. Springtails, beetles, fly

larvae, sow bugs, snails, and slugs are other

abundant invertebrates that live in forest soils.

Aquatic invertebrates of note in the park

include dragonflies, damselflies, and mayflies;

the latter is important because mayflies are 

sensitive to low pH and can be used to monitor

changes in water quality. Freshwater rotifers

have been thoroughly inventoried on Mount

Desert Island, and researchers have found 449

species of rotifera in the park. Freshwater 

mussel species, including some that are rare

enough to qualify for listing as threatened or

endangered, may also live in the park, but have

not been inventoried (NPS 1999a). 

A number of invertebrate species are of concern

because they may disrupt natural systems,

destroy park buildings or artifacts, or affect

human health. Many—but not all—are 

non-native species. Forest pests that NPS has

monitored or managed include gypsy moth,

hemlock looper, spruce budworm, spruce bark

beetle, and hemlock wooly adelgid. Other 

common insect pests include carpenter ants,

yellowjackets, and wasps. The NPS usually does

not treat native insects unless they threaten the

mission of the park or present a significant

human health or safety risk. In most cases,

native pests and their hosts evolved together;

these insects are considered an important part

of the natural environment.

When pest treatment is necessary, integrated

pest management (IPM) is used to address pest

management issues. This approach is based on a

thorough knowledge of the biology of the pest

species and seeks to minimize chemical means of

control. IPM includes setting an injury threshold for treatment, monitoring population levels

of the pest, using preventative strategies and

alternative treatments, evaluating the effectiveness of treatments, and good record keeping.

Some native invertebrate species not actively

managed by NPS are considered pests outside

the park boundaries when they interfere with

land management objectives of private landowners or other governmental agencies. Managing

Area State Designation Habitat Type

East Pond Significant Wildlife Habitat Shorebird, Tidal Waterfowl/Wading Bird

Frazer Creek Significant Wildlife Habitat Shorebird, Tidal Waterfowl/Wading Bird

Rolling Island Essential Wildlife Habitat Bald Eagle

Significant Wildlife Habitat Tidal Waterfowl/Wading Bird

Schoodic Point Essential Wildlife Habitat Bald Eagle

Significant Wildlife Habitat Shorebird, Tidal Waterfowl/Wading Bird, Seabird Nesting

Schoodic Point Significant Wildlife Habitat Shorebird, Tidal Waterfowl/Wading Bird

West Pond Significant Wildlife Habitat Shorebird, Tidal Waterfowl/Wading Bird 

TABLE 6. WILDLIFE HABITATS OF STATE CONCERN LOCATED WITHIN AND BORDERING THE 

SCHOODIC DISTRICT

(Source: Maine Natural Areas Program 2003)
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 87

for different objectives may create conflicts

between the park and its neighbors. The NPS

attempts to work with neighbors to help resolve

pest issues in a way that addresses local concerns while still protecting park values. 

Amphibians and Reptiles - Eight species of

amphibians and reptiles have been found at

Schoodic (Table 7). These species are common

in Maine coastal habitat and associated with

freshwater wetlands.

Redback salamanders and common garter

snakes were also found on Little Moose and

Schoodic islands. Some garter snakes found on

Schoodic Island showed characteristics of a

maritime subspecies. No reptiles or amphibians

were found on Pond Island (Mittlehauser et al.

1996). 

Birds - As with plants, some birds occur at their

southern range limit in the vicinity of Acadia

National Park. For example, the Schoodic

Peninsula is home to boreal species like blackpoll warbler, boreal chickadee, spruce grouse,

and gray jay (Famous 1999). Bird species in the

area include residents, short-distance migrants,

and neotropical or long-distance migrants. 

Short-distance migrators such as finches, sparrows, jays, wrens, crows, and chickadees travel

to the park in the spring to breed, and arrive

about 3–6 weeks ahead of neotropical species.

Many are omnivorous (eat both insects and 

vegetation), but depend heavily on fruit and

seed production during their fall and spring

migrations. Neotropical migrants, which

include flycatchers, swallows, vireos, warblers,

and other insect-eating species, winter in

Central and South America.

Common resident or short-distance migratory

species include white-throated sparrow, goldencrowned kinglet, hermit thrush, mourning dove,

black-capped chickadee, cedar waxwing, robin,

dark-eyed junco, and American crow. The most

common neotropical migrators include blackthroated green warblers, common yellowthroat,

Nashville warbler, magnolia warbler, alder 

flycatcher, and Swainson's thrush (Famous

1999). 

Although information specific to Schoodic on

non-migratory species of birds is not as 

complete, the park is known to be home to a

variety of birds. For example, wetland species

include Virginia rail, great blue heron, and

wood duck; forest species include ruffed grouse,

gray jay, winter wren, and spruce grouse; and

species that occupy brushy habitat include cardinals, white-throated sparrow, and eastern

meadow-lark (NPS 1997, Northern Prairie

Wildlife Research Center 1998).

The Maine coast has a significant population of

seabirds, including the double-crested 

cormorant, great black-backed gull, common

tern, and black guillemot. The Maine Natural

Areas Program lists Schoodic Island as a

"Significant Wildlife Habitat" because it 

provides important habitat for nesting seabirds,

including American black ducks, herring gulls,

and common eiders. Maine is the only one of

the lower 48 states with a substantial population

of breeding common eiders since this is the

southern extreme of their breeding range in

North America. Schoodic Island is one of 49

sites in Maine considered a significant breeding

site for this species (Klein, undated).

Species Big Moose Island Schoodic Peninsula

Spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum) X X

Red spotted newt (Notophthalmus viridescens) X

Redback salamander (Plethodon cinereus) X X

Spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer) X X

Green frog (Rana clamitans) X X

Wood frog (Rana sylvatica) X X

Smooth green snake (Opheodrys vernalis) X

Eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis) X X

TABLE 7. AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES FOUND ON THE SCHOODIC PENINSULA

(Sources: Mittelhauser et al. 1996, Glanz and Connery 1999)
88 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

A variety of raptors inhabit the Schoodic

Peninsula, including osprey, sharp-shinned

hawk, northern goshawk, broad-winged hawk,

and merlin. The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is the only federally listed wildlife

species known to inhabit the study area. The

State of Maine has listed the bald eagle as

endangered under Maine's Endangered Species

Act (1975). Schoodic and Rolling islands have

bald eagle nests, which have been occupied on

and off since at least 1965. Although bald eagles

have been proposed for delisting, they remain a

federally threatened species. The population in

the Frenchman Bay area has remained below the

identified recovery plan target of one chick per

breeding pair annually, which may be the result

of increased permanent and temporary human

disturbances.

The islands in the Schoodic District may also

act as refuges for other species of birds whose

populations in the area have fallen because of

human disturbance. Purple sandpiper (Calidris

maritima) is one such species with no federal or

state protected status, but whose use of the

Schoodic Peninsula may be the result of being

displaced from other locations due to human

activities. (B. Connery, NPS, personal communication October 2001). 

Mammals - A multi-year inventory of mammals

in the study area found that 41 species, including 6 species of bats, occurred on the Schoodic

Peninsula (Table 8). The study also found evidence of several larger species of mammals

including moose, bobcat, and fisher. The 

presence of these mammals in the study area is

likely due to the relatively undisturbed nature of

Schoodic, as well as less developed or human

populated areas to the north of the park, which

provide habitat and a migration corridor onto

the peninsula (Glanz 1999).

The most common of the species noted or collected during this study were small, such as deer

mice and meadow voles. In wetland or semiwet areas, masked shrews were captured most

frequently. Meadow voles, which were not 

captured at all during one year of the study,

were found in many habitats and in abundance

in another year. Meadow vole habitat included

coastal shrublands, broken-canopy forest, and

grassy trails. 

Species found over a wide range of the study

area and in a variety of habitats, often including

developed areas, include raccoons, coyotes,

skunks, and many small mammals. Upland 

forest species found in the study area include

red squirrel, fisher, white-tailed deer, porcupine, long-tailed weasel, coyote, hare, and black

bear. Signs of bobcat were common in lowland

forests with dense understories and high prey

populations. Species in open country, such as

meadows or shrublands, include meadow jumping mice, red fox, and meadow vole. Wetland

species include several species of shrews

(masked, smoky, water, pygmy, short-tail), bat,

raccoon, mink, river otter, muskrat, Southern

bog lemming, and beaver. Otter will use the

shoreline and water for traveling to new freshwater habitats, as well as for occasional hunting.

Mink scat has been found in on the southern

and western shores of the Schoodic Peninsula.

A separate study of bats was completed in 1997,

because many of the bat species in Maine are

being considered for state-listing. Nearly 70% of

passes recorded by a bat detector during this

study were found over ponds and wet areas, and

in particular in pools near where the Schoodic

Loop Road crosses from the peninsula onto Big

Moose Island (Zimmerman 1999). The bat population in the study area is dominated by two

species: little brown bat and northern longeared bat, which are abundant in much of the

state. The small-footed bat was also documented

in the study area, making the Schoodic Peninsula

the northeastern-most point at which this species

has ever been recorded. The big brown bat was

also recorded, which is also locally rare because

there are few suitable roosting sites (i.e., large

caves).
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 89

Species Schoodic Peninsula Big Moose Island

Mashed shrew (Sorex cinerus) X X

Smokey shrew (Sorex fumeus) X X

Water shrew (Sorex palustris) X

Pygmy shrew (Microsorex hoyi) X

Short-tail shrew (Blarina brevicauda) X X

Black bear (Ursus americanus) X X

Raccoon (Procyon lotor) X X

Long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata) X

Mink (Mustela vison) X X

River otter (Lutra canadensis) X

Striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) X

Red fox (Vulpex vulpex) X

Coyote (Canis latrans) X X

Bobcat (Felis rufus) X

Eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus) X X

Red squirrel X X

Gray squirrel X

Northern flying squirrel X X

Muskrat X

Deer mouse X X

Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) X X

Small-footed myotis (Myotis leibii) X

Hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) X

Red bat (Lasiurus borealis) X

Big brown bat (Eptesicus fiscus) X

White-footed mouse X X

Southern Bog lemming X

Boreal red backed vole X X

Meadow jumping mouse X X

Woodland jumping mouse X X

Porcupine X

Snowshoe hare X X

White-tailed deer X X

Moose X X

Meadow vole X X

Hairy-tailed mole X X

Fisher X

Beaver X

Little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus) X X

TABLE 8. MAMMALS FOUND ON THE SCHOODIC PENINSULA

(Sources: Glanz and Connery 1999, Mittelhauser et al. 1995, Zimmerman 1999)
90 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Issues Associated with Cultural Resources

• Grading, digging, or other construction and

building removal activities may unearth or

disturb archeological or historic resources.

• Historic buildings may be eligible for listing

in the National Register of Historic Places,

dictating the range of exterior and interior

changes NPS is able to make to accommodate planned future uses.

• Any actions that involve resources that may

be eligible for the National Register of

Historic Places are subject to review to

ensure that they are not adversely impacted.

• A thorough archeological survey of the

Schoodic District has not been completed;

therefore, NPS lacks knowledge on possible

locations and conditions of archeological

resources, which is necessary to protect

them.

Cultural Resources

Archeological Resources - Archeological sites in

the study area are primarily shell middens (i.e.,

waste piles of shells from clams, oysters, and

other shellfish), which indicate American

Indians occupied the Schoodic Peninsula at

least seasonally to gather shellfish and other

marine resources. An additional site outside the

study area to the west shows evidence of longdistance trade relationships, and another shows

evidence of semi-subterranean house pits

(Berger & Assoc., Inc. 1999). 

These sites are from the Ceramic Period (3,000

to 500 years ago), which derives its name from

the earliest evidence of the production and use

of fired pottery. Coastal groups living during

this period were separate from interior groups

in what is now Maine. The diet of these coastal

groups was diverse and showed seasonal variations as food abundance changed. Although

tribes were primarily nomadic and followed

food sources, evidence suggests the possibility

that some coastal people occupied sites year

round, especially in areas accessible by boat

(Berger & Assoc., Inc. 1999). Evidence of

earlier occupation of areas of Maine and the

rest of New England dates from as far back as

11,500 years ago when ice began to withdraw

from the Gulf of Maine region.

An archeological reconnaissance study of Big

Moose Island indicated that the probability of

significant archeological sites on the former

navy base property is low because the area does

not have any of the features likely to have

attracted native people year-round (Berger &

Assoc., Inc. 1999). These include shelter from

wind and waves, proximity to a mudflat, a location on gently sloping ground, adjacent to a

beach, or near a travel route. 

Historic Buildings and Cultural Landscapes - The

proposed Schoodic Peninsula Historic District,

which does not include the 100-acre former

navy base property or coastal islands, is eligible

for listing in the National Register of Historic

Places as a significant cultural landscape. The

NPS has documented its eligibility in a draft

National Register nomination dated June 2001.

The following historic contexts are relevant to

the significance of the Schoodic Peninsula

Historic District: Community Development and

the Origins of Acadia National Park (1890–1937);

John D. Rockefeller, Jr. and the Development of

the National Park System (1913–1950); and Rustic

Design (1890–1958). The latter includes a 

sub-theme Rustic Design in NPS. Some of the

eligible properties are associated with more

than one historic context.

The proposed Schoodic Peninsula Historic

District is historically significant because it was

conceived and designed as a park and recreation

area beginning in the late 19th century. Initially,

John G. Moore, a Maine native and Wall Street

financier, purchased most of the peninsula and

constructed the first scenic road. Later conservation efforts by local citizens and the Hancock

County Trustees resulted in the addition of the

Schoodic Peninsula to Acadia National Park in

1929. Largely due to efforts by John D.

Rockefeller, Jr., NPS initiated a rush of major

construction in the 1930s to accommodate the

relocation of the navy base from Mount Desert

Island to Schoodic. 

Many of the park facilities at Schoodic were

built in the signature NPS rustic style and are

representative of the design standards that NPS
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 91

Contributing Resource National Register Property Type Date Built

Developed Areas:

Schoodic Head Site ca. 1930–34

Entrance Road Structure ca. 1930

Summit Loop Structure ca. 1930

Ranger Station* Building 1931 (altered post-1984)

Garage Building 1934

Retaining Wall Structure ca.1930

Schoodic Point Site ca. 1934–40

Entrance Road Structure ca.1934

Parking Area Structure ca.1934

Restroom Building ca. 1940

Pumphouse Structure ca. 1940

Service Road Structure post-1933

Moore Plaque Object ca.1937

Trail to Restroom Site ca.1940

Blueberry Hill Site ca. 1935–40

Entrance Road Structure ca. 1935–40

Parking Area Structure ca. 1935–40

Roads:

Schoodic Loop Road Structure 1933-35

Gravel Pull-Offs (3) Structure pre-1935

West Pond Causeway Structure ca.1934

Arey Cove Causeway Structure 1935

East Pond Causeway Structure 1935

CCC Truck Trail Structure ca. 1937

Service Roads (3) Structure ca. 1935

Hiking Trails:

Anvil Site ca. 1937

Alder Site pre-1930

East Site 1933–40

Schoodic Head Site ca. 1937

TABLE 9. PROPOSED SCHOODIC PENINSULA HISTORIC DISTRICT CONTRIBUTING RESOURCES

(Source: National Park Service 2001)

* The ranger station is a non-contributing resource because it has lost integrity of design, feeling, and workmanship due to its nonhistoric exterior material. The ranger station was constructed in the NPS rustic design style; however, the building was altered

sometime after 1984, when the original board-and-batten siding was removed and replaced with gray-stained plywood. If the

building is restored with the replacement of the board-and-batten siding, the ranger station could become a contributing resource

to the Schoodic Peninsula Historic District.
92 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

developed during that period (Table 9). These

plans were implemented primarily using labor

and funding from the New Deal programs. The

developed areas in the Schoodic District illustrate the major contribution made by these 

programs, particularly the Civilian Conservation

Corps, in the shaping of the park landscape.

The roads and hiking trails are excellent examples of NPS mission to provide public access

while seeking to preserve the natural beauty of

the parks. These resources exhibit a careful

selection and placement of routes to provide

dramatic vistas with minimal impact on the

landscape. Related structures and engineering

features were constructed of local or natural

materials to enhance the overall harmonious

effect. The Schoodic Loop Road is also significant as an example of Rockefeller's ongoing 

collaborative efforts with NPS during that

period, and it shares many of the design 

elements used on his carriage roads on Mount

Desert Island.

The Rockefeller Building (20,612 square feet)

and powerhouse (1,175 square feet) are the only

two buildings located within the former navy

base that are eligible for listing in the National

Register of Historic Places. The U.S. Navy

completed National Register nominations for

the buildings in September 2001. The buildings

are historically significant because they are

closely associated with important persons and

events concerning the development of Acadia

National Park and establishment of the U.S.

Navy radio station. The buildings also embody

distinctive characteristics of design and construction that possess high aesthetic qualities.

Noted architect Grosvenor Atterbury

(1869–1956) designed the Rockefeller Building

and powerhouse for NPS in 1933. Atterbury

designed the buildings in the French Norman

Revival style, which he had used around the

same time in the design of carriage road gate

houses located within Acadia National Park on

Mount Desert Island. Using federally appropriated funds, NPS completed construction of the

buildings by 1935.

The Rockefeller Building is a steel-frame apartment building with an exterior of differently

textured and colored bricks and stones framed

by cypress half-timbering. The building's interior features and finishings are typical of the

1930s, with the exception of modern upgrades

to the kitchens and bathrooms. 

The powerhouse is a small utility building

immediately adjacent to the Rockefeller

Building with a similar architectural style. The

powerhouse was expanded in 1943 with a

matching roof and brick/stone work so as not to

detract from its original design. Of the original

five buildings on the base, the Rockefeller

Building and powerhouse are the only ones to

have survived largely intact.

The former navy base was not included within

the boundaries of the potentially eligible

Schoodic Peninsula Historic District due to its

lack of association with significant themes of

the proposed district (community development,

origins of Acadia National Park, John D.

Rockefeller, Jr., development of the National

Park System, and rustic design architecture (see

discussion above). The Rockefeller Building

and its associated powerhouse are the only

identified NRHP-eligible cultural resources on

the base. Their significance is related to their

association with important persons and events

related to the development of Acadia National

Park. 

Groups of buildings at the base were evaluated

for the possibility of creating a historic district;

however, no assemblages of historic buildings

meeting the criteria for listing were found. The

base exhibits "a distinctly late-20th-century

character," preventing its National Register qualification as a "distinguishable entity" (Berger &

Assoc. 1999).

Appendix D (Tables 1–3) lists buildings at the

base and their proposed uses under each alternative. 
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 93

VISITOR EXPERIENCE

Issues Associated with the Visitor Experience

Reuse of the former navy base may increase visitation to the Schoodic District and impact the

quiet, natural visitor experience.

Visitor Experience in the Study Area

The University of Vermont completed the

Schoodic Peninsula, Acadia National Park,

Visitor Study 2000–2001 (Manning et al. 2002),

to gather information to assist NPS in developing a new management plan for the Schoodic

District of Acadia National Park. The objectives

were to collect information on the number and

type of visitors and to gain information that will

help formulate standards of quality for visitor

experiences. The study methods included two

surveys of park visitors conducted during the

summers of 2000 and 2001. The first survey was

conducted on 10 randomly selected days in July

and August of 2000; trained surveyors distributed questionnaires to people in 740 vehicles

prior to their leaving the park. Of these, visitors

completed 581 questionnaires. The same

methodology was applied in the 2001 portion of

the survey, and 640 visitors completed questionnaires. The study also included counts of cars

and people at the following sites: the information kiosk, Frazer Point picnic area, Stacked

Rock pullout, Ravens Nest, West Pond Cove,

Schoodic Point, Little Moose Island pullout,

Blueberry Hill parking area, and Rolling Island

pullout. The counts were conducted on an

hourly basis on the same 10 randomly selected

days as the surveys. The results presented in the

following pages reflect information gathered

during both years of the study.

While a range of people visit the Schoodic

District, most visitors share some common characteristics, including age, group size and composition, and prior knowledge of the area. Average

visitors to the Schoodic District are about 50

years old and come from the Northeast. These

visitors typically come in pairs or small groups

of family and friends. The numbers of male and

female visitors are approximately equal. Most

visitors learned of the Schoodic Peninsula by

word of mouth, and over half had visited the

area before participating in the survey. Almost

50% of all visitors to the Schoodic Peninsula

cite it as their primary destination. Less than

15% of all visitors to the Schoodic Peninsula

cite the Mount Desert Island portion of Acadia

National Park as their primary destination. 

Average visitors spend approximately one day in

the Schoodic District, remaining in the park for

less than three hours. They visit several places

in the park, the most common being Schoodic

Point, the Blueberry Hill parking area, and

Frazer Point. Most visitors enter the park

between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. Visitor and

automobile counts indicate that peak visitation

occurs at the selected count sites between 1:00

p.m. and 4:00 p.m. In the Schoodic District, the

primary activities for typical visitors are watching the surf and driving on the scenic loop

around the end of the peninsula. Other 

common activities include photography, observing nature, and picnicking. However, the most

enjoyed pastime is taking in the natural scenic

beauty. Most visitors find nothing they dislike

about the experience.

The most frequently cited positive qualities of

the Schoodic Peninsula are the pristine natural

beauty and scenery coupled with the quiet

atmosphere and low levels of visitation. People

come to Schoodic with the expectation that it

will be more peaceful, less crowded, and less 

littered than the Mount Desert Island portion of

Acadia National Park. Most visitors leave the

Schoodic District with their expectations fully

met. Those who are not fully satisfied cite overcrowding at Schoodic Point as a problem.

Although most visitors do not feel that they

negatively impact the Schoodic District, a few

visitors mentioned litter, trail erosion, crowding, and traffic as problems. Despite these 

concerns, most visitors feel that the current

management practices adequately maintain the

most important features of the peninsula, and

therefore no improvements or changes are 

necessary.

It should be noted that at the time of the 

surveys, visitors had no access to the navy base

and most were not familiar with it. Even in 2001

when it was in full operation it was not 

perceived as having negative impacts on the

park.
94 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

Issues Associated with Socioeconomic

Environment

• A large percentage of workers at the Naval

Security Group Activity Winter Harbor were

local civilians who may be looking for new

employment opportunities in the area. Some

of the employment lost due to the naval base

closing may be replaced by employment

opportunities related to the proposed reuse

alternatives. New jobs would likely be in the

service sector and the education and

research sectors, serving visitors at the former navy base. An undetermined number of

these jobs could be available to Hancock

County residents and others in the region.

• The alternatives at Schoodic could generate

spinoff impacts in the local community in

addition to direct employment.

• There would be cumulative economic

impacts to the area with the reuse of the

navy housing in Winter Harbor and operations site in Corea. Some impacts might represent economic losses, while others might

be long-term gains.

Socioeconomic Environment in the Study Area

Hancock County has been selected as the region

of influence (i.e., geographic area) on which the

analysis of socioeconomic impacts of the 

proposed alternatives are based. Hancock

County is where the Naval Security Group

Activity Winter Harbor was located and where

the majority of economic impact occurred. This

region of influence is the same area the U.S.

Navy selected for its environmental assessment

of the former navy base's Winter Harbor housing and Corea operations sites, which are not a

part of the study area.

Regional Economy - The coastal area of

Hancock County is rural in nature. Nearly

one-third of the county's residents reside in the

towns of Bar Harbor, Bucksport, and Ellsworth.

Many of the county's towns have from 1,000 to

2,000 residents (Department of the Navy 2002). 

In 2000, the population in Hancock County was

51,791, growing by 10.3% during the 1990s. The

growth took place in coastal communities, and

projections indicate that coastal communities

will continue growing through 2015. As of 2000,

Winter Harbor and Gouldsboro had populations

of 988 and 1,941, respectively. Both towns have

significant summer populations.

Year-round employment in Hancock County

was 34,400 in 1998, with Ellsworth and Bar

Harbor employing 9,800 and 6,900, respectively.

The fastest–growing segments of the economy

have been the service sector and the selfemployed sector. Leading employers in

Hancock County are The Jackson Laboratories,

in Bar Harbor, and Maine Coastal Memorial

Hospital, in Ellsworth. Hancock County saw a

significant increase in year-round and summer

employment during the 1990s. This trend is

expected to continue in coastal areas with good

access to the state's highway system. 

Retirement and second homes for baby boomers

will help drive growth. Employment growth in

Bar Harbor has been influenced by recreational

visitation to Acadia National Park, which is

expected to experience continuing growth.

With the closing of the Naval Security Group

Activity Winter Harbor, the economy of the

Winter Harbor–Gouldsboro area is mainly

related to fishing and logging, and the resort

economy, including tourists, seasonal homeowners, and retirees. Winter Harbor has

approximately 200 year-round homes and 120

seasonal homes, and Gouldsboro has a large

concentration of retirees. Fishermen in the area

are harvesting less from groundfish stocks in the

ocean, but are still enjoying profitable lobster

catches near shore. There are several fish 

processing and canning operations in the area.

A major export are sea urchins for the Japanese

market.

The unemployment rate in Winter Harbor and

Gouldsboro was 5.7% in 2000, compared to the

Hancock County rate of 4.5% and the statewide

rate of 3.5%. The per capita income of

Hancock County in 2000 was $26,648, 

compared to $25,623 for the State of Maine.

The State of Maine's 2001 Economic

Development Strategy recognizes the need to
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 95

spur economic development in areas of the

state, like the Schoodic Peninsula, which have

undergone economic setbacks like the naval

base closing. The state economic development

strategy includes among its economic development strategies expanding Maine's market as a

premier tourist destination, and encouraging

research and education. 

Naval Security Group Activity Winter Harbor -

In 1997, the Naval Security Group Activity

Winter Harbor employed 505 enlisted and civilian personnel, with over 300 living in nearby

towns, including military housing in Winter

Harbor. The total payroll of the naval facility

was $10,900,000. According to a study, Economic

Impacts of Winter Harbor Naval Base Closure on

Hancock County, ME, by Todd M. Gabe and

Thomas G. Allen, of the University of Maine,

the indirect impact of the base closing includes

the decrease in spending by the U.S. Navy at

local businesses and subsequent decreases in

purchases made by these businesses at other

enterprises in Hancock County. This amount

was estimated to be $1,823,351 annually. The

induced economic impact results in a decrease

in personal income to other workers in Hancock

County, which was estimated to be $3,957,206

annually. According to the University of Maine

study, Hancock County is facing a total economic impact of $16,680,557 due to the closing

of the navy base (Gabe and Allen, 2000). 

Acadia National Park - In 2001, recreation 

visits to Acadia National Park totaled 2.52

million, with the Schoodic District receiving

approximately 10% of the park's total recreation

visits. By 2015, an additional 406,000 recreation

visits are projected for Acadia National Park,

with the bulk of visitors arriving in the summer

and visiting the park on Mount Desert Island. 

According to Economic Impacts of Selected

National Parks; Update to Year 2001 (Stynes and

Sun 2002), local day visitors contributed 5% of

overall recreation visits, day visitors from other

regions 25%, and visitors staying at lodges and

campsites were 60% and 10%, respectively. The

2.52 million recreation visits were converted to

820,000 party days (the number of days each visitor party spends in the local region based on an

average of three people per visitor party), which

was the spending unit in the MGM2 analysis.

On average, visitors spent $165 per party per day

at the local area. Total visitor spending was

estimated to be $134.85 million in 2001.

The $134.85 million spent by visitors to Acadia

had a direct economic impact of $116.02 million

in direct sales, $41.05 million in personal

income (wages and salaries), $61.60 million in

value added, and 2,830 jobs. Among all direct

sales, $50.65 million was from the lodging sales,

$29.17 million from food and drinking places,

$11.86 million from admission fee and $12.97

million from the retail trade. As visitor spending circulates through the local economy, secondary effects created additional $19.64 million

personal income and 765 jobs. In summary, 

visitors to Acadia spent $134.85 million in 2001,

which supported a total of $170.12 million in

direct sales, $60.69 million in personal income,

$95.52 million in value added (the sum of

employee compensation, proprietary income,

and indirect business tax), and 3,594 jobs

(Stynes and Sun 2002).

Acadia National Park | National Park Service 97

PART FOUR: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

METHODOLOGY

This section describes the sources of data and

defines the threshold terms used to assess

impacts for each resource. In the absence of

definitions specific to a particular resource, the

following standard definitions are used:

• Negligible: The impact is at the lower levels

of detection, or less than an approximate 1%

change will occur over the life of the plan.

• Minor: The impact is slight, but detectable;

or an approximate 1–10% change would

occur over the life of the plan.

• Moderate: The impact is readily apparent,

and has the potential to become major; or an

approximate 11–20% change would occur

over the life of the plan.

• Major: The impact is severe, or a greater

than approximate 20% change would occur

over the life of the plan.

The term "localized impact" refers to impacts

confined to the study area or a portion of it

(e.g., the actual location where vegetation is

removed). When comparing changes to existing

conditions or to No Action, impacts were often

only easily detectable on a localized basis. For

instance, removing pavement and allowing

native vegetation to repopulate a few acres on

the base may have a readily apparent or moderate impact in that location or even base-wide.

However, compared to the thousands of acres of

similar vegetation on the entire peninsula or in

the region, the change would be less than 1%, or

negligible. The impacts are often analyzed both

locally and regionally to provide two separate

contexts to understand the relative magnitude.

IMPACT ANALYSIS METHOD

Management Policies 2001 (NPS 2000d) require

analysis of potential effect to determine whether

or not actions would impair recreation area

resources or values.

The fundamental purpose of the National Park

System, established by the Organic Act and reaffirmed by the General Authorities Act, as

amended, begins with a mandate to conserve

park resources and values. NPS managers must

always seek ways to avoid, or to minimize to the

greatest degree practicable, actions that would

adversely affect park resources and values.

Although Congress has given the National Park

Service (NPS) the management discretion to

allow certain impacts within parks, that discretion is limited by the statutory requirement

(enforceable by the federal courts) that NPS

must leave park resources and values unimpaired, unless a particular law directly and

specifically provides otherwise.

The impairment that is prohibited by the

Organic Act and the General Authorities Act is

an impact that, in the professional judgment of

the responsible NPS manager, would harm the

integrity of park resources or values, including

the opportunities that otherwise would be present for the enjoyment of those resources or 

values. As noted in the conclusions of the

Impacts sections, no impairment of any park

resource or value is expected from implementing any alternative.

An impact on any park resource or value may

constitute impairment. However, an impact

would be most likely to constitute impairment if

it affects a resource or value whose conservation is:

• Necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of Acadia National Park;

• Key to the natural or cultural integrity of

Acadia National Park or to opportunities for

enjoyment of Acadia National Park; or

• Identified as a goal in Acadia’s general management plan or other relevant NPS planning

documents.
98 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

A determination of impairment is included in

the impact analysis section for all cultural and

natural impact topics relating to Acadia

National Park resources and values. It is based

on the impact–topic–specific definition of

impairment that is provided in the methodology

section for each impact topic. The following

process was used to determine whether the

alternatives had the potential to impair park

resources and values:

1. The park’s enabling legislation, the General

Management Plan, the Strategic Plan, and

other relevant background were reviewed

with regard to the unit’s purpose and significance, resource values, and resource management goals or desired future conditions.

2. Management objectives specific to resource

protection goals at the park were identified.

3. Thresholds were established for each

resource of concern to determine the context, intensity, and duration of impacts. 

4. An analysis was conducted to determine if

the magnitude of impact reached the level of

“impairment,” as defined by NPS Management Policies.

Cumulative impacts are defined as those

impacts resulting from an alternative which add

to past, present, or reasonable future impacts to

the same resource. For example, air quality in

the park is affected by stationary and mobile

sources originating in the midwestern United

States. These have an additive or cumulative

effect on the much more minor impacts of car

traffic in the study area, and so are included in

the analysis. 

NATURAL RESOURCES

Air Quality

The air resource program at Acadia National

Park, which began in the early 1980s, includes

monitoring, research, and regulatory interaction

with state and federal agencies. Core program

elements include long-term monitoring for

ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile

organic compounds, fine particulates, visibility,

mercury deposition, acid precipitation, and

ultraviolet radiation. In addition, there is an

ongoing effort to determine the biological

effects of selected air pollutants on park

resources. The air resource program at Acadia

National Park is a collaborative effort involving

the NPS Air Resources Division and Northeast

Regional Office, the Maine Department of

Environmental Protection, and park natural

resource staff. In addition, there are a number

of other important partnerships with the U.S.

Geological Survey, Environmental Protection

Agency, universities, and other state and

regional agencies for conducting air-related

research and monitoring at Acadia National

Park. 

Ground-level ozone has been monitored at

Acadia National Park since 1982 at McFarland

Hill and since 1995 at Cadillac Mountain. Sulfur

dioxide was monitored continuously at the park

from 1988 through 1991. Acadia National Park

discontinued continuous monitoring due to

consistently low ambient levels, less than 0.02

ppm. Sulfur dioxide is currently monitored 

bi-weekly as part of the IMPROVE fine particulate monitoring program. In 1995, the Maine

Department of Environmental Protection established a Photochemical Assessment Monitoring

Site on Cadillac Mountain. The site includes

continuous monitoring for NOx, VOCs, ozone,

and meteorological parameters. A number of

key meteorological parameters are monitored at

both the McFarland Hill and Cadillac Mountain

sites, including wind speed and direction, relative humidity, temperature, solar radiation, and

rainfall. In addition to providing data essential

to assessing the basic ecological integrity of

park ecosystems, meteorological data are also

used in various modeling applications (e.g.,

back trajectory analysis) to determine potential

air pollution sources and source areas. Fine

Particulate Monitoring has been conducted

since 1987 as part of the IMPROVE program.

This program involves weekly sampling of fine

particulates in the 0–2.5 (PM2.5) and 0–10

(PM10) micron size ranges, and analyzes for

mass volume, elemental compounds (H, Na-Pb),

nitrate, sulfate, organic and elemental carbon. 

Acadia National Park is one of more than 200

sites nationwide that participates in the

National Atmospheric Deposition Program

(NADP). NADP, which began in 1978, is a longterm program to determine the chemical 

composition of atmospheric precipitation, and
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 99

the spatial and temporal trends of deposition.

The park site is one of four NADP sites in

Maine and is operated in cooperation with

Maine Department of Environmental

Protection. Since 1998 wet and dry deposition

of mercury have also been monitored at the

parks as part of the national Mercury

Deposition Network.

In addition to these sources of information, the

analysis used a transportation assessment study

(U.S. Department of Transportation 2002) that

identified how many cars use the peninsula

roads now, and the expected offset of bike

lanes, ferries, and buses. The NPS has also

monitored automobile traffic and completed a

set of approximate calculations to estimate the

changes the closure of the base by the U.S. Navy

brought, as well as those each alternative might

bring. Average emissions from mobile sources

were calculated using national vehicle and fuel

emissions laboratory estimates (Environmental

Protection Agency 2000). 

The following definitions of thresholds were

used in the air quality analysis: 

• Negligible: The impact is at the lower levels

of detection; adverse or positive impacts are

likely to be less than about 1% change from

No Action. 

• Minor: The impact is slight but detectable;

no standards are violated. Adverse or positive

changes are likely to be in the 1–10% range.

• Moderate: The impact may exceed standards on a local and short-term basis, or is

readily apparent. Adverse or positive

changes are likely to be in the 10-20% range.

• Major: The alternative would result in sustained exceedances of air quality standards,

or contribute to an obvious and permanent

adverse change or improvement in local or

regional conditions. 

• Impairment: Impairment is defined as

impacts that

– have a major adverse effect on park air

quality and values,

– contribute to deterioration of the park’s

resources to the extent that its purpose

could not be fulfilled as established in its

enabling legislation,

– affect resources key to the park’s natural or

cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment, or

– affect the resource whose conservation is

identified as a goal in the park’s General

Management Plan or other park planning

documents. 

Water Resources

Information from existing agency reports 

prepared by both the U.S. Navy and NPS were

used to assess existing water supply and wastewater disposal facilities and capacity, as well as

to identify the locations and extent of water 

features (bogs, streams, etc.). The degree of

change in water supply or wastewater was based

on the number of program participants and staff

occupying the base and compared to day use of

the facility by the U.S. Navy. 

The following thresholds were used in assessing impacts to water resources:

• Negligible: The impact to water features is

at the lower limits of detection. A less than

1% change in water quality or water supply

would result.

• Minor: The impact to water features is

slight but detectable. A change of 1–10% in

water quality or water supply would result

from actions in the alternative.

• Moderate: The impact to water features is

apparent, but is either temporary, localized,

or for other reasons is not a major concern.

A change of 11–20% in water quality or

water supply would result from actions in

the alternative. 

• Major: The impact to water features is obvious and a significant problem, resulting in

damage on a study-area scale, or severe and

irreversible localized impacts. A change of

more than about 20% in water quality of

water supply actions would result from

actions in the alternative.
100 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

• Impairment: Chemical or physical changes

to water quality would be detectable and

would be substantially and frequently altered

from the historical baseline or desired water

quality conditions and/or water quality standards. The impacts would involve deterioration of the park’s water quality and water

resources over the long term, to the point

that the park’s purpose could not be fulfilled, or resources could not be experienced

and enjoyed by future generations.

Soils

Information from agency reports, and in particular the Schoodic Peninsula, Acadia National

Park, Visitor Study 2000–2001 (Manning et al.

2002), was used to assess impacts to soils on

trails. Increased use of those trails over the 10-

15 year life of the plan was assumed to increase

impacts to soils similarly. The standard definitions of impacts identified at the beginning of

this section were applied in assessing impacts.

Impairment is defined as impacts that:

• have a major adverse effect on park

resources and values,

• contribute to deterioration of the park’s

resources to the extent that its purpose

could not be fulfilled as established in its

enabling legislation,

• affect resources key to the park’s natural or

cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment, or

• affect the resource whose conservation is

identified as a goal in the park’s General

Management Plan or other park planning

documents.

Vegetation

Information from the visitor survey identified

above was used to assess impacts to vegetation

along monitored trails. Additional reports cited

in Part Three: Affected Environment, and anecdotal data supplied by park staff and other 

professionals, were used to identify vegetation

types in areas where impacts from additional

visitor use, or from building removal or rehabilitation, might be expected.

The following thresholds were used to assess

impacts:

• Negligible: The impact is at the lower levels

of detection (a less than 1% change) in the

short and long term. No protected species

or habitats are affected either positively or

negatively.

• Minor: The impact is slight but detectable (a

1–10% change) in the short term, and/or at

the lower levels of detection (a less than 1%

change) in the long term. Effects on specialstatus species are discountable (i.e.,

extremely unlikely to occur and not able to

be meaningfully measured, detected, or evaluated) or are completely beneficial. A finding

of “may affect/not likely to adversely affect”

is likely from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (USFWS).

• Moderate: The impact is readily apparent

(an approximate 11–20% change) in the

short term, and/or slight but detectable (a

1–10% change) in the long term. Effects on

special-status species are discountable (i.e.,

extremely unlikely to occur and not able to

be meaningfully measured, detected, or evaluated) or are completely beneficial. A finding

of “may affect/not likely to adversely affect”

is likely from the USFWS.

• Major: The impact is severe (a greater than

20% change) in the short term and/or readily

apparent (an approximate 11–20% change) in

the long term, or vegetation in the study area

would experience an obvious and permanent

beneficial effect. An adverse effect to a

listed protected species may occur as a direct

or indirect result of actions in an alternative

and the effect is not discountable or is completely beneficial. A finding of “may

affect/likely to adversely affect” from the

USFWS is likely.

• Impairment: Actions in an alternative

would contribute substantially to the deterioration of park vegetation to the extent that

the vegetation would no longer function as a

natural system. In addition, these adverse

major impacts to park resources and values

would:
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 101

• contribute to deterioration of these

resources to the extent that the park’s purpose could not be fulfilled as established in

its enabling legislation,

• affect resources key to the park’s natural or

cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment, or

• affect the resource whose conservation is

identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan or other park planning documents. 

The alternative would jeopardize the continued

existence of a protected species or adversely

modify habitat critical to a species within or

outside park boundaries. A finding of “likely to

jeopardize protected or proposed species/

adversely modify critical habitat” from the

USFWS is likely.

Coastal Resources

The literature was consulted to identify the

types of coastal plants and animals in the study

area, as well as the types of impacts actions in

the alternatives might cause. The extent of

impacts on stationary coastal resources was

assumed to be directly related to the quantity

and type of visitor use it would receive. The

standard definitions of thresholds were used to

assess impacts. 

Impairment is defined as impacts that:

• have a major adverse effect on park resources

and values,

• contribute to deterioration of the park’s

resources to the extent that its purpose could

not be fulfilled as established in its enabling

legislation,

• affect resources key to the park’s natural or

cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment, or

• affect the resource whose conservation is

identified as a goal in the park’s General

Management Plan or other park planning

documents. 

Wildlife

The literature and agency reports were used to

determine the types and magnitude of impacts

likely to result from the types of actions under

each alternative. Quantitative estimates on the

amount of increase in visitation were available

from the NPS regional office staff; these

increases were not assumed to have the same

increase in impact on wildlife. For example, a

5% increase in visitation is not always equal to a

5% increase in impact on wildlife, as wildlife

species are mobile and much of the peninsula is

in relatively undisturbed condition, allowing for

free movement and relocation. In addition, a

5% increase in relatively poor-quality wildlife

habitat would have relatively small impacts,

whereas a similar increase in undisturbed habitat, or where sensitive species reside, could have

a major effect on some individuals. Surveys of

wildlife conducted in the mid-1990s in the study

area (Mittelhauser et al. 1995, Mittelhauser et

al. 1996) were particularly well used. The Maine

Natural Areas Program provided data on rare,

threatened, and endangered plant and animal

species, and habitats of special concern to the

state.

The following definitions were used to assess

impacts to wildlife:

• Negligible: The impact to non-protected

wildlife is at the lower levels of detection in

the short or long term. No protected species

are affected.

• Minor: The impact to non-protected

wildlife is slight but detectable in the short

term and at the lower level of detection in

the long term. Only non-breeding animals

are present, or proposed mitigation to breeding animals will fully offset impacts to these

individuals. Effects on special-status species

are discountable (i.e., extremely unlikely to

occur and not able to be meaningfully measured, detected, or evaluated) or are completely beneficial. A finding of “may

affect/not likely to adversely effect” is likely

from the USFWS.

• Moderate: The impact to non-protected

wildlife is readily apparent in the short term

and/or slight but detectable in the long term.

Actions may interfere with activities neces-
102 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

sary for survival or breeding on an occasional or short term basis, but are not

expected to threaten the continued existence

of the species in the park. Effects on special-status species are discountable (i.e.,

extremely unlikely to occur and not able to

be meaningfully measured, detected, or evaluated) or are completely beneficial. A finding

of “may affect/not likely to adversely effect”

is likely from the USFWS.

• Major: The impact to non-protected

wildlife is severe in the short term, or readily

apparent or severe in the long term.

Mortality or other effects are expected on a

regular basis and could threaten continued

survival of the species in the park. An

adverse effect to a listed protected species

may occur as a direct or indirect result of

actions in an alternative and the effect is not

discountable or is completely beneficial. A

finding of “may affect/likely to adversely

affect” from the USFWS is likely.

• Impairment: Some of the major impacts

described above might be an impairment of

park resources if their severity, duration, and

timing resulted in the elimination of a native

species or significant population declines in

a native species, or they precluded the park’s

ability to meet recovery objectives for listed

species. In addition, these adverse, major

impacts to park resources and values would:

• contribute to deterioration of the park’s

wildlife resources and values to the extent

that the park’s purpose could not be fulfilled

as established in its enabling legislation,

• affect resources key to the park’s natural or

cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment, or

• affect the resource whose conservation is

identified as a goal in the park’s general

management plan or other park planning

documents.

The alternative would jeopardize the continued

existence of a protected species or adversely

modify habitat critical to a species within or

outside park boundaries. A finding of “likely to

jeopardize protected or proposed species/

adversely modify critical habitat” from the

USFWS is likely.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

A review of relevant resource materials regarding cultural resources at the Schoodic District,

as well as communications with park staff, was

completed to identify and evaluate potential

impacts to historic properties located within the

study area. The most recent cultural resource

study in the general area was performed on 

former navy base properties in and around the

Schoodic Peninsula (Berger & Assoc., Inc.

1999). A review of previously conducted 

cultural resource work in the general area is

summarized in that document. A cultural landscape inventory and National Register nomination are underway. The U.S. Navy completed

nominations to the National Register of Historic

Place for the Rockefeller Building and powerhouse located on the former navy base

(September 2001). 

The following assumptions were used in the

impact analysis for cultural resources located

within the Schoodic Peninsula: 

• Visitors accessing the former navy base

under all alternatives would use the existing

Schoodic Loop Road.

• A user's destination point on the former

navy base under all alternatives does not

preclude their visiting other areas of the

peninsula (trails, parking, restrooms), and, in

fact, would likely encourage it. In addition,

it is assumed that program participants visiting the former navy base have an indirect

influence on other non-participants visiting

the Schoodic District.

Since no comprehensive cultural landscape

inventory exists for the entire Schoodic District,

the degree of impact (beneficial or adverse) is

not always quantifiable for proposed actions. In

this case, a range of potential impacts/benefits

may be presented.

The term "ineligible" refers to cultural

resources not considered eligible for the

National Register of Historic Places.

The "area of potential effect" used for this

analysis is the entire Schoodic District, including the former navy base property.
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 103

For this analysis, impacts are described in terms

of type (beneficial or adverse), context, and

intensity. The definitions of levels of intensity

vary by impact topic and resource. Generalized

definitions related to intensity of impacts to 

historic properties are presented below. 

• Negligible: Impact barely perceptible and

not measurable; confined to small areas or a

single contributing element of the historic

properties or archeological sites with low

data potential. 

• Minor: Impact to the resource is perceptible

and measurable, but is localized and confined to a single contributing element of the

historic properties or archeological sites with

low to moderate data potential. 

• Moderate: Impact is clearly detectable and

sufficient to cause a change in characterdefining features of the historic resources or

archeological sites that could have appreciable effects on the resource.

• Major: Impact would have a substantial,

highly noticeable influence on the defining

features of the historic resources or archeological sites. It would create adverse impacts

to the resource and could lead to an impairment of a park resource.

• Impairment: Impairment is defined as

impacts that:

− have a major adverse effect on park

resources and values,

− contribute to deterioration of the park’s

resources to the extent that its purpose could

not be fulfilled as established in its enabling

legislation,

− affect resources key to the park’s natural or

cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment, or

– affect the resource whose conservation is

identified as a goal in the park’s General

Management Plan or other park planning

documents. 

VISITOR EXPERIENCE

The primary source of data for this section is

the Schoodic Peninsula, Acadia National Park,

Visitor Study 2000–2001 (Manning et al. 2002).

This survey included responses from navy

personnel, as well as visitors to the Schoodic

District. The study gathered information about

the sites visitors are most inclined to seek, the

number of visitors throughout the day at key

locations, the number of cars on roads in the

study area throughout the day, information

about the quality of the visitor experience, and

on those features of the study area visitors most

enjoyed. The standard definitions of thresholds

were used to assess impacts. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

The research on socioeconomic impacts was

completed by obtaining data from federal, state,

and county agencies, and economic studies. In

2000, the University of Maine completed an

assessment of the impacts of the navy base closure on the economy of Hancock County, Maine

(Gabe and Allen 2000). The economic impacts

of Acadia National Park were determined by

using the Money Generation Model Version 2

(MGM2) developed by Daniel Stynes and

Dennis Propst at Michigan State University

based on a NPS economic model that estimates

the economic benefits of national parks for

regional economies (Stynes et al. 2000). MGM2

estimates the impacts that park visitors have on

the local economy in terms of their contribution

to sales, income, and jobs in the area. Stynes et

al. expanded the original model to include the

economic effects of NPS salaries, park construction projects, and other park-related activities; and expenditures by other outside parties,

such as state spending for park access roads and

dollars spent by outside interests for marinas,

motels, restaurants, and other park-related 

capital development projects. The economic

model produces quantifiable measures of park

economic benefits that can be used for planning, concessions management, budget justifications, policy analysis, and marketing. 

The standard definitions of thresholds were

used to assess impacts.
104 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES

This section describes overarching laws and

policies guiding NPS and the management of

specific resources. 

OVERARCHING LAWS

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

NEPA is the law that requires all federal agencies to examine possible environmental impacts

and alternatives to any proposal they may be

considering. It is a mandatory environmental

planning process if the proposal may have

impacts on physical or natural resources, and

includes opportunities for public involvement

and comment. NEPA is implemented through

regulations of the Council on Environmental

Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR 1500-8). The NPS has

adopted procedures to comply with NEPA and

the CEQ regulations, as found in Director's

Order 12: Conservation Planning,

Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision

Making (NPS 2000) and its accompanying handbook. This policy guidance implements the

applicable federal laws and provides specific

requirements for completing environmental

impact statements.

NEPA requires that agencies analyze impacts to

resources that might experience effects, reasonable alternatives, and cumulative impacts.

Cumulative impacts are those impacts on a

resource that would occur independent of the

action NPS is considering. The analysis of

cumulative impacts helps the reader and decision maker understand something about the

"total" or "combined" impacts on a resource

that may be also affected by the actions in one

of the alternatives. The analysis includes

actions taken in the past, present, or in the 

reasonably foreseeable future, and is without

regard to land ownership. Therefore, actions on

private or adjacent state land that contribute to

impacts on resources in the study area can be

included.

Organic Act of 1916

The founding legislation of NPS, the Organic

Act of 1916, prohibits the impairment of park

resources and values. NPS Management Policies

2001 (NPS 2001a) state "impairment...is an

impact that, in the professional judgment of the

responsible NPS manager, would harm the

integrity of park resources or values, including

the opportunities that otherwise would be present for the enjoyment of those resources or values." 

This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

includes an assessment of whether impairment

of park resources or values might be affected as

may be identified in the NPS Management

Policies 2001. The policies provide guidance on

whether an activity with major impacts to

resources is also likely to impair those

resources. An impact would be more likely to

constitute an impairment to the extent that it

affects a resource or value whose conservation

is necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the park, is the key to the natural or 

cultural integrity of the park or to opportunities

for enjoyment of the park, or is identified as a

goal in Acadia's General Management Plan or

other relevant NPS planning documents. An

impact would be less likely to constitute an

impairment to the extent that it is an unavoidable result, which cannot be reasonably further

mitigated, of an action necessary to preserve or

restore the integrity of park resources or values.

These policies have been integrated into this

EIS by analyzing whether impacts to each

affected resource might be an impairment. The

definition of an impairment is: the impact is so

sustained and severe that the integrity of the

resource will be lost park-wide, and the

resource is either important to park purposes or

is one whose protection has been spelled out as

a reason for creating the park.

NATURAL RESOURCES

Air Quality

A 1977 amendment to the Clean Air Act designated all national parks over 6,000 acres as

mandatory Class I areas, worthy of the greatest

degree of air quality protection under the Act.

Congress declared as a national goal "the 

prevention of any future, and the remedying of

any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I federal areas...." NPS managers are

expected to know the condition of their air

quality and err on the side of resource protection. The NPS is invited to comment on any
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 105

state air quality permit applications for new 

stationary sources expected to emit over 100

tons per year of a single pollutant. 

In addition, the Environmental Protection

Agency has set air quality standards for six principal "criteria" pollutants, including carbon

monoxide, ozone, and two types of particulates

(those smaller than 10 microns and those smaller

than 2.5 microns). It also regulates the precursors of acid rain (sulfates and nitrates), and

mercury from some sources (municipal waste

combustors, medical waste incinerators), and

monitors mercury emissions from others

(notably coal-fired power plants). 

NPS Management Policies 2001 (NPS 2001a)

require parks to perpetuate the best possible air

quality in park units to preserve natural and 

cultural resources and to sustain visitor enjoyment, including scenic vistas. Any source of air

pollution is required to comply with federal,

state, and local air quality regulations and 

permitting requirements. Indoor air quality in

NPS units is also required to be healthful.

Water Resources

The Environmental Protection Agency has

developed national recommended ambient water

quality criteria for approximately 120 priority

pollutants for the protection of both aquatic life

and human health (Environmental Protection

Agency 1999a). These criteria have been

adopted as enforceable standards by most states.

NPS Management Policies 2001 state that NPS

will "take all necessary actions to maintain or

restore the quality of surface waters and ground

waters within the parks consistent with the

Clean Water Act and all other applicable federal,

state, and local laws and regulations." 

Simply stated, a water quality standard defines

the water quality goals of a waterbody by designating uses to be made of the water, by setting

minimum criteria to protect the uses, and by

preventing degradation of water quality through

review and selective permitting of discharges

into surface waters. In the study area, the U.S.

Navy had a permit for discharge of a certain volume of treated wastewater into Arey Cove, for

example.

Soils

No federal laws specifically regulate soil erosion

or loss in parks. However, the Clean Water Act

and Maine Natural Resource Protection Act are

both considered core laws of the Maine Coastal

Program and reinforce provisions of the Coastal

Zone Management Act of 1972. These laws regulate such activities as soil disturbance that could

result in sedimentation of wetlands or other

water bodies. In addition, NPS Management

Policies 2001 require NPS managers to "...prevent, to the extent possible the unnatural 

erosion, physical removal, or contamination of

the soil..." NPS managers are required to 

prevent or minimize adverse impacts on soils to

the extent they are able to do so. Parks are

required to obtain surveys of soils adequate for

the management of park resources.

Vegetation

Biological resource management in NPS has its

roots in its founding legislation, the Organic Act

of 1916, which directs parks to "conserve the

scenery and the natural and historic objects and

the wild life therein to leave them unimpaired

for the enjoyment of future generations." These

general powers were broadened (by the

Redwood National Park Act, 1988) in which

Congress gave further direction that parks

should not be managed in any way that might

reduce values or purposes for which they have

been established. In accord with these laws,

NPS Management Policies 2001 state that the

parks will maintain as parts of the natural

ecosystems of parks all native plants and 

animals.

The Endangered Species Act states that plant

species are of aesthetic, ecological, educational,

historical, recreational, and scientific value to

the nation. The Act's purpose is to conserve the

ecosystems upon which species depend, and

generally, to increase populations and secure

sufficient habitat to recover species to viable

levels. The act requires NPS to determine

whether an action would adversely affect federally listed threatened or endangered plant

species. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service is required if this is the case, to

ensure the action will not jeopardize the

species' continued existence or result in the
106 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

destruction or adverse modification of critical

habitat. The act also prohibits activities that

would constitute an unauthorized "taking" of

the protected species. 

The NPS is required to control access to critical

habitat for listed species, and perpetuate the

natural distribution and abundance of these

species and the ecosystems upon which they

depend. NPS Management Policies 2001 also

require consideration of all state and locally

listed species in planning activities.

Wetlands are protected by Section 404 of the

Clean Water Act, which requires permission

from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to fill

more than an incidental acreage of wetland.

National Park Service Director’s Order 77-1

establishes policies, requirements, and standards for implementing Executive Order 11990,

which directs federal agencies to avoid adverse

impacts to wetlands. The National Park Service

specifically avoids impacts to wetlands wherever

possible, but prepares a "statement of findings"

including plans to compensate for impacts that

could not be avoided if actions will affect wetlands. 

Coastal Resources

The Coastal Zone Management Act requires

federal agencies to prepare a consistency determination for every activity in or outside of the

coastal zone that affects land or water use of the

coastal zone. NPS Management Policies 2001

allow natural shoreline processes to continue

without interference in parks, and investigate

alternatives for mitigating the effects of human

alterations of natural coastal processes and

restoring natural conditions. Beyond this 

specific guidance, the laws, regulations, and

policies cited in this section under "Vegetation"

and "Wildlife" would also apply to coastal biological resources.

Wildlife

The Organic Act of 1916, as noted above, directs

parks to "conserve the scenery and the natural

and historic objects and the wild life therein to

leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of

future generations." NPS Management Policies

2001 state that the parks will maintain as parts

of the natural ecosystems of parks all native

plants and animals.

The Endangered Species Act states that fish and

wildlife species are of aesthetic, ecological, 

educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the nation. The Act's purpose is to

conserve the ecosystems upon which species

depend, and generally, to increase populations,

and secure sufficient habitat to recover species

to viable levels. The act requires NPS to determine whether an action would adversely affect

federally listed threatened or endangered animal

species. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service is required if this is the case, to

ensure the action will not jeopardize the continued existence of the species or result in the

destruction or adverse modification of critical

habitat. The act also prohibits activities that

would constitute an unauthorized "taking" of

the protected species. 

The NPS is required to control access to critical

habitat for listed species and perpetuate the 

natural distribution and abundance of these

species and the ecosystems upon which they

depend. NPS Management Policies 2001 also

require consideration of all state and locally

listed species in planning activities.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

All federal undertakings are subject to a variety

of regulations designed to protect the environment, including cultural resources. Compliance

with the following laws provides the foundation

for protecting cultural resources in the United

States: 

• The National Historic Preservation Act of

1966, as amended (16USC 470 et seq.)

• The Native American Graves Protection and

Repatriation Act of 1990 (25USC 3001 et

seq.)

• The American Indian Religious Freedom Act

of 1978 (42USC 1996 and 1996a)

• The Archeological Resources Protection Act

of 1979 (16 USC 470)

• Executive Order 11593 (36 C.F.R. 8921)
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 107

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)

is the principal legislative authority for management of cultural resources associated with NPS

projects. Section 106 of the NHPA requires all

federal agencies to consider the effects of their

actions on cultural resources determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register of

Historic Places. In addition, the NHPA requires

that federal agencies take actions to minimize

harm to historic properties that would be

adversely affected by a federal undertaking.

Section 110 of the NHPA, among other things,

charges federal agencies with the responsibility

for establishing preservation programs for identification, evaluation, and nomination of historic

properties to the National Register of Historic

Places. 

The NPS is charged with protection and management of cultural resources in it custody, as

provided in federal laws, regulations, and policies. The NPS is mandated to avoid or mitigate

to the greatest degree practicable adverse

impacts to park resources and values. Although

NPS has the discretion to allow certain impacts

within parks, it is limited by the statutory

requirement that park resources and values

remain unimpaired, unless specified otherwise

by law.

VISITOR EXPERIENCE

The 1916 Organic Act requires NPS to ensure its

natural and cultural resources are not impaired,

but it also requires parks "to provide for the

enjoyment of" these resources. NPS

Management Policies 2001 state that the enjoyment of park resources and values by the people

of the United States is part of the fundamental

purpose of all parks and that NPS is committed

to providing appropriate, high-quality opportunities for visitors to enjoy the parks. Because

many forms of recreation can take place outside

a national park setting, NPS will therefore seek

to provide opportunities for forms of enjoyment

that are uniquely suited and appropriate to the

superlative natural and cultural resources found

in a particular unit, and defer to other agencies,

private industry, and non-governmental organizations to meet the broader spectrum of recreational needs and demands that are not dependent on a national park setting.

Also, unless mandated by law, NPS will not

allow visitors to conduct activities that:

• would create an unsafe or unhealthful environment for other visitors or employees,

• are contrary to the purposes for which the

park was established, or

• would unreasonably interfere with the

atmosphere of peace and tranquility, or the

natural soundscape maintained in wilderness

and natural, historic, or commemorative

locations within the park; NPS interpretive,

visitor service, administrative, or other activities; NPS concessioner or contractor operations or services; or other existing, appropriate park uses. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

The handbook accompanying Director's Order

12, Conservation Planning, Environmental

Impact Analysis and Decision Making (NPS

2000), directs NPS to examine impacts to the

socioeconomic environment in environmental

assessments and environmental impact statements. The only policy guidance outside of this

source for socioeconomics is supplied by

Executive Order 12898 (1994) requiring all 

federal agencies to analyze and consider impacts

of actions on minority and low-income populations and communities to make sure they are

not adversely and disproportionately affected.
108 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

IMPACTS TO NATURAL RESOURCES

AIR QUALITY

Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Analysis - All alternatives call for the consideration of public transportation, such as buses or

shuttles. Adding buses during the summer

months would remove between 20 and 40 vehicles per day, but would add seven bus trips

(assuming U.S. Department of Transportation

2002 figures) along the Schoodic Loop Road.

The difference in emissions is 0.03 fewer tons of

hydrocarbons, 0.32 fewer tons of carbon

monoxide, and 0.037 more tons of nitrogen

oxides. This represents a 1.2% decrease for

hydrocarbons, 1.5% decrease for carbon

monoxide, and a 2.2% increase in NOx from

vehicles, a minor benefit to local air quality.

If vehicles were parked outside the limits of the

park, or just inside at Frazer Point or another

park-and-ride location, emissions inside the

park would be reduced. Assuming two passengers per car, and that half the bicyclists park

and ride, annual emissions from vehicles could

be reduced 6–8%, a minor benefit to local air

quality.

All alternatives include the possible use of limiting or otherwise managing the number of available parking spaces to a maximum of 350 to

reduce the use of personal vehicles. If such

measures included very clear signs from Moore

Road or State Route 186 to indicate parking was

full, such a scheme might be effective in reducing emissions inside the park and encouraging

bus or bike ridership. However, without clear

information for those entering the park far

enough in advance that alternative transportation is available, limiting parking may actually

result in increased emissions as cars idle waiting

for parking, or complete another loop of the

peninsula seeking alternative parking locations. 

Impacts of Alternative A: No Action

Analysis - The primary impact to air quality on

the Schoodic Peninsula from the No Action

Alternative would be from mobile sources. A

recently prepared study of alternate transportation for the Schoodic Peninsula (U.S. Department of Transportation 2002) indicated that on

average, about 800 cars traveled the 1-mile

Moore Road leading from State Route 186 into

the park, continued on around the 6-mile

Schoodic Loop Road, and returned to State

Route 186 via the 1.9-mile Wonsqueak Road out

of the park each day during 2001. These data

shows that between 500 and 800 vehicles travel

the Schoodic Loop Road. Of this, about 350

were vehicles driven by navy personnel to and

from the base. The average number of recreational trips to the park varies seasonally, with

about 150 trips per day during all but the 

summer months, and three times this number

during July, August, and September. As of 2000,

this translates to 208,000 vehicle trips along the

park road at Schoodic per year. Given the

assumptions outlined in "Methodology," this

translates to 4.1 tons of hydrocarbons, 36.5 tons

of carbon monoxide, and 2.8 tons of nitrogen

oxides to the air inside the park. Additional

pollutants would be emitted from vehicles using

Moore Road to reach the park and exiting the

park on Wonsqueak Road.

The No Action Alternative would result in fewer

car trips driven along the Schoodic Loop Road

than current conditions, as navy personnel

would no longer commute. A small number of

programs might take place at the base, primarily

for school or community groups. Some staff

would commute, and some lodging (both camping and motel-like rooms) would be available.

Recreational use would increase very slowly,

concomitant with the rest of the park, at slightly

over 1% per year. Given these assumptions, the

projected annual number of vehicle trips in the

park would be about 155,000 by 2015. Assuming

continuing reductions in the average vehicle

emission rates (associated with improved technology nation-wide), these cars would add 2.43

tons of hydrocarbons, 21.7 tons of carbon

monoxide, and 1.67 tons of nitrogen oxides per

year to the park air basin. This is a reduction in

emissions of about 40% over 2000 conditions,

and a possible major benefit to local air quality.

Stationary sources of emissions similar to those

from vehicles include boilers and diesel generators. These emissions would decrease under the

No Action Alternative, both from 1998, when the
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 109

base was nearly fully occupied and from 2001,

the year before it was turned over to NPS, as

most buildings at the base would be placed in

layup status. Only a few staff and program participants (1,800 per year) would actively occupy

any of the base buildings; therefore heating

requirements would be significantly lower. SOx,

nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and particulates associated with operation of the boilers

would similarly decrease. The extent of this

decrease is unknown; however, it is likely to be

on the order of 90% less than even 2001 conditions, as only about 25 people would occupy the

base buildings at any given time. Other stationary sources of air emissions include painting

and vehicle maintenance activities, such as 

dispensing gasoline and the use of solvents and

degreasers. With so few buildings actively used

and so few staff on the base under the No

Action Alternative, these emissions would also

drop. The combined emissions from stationary

sources at both Schoodic and Corea in some

cases approach or exceed emissions from vehicles on Schoodic park property. A 90%

decrease could approach a major localized

(base-specific), and negligible or minor regionwide (southern end of the peninsula, for example) benefit in air quality.

As for indoor air quality, radon tests indicate

mitigation systems installed in buildings 84,

184–186, and 191 have been successful (NSGA

2000). Some of these buildings may be used for

staff or program housing in the No Action

Alternative. Asbestos was removed from buildings 39, 138, and 148 prior to turning the base

over to NPS. Twenty-two additional buildings

which have less than 1% asbestos in them were

not remediated by the U.S. Navy. Of these, 13

would be used by the park under the No Action

Alternative. A negligible risk to human health

may exist in occupying some of these buildings,

particularly if asbestos is contained in the venting systems. However, the risk base-wide of

occupying buildings is lower than when the U.S.

Navy occupied the base because of mitigation

systems.

Cumulative Impacts - Cumulative, or additive

impacts indicate the extent of damage that is

already ongoing at the site and information

about past, present, and future trends. Impacts

of the alternatives in this EIS are overlain on

those from outside sources to give an idea of the

total impact a given resource is experiencing

now or expected to experience in the future.

The Environmental Protection Agency has standards in place for several pollutants that will be

emitted by vehicles and stationary sources at

Schoodic. These include carbon monoxide,

nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide (precursor to

sulfates), and ozone. 

Carbon monoxide is a gas that can be poisonous

at high concentrations, and that is formed when

fuels are not burned completely. It is produced

primarily by vehicles. Nationally, carbon

monoxide concentrations have declined over

the last 20 years; in the region where the park is

located (which includes all of Maine), concentrations have decreased by 81% since 1980.

However, carbon monoxide concentrations in

the East and in most urban areas of the county

are still high. In Hancock County, they averaged between 28 and 55 tons/year/square mile

in 1999. This is higher than other parts of

Maine, but lower than the entire rest of the

Atlantic Seaboard to the south (Environmental

Protection Agency 1999). The Clean Air Act

amendments of 1990 required oxygenation of

gasoline to help fuels burn more completely;

these and other changes are expected to help

the United States continue its trend toward

improvements in carbon monoxide concentrations.

Nitrogen dioxide is a reddish brown gas emitted

from high-temperature combustion processes,

such as in-vehicle engines and power plants. It

and other forms of nitrogen oxides are called

NOx. These compounds are associated with

respiratory problems, and are instrumental in

the formation of ozone, or smog. Few monitoring sites for nitrogen oxides have operated continuously for 20 years, so data are sketchy.

However, two 10-year databases indicate that

annual mean concentrations declined in the

early 1980s, stabilized for the remainder of the

decade, and continued to decline in the 1990s.

Concentra-tions in Maine have decreased by an

average of 34% since 1980. This is the second

largest decrease in the country over this time

period. Concentrations remain moderately

high, at 3.36–6.24 tons/year/square mile, in

Hancock County. This is higher than much of

northern and northwestern Maine, which averages 0–1.72 tons/year/square mile, but lower
110 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

than the majority of New England, which averages 14.6 to over 2,000 tons/year/square mile.

Although NOx concentrations have steadily

decreased in the late 1990s, emissions have

increased, primarily from heavy-duty diesel

engines. Without the implementation of new

emission standards for trucks, buses, and other

large vehicles, NOx concentrations would likely

begin to increase. 

Ozone concentrations in the park and in Maine

generally are highly influenced by pollutants

emitted from industrial and mobile sources in

the midwestern United States. Ground-level

ozone is formed in the atmosphere by the reaction of volatile organic hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides in the presence of heat and sunlight.

It is the prime ingredient of smog, and 

prolonged exposure has been linked to a number of respiratory problems in people.

Measurements have indicated an improvement

in average daily maximum ozone concentrations

at the park of 11 ppb/year, although enough

variability exists that this trend is not statistically significant (NPS 2001). In addition,

although the park has experienced improvement, its maximum daily 1 hour average ozone

concentrations have exceeded the primary

Environmental Protection Agency standard of

120 ppb 10 out of the 16 years from 1983 to

1998. Violations of the Environmental

Protection Agency 8-hour standard decreased in

Acadia National Park over the past 15 years,

from an average of 6.0 during the years 1983-

1992 to 2.7 during 1993-1998 (NPS 1999b). 

Generally, Acadia National Park does not experience long-term exposure to ozone in high

enough concentrations to obviously affect vegetation. The NPS has monitored foliar injury in a

limited number of areas where the sum of

hourly average ozone concentrations greater

than or equal to 60 ppb (SUM60) during the

growing season lies between 8 and 15 ppmhours. Damage to foliage and growth loss, 

particularly in sensitive species, has been

observed at these levels. However, SUM60 at

the park ranges from 20 to 40 ppb-hours, and

appears to be decreasing (NPS 1999b).

Research has been completed to determine

whether sensitive species might be experiencing

impacts even at these levels. 

Decreases in the number of vehicles in the park

at Schoodic and the use of boilers or generators

at the base that would occur under the No

Action Alternative would contribute to

decreases in ozone, but the effect would be so

small as to be negligible. Creating bike lanes

and encouraging the use of bikes instead of cars

would add to the positive effect, but the use of

buses would not, since diesel buses would 

contribute more nitrogen oxides than the cars

they replace unless alternative fuel buses are

used. 

Standard visibility range at Acadia National Park

varies from about 60 to 90 miles on good days

(i.e., the 10% of days when visibility it at its

best), and from 15 to 25 miles on poor visibility

days (i.e., the 10% of days when visibility is at

its worst), and averages 35 to 55 miles (NPS

1999b). The average visual range in 1999 for

eastern parks was 14 miles on poor-visibility

days (bottom 20%) and 50 miles on the clearest

days (top 20%) (Environmental Protection

Agency 1999). Although these figures are not

exactly comparable, the visibility at the park

tends on average to be better than for other

eastern parks. 

As with other eastern parks and wilderness

areas monitored under the Interagency

Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments

(IMPROVE) program, Acadia National Park 

suffers from higher regional concentrations of

precursors to sulfates and other man-made

emissions, higher estimated regional background levels of fine particles, and higher average relative humidity than western parks.

Sulfates, which account for the majority of lightextinction effects in the park, are particularly

vulnerable to humidity, as they accumulate

water and grow in size, becoming more efficient

at scattering light (Environmental Protection

Agency 1999). Because of these differences,

degradation of visibility in eastern parks is more

severe. For the period of 1990–1999, visibility

on the clearest 20% of days in eastern parks was

comparable to the haziest 20% of days in the

west. 

Visibility is generally best in the fall and worst

during the summer months, which is also when
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 111

the majority of visitors are in the park.

However, average summer visibility has

improved slightly in the eastern United States

from 1980 to 1995. Data from the late 1990s

indicate this trend continued, as visibility on the

typical and on the haziest 20% of days both

showed a 10% improvement across all 10 eastern

parks and wilderness areas measured in

1998–1999 (Environmental Protection Agency

1999). This improvement is due in large part to

the decrease in sulfates. In 1999, eastern aerosol

light extinction due to sulfates on the haziest

days reached its lowest level of the 1990s, with a

19% decline from 1992 to 1999. 

Visibility data at Acadia National Park collected

for 1990–1999 indicate standard visual range in

the park is also improving, particularly on clear

days. Median visual range averaged between 35

and 45 miles in the early 1990s at the park, and

improved to between 50 and 55 miles by the late

1990s, a 40% increase. Visual range on the

clearest (10%) days averaged 65 to 70 miles in

the early 1990s, and improved to between 80 and

90 miles in the late 1990s, a 25% increase.

Standard visual range on the haziest (10%) days

averaged between 18 and 20 miles in the early

1990s, and improved to 23–24 miles by the late

1990s, a 25% increase (NPS 2001). 

Decreases in emissions associated with vehicle

use at Schoodic and boilers on the navy base

associated with the No Action Alternative would

have a negligible, positive impact on visibility by

reducing precursors to sulfates associated with

boilers and hydrocarbons associated with both

vehicles and stationary sources. 

Decreases in sulfates may also have contributed

to a reduction in the threat of acid precipitation

in the park. In the years from 1982 to 1997, 

sulfates have decreased from an average of

22–23 kg/ha to 15–16 kg/ha. Nitrate deposition

in rain and snow has remained approximately

the same (NPS 1999b). Despite the reduction in

sulfate deposition, the pH of rain and snow at

the park has remained very nearly the same from

1981 to 1997, at about 4.5. While most park lakes

and streams are non-acidic, they are also 

susceptible to acidification because they are

largely unable to neutralize or buffer acidic

inputs. These low-alkalinity lakes and streams

are typical of the region, and are a function of

the bedrock and other factors outside park 

control. Alkalinity, or buffering capacity, is

decreasing in park lakes as a result of acid 

deposition, and continues to decrease despite

reductions in sulfate deposition. Additional

research is ongoing at the park to better understand acidification in the park and its relationship to watershed processes, topography, and

other features.

Decreases in emissions associated with vehicle

use at Schoodic and boilers or generators on the

navy base associated with the No Action

Alternative would have a negligible positive

impact on acid precipitation locally by reducing

precursors to sulfates and nitrates.

Conclusions - Because this alternative would

result in relatively little use of the base, air quality emissions associated with commuter traffic

and on-base heating would be reduced compared to year 2001 conditions. The reduction in

ambient concentrations of air pollution could

be a moderate to negligible localized benefit,

but would be negligible regionally. The use of

bikes or buses could result in further negligible

to minor benefits. These reductions would also

have negligible relative cumulative effects on

regional air quality problems attributable largely

to sources outside the park, such as visibility,

criteria pollutants, and acid precipitation. No

actions anticipated in any of the alternatives

would affect mercury concentrations.

Therefore, since there would be no additive

impact, no discussion of mercury concentrations will be included in this EIS. No impairment to park air quality would result from

implementing the No Action Alternative. 

Impacts of Alternative B: National Park Service

Management

Analysis - As with No Action, the primary

impact to air quality on the Schoodic Peninsula

from Alternative B would be from mobile

sources. However, the impacts relative to 

conditions during the time the base was occupied by the U.S. Navy, even in 2001 when many

functions and staff had already been closed out,

would be beneficial for air quality. 
112 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

Alternative B would result in about 30 staff

working at what is now the base and about

13,500 annual program participants (Table 1,

page 11). Most of the vehicle trips associated

with program participants would take place 

during July–September. Although they would

not be evenly dispersed, about 161,000 vehicle

trips are considered a likely annual total for the

Schoodic District by year 2015. These trips

would add about 2.54 tons of hydrocarbons,

22.6 tons of carbon monoxide, and 1.73 tons of

nitrogen oxides each year, or 38% fewer emissions than the 2001 base year, and between 3.6

and 4.5% greater than No Action. This is a

major local benefit to air quality compared to

the 2001 base year, and a minor localized,

adverse impact compared to No Action. 

About 30 staff and 13,500 program participants

would occupy buildings at the base. Five

smaller buildings are slated for removal and 15

additional buildings would either be used or

removed. If all are either unoccupied or

removed, this could result in about a 50%

decrease in the need for heating from boilers.

Even greater decreases are likely because fewer

buildings would be occupied during the colder

months of the year. A 50% decrease could

approach a major localized (base-specific), and

negligible or minor region-wide (southern end

of the peninsula, for example) benefit in air

quality.

Radon tests indicate mitigation systems installed

in buildings 84, 184–186, and 191 have been

successful. All of these buildings could be used

for staff or program housing in this alternative.

Asbestos was removed from buildings 39, 138,

and 148 prior to turning the base over to NPS.

Twenty-two additional buildings which have less

than 1% asbestos in them were not remediated

by the U.S. Navy. A negligible risk to human

health may exist in occupying some of these

buildings, particularly if asbestos is contained in

the venting systems. This risk is slightly greater

in Alternative B than No Action, because more

buildings would be occupied. 

Cumulative Impacts - A decrease in traffic and

the use of boilers at Schoodic would contribute

negligible beneficial impacts to those already

ongoing and expected to continue with regards

to visibility, ozone, acid precipitation, and 

mercury concentrations in the atmosphere in

the region. The extent of the reductions would

be similar, but not quite as great, as under the

No Action Alternative (please see No Action

above for more information). The benefits

would be too small to measure regionally.

Conclusions - Because this alternative would

result in fewer vehicles and a less-intensive use

of the base than under year 2001 conditions, air

quality emissions associated with commuter

traffic and on-base heating would be reduced.

The reduction could be a major localized benefit compared to 2001 conditions, but would be

negligible regionally. The use of bikes or buses

could result in further negligible to minor benefits. These reductions would also contribute

beneficially to regional air quality problems

attributable largely to sources outside the park,

such as visibility, ozone, and acid precipitation,

although the degree would be too small to

detect. Alternative B would result in minor

increases in emissions compared to the No

Action Alternative. No impairment to park air

quality would result from implementing

Alternative B.

Impacts of Alternative C: Collaborative

Management (Preferred)

Analysis - As with the other alternatives, the

primary impact to air quality on the Schoodic

Peninsula from the preferred alternative would

be from mobile sources. However, as with No

Action, the impacts relative to conditions during

the time the base was occupied by the U.S.

Navy, even in 2001 when many functions and

staff had already been closed out, would be relatively beneficial for air quality. 

Alternative C would result in about 60 NPS and

other staff working at what is now the base and

about 31,500 annual program participants (see

Table 1, page 11). As with other alternatives,

most of the vehicle trips associated with 

program participants would take place during

July– September. Although they would not be

evenly dispersed throughout the year, it is 

estimated that about 170,000 vehicle trips would

take place on the Schoodic Loop Road each

year by 2015. These trips would add about 2.68

tons of hydrocarbons, 23.9 tons of carbon
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 113

monoxide, and 1.83 tons of nitrogen oxides each

year, or 36% fewer emissions than the 2001 base

year, and between 8.7 and 10.3% greater than

No Action. This is a major local benefit to air

quality compared to the 2001 base year, and a

minor to moderate localized, adverse impact

compared to No Action. 

As for stationary sources, with 60 staff and

31,500 program participants there would be

about a 30% decrease in the need for heating

from boilers. Even greater decreases are likely

because fewer buildings would be occupied 

during the colder months of the year. A 30%

decrease could approach a major localized

(base-specific), and negligible or minor regionwide (southern end of the peninsula) benefit in

air quality.

As for indoor air quality, radon tests indicate

mitigation systems installed in buildings 84,

184–186, and 191 have been successful. All of

these buildings would be used for staff or 

program housing in this alternative. Asbestos

has been removed from buildings 39, 138, and

148 prior to turning the base over to NPS.

While building 138 may be removed, the buildings 39 and 148 would be used for classrooms,

labs, office, or similar uses. Twenty-two additional buildings which have less than 1%

asbestos in them were not remediated by the

U.S. Navy. All of those in this group used in No

Action would also be used by NPS in the 

preferred alternative. In addition, buildings 3,

39, 105, 148, and 184–191 would definitely be

occupied. Others of this group, including buildings 138 and 165, may be used as well. A negligible risk to human health may exist in occupying some of these buildings, particularly if

asbestos is contained in the venting systems.

This risk is slightly greater in Alternative C than

No Action or Alternative B, because more buildings would be occupied. 

Cumulative Impacts - A decrease in traffic and

the use of boilers at Schoodic would contribute

negligible beneficial impacts to those already

ongoing and expected to continue with regards

to visibility, ozone, acid precipitation, and mercury concentrations in the atmosphere in the

region. The extent of the reductions would be

similar, but not quite as great, as under the No

Action Alternative (please see No Action above

for more information) or Alternative B. The

benefits would be too small to measure regionally.

Conclusions - Because this alternative would

result in fewer vehicles and a less intensive use

of the base than during the base year of 2001, air

quality emissions associated with commuter

traffic and on-base heating would be reduced.

The reduction could be a major localized benefit compared to 2001 conditions, but would be

negligible regionally. The use of bikes or buses

could result in further negligible to minor benefits. These reductions would also contribute

beneficially to regional air quality problems

attributable largely to sources outside the park,

such as visibility, ozone and acid precipitation,

although the degree would be too small to

detect. Alternative C would result in minor to

moderate increases in emissions compared to

the No Action alternative. No impairment to

park air quality would result from implementing

Alternative C.

WATER RESOURCES

Impacts Common to All Alternatives. 

The degree of impact to water resources would

change with each alternative. There are no

impacts shared by all alternatives.

Impacts of Alternative A: No Action

Analysis - The well, water treatment facility,

and wastewater treatment capacity at the base

are all designed to accommodate between 100

and 500 people (NSGA 2000). In 1997, the base

employed about 500 military and civilian 

personnel. By 2001, this had declined to about

350 people. About 30,000 gallon per day (gpd)

of treated wastewater and 25,000 gallons per

day of sludge were discharged on average during

2001. 

Implementing the No Action alternative would

result in 5-25 people on the base at any one time

(5 during the winter months, 25 during the

summer). This is a 93-98% reduction in the use

of the water-related facilities. Although it may

make economic sense to continue to treat water
114 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

in batches using existing technology and facilities, it may be cheaper and more efficient to

close the wastewater treatment facility and

install a simple septic system. Regardless of

whether NPS continues to operate both the

water and wastewater treatment facilities as they

are now, or install a simple septic system, the

treated effluent, which is now discharged into

Arey Cove between the east coast of Big Moose

Island and the west shore of Little Moose

Island, would be significantly reduced. A 

concomitant beneficial impact of unknown

magnitude to the water quality of Arey Cove

would follow. Given that the base discharged

between 30,000 and 45,000 gallons per day (as

much as 16 million gallons per year) of highly

organic material into the cove for several years,

the impact could have been a moderate or even

major one to the cove's water quality. The 

benefit of reducing or eliminating the discharge

could likewise be moderate or major.

The well supplying the base produces 100 gpm.

Under the No Action Alternative, only 5–25

people would occupy the navy base at any given

time. This is far less than even under the 2001

scenario for a downsized navy base. Impacts to

the groundwater supply as a result would be

beneficial, as although this well appears to be

very productive, groundwater yields in the

region are usually much lower. The extent of

this benefit is unknown, but likely only negligible or minor compared to the volume of

groundwater in the aquifer. 

The Schoodic Peninsula has few streams and no

defined hydrologic sub-basins. Frazer Creek

drains year-round into Mosquito Harbor at the

entrance to the park on Schoodic, but no perennial surface streams exist on Big Moose Island.

Seeps, springs, and artesian springs are present

on Big Moose Island, and contribute to the wet

forests in some parts of the property. 

Impacts to Frazer Creek or to the springs on the

peninsula are unlikely from visitors or program

participants under the No Action Alternative.

The extent of such an impact is unknown; 

however, it is expected to be negligible. This is

because the vast majority of visitors to the park

engage in sightseeing from their cars, rather

than hiking into the forests, particularly if no

trails exist (Manning et al. 2002). Despite navy

personnel's use of the trails extending from the

base, the impact to water elements in the study

area from such activity are negligible. This is

expected to continue even if staff or program

participants visit sensitive areas since so few

programs would take place at Schoodic under

the No Action Alternative.

Cumulative Impacts - Examples of cumulative

impacts on water resources in the study area

would be those impacts visitors already exert on

Frazer Creek, or outside influences on Arey

Cove, the base well supply, or wastewater treatment facilities. No outside influences on these

localized water resources are known; some

loose soil or grease, oil, or petroleum products

from cars crossing into the park or parked at the

Frazer Creek parking lot may wash into Frazer

Creek during rainstorms or spring snowmelt.

These impacts have not been monitored or

measured, but are assumed to be negligible.

Conclusions - Reductions in the number of

people using base infrastructure, such as drinking water and wastewater treatment, resulting

from the implementation of the No Action

Alternative, is expected to have a negligible to

minor beneficial impact to groundwater supplies, and an unknown, but possibly moderate

benefit to water quality in Arey Cove.

Negligible to minor impacts to springs, seeps, or

to Frazer Creek are possible from erosion of

soils or petroleum products from vehicles. No

impairment to any water resource feature in the

study area would likely occur.

Impacts of Alternative B: National Park Service

Management

Analysis - Implementing Alternative B would

result in 30 staff using the base during the bulk

of the year, and as many as 150 additional 

program participants/day during the summer

months. This is nearly 60% fewer people on

base, even when the Schoodic Education and

Research Center is at full capacity, and a 90%

decrease during the winter months. This averages out to about 80–85% less well water or

wastewater treatment required than during 2001

under the U.S. Navy's annual operation of the

base. Discharge of treated wastewater to Arey

Cove will be reduced by the same 80-85%. As
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 115

noted above under No Action, the base 

discharged between 30,000 and 45,000 gallons

per day (as much as 16 million gallons per year)

of highly organic material into the cove for 

several years. The impact of such a practice on

the water quality in the cove is unknown, but

could have been moderate or even major. The

benefit of reducing the discharge by 80–85%

could likewise be moderate or major. The 

volume of wastewater discharged to Arey Cove

under Alternative B would be on average 15%

higher than under the No Action Alternative, an

unknown, but possibly moderate adverse impact

on water quality in the cove.

Under the No Action Alternative, only 5–25

people would occupy the base at any given time.

Implementing Alternative B would increase this

to as many as 180 people, a six-fold increase in

demand for well water. Compared to No Action,

this increase could have an adverse impact on

the supply of groundwater. Given that yields

have been high even when the base was occupied by 500 people, the extent of this impact is

expected to be negligible or minor compared to

the apparent volume of groundwater in the

aquifer. 

Impacts to Frazer Creek or to the springs on the

peninsula from visitors or program participants

are more likely under this alternative than No

Action. The extent of such an impact is

unknown, and is dependent in large part upon

how accessible these features become to visitors.

Water quality could experience some increase in

turbidity as a result of visitors hiking in the area

or upslope of seeps and springs. If NPS monitors these water features and stops field trips or

closes off areas when impacts are noticeable, it

will prevent them from becoming more than

negligible. If this is not the case, the impact of

many hikers or program participants on water

quality in these springs could be minor or even

moderate compared to the No Action

Alternative. 

Cumulative Impacts - Cumulative impacts

would be the same as for the No Action

Alternative. 

Conclusions - Reductions in the number of

people using base infrastructure compared to

when the U.S. Navy occupied the base would

have benefits for water quality in Arey Cove and

for groundwater supplies. However, this alternative would result in adverse impacts to these

resources compared to the No Action

Alternative. The extent of these impacts is

unknown, but could be a moderate impact to

Arey Cove water quality and a negligible to

minor impact to groundwater resources.

Negligible to minor impacts to springs, seeps, or

to Frazer Creek are possible from erosion of

soils or petroleum products from vehicles. No

impairment to any water resource feature in the

study area would occur.

Impacts of Alternative C: Collaborative

Management (Preferred)

Analysis - Implementing Alternative C would

result in 60 staff using the base during the bulk

of the year, and as many as 350 additional 

program participants/day during the summer

months. This is about 15% more people on the

base than during 2001 (but 20% fewer than

when the base was at full operation in 1998)

during three months of the year, and 80% fewer

during the remainder of the year. This averages

out to about 55% less well water or wastewater

treatment required than during 2001 under the

U.S. Navy's annual operation of the base.

Discharge of treated wastewater to Arey Cove

will be reduced by the same 55%. As noted

above under No Action, the base discharged

between 30,000 and 45,000 gallons per day (as

much as 16 million gallons per year) of highly

organic material into the cove for several years.

The impact of such a practice on the water quality in the cove is unknown, but could have been

moderate or even major. The benefit of reducing the discharge by 55% compared to 2001 

conditions could be minor or moderate. The

volume of wastewater discharged to Arey Cove

under Alternative C would be on average 40%

higher than under the No Action Alternative, an

unknown, but possibly moderate to major

adverse impact on water quality in the cove.

Under the No Action Alternative, only 5–25

people would occupy the base at any given time.

Implementing Alternative C would increase this

to as many as 410 people, a 15-fold increase in

demand for well water. Compared to No

Action, this increase could have an adverse

impact on the supply of groundwater. Given
116 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

that yields have been high even when the base

was occupied by 500 people, the extent of this

impact is expected to be negligible or minor

compared to the volume of groundwater in the

aquifer.

Impacts to Frazer Creek or to the springs on the

peninsula from visitors or program participants

are much more likely under this alternative than

No Action. The extent of such an impact is

unknown, and is dependent upon the accessibility of these features to program participants and

visitors, and the degree of control NPS exerts

on its partners. Because water features are 

popular, water quality could experience some

increase in turbidity as a result of visitors hiking

in the area or upslope of seeps and springs. If

NPS monitors these water features and stops

field trips or closes off areas when impacts are

noticeable, it will prevent them from becoming

more than negligible. If this is not the case, the

impact of many hikers or program participants

to water quality in these springs could be 

moderate or even major compared to the No

Action Alternative. 

Cumulative Impacts - Cumulative impacts

would be the same as for the No Action

Alternative. 

Conclusions - Reductions in the annual 

number of people using base infrastructure

compared to when the U.S. Navy occupied the

base would have benefits for water quality in

Arey Cove and for groundwater supplies.

However, this alternative would result in

adverse impacts to these resources compared to

the No Action Alternative. The extent of these

impacts is unknown, but could be a moderate or

major impact to Arey Cove and negligible to

minor impact to groundwater resources.

Negligible to minor impacts to springs, seeps, or

to Frazer Creek are possible from erosion of

soils or petroleum products from vehicles. No

impairment to any water resource feature in the

study area would occur.

SOILS

Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Human activities, such as hiking, fishing, sightseeing, etc., can all have an impact on soil. The

impacts can be numerous, and include loss of

the surface organic layers, compaction, reduction in porosity and infiltration rates, and

increases in erosion (Cole and Landres 1995).

These types of impacts occur to a greater degree

where human use is more evident, such as along

trails. While NPS builds and maintains its trails

to certain standards, social trails are undesignated paths created by persistent visitor use.

Many of these social trails exist on Little Moose

Island, and all alternatives include their revegetation. Doing so would stabilize a small amount

of soil, perhaps one to two acres, that is now

actively eroding, a minor localized benefit. All

alternatives also include the creation of an additional 0.75 mile of trail on Little Moose Island, a

negligible to minor adverse impact to soils on

the island. All alternatives also include controlling visitor use in critical habitats to protect

resources. These restrictions may reduce soil

erosion, both on and off trails, a positive impact

of unknown magnitude.

Impacts of Alternative A: No Action

Analysis - Soils would be affected outside of

the former navy base property primarily by foot

traffic. Since most of the visitor destinations or

scenic pull-offs are paved or on rock, they

would not be subject to erosion. However, all

of the trails between Schoodic Head and the

shoreline or from the base to the coast slope

downward. In addition, visitors have created

social trails on Little Moose Island and on the

former navy base in the vicinity of the Sundew

Trail, which leads from the base to a rocky

intertidal coastline on the west side of Big

Moose Island. The slope from Schoodic Head

is quite steep, and a recent survey of visitors to

the peninsula indicated the majority of hikers

find the degree of environmental damage on

those trails, including soil loss, to be a minor or

moderate problem.

About 20–25% of visitors to the Schoodic

District surveyed recently by NPS (NPS 2001,
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 117

NPS 2002) indicated that they hiked with more

than 80% of those reporting using trails originating on Schoodic Head. This same survey

asked the hikers two questions about environmental impact they saw. Using a series of five

photos illustrating increasingly severe impacts,

such as erosion, widening, and loss of vegetation, they first asked which photo showed the

highest level of environmental impact NPS

should allow on trails. Nearly half picked photo

2, and another quarter picked photo 3. They

also asked which level of impact they typically

saw on Schoodic trails during the day they were

contacted for the study. Nearly 60% chose

photo 2. This means many visitors, and perhaps

a majority of them, find impacts to soils and

vegetation on Schoodic's trails to already be at

the limit of acceptability. 

While this alternative could also result in some

impacts from program participants to soils at

existing park facilities and trails, it is likely to be

comparatively less than under 2001 conditions.

This is because the number of people on the

base will be significantly reduced over 2001 

conditions, and impacts associated with their

use of trails leading from the base to the coast,

or social trails on and off the base, will also be

reduced. This alternative would add about

1,800 program participants and staff to the

current visitation (Table 1, page 11). This is

about 3% more visitors than if the base was not

used for educational purposes, with resulting

negligible additional impact to soils along trails

possible. However, visitor surveys indicate

nearly 45% of base personnel used the park

facilities (roads, trails, picnic areas, etc.) several

times a month to several times a week, and of

those 40–50% walked, hiked, or jogged on park

trails. Assuming this sample (103 participants)

is valid for all base personnel, base closure

would remove about 70–75 people from regular

use of the trails. Alternative A would add a

maximum of 20 program participants per day,

and many may not use the trails at all. Assuming

existing 20–25% use of trails by visitors, 4–5

program participants on average might use the

trails during summer months. This is an 85–90%

decrease in use from 2001 conditions, with 

possible minor benefits to soils along these

trails.

This alternative is also likely to result in a 

comparative decrease in impact to soil on the

Sundew Trail, again because the number of

people on the base will be significantly reduced

over 2001 conditions, and impacts associated

with their use of trails leading from the base to

the coast, or social trails on the base between

buildings, will also be reduced. During the

period of time the base was used by the U.S.

Navy, 350–500 personnel had access to these

trails, and a large portion (probably more than

the 45% using park trails) may have used them

for exercise or sightseeing (Manning et al.).

Alternative A would result in only 20 people per

day on the base maximum, and simply from a

human use standpoint, a possibly large-scale

reduction in the use of these trails. The present

condition of the trails would deteriorate more

slowly, leading to a minor positive impact relative to the continuation of the U.S. Navy's use

of the base. 

The reduced use of the base may have similar

benefits for other base soils as well, particularly

if base personnel used some areas for exercise

or moving between buildings, resulting in soil

compaction or erosion. The extent of these

impacts is unknown, but likely to be negligible.

The No Action Alternative would not result in

the removal of any of the buildings on the base

or the restoration of vegetation. Therefore,

none of the 30 acres already cleared to build the

base would be revegetated (i.e., no change

would take place from 2001 conditions as it

would in other alternatives). 

Activities associated with fuel storage or refueling, vehicle maintenance, or the storage or use

of hazardous chemicals or hazardous wastes

would be significantly reduced or even eliminated under NPS ownership. Therefore, the

potential for soil contamination would also be

eliminated or reduced. This is a minor or 

moderate localized benefit of the No Action

Alternative compared to the 2001 base year, and

a negligible to minor benefit to soils in the study

area.

Cumulative Impacts - Soils have historically

been disturbed or removed to accommodate day

use at Schoodic, and to build trails, roads, and

buildings, including those at the base. The trails
118 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

from Schoodic Head include one that is a part

of a road constructed in the 1880s; therefore

even early vehicle traffic has contributed to soil

loss in the study area. In addition, because

most of the drainages in the area are short and

steep and soils are thin, natural erosion occurs

during rainstorms or snowmelt. 

Visitation would continue to increase slowly

over the 10–15-year time frame of the plan by

about 1% per year. Over 15 years, this could

mean an increase in use of trails and park facilities of about 15%, with resulting adverse

impacts to soils, particularly on existing trails in

the park between Schoodic Head and the coast.

Since erosion of trails is already considered a

moderate impact by about half the visitors to

the peninsula now, an increase in use with no

other changes would be likely to worsen this

perception. Either more visitors would see the

impact as moderate, or some portion would now

view it as a major problem for soils and vegetation.

Conclusions - Increases in visitation to the

peninsula unrelated to the reuse of the base

would add impacts to ongoing erosion of some

trails in the study area, and increase impacts

from moderate to major. These trails have been

used historically as roads in some cases, and

have been available to hikers for decades,

resulting in fairly serious losses of soils from

erosion. These losses would be somewhat mitigated by the reductions in use attributable to

base closure by the U.S. Navy, but worsened

slightly by program participant use. These latter

two factors could result in a net minor positive

impact on soils at park trails. Relative reductions in the use of trails on the base compared

to 2001 conditions could bring minor benefits to

soils along these trails as well. A minor to 

moderate localized benefit to soils from reductions in fuel storage, refueling, and the storage

and use of hazardous materials relative to 2001

conditions is also likely. No impairment to soils

in the study area would occur.

Impacts of Alternative B: National Park Service

Management

Analysis - Implementing Alternative B could

result in noticeable additional localized impacts

on existing trails or at locations where visitors

are most likely to stop compared to both existing conditions in 2001 and to the No Action

Alternative. Trails leading from the base to the

shore, and trails between Schoodic Head and

the coast, would both be attractive to program

participants seeking to learn about the natural

resources of the area or to experience the natural quiet and scenery. The impacts of program

use on existing trails are not expected to be

more than negligible or minor compared to No

Action, but may increase the overall degree of

localized impact ongoing now from moderate to

major. The impact of trail use overall to soils in

the study area is negligible. 

Programs may include hiking off the trails,

which in some cases could result in the erosion

of soils, particularly on steep or sparsely vegetated slopes. Impacts to soils from this activity

are not expected to be more than negligible,

particularly since hikes would be led by park

staff who would monitor for resource damage. 

The social trails that lead from the base to the

shoreline would be consolidated into one or

two, and linked to existing trails. Soils on

unused trails would then be restored and

replanted. The Sundew Trail would be

improved to NPS standards, reducing erosion

compared to that on the more random series of

trails leading from the former navy base.

Erosion from trails as a result of this consolidation and adherence to standards could result in

minor to moderate reductions compared to the

No Action Alternative. Overall, the effects of

more intensive use of the existing park trails,

and consolidation and restoration of trails leading from the base, may nearly cancel each other

out, resulting in negligible increases or

decreases in erosion from trails compared to the

No Action Alternative.

Alternative B would result in the removal of 10

buildings on the base and the revegetation of

about 40 acres of disturbed landscape. This is

an approximate 40–50% improvement over No

Action, and a major localized benefit to soils on

the base. It is a negligible to minor benefit to

soils over the entire study area. 

As under No Action, activities associated with

fuel storage or refueling, vehicle maintenance,

or the storage or use of hazardous chemicals or

hazardous wastes would be significantly
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 119

reduced or even eliminated under NPS ownership. Therefore, the potential for soil contamination would also be eliminated or reduced.

This is a minor to moderate localized benefit of

this alternative, compared to the 2001 base year,

but is the same as the No Action Alternative.

Cumulative Impacts - Cumulative impacts

under this alternative would be the same as for

No Action.

Conclusions - Increases in erosion on trails

associated with more intensive use would be

partially or fully offset by removing some trails,

and rehabilitating the remainder. Negligible

beneficial or adverse impacts to soil from erosion on trails relative to No Action are possible.

Between 40% and 50% of soil removed to build

at the base would be restored, a major localized

benefit to base soils. Spills of fuels and other

contaminants would be reduced from 2001 

conditions, a minor to moderate localized benefit to soils at the base, but impacts would be neither beneficial nor adverse compared to No

Action. 

No impairment to park soils would occur.

Impacts of Alternative C: Collaborative

Management (Preferred)

Analysis - Implementing Alternative C is likely

to result in larger increases in trail use, as well

as hiking through the forests or other vegetation, compared to all other alternatives. Trails

leading from the base to the shore, and trails

between Schoodic Head and the coast, would be

attractive to program participants seeking to

learn about the natural resources of the area or

to experience the natural quiet and scenery.

Erosion on these trails is already considered a

problem by many visitors. The impacts of

adding program use on existing trails are not

expected to be more than minor compared to

No Action, but may increase the overall degree

of localized impact ongoing now from minor or

moderate to moderate or major. The impact of

trail use to soils in the study area is negligible or

minor. 

Hiking off the trails may increase without strict

NPS oversight of programming, which could

result in the erosion of soils on steep or sparsely

vegetated slopes. Impacts to soils in the area

(and not on trails) could range from negligible

to minor before park staff are aware that 

damage is occurring and corrective measures are

required. 

Adherence to trail standards could result in

minor to moderate reductions compared to the

No Action Alternative. Overall, the effect of

more intensive use of the existing park trails,

and consolidation and revegetation of trails

leading from the base may nearly cancel each

other out, resulting in negligible to minor

increases in erosion from trails compared to the

No Action Alternative.

Alternative C would result in the removal of 10

buildings on the base and the accompanying

revegetation of about 16 acres of disturbed

soils. This is an approximate 15–20% improvement over No Action, and a moderate localized

benefit to soils on the base. It remains a negligible benefit to soils over the entire study area. 

As under No Action, activities associated with

fuel storage or refueling, vehicle maintenance,

or the storage or use of hazardous chemicals or

hazardous wastes would be significantly

reduced or even eliminated under National Park

Service ownership. Therefore, the potential for

soil contamination would also be eliminated or

reduced. This is a minor to moderate localized

benefit of this alternative compared to the 2001

base year, but has no impacts, positive or negative, compared to No Action.

Cumulative Impacts - Cumulative impacts

under this alternative would be the same as for

No Action.

Conclusions - Increases in erosion on trails

associated with more intensive use would be

partially offset by removing some trails,

although minor adverse impacts from erosion

related to increased program participant use

compared to No Action are likely. Between 15%

and 20% of soil removed to build at the base

would be restored, a moderate localized benefit

to base soils. Spills of fuels and other contaminants would be reduced from 2001 conditions, a

minor to moderate localized benefit to soils at

the base, but impacts would be neither beneficial nor adverse compared to No Action. No

impairment to park soils would occur.
120 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

VEGETATION

Impacts Common to All Alternatives

All alternatives include the inventorying and

monitoring of natural and cultural resources,

and the use of this information along with studies to determine acceptable visitation over time.

They also all include possible controls on visitor

use in important vegetative communities to 

protect those resources from the impacts of visitors. These measures may include signs, information packets, the requirement for permits to

enter, or the partial or complete closure of areas

to visitation. Candidates for the special application of protective measures and the protected

natural area subzone include the Jack Pine

Woodlands, the western side of Little Moose

Island where rare plants grow, and wetlands.

These measures could dramatically improve

conditions at some of these communities, 

particularly on Little Moose Island. For others,

where conditions are relatively undisturbed,

controlling or preventing future human disturbance might result in minor to moderate localized benefits for vegetation. 

In addition, regardless of the alternative, NPS

will revegetate existing social trails on Little

Moose Island, and create a 0.75-mile trail to

allow the public access without further degrading the vegetation that exists on the island.

Little Moose Island hosts two species of state

listed rare plants and a "Rare or Exemplary

Natural Community" (i.e., Maritime Shrubland).

The fragile vegetation is threatened with loss on

some parts of the island from trampling by visitors because there is not a designated trail.

Creating a clearly marked trail and blocking off

and restoring existing social trails on the island

could have a major local beneficial impact to the

patches of rare plants and coastal headland 

vegetative community on Little Moose Island.

NPS will survey the trail route to ensure no rare

plants would be adversely affected; however,

there may be some impacts while making trail

improvements. This is a negligible impact to

vegetation in the study area.

All alternatives also include the application of

general park policies to control invasive plant

species and to encourage the growth of native

species where it is appropriate or practical. At

this time, none of the 75 species of non-native

plants in the study area are considered common

or aggressive enough to pose a significant threat

to native plants species or plant communities

(Mittlehauser et al. 1995). These policies therefore have no impact on vegetation to date.

However, NPS monitors for aggressive species,

such as purple loosestrife, and monitoring and

controlling it may have some small benefit in the

future for the freshwater wetlands at Schoodic.

All alternatives include a proposed conservation

easement on all or part of the 1,600-acre 

privately owned tract between the Schoodic

District's northern boundary and State Route

186 in Winter Harbor. A conservation easement

could prohibit or limit the development of this

land. This could be a minor to major benefit to

forest vegetation on the peninsula depending on

the future use of the property without park 

protection. 

All alternatives also involve the removal of some

unused structures in the study area, such as

perimeter fencing. Revegetation of these few

acres would provide a negligible benefit to vegetation in the study area, but could provide a

minor or even moderate benefit to vegetation

locally. 

Impacts of Alternative A: No Action

Analysis - Visitation would continue to increase

slowly over the 10–15 year time frame of the

plan by about 1% per year. Over 15 years, this

could mean an increase in use of trails and park

facilities of about 15%, with resulting adverse

impacts to vegetation, particularly on existing

trails in the park between Schoodic Head and

the coast. These impacts would result in part

from crushing, shearing, and uprooting vegetation, as well as soil compaction, reduced infiltration rates, and erosion associated with foot

traffic. All of these adversely affect the germination, establishment, growth, and reproduction

of plants. Since impacts to trails are already

considered a minor to moderate impact by

about half the visitors to the peninsula now, an

increase in use with no other changes would

likely worsen this perception. Either more visitors would see the impact as moderate, or some

portion would now view it as a major problem

for soils and vegetation. 
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 121

While this alternative could result in some

impacts from program participants to vegetation

at existing park facilities (including trails leading from Schoodic Head), it is likely to be comparatively less than under 2001 conditions. This

is because the number of people on the base will

be significantly reduced over 2001 conditions,

and impacts associated with their use of trails

leading from the base to the coast, or pathways

(social trails) on the base between buildings will

also be reduced. This alternative would add

about 1,800 annual program participants and

staff to the existing visitation. This is about 3%

more visitors than if the base was not used for

educational purposes, with resulting negligible

additional impact to vegetation along trails 

possible. However, visitor surveys indicate

nearly 45% of base personnel used the park

facilities (roads, trails, picnic areas, etc.) several

times a month to several times a week, and of

those 40–50% walked, hiked, or jogged on park

trails. Assuming this sample (103 participants)

is valid for all base personnel, base closure

would remove about 70–75 people from regular

use of the trails. Alternative A would add a

maximum of 20 program participants per day,

and many may not use the trails at all. Assuming

existing 20–25% use of trails by visitors, 4–5

program participants on average might use the

trails during summer months. This is an 85–90%

decrease in use from 2001 conditions, with 

possible moderate benefits to vegetation along

these trails.

Perhaps the most important benefit to vegetation will be the reduced use of the 1-mile

Sundew Trail and social trails between the base

and the coastline. These trails lie on the westerly side of Big Moose Island through coniferous forest and spray zone vegetation on park

property. During the period of time the base

was used by the U.S. Navy, 350–500 personnel

had access to these trails. Although park visitors could also use the Sundew Trail, apparently

not many were aware of it and visitor use was

relatively rare (NPS staff, personal communication, October 2002). Under Alternative A, visitor use of the former base is expected to be relatively low, and simply from a human use standpoint, this change could result in a reduction in

the use of these particular trails compared to

2001 conditions. Although it is unknown

whether the trails received extensive use, or

whether reducing use would restore vegetation

they provide access to a fragile natural area

where human use should be limited. Adopting

Alternative A would provide moderate benefits.

The relative reduction in use of the base may

have benefits for other vegetation as well, allowing native plants to become reestablished in

areas used for exercise and for moving between

buildings. However, if these areas are not monitored, non-native weedy vegetation could grow

as well. The extent of these impacts is

unknown, but likely to be negligible.

Vegetation has been lost as a result of building

on the base, and no restoration of habitat is

planned for this alternative; i.e., impacts would

not change from existing conditions in this

regard.

Cumulative Impacts - Vegetation has historically been disturbed or removed to accommodate visitor use at Schoodic by building trails,

roads, parking lots, and restrooms. The trails

from Schoodic Head include one that is a part

of a road constructed in the 1880s; therefore,

even early vehicle traffic has contributed to loss

of vegetation in the study area. Ongoing visitor

use of these trails continues to result in some

loss of soils and vegetation. According to a

recent poll of visitors, nearly half found the loss

of soils and vegetation on these trails at least a

minor impact. Compared to existing vegetation

over the entire study area, these changes and

ongoing impacts have had a minor to moderate

adverse impact.

Conclusions - Identifying acceptable visitation

over time and providing information through

signs, brochures, and other means to protect

sensitive or rare vegetation from visitor use

could result in major localized benefits for vegetation compared to existing conditions on Little

Moose Island, and minor to moderate benefits

in other currently less disturbed vegetative 

communities. Creating a clearly marked trail

and blocking off and revegetating existing social

trails on the island could have additional major

local, beneficial impacts to the patches of rare

plants and coastal headland vegetative community on Little Moose Island. Continuing monitoring for invasive plants and the application of

existing park policies to their control may have
122 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

some small benefit in the future for the freshwater wetlands at Schoodic. Acquisition of a 

conservation easement on property to the north

of the park could provide a minor to major 

benefit to peninsula forests by preventing future

harvesting of trees. Removal of unused structures, such as perimeter fencing, could provide

a minor or even moderate benefit to vegetation

locally. 

Increases in visitation over the life of the plan

will increase impacts to vegetation along some

trails from moderate to major for a greater 

number of hikers. Program participants will

add some negligible use to Schoodic Head trails,

but reductions related to base closure could

result in overall relative moderate benefits to

vegetation along these trails compared to 2001

conditions. 

No change in the loss of vegetation associated

with buildings on the base would occur; 

however, the reduction in the use of the Sundew

and other trails originating on the base could

have local benefits of unknown magnitude to

vegetation along the trail routes. No impairment to park vegetation would occur if this

alternative were selected.

Impacts of Alternative B: National Park Service

Management

Analysis - As with No Action, visitation would

continue to increase slowly over the 10–15 year

time frame of the plan by about 1% per year.

Over 15 years, this could mean an increase in

use of trails and park facilities of about 15%,

with resulting adverse impacts to vegetation,

particularly on existing trails in the park

between Schoodic Head and the coast. These

impacts would result in part from crushing,

shearing, and uprooting vegetation, as well as

soil compaction, reduced infiltration rates, and

erosion associated with foot traffic. All of these

adversely affect the germination, establishment,

growth, and reproduction of plants. Since

impacts to trails are already considered a minor

to moderate impact by about half the visitors to

the peninsula now, an increase in use with no

other changes would likely worsen this perception. Either more visitors would see the impact

as minor or moderate, or some portion would

now view it as a major problem for soils and

vegetation. 

As with the No Action Alternative, while

Alternative B does add program participants to

the base who are likely to use park facilities,

including trails to and from Schoodic Head, it

may be that fewer of these program participants

would use these facilities than did navy personnel. Alternative B would bring about 13,500

annual program participants and staff to the

area, or about 150 per day. Assuming 25% of

them use park facilities, an average of 35-40 per

day would make regular use of the trails and

facilities. This is about half of what occurred

when the U.S. Navy operated the base.

Compared to No Action, this is an 85–90%

increase in use, with possible minor to moderate

localized impacts to vegetation along trails and

at other park facilities. However, trails leading

from the base to the shore, and trails between

Schoodic Head and the coast, would both be

attractive to program participants seeking to

learn about the natural resources of the area or

to experience the natural quiet and scenery.

Many more program participants than the average 25% of visitors to the area may use them,

resulting in more severe impacts to vegetation. 

As noted in the analysis of Alternative A, trail

use will be limited in fragile natural areas to

reduce impacts to vegetation.

Assuming restricted use, the application of NPS

standards, and the revegetation of social trails,

the impact of program use on the Sundew Trail

would be offset and no more than negligible.

However, since NPS standards are already

applied to trails leading from Schoodic Head,

directed use and an increase in use by 85–90%

or more compared to No Action could result in

moderate or even major localized adverse

impacts to the trails' vegetation. The impact of

trail use to vegetation in the entire study area is

negligible. 

The addition of programs and program participants to the area could also have adverse

impacts on vegetative communities on the

peninsula. Because these communities are

unusual, they make excellent areas of study for

those seeking to learn about the natural history

of the peninsula. Targeted use of these special

communities, such as jack pine, northern white

cedar seepage forest, or freshwater wetlands

could result in inadvertent trampling of the

understory or of rare plants themselves, as well

as soil erosion and resultant loss of vegetation.
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 123

The same is true for rare plant species, such as

some bryophytes or arctic-maritime species,

which occur sporadically on Big Moose Island

and in greater abundance on Little Moose

Island. Since no trails exist to most of these

communities, students may need to hike across

vegetated ground to access them, again resulting

in inadvertent trampling and destruction of the

understory. The extent of such an impact is

unknown, and could range from negligible to

moderate in intensity. Specific impacts would

depend on the frequency of use and vulnerability of the plants to trampling and soils to 

erosion. In general, plants that are either very

small or very large, grow flat or in dense tufts,

have tough or flexible leaves, grow rapidly or

produce many seeds, or are annuals are more

resistant to trampling (Cole and Landres 1995).

At low levels of disturbance, some vegetation

may actually increase in species diversity as well

as the complexity of vertical structure (by creating canopy openings, for example). However, at

moderate or higher levels of disturbance, vegetation at moderate height is often stripped, and

vulnerable ground cover destroyed. Biomass,

species diversity, and complexity of vertical

structure are all reduced. 

Alternative B would result in the removal of 10

buildings on the base and the revegetation of

about 40 acres of disturbed land. This is a

40–50% improvement over No Action, and a

major localized benefit to vegetation on the

base. It is a minor (1–10%) benefit to vegetation

over the entire 2,366-acre study area. 

Cumulative Impacts - Cumulative impacts

would be the same as for No Action. 

Conclusions - Impacts identified in the

"Conclusions" section above under No Action

and resulting from activities common to all

alternatives would apply to Alternative B as well.

These include benefits associated with identifying acceptable visitation over time, revegetating

existing social trails on Little Moose Island,

application of NPS policies regarding invasive

plants, possible acquisition of a conservation

easement on property to the north of the park,

and the removal of unused structures, such as

the perimeter fencing. Increases in visitation

over the life of the plan would remain the same,

resulting in the same impacts to vegetation along

park trails. 

Assuming similar use patterns by program 

participants as other visitors, trails to and from

Schoodic Head and elsewhere in the Schoodic

District would experience minor to moderate

localized impacts compared to No Action.

Directed program use could increase impacts to

moderate to major. Impacts to the Sundew Trail

could be offset to negligible by revegetating

social trails, applying trail building and maintenance standards, and limiting use.

The addition of programs and program participants to the area could also have adverse

impacts ranging from negligible to locally major

on vegetative communities on the peninsula

from students hiking through or to them for

learning purposes. A major localized benefit to

vegetation on the base from removing buildings

is likely. No impairment to park vegetation

would occur if this alternative were selected.

Impacts of Alternative C: Collaborative

Management (Preferred)

Analysis - As with No Action, visitation would

continue to increase slowly over the 10–15-year

time frame of the plan by about 1% per year.

Over 15 years, this could mean an increase in

use of trails and park facilities of about 15%,

with resulting adverse impacts to vegetation,

particularly on existing trails in the park

between Schoodic Head and the shoreline.

These impacts would result in part from crushing, shearing, and uprooting vegetation, as well

as soil compaction, reduced infiltration rates,

and erosion associated with foot traffic. All of

these adversely affect the germination, establishment, growth, and reproduction of plants.

Since impacts to trails are already considered a

minor to moderate impact by about half the 

visitors to the peninsula now, an increase in use

with no other changes would likely worsen this

perception. Either more visitors would see the

impact as minor or moderate, or some portion

would now view it as a major problem for soils

and vegetation. 

Alternative C would add an average of 350

program participants and staff per day.

Although this is similar to the numbers of navy

personnel occupying the base, it is likely that a

higher percentage of these participants would

use the trails and other park facilities.
124 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

Assuming only 20–25% use the facilities (similar

to other visitors and to 2001 base personnel),

75–85 program participants would regularly use

park trails. This is a 90+% increase over No

Action with associated minor to major localized

impacts to trail and other park facility vegetation. 

As noted in the analysis of Alternative B, trail

use will be limited in fragile natural areas to

reduce impacts to vegetation. 

Applying appropriate trail building and maintenance standards to the Sundew Trail could

reduce erosion and associated loss of vegetation. Assuming limited use, the application of

NPS standards, and the revegetation of social

trails, the impact of program use on the Sundew

Trail is likely to be negligible. However, since

NPS standards are already applied to trails leading from Schoodic Head, an increase of use by

more than 90% compared to No Action could

result in major adverse impacts to the trails'

soils and vegetation. Guided use may reduce

impacts to moderate, but mitigation in the form

of closures, replanting, erosion control, and

other actions would be required to reduce

impacts further. The impact of trail use to vegetation in the entire study area is negligible.

The addition of this many program participants

to the area could also have adverse impacts on

vegetative communities on the peninsula. While

the types of impacts described above in

Alternative B to vegetation, such as shearing,

trampling, and soil changes resulting in indirect

losses of vegetation, would remain the same, the

magnitude could increase. Again as in

Alternative B, the vegetation between the base

and these communities would be at risk.

Because the disturbance may be moderate,

decreases in biomass, vertical complexity, and

species diversity are possible. The degree of

impact is unknown. It could range from negligible to major, and depends on the susceptibility

of the vegetation itself and the degree of use.

Mitigation measures NPS might explore to

lessen impacts to this particular vegetation

include restricting access, or building a trail to

access plant communities that students particularly are interested in studying. While restricting access would reduce or eliminate the

impact, building a trail would require the

removal of some vegetation with resulting minor

adverse impacts. A trail would also be likely to

increase use of these sensitive areas by encouraging general visitor use of such a trail. It

would prevent further destruction of vegetation

from "cross-country" travel, however. Because

these impacts would be localized, there is no

threat of impairing park vegetation as a result of

implementing Alternative C.

Alternative C would result in the removal of 10

buildings on the base and the revegetation of

about 16 acres of disturbed land. This is an

approximate 15–20% improvement over No

Action, and a moderate localized benefit to vegetation on the base. It is a negligible benefit to

vegetation over the entire study area. 

Cumulative Impacts - Cumulative impacts

would be the same as for No Action. 

Conclusions - Impacts identified in the

"Conclusions" section above under No Action

and resulting from activities common to all

alternatives would apply to Alternative C as

well. These include benefits associated with

identifying acceptable visitation over time,

revegetating existing social trails on Little

Moose Island, application of NPS policies

regarding invasive plants, possible acquisition of

a conservation easement on property to the

north of the park, and the removal of unused

structures, such as the perimeter fencing.

Increases in visitation over the life of the plan

would remain the same, resulting in the same

impacts to vegetation along park trails.

Assuming similar use patterns by program 

participants as other visitors, trails to and from

Schoodic Head and elsewhere in the Schoodic

District would experience minor to major localized impacts compared to No Action. Directed

program use could increase impacts to major.

Mitigation, including closures, erosion control,

and replanting would reduce impacts. Impacts

to fragile areas like the Sundew Trail could be

offset to negligible by revegetating social trails,

applying trail building and maintenance standards, and limiting use.

Localized negligible to major impacts, depending on the susceptibility of the vegetation and
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 125

the degree of use, could result from program

participants accessing sensitive areas of the site,

so such use would be monitored and mitigated

as necessary.

No impairment to park vegetation would occur

if this alternative were selected.

COASTAL RESOURCES

Impacts Common to All Alternatives

The study area includes sensitive intertidal

areas, as well as additional brackish or saltwater

wetlands. Visitor use to these areas could

reduce biological diversity through trampling by

foot traffic, harvesting of intertidal organisms

for food, fish bait, aquariums, etc., and through

the removal of rocks and other materials such as

dead shells that serve as habitat for many invertebrates (Adessi 1995, Murray et al. 1999).

Despite a lack of quantitative data, these actions

are generally considered responsible for serious

declines in the biological diversity of rocky

intertidal organisms, particularly in high growth

areas, or areas where no restrictions, information, or protection for these organisms exists

(Murray et al. 1999). 

At this time, visitor use of any of these intertidal

areas is quite low; however, all alternatives

include the inventorying and monitoring of

natural resources, and the use of this information along with studies to determine acceptable

visitation over time. They also all include the

application of zoning and the control of visitor

use in fragile areas to protect resources in those

areas from the impacts of visitors. These measures may include signs, information packets, the

requirement for permits to enter, or the partial

or complete closure of areas to visitation. 

Inventorying or monitoring these sites to record

changes and take needed steps to prevent 

damage from overuse may be critical in maintaining them in their present state, and could

provide minor to moderate benefits in this

regard. 

Inventorying, monitoring, and possible restrictions may also benefit coastal wildlife in the

study area, particularly nesting seabirds. For

example, Schoodic Island has been designated a

state "Significant Wildlife Habitat" because it is

a critical nesting site for seabirds. It is particularly important as a nesting area for common

eiders, which occupy the island from May

through mid-July. A 1996 study (Mittelhauser et

al. 1996) recorded regular disturbances by visitors of nesting common eiders and gulls. The

presence of humans caused adults birds to flush

from the nest, leaving the eggs and chicks vulnerable to predation or cold weather and hatch

failure (Kuss et al. 1990). Researchers visited

the island at least twice during the preparation

of the 1996 study, and found 15 people traversing nesting habitat and flushing birds in one

case, and their own activities having the same

effect in another, despite restricting their

actions to the shoreline to minimize disturbance. Both times, gulls ate the unprotected

eggs and were able to kill many of the exposed

chicks. This phenomenon is supported by

earlier studies (Maine Department of Inland

Fisheries and Game 1974). Birdwatching and

human disturbance were identified as serious

threats to seabirds in the study area during nesting and may have already had moderate or even

major impacts to nesting success of seabirds on

Schoodic Island. Although Schoodic Island is

closed to pets during the nesting season, closing

the island to visitors, particularly between

March 15 and August 31, or posting informational signs during the nesting season could

result in moderate or major localized benefits

for common eiders and other nesting seabirds

on Schoodic Island.

In addition, regardless of the alternative, NPS

will revegetate existing social trails on Little

Moose Island, and create a 0.75-mile trail to

allow the public access without further degradation. Some of these social trails lie along the

tidal bar separating the island from Schoodic

Peninsula. Creating a clearly marked trail and

blocking off and revegetating existing social

trails could reduce impacts to coastal vegetation

on this intertidal area, with resulting moderate

localized benefits. 

Impacts of Alternative A: No Action

Analysis - The rocky intertidal areas that are

particularly species rich or pristine are accessed

by the Sundew Trail originating on the base

(NPS staff, personal communication, October

2002). When the navy base was active, the trail
126 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

was essentially unavailable to park visitors. The

undisturbed nature of the intertidal zone along

the west side of Big Moose Island indicates

human impacts have been minimal. This is very

likely to continue if the No Action Alternative is

selected, as even if the site is used by NPS for

educating the few program participants anticipated to use the base, they will be led by park

staff who will ensure impacts are minimized. As

with any NPS property, collecting will be prohibited unless a specific research permit is

issued.

Parking areas in the vicinity of the two estuarine

systems in the study area, at Frazer Point and in

the vicinity of West Pond, experience greater

visitation than the rocky intertidal areas

described above. The average number of cars

parked at the Frazer Point lot varies from 0 to

22 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 12:00

p.m. West Pond pull-off has an average of 0–4

cars. At low tide, visitors are able to cross over

to Pond Island, with possible impacts from

trampling to vegetation or fauna in the intertidal

area. However, casual observations indicate the

tidal bar connecting Big Moose Island and Pond

Island, the only spot where foot access is possible, does not appear to be experiencing noticeable effects. The majority of visitors to Pond

Island canoe across West Pond and land on the

beach on the southeastern side of the island. A

relatively recent study of several islands in the

park (Mittelhauser et al. 1996) concluded "visitation was infrequent and number of visitors

low" with "minimal amounts of trash" as 

evidence of human impact recorded. Recent

anecdotal observations support these conclusions, suggesting few people actually make it out

to the island, either by foot or canoe

(Mittelhauser et al. 2002). 

Mosquito Harbor, located near Frazer Point, is

mostly submerged during the tidal cycle,

although some of the shoreline is uncovered

during low tide. The shore is deep mud, and

some use for clamming or collecting marine

worms is possible. For the most part, visitors

keep to firmer sandy soils and rocky areas, or

fish off the dock near the outfall of the harbor. 

Under the No Action Alternative, the very small

number of staff and summer program participants at the base will add about 3% more 

people to the area than if no staff or programs

were located on site. Visitation would continue

to increase at about 1% per year, exerting a very

slow increase in impact on existing use at intertidal areas. To the extent that navy personnel

visited these areas when the base was fully

occupied, the impact of many fewer people on

base could be beneficial for coastal flora and

fauna. However, since the rocky intertidal area

accessible only by base personnel is in pristine

condition, it appears navy personnel had little

or no adverse impact on intertidal biota. In

addition, visitors only rarely seem to use the

gravel or mud flats at Frazer Creek or Pond

Island. Use of this coastline or any of the 

significant intertidal areas in the study area by

program participants would likewise be very

low impact, as participants would either be

guided or fully informed of restrictions.

Therefore only negligible differences in impact

to intertidal areas compared to existing conditions would be expected under this alternative.

An exception to this may be some slight

improvement in conditions in the tidal bar linking the peninsula to Little Moose Island. A

large percentage (40–45%) of navy base personnel indicated they used the park for hiking or

viewing nature. Although the survey did not

specifically address their use of Little Moose

Island, its rare plants and physical location near

the base may have made it an ideal candidate for

these activities. A reduction in the number of

people on the base may therefore result in

reduced use of and impact to coastal vegetation

in the area between the peninsula and Little

Moose Island. The degree of such a benefit is

unknown, but may be a minor or even moderate

one compared to 2001 conditions if use by base

personnel was intense. 

As described above under "Impacts Common to

All Alternatives," visitor use and resulting 

disturbance of nesting seabirds on Schoodic

Island is already having noticeable and possibly

serious impacts. If some of these visitors were

base personnel, closing the base and allowing

only a maximum of 20 program participants and

staff onto the site could offer relative benefits to

the birds nesting on Schoodic Island. The

degree of such a benefit is unknown, and

depends on the visitation to the island by base

personnel. Even if a few base personnel used

the island, the relative benefits of reducing this
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 127

use could be moderate or major for nesting

seabirds.

Cumulative Impact - Impacts to intertidal areas

in the region are similar to those described

above. In addition to impacts from human

trampling and collecting, they may experience

impact from oil spills, sewage outfalls, and

increased pollution. In some areas, the impact

is severe enough that local communities are

involved in educational programs for their citizens, such as the "tidal etiquette" program

recently created in Kennebunk, Maine (Feurt

2001). In light of impacts to intertidal areas not

under public protection, ensuring the protection

of those in the park may be particularly important.

The population of common eiders in Maine has

appeared to decline in recent years as the hunter

harvest has increased. In Maine, harvest of

waterfowl, including common eiders, has

increased from 3–4% in the 1960s to over 20%

in the mid-1980s and a recent high of 29% of the

population in 1996 (Maine Department of

Inland Fisheries and Wildlife 2001). Harvests in

Nova Scotia and New England have doubled in

recent years, and changes in the 1998 hunting

season to reduce the harvests were implemented

as a result. In 1999, Maine reduced its bag limit

of common eiders to a maximum of five,

required the use of steel shot to prevent lead

poisoning of waterfowl, and has used money

from the sale of waterfowl hunting stamps and

art prints to acquire and improve habitat.

Statewide over the last ten years (1990–2000),

the number of common eiders has averaged

41,800, with significantly fewer (36,722) in the

most recent five of those years.

Conclusions - Possible negligible to moderate

benefits to coastal vegetation lying between

Little Moose Island and the peninsula associated with controlled visitor use and restoring

existing social trails might result under any of

the alternatives. Inventorying, monitoring, and

applying visitor controls, when needed, to intertidal or other coastal resources, actions 

common to all alternatives, may prevent the

condition of these resources from deteriorating.

Currently, some intertidal areas, as well as

brackish mud and gravel flats, and sub-tidal

areas in the study area, are in relatively pristine

condition and appear to receive only very

limited visitor use. Increased use associated

with increased visitation over time and a small 

number of program participants at SERC are

not expected to result in more than negligible

adverse or beneficial changes to these resources,

with the exception of a possible minor or even

moderate benefit to coastal resources in the

tidal bar and brackish wetland between Little

Moose Island and the peninsula. Significant

statewide reductions in the common eider 

population have occurred recently; reductions

in use on Schoodic Island associated with base

closure, monitoring, and possible restriction

could offer negligible to major benefits locally,

and negligible to minor benefits to the state

population of common eiders or other seabirds.

No impairment to park coastal resources would

occur.

Impacts of Alternative B: National Park Service

Management

Analysis - Under Alternative B, about 18%

more people will be using the entire study area

than under the No Action Alternative.

Intertidal zones may well draw program participants, and groups of students or researchers

may be frequently visiting these sites. Those

sites closest to the base, such as Little Moose

Island and the rocky intertidal area accessed by

the Sundew Trail, may be most at risk. Impacts

would primarily be limited to those associated

with trampling, as collecting would not be

allowed under normal circumstances. However,

these can be serious, as described above under

“Impacts Common to All Alternatives.” The

benefits to coastal resources in the vicinity of

the tidal bar between Little Moose Island and

the peninsula attributable to reduced use under

Alternative A would either not be as apparent in

this alternative, or disappear altogether depending on the level of interest by program participants. Closing the area to unaccompanied visitors or students and limiting the number of

accompnied students, visitors, or researchers

allowed to visit the site would reduce impacts.

Program participants may also be more likely

than general visitors to explore and strike out

on their own to find interesting natural areas

farther from the base to study. The intertidal
128 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

areas surrounding Big Moose Island may be

tempting for some. Since most of the coastal

resources in the study area receive relatively

little use, directed program use could have relatively large impacts, ranging from minor to even

locally major compared to the No Action

Alternative. For example, whereas most visitors

do not cross a relatively deep area to access

Pond Island or walk out onto mud flats in

Mosquito Harbor during low tide, program 

participants may be more willing to venture out

into these zones. Although the mudflats, gravel

beaches, and rocky areas without tide pools are

likely to be able to withstand increased use

without noticeable impact, increased trampling

of vegetation on tidal bars to Little Moose

Island and Pond Island could have larger-scale

effects. Monitoring and applying restrictions if

needed will keep impacts to negligible or minor.

Little Moose Island receives quite a bit of use,

and, although the degree to which navy personnel used these resources is unknown, they likely

did not contribute to impacts. The types of

impacts this use is having are detailed above,

and include trampling of vegetation. The negligible to moderate benefits to Little Moose

Island with base closure would likely be offset

with increased program use of the entire area

under Alternative B. If students are allowed to

visit these areas without restrictions, education,

or guided use, the impacts could be readily

apparent (moderate) or even severe (major) in

some cases. Restrictions in particular could

reduce these impacts so they are slight (minor)

or nearly undetectable (negligible). 

If the Schoodic Education and Research Center

creates enough demand, it is possible that the

privately owned and operated ferry service

between Bar Harbor and the peninsula would be

expanded along with connections to the Island

Explorer bus system. No sites inside the park

are available to accommodate a ferry service.

However, creating the SERC may increase

demand for transportation between the main

part of the park on Mount Desert Island and the

peninsula enough that ferry service expansion

would occur. Although not solely a federal

action, the impacts are generally addressed in

this Environmental Impact Statement.

An expanded ferry service would use smaller

boats (less than 65 feet), as demand would not

support large ferries. A recent study looked at

both monohull and catamarans as options. This

study found that a summer seasonal ferry service offering 10–15 trips per day (combined

recreational and commuter traffic) would be

sustainable at levels of base use between

Transportation Alternatives 2 and 3 (U.S.

Department of Transportation 2002). All would

cross Frenchman Bay. This increase in boat

traffic in the bay may have some negligible

impacts to marine mammals, including from

engine noise and resulting interference in whale

and dolphin communications, collisions, leaks

of fuel from boat engines, and the disturbance

some wildlife experience from the presence of

humans or machines. Pelagic birds or birds

occupying shorelines along the ferry route

might also be adversely affected by the presence

of humans and noise, and by disruption of open

ocean feeding patterns. Wildlife, including

nesting or sensitive seabirds along the coast of

islands between Bar Harbor and Winter Harbor,

may abandon their nests as boats pass, leaving

chicks vulnerable to cold and predation.

Studies have found repeated interruptions of

feeding or nesting can result in reduced reproductive success (Burger 1995). Because

Schoodic Island lies to the east of the peninsula,

nesting birds on it would not be affected by ferries between Bar Harbor and Winter Harbor. 

Cumulative Impacts - In addition to the

impacts identified above for No Action, cumulative impacts for Alternative B would include

increased boat traffic in Frenchman Bay, and

increases in visitation to islands or other coastlines where wildlife feed, nest, or rest. The

shorelines the ferry route is most likely to affect

would be those along Bald Porcupine Island,

Stave Island, Jordan Island, Ironbound Island,

and Grindstone Neck. Expanded use of the

Island Explorer transit system would reduce

vehicular traffic.

Conclusions - The same benefits to coastal

resources on Little Moose Island from controlling visitor use, inventorying and monitoring,

and revegetating social trails as described in the

"Conclusions" section for Alternative A would

occur. Increased use of the intertidal areas by
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 129

students or researchers could result in moderate

or even major localized damage to areas considered pristine compared to the No Action

Alternative. Education, restrictions, monitoring,

and closures may be required to keep impacts

from becoming severe.

Benefits to coastal resources in the tidal bar and

brackish wetland between Little Moose Island

and the peninsula, or on Schoodic Island

derived from reductions in use in Alternative A

would be offset by increased program use. If

students are allowed to visit these areas without

restrictions, education, or guided use, the

impacts could be readily apparent (moderate) or

even severe (major) in some cases. Restrictions

in particular could reduce these impacts so they

are slight (minor) or nearly undetectable (negligible). However, impacts to common eiders

would be additive and adverse, rather than beneficial and mitigating. An expanded ferry and

transit service, if warranted, could have negligible impacts to marine mammals, or pelagic or

coastal wildlife from engine noise, collisions,

and the presence of humans. No impairment to

park coastal resources would occur. 

Impacts of Alternative C: Collaborative

Management (Preferred)

Analysis - Under Alternative C, nearly 50%

more people will be using the study area than

under the No Action Alternative, and use of the

base will increase 17–18-fold from 20 to 350

each day. As noted above in Alternative B,

because intertidal areas may be the focus of

classes or research conducted at the Schoodic

Education and Research Center, use would need

to be monitored or restricted to ensure impacts

to pristine resources are not adversely affected.

The chance of such an impact would increase

substantially under this alternative compared to

No Action. Coastal resources most at risk may

be those closest to the base, such as the rocky

intertidal area accessed by the Sundew Trail, and

Little Moose Island. 

The NPS could reduce the likelihood of extensive impacts by closing the area to unaccompanied visitors or students, and by limiting the

number of accompanied students, visitors, or

researchers allowed to visit the site.

Intertidal zones and other attractions farther

from the base, including West Pond and the

Frazer Creek/Mosquito Harbor mudflats, may

also be appealing areas for students to visit. For

those areas currently receiving little use,

directed program use of this magnitude could

have relatively large impacts, ranging from 

moderate to locally major compared to the No

Action Alternative. Although the mudflats,

gravel beaches, and rocky areas without tide

pools are likely to be able to withstand

increased use without noticeable impact,

increased trampling of vegetation on tidal bars

between Little Moose and Pond islands could

have larger-scale effects. Monitoring and applying restrictions if needed will keep impacts to

negligible or minor. 

As noted above, Schoodic Island and Little

Moose Island both receive quite a bit of use,

and although it is unknown to what degree navy

personnel used these resources, it is likely they

did contribute to use and associated impacts at

both locations. If students are allowed to visit

these areas without restrictions, education or

guided use, the impacts could be moderate or

even major in some cases. Restrictions in 

particular could reduce these impacts so they

are minor or negligible. 

The chances of economic success for a ferry are

considered highest in Alternative C. No separate study of ferry service for the number of

visitors expected under this alternative was 

conducted; however, it is likely that demand

would require an increase in the number of

ferries compared to Alternative B. In other

words, it is more likely that summer ferries

would make about 15 trips in this alternative,

rather than the 10 or so in Alternative B. This

increase in boat traffic in the bay may have

some negligible or minor impacts to marine

mammals, including from engine noise and

resulting interference in whale and dolphin

communications, collisions, leaks of fuel from

boat engines, and the disturbance some wildlife

experience from the presence of humans or

machines. Pelagic birds or birds occupying

shorelines along the ferry route might also be

adversely affected by the presence of humans

and noise, and by disruption of open ocean

feeding patterns. Wildlife, including nesting or

sensitive seabirds along the coast of islands
130 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

between Bar Harbor and Winter Harbor, may

abandon their nests as boats pass, leaving chicks

vulnerable to cold and predation. Because

Schoodic Island lies to the east of the peninsula,

nesting birds on it would not be affected by ferries between Bar Harbor and Winter Harbor. 

Cumulative Impacts - Cumulative impacts

would be the same as those reported for

Alternative B. 

Conclusions - The same benefits to coastal

resources on Little Moose Island from controlling visitor use, inventorying and monitoring,

and restoring social trails as described in the

"Conclusions" section for Alternative A would

occur. Increased use of the intertidal areas by

students or researchers could result in moderate

or even major localized damage to areas considered pristine compared to the No Action

Alternative. Education, restrictions, monitoring, and closures may be required to keep

impacts from becoming severe.

Benefits to coastal resources in the tidal bar and

brackish wetland between Little Moose Island

and the peninsula or on Schoodic Island derived

from reductions in use in Alternative A would

be offset by increased program use. If students

are allowed to visit these areas without restrictions, education, or guided use, the impacts

could be moderate or even major in some cases.

Major impacts are more likely than in

Alternative B. Restrictions in particular could

reduce these impacts so they are minor or

nearly negligible. However, impacts to common

eiders would be additive and adverse, rather

than beneficial and mitigating. An expanded

ferry and public transit system, if warranted,

could have negligible or minor impacts to

marine mammals, or pelagic or coastal wildlife

from engine noise, collisions, and the presence

of humans. Use of the Island Explorer transit

system would reduce vehicular traffic. No

impairment to park coastal resources would

occur. 

WILDLIFE

Impacts Common to All Alternatives

All alternatives include the inventorying and

monitoring of natural and cultural resources,

and the use of this information along with studies to determine acceptable visitation over time.

They also all include the application of zoning

and the control of visitor use in important

wildlife habitat to protect resources from the

impacts of visitors. These measures may include

signs, information packets, the requirement for

permits to enter, or the partial or complete 

closure of areas to visitation. Candidates for

the special application of protective measures

and the protected natural area subzone include

islands, wetlands, estuaries, intertidal zones,

and other critical habitat, including Maine's

"Rare or Exemplary Natural Communities,"

"Essential/Significant Wildlife Habitat," and

rare plant locations. These measures could dramatically improve conditions at some of these

communities, particularly on affected islands. 

For example, Schoodic and Rolling islands may

be occupied by bald eagles, which nest between

April and June (Maine Department of Inland

Fisheries and Game 1974). Bald eagles can be

quite sensitive to the presence of humans, and

can abandon their nests for hours in response to

humans in boats or on foot near their nests,

leaving eggs vulnerable to cold (Grubb et al.

1992). Flushing the nest can also adversely

affect adult eagles through energy loss, and

slow-moving boats, such as kayaks or canoes,

can disrupt eagle feeding. If noise or activity is

frequent, some eagles may abandon a nest for a

season or not return to it the following year

(Knight and Cole 1995). Although Schoodic

Island is closed to pets during the nesting 

season, closing the island to visitors, particularly during early and late spring, or posting

informational signs during the nesting season

could result in minor to major localized benefits

for nesting bald eagles.

All alternatives include the proposed acquisition

of a conservation easement on all or part of the

1,600-acre privately owned tract between the

Schoodic District's northern boundary and

State Route 186 in Winter Harbor. A conservation easement could restrict or limit develop-
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 131

ment. The location and relatively undisturbed

nature of this land make it an important migration corridor between forests to the north and

the Schoodic Peninsula for mammals found no

where else in the park. 

At least 41 species of mammals are present on

the Schoodic Peninsula. This includes several

larger species such as moose, bobcat, and fisher,

which are rare or absent elsewhere in the park.

Acquiring a conservation easement would help

continue to preserve this acreage as habitat for

wildlife and preserve high mammalian species

diversity and the presence of larger species on

the peninsula, a minor to major benefit depending on the planned use of the property without

NPS protection.

All alternatives also involve the removal of some

unused structures in the study area, such as the

perimeter fencing. Restoration of these few

acres would provide a negligible benefit to

wildlife in the study area. It is also possible that

wildlife now kept from accessing the base by the

fencing will either find habitat on the site, or be

disturbed by construction activities or the presence of human activity.

Impacts of Alternative A: No Action

Analysis - Visitation would continue to increase

slowly over the 10-15-year time frame of the

plan by about 1% per year. Over 15 years, this

could mean an increase in use of trails and park

facilities of about 15%, with resulting adverse

impacts to wildlife, particularly animals on or

near existing trails in the park between

Schoodic Head and the coast. These impacts

would result from the presence of humans,

noise, and habitat destruction associated with

foot traffic. Although this may have a negligible

or minor impact on wildlife in the vicinity of the

trails, compared to activities when the base was

in operation, the number of people in the study

area, and particularly on the base, would be significantly lower, even several years from the

time this alternative is implemented. This

reduction in use could offer benefits to wildlife

both on the base, and on park property nearest

the base. For example, use of the Sundew Trail,

Schoodic Head trails, Little Moose Island, and

perhaps Schoodic or Rolling islands might

decrease, with resulting positive impacts on

wildlife relative to 2001 conditions. Islands in

the study area may also act as refuges for other

species of birds whose populations in the area

of the park have fallen because of human disturbance, such as purple sandpipers. These species

could also benefit from base closure, although

the extent of such benefits is unknown.

Because few people live at the former base, most

of the buildings would be in layup and perimeter fencing would be removed, it is likely that

wildlife would experience a benefit relative to

2001 conditions through the addition of habitat

on base as well. Vegetation, some of it native,

would likely begin to take over unmaintained

parking areas, pathways, or other open areas,

and without the presence of park staff, wildlife

would occupy these areas. Upland bird and

smaller mammal species are the most likely

inhabitants. The extent of these impacts is

unknown, but likely to be negligible.

Cumulative Impacts - Some species of wildlife,

particularly birds or other migratory species,

have experienced adverse effects from human

activities, including the removal of habitat,

noise, pollution, and in some cases harvesting.

Neotropical bird species, for example, travel

thousands of miles along routes where human

development may have removed very large

blocks of resting or feeding habitat. Many

species have been suffering long-term declines

as a result (Famous 1999). The Schoodic

Peninsula, however, is relatively undisturbed.

In the study area, the primary human activities

and their related impacts have come from visitors to the park and base operations. With the

removal of military operations and personnel

from the base, a negligible to minor cumulative

positive impact to wildlife should occur. 

Bald eagles have been monitored in the park

since 1962. Productivity (eaglets fledged/nesting

pair) declined continuously from 1960 to 1975

and more than 50% of nesting territories in the

area of the park and Frenchman Bay were abandoned during this time. In the entire 15 year

period, only seven eaglets were successfully

fledged (Owne, Jr. and Hodgman 1989). A 

supplemental feeding program was initiated in

1985 to reestablish resident eagles in this area,

and productivities have dramatically improved
132 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

to exceed state-wide averages since then.

Productivity for the site in the years 1987–1992

equaled 0.812, whereas for the state, productivity was 0.762 eaglets/nesting pair. Increased

waterfront development in the Frenchman Bay

region, tour boats, and human disturbance of

nests are considered the most serious threats to

continued eagle nesting success in the study

area (Owen, Jr. and Hodgman 1989).

Conclusions - Identifying acceptable visitation

over time and providing information through

signs, brochures, permits, and controlled access

could bring major localized benefits for some

species, including the federally threatened bald

eagle. Acquisition of a conservation easement

on property to the north of Schoodic Unit could

provide a minor to major benefit to peninsula

wildlife by protecting a large block of forest

habitat used for migration to and from the study

area, especially by large mammals. Negligible to

minor impacts to wildlife from increased visitation may occur. A negligible to minor cumulative, positive impact from the reduction in

human activity on the base, the removal of fencing, and the layup of buildings is likely.

Additional ongoing cumulative benefits from the

relatively undisturbed and unpolluted nature of

the study area to bald eagles and to neotropical

and shorter-distance migratory birds would

continue. No impairment of park wildlife

would occur.

Impacts of Alternative B: National Park Service

Management

Analysis - Adding 150 program participants and

staff per day to an estimated 700 visitors (averaged over the 12 months of the year and

weighted over the 15–20 year life of the plan) to

the peninsula would increase use of the entire

study area by about 18% compared to No

Action. Assuming they use the same park facilities at the same rate as existing visitors, the simple increase in numbers could have an adverse

impact on wildlife in the study area through 

disturbance and displacement, particularly near

trails or on the former base. The former base

and habitat adjacent to trails in the study area

have been frequented by humans for several

decades and are lower-quality wildlife habitat as

a result. Therefore, the impact to wildlife from

use of either area would be negligible to minor. 

However, program participants may be attracted

to higher-quality habitats in the study area in an

effort to find and observe wildlife. Some

species of wildlife and some individuals of each

species are more susceptible to human disturbance, and humans on foot can be particularly

disruptive. Wildlife running or flying from

humans can experience adverse impacts from at

least two sources: they stop eating when they

are disturbed, and they expend energy to

escape. The loss of nutrients or increased

energy expended can ultimately mean that

reproduction, migration, or even survival are

compromised (Mattfield 1974, Bowles 1995).

Species that occupy nearly every habitat in the

study area could be affected, particularly if

program participants or visitors travel off trails

to access wetlands, streams, shorelines, or other

wildlife habitat. Nesting birds or sensitive or

denning mammals may be particularly susceptible. If the use of the area is regulated or guided

by park staff, the impacts would be reduced and

likely confined to trails or less sensitive areas.

Assuming guided use, the impact of program use

to sensitive or breeding wildlife is likely to be

no more than minor. It is possible that program

participants may attempt to access islands in the

study area, which are theorized to act as refuges

for some species, particularly birds, whose populations in the area of the park have fallen

because of human disturbance. Directed or

unregulated program use of these islands could

result in minor or moderate impacts to these

species. 

Alternative B would dramatically increase the

number of humans compared to No Action, and

would add overnight use of up to 150 participants. The noise and presence of human activity during the day would have adverse impacts

on wildlife occupying the base. Night lighting,

noise, and the presence of humans 24 hours a

day on the base would have additional impacts,

particularly to nocturnal wildlife. Many

mammals are either wholly or chiefly nocturnal,

including raccoons, skunks, bats, mice, bobcat,

and coyotes. It is possible that those on Big

Moose Island may have tolerated disturbance

nearby or on the base because they are able to

roam freely at night. Conditions for these

species and all wildlife on base would improve

for Alternative A relative to 2001 conditions.

However, in Alternative B, those nocturnal

species otherwise tolerant of humans during the
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 133

day may experience a minor or moderate

adverse impact from nighttime occupation.

Alternative B would result in the removal of 10

buildings on the base and the restoration of

about 40 acres of disturbed landscape. This

would be a minor beneficial impact to some

species of wildlife in the study area, particularly

those amenable to habitat adjacent to developed

areas such as raccoons, coyotes, feral cats, and

skunks. Bird species that require scrubby habitat would also benefit from the removal of

buildings. As the brush changes over time to a

forest ecosystem, wildlife species common to

this habitat would benefit. 

The Rockefeller Building would likely be landscaped with vegetation similar to that when it

was first built. The removal of existing vegetation could have an undetectable or negligible

localized effect on wildlife utilizing existing

habitat in these locations. 

If the Schoodic Education and Research Center

creates enough demand, it is possible that the

privately owned and operated ferry service

between Bar Harbor and the peninsula would be

expanded. A recent study found that a seasonal

(summer) ferry service offering 10–15 trips per

day (combined recreational and commuter traffic) would be sustainable at levels of program

use falling somewhere between those predicted

in alternatives 2 and 3 (U.S. Department of

Transportation 2002). All would cross

Frenchman Bay. This increase in boat traffic in

the bay may have some impacts to feeding bald

eagles, which can be both actively and passively

disturbed by slower-moving boat traffic. Active

disturbance includes flushing or flying away

from the boats because of noise or the presence

of humans. Studies have found repeated interruptions of feeding or nesting can result in

reduced reproductive success (Burger 1995). An

example of passive disturbance is the avoidance

of an area where boats are moving or anchored.

In one study (McGarigal et al. 1991), breeding

bald eagles typically avoided foraging within

0.25 mile of a stationary boat as long as it was in

place, in this case throughout the breeding 

season. This form of disturbance could be quite

prevalent in the summer in Frenchman Bay from

increases in all types of boat traffic including

ferries, and potentially more disturbing than

active displacement because it can prevent an

eagle from obtaining adequate food resources

(Anthony et al. 1995). The degree of impact

would be minor to moderate—that is, no critical

habitat would be affected over the long

term—and no impacts at a park or regional level

to the eagle population could be attributable to

ferry traffic.

Cumulative Impacts - Cumulative impacts

would be the same as for No Action. 

Conclusions - As in Alternative A, identifying

acceptable visitation over time and providing

information through signs, brochures, permits,

and controlled access could bring major localized benefits for some species, including the

federally threatened bald eagle. Acquisition of a

conservation easement on property to the north

of the Schoodic Unit could provide a minor to

major benefit to peninsula wildlife by protecting

a large block of forest habitat used for migration

to and from the study area, especially by large

mammals. Negligible to minor impacts from

increased visitation to some wildlife may occur.

Guided use or restrictions could keep impacts

to wildlife from program participants accessing

higher-quality habitat to no more than minor.

Directed or unregulated program use of islands

in the study area could result in minor or moderate impacts on species who occupy habitat on

them specifically to avoid humans.

Increased use of the former base and overnight

use could have additional minor to moderate

impacts on some nocturnal mammals, and negligible impacts on other wildlife compared to No

Action. A minor beneficial impact from the

restoration of about 40 acres of land on the base

is likely. The establishment of a ferry system to

the peninsula could have minor to moderate

impacts on feeding eagles. A negligible to minor

cumulative, positive impact from the reduction

in human activity on the base, the removal of

fencing, and the layup of buildings is likely.

Additional ongoing cumulative benefits from the

relatively undisturbed and unpolluted nature of

the study area to bald eagles and to neotropical

and shorter distance migratory birds would continue. No impairment of park wildlife would

occur.
134 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

Impacts of Alternative C: Collaborative

Management (Preferred)

Analysis - Adding 350 program participants and

staff per day to an estimated 700 visitors to the

peninsula would increase use of non-base park

facilities by about 45% compared to No Action.

Assuming they use the same facilities at the

same rate as existing visitors, the simple

increase in numbers could have an adverse

impact on wildlife in the study area through 

disturbance and displacement, particularly near

trails or on the former base. As noted above,

both the old base and habitat adjacent to trails

in the study area have been frequented by

humans for several decades and are lower-quality wildlife habitat as a result. Therefore, the

impact to wildlife from use of either area would

be minor.

However, as noted above in Alternative B, 

program participants may be attracted to

higher-quality habitats in the study area in an

effort to find and observe wildlife. Species that

occupy nearly every habitat in the study area

could be affected, particularly if program participants or visitors travel off trails to access

wetlands, streams, shorelines, or other wildlife

habitat. Nesting birds or sensitive or denning

mammals may be particularly susceptible. If the

use of the area is regulated or guided by park

staff, the impacts would be reduced and likely

confined to trails or less sensitive areas.

Assuming guided use, the impact of program use

to sensitive or breeding wildlife is likely to be

no more than minor. However, it is less likely

that the activities of 350 program participants

with a variety of partner occupants of the base

can be completely controlled, and moderate

impacts in some particularly attractive locations

are possible from human disturbance. It is 

possible that program participants may attempt

to access islands in the study area, which are

theorized to act as refuges for some species,

particularly of birds, whose populations in the

area of the park have fallen because of human

disturbance. Directed or unregulated program

use of these islands could result in minor or

moderate impacts to these species.

Alternative C would dramatically increase the

use of the base compared to No Action, both

during the day and at night. Up to 350 program

users would be on base during the day, and up

to 190 would be allowed to spend the night.

Night lighting, noise, and the presence of

humans 24 hours a day on the base may disturb

nocturnal wildlife in particular. It is possible

that some participants, or even some of the

courses or programs offered, may seek to experience nocturnal wildlife in their habitat at

night. Many mammals are either wholly or

chiefly nocturnal, including raccoons, skunks,

mice, bobcat, and coyotes. Those on Big Moose

Island may tolerate habitat near or on the base

because they are able to roam freely at night.

The addition of up to 190 overnight guests and

the possibility of deliberate attempts to view

nocturnal wildlife would result in at least 

temporary disturbance, and possible temporary

or permanent displacement. Nocturnal mammals in the vicinity could experience moderate

impacts from these activities.

Alternative C would result in the removal of 10

buildings on the base and the restoration of

about 15 acres of disturbed land. This would be

a minor beneficial impact to some species of

wildlife in the study area, particularly those

amenable to occupying habitat adjacent to

developed areas such as raccoons, coyotes, and

skunks. 

As in Alternative B, the Rockefeller Building

would likely be landscaped with vegetation similar to that when it was first built. The removal

of existing vegetation could have an undetectable or negligible localized effect on wildlife

utilizing existing habitat in these locations. 

Expanded ferry service between Bar Harbor and

the peninsula would probably be most likely if

Alternative C were implemented. The same

types of impacts to feeding bald eagles, including active and passive disturbance, as described

in Alternative B would be even more problematic. The extent of such impacts is unknown,

but the actual impact of just ferry traffic is

likely to be minor to moderate compared to

existing use of Frenchman Bay by boaters. 

Cumulative Impacts - Cumulative impacts

would be the same as for No Action. 

Conclusions - As in Alternative A, identifying

acceptable visitation over time and providing
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 135

information through signs, brochures, permits,

and controlled access could bring major localized benefits for some species, including the

federally threatened bald eagle and other nesting birds such as the common eider. Acquisition

of a conservation easement on property to the

north of the park could provide a minor to

major benefit to peninsula wildlife by protecting

a large block of forest habitat used for migration

to and from the study area, especially by large

mammals. Negligible to minor impacts from

increased visitor and program use to some

wildlife may occur. If program participants are

guided or controlled by park staff, an additional

minor impact to wildlife from increased access

to higher-quality habitat is possible. Directed or

unregulated program use of islands in the study

area could result in minor or moderate impacts

to species who occupy habitat on them specifically to avoid humans. Because it may be more

difficult to control 350 program participants and

multiple partners, moderate impacts from visitation to habitat of sensitive species, and from

deliberate attempts to view nocturnal wildlife

are possible. A negligible to minor beneficial

impact from the restoration of about 15 acres of

land on the base is likely. Expansion of the

ferry system to the peninsula could have minor

to moderate impacts on feeding eagles. A negligible to minor cumulative positive impact from

the reduction in human activity on the base, the

removal of fencing, and the layup of buildings is

likely. Additional ongoing cumulative benefits

from the relatively undisturbed and unpolluted

nature of the study area to bald eagles and to

neotropical and shorter-distance migratory

birds would continue. No impairment of park

wildlife would occur.

IMPACTS TO CULTURAL RESOURCES

Impacts Common to All Alternatives

The Schoodic District has not been systematically inventoried for archeological resources,

which is proposed under all alternatives. This

action would fulfill NPS's proposed resource

management objective of ensuring that all management decisions are based on full consideration of the best available cultural resource information (NPS 2002). Due to lack of data and the

number of undocumented sites, archeological

resource conditions are not currently quantifiable, which makes an accurate assessment of the

impact of ongoing and proposed actions difficult. Completion of the proposed inventory and

monitoring program would result in a minor to

major benefit to archeological resources at the

Schoodic District, depending on the scope and

depth of such surveys. The NPS currently surveys an area before activities that could impact

buried or other cultural resources take place.

Continuing this activity will continue to prevent

damage to individual cultural resources.

However, a survey of the entire study area

would provide additional benefits.

Under all alternatives, baseline data and surveys

are proposed for use in identifying acceptable

visitation that can be monitored over time. The

simultaneous monitoring of visitation and conditions of cultural resources through time

would allow for necessary adjustments to be

made to adequately preserve and protect

resources. Since cultural resources (especially

buried or surface-exposed archeological

resources) are vulnerable to impacts of human

use (e.g., foot traffic, overuse, vandalism, looting), the determination of appropriate visitor

levels could provide important protection, and

offer minor to major benefits for archeological

and other cultural resources. 

All alternatives include the removal of the

perimeter fencing at the former navy base.

These removal operations would involve ground

disturbance that has the potential to impact

buried archeological resources, primarily

through the loss of cultural context of artifacts,

features, etc. Fence removal is considered to

pose a negligible, site-specific adverse impact in

its potential to affect buried cultural deposits,

both because a recent reconnaissance study

(Berger & Assoc., Inc. 1999) suggests the probability of a significant archeological site is low in

this area, and because the ground has already

been disturbed by the structure and fence. This

potential could be mitigated to negligible by the

involvement of a professional cultural resource

specialist in advance of any ground-disturbing

activities. 

All alternatives share a common goal of discouraging use of social trails. Those on Little Moose
136 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

Island are specifically proposed for restoration

(NPS 2002). The ongoing use of social trails

potentially jeopardizes the integrity of buried

cultural resources, particularly with the 

predicted slow but steady increase in visitation

under all alternatives. Human-caused erosion

of areas through social trail use has the potential to expose and disturb subsurface archeological deposits. Incidental encounters with

undocumented cultural resources by park users

may also occur with the potential for degradation (e.g., erosion and looting) and loss of

important archeological data. The NPS's 

proposal to revegetate social trails on Little

Moose Island to their native state could result in

a site-specific, minor to major benefit to archeological resources, depending on their location

and condition. Actual restoration activities, as

well as the proposed creation of a 0.75-mile of

trail on Little Moose Island, has the potential to

disturb buried or surface-exposed cultural

resources, resulting in negligible to minor

impacts to those resources. These impacts

could be mitigated to negligible by the involvement of a cultural resource specialist during

trail revegetation and construction activities. 

The NPS has prepared a nomination to the

National Register of Historic Places to establish

a historic district encompassing the entire

Schoodic District minus the 100-acre former

navy base and coastal islands. The nomination's

focus is the cultural landscape of the Schoodic

District and includes, among other things, the

6-mile Schoodic Loop Road, four hiking trails,

and several developed areas dating to the 1930s

and 1940s. The NPS plans to maintain the 

cultural landscape of the Schoodic Peninsula

Historic District according to the Secretary of

the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of

Historic Properties (1995). These standards 

provide guidance to landscape owners, managers, landscape architects, preservation planners, etc., who plan and implement project

work. The proposal to prepare documentation

for the proposed historic district is considered a

minor to moderate regional benefit owing to its

resultant preservation of the historic integrity of

the Schoodic Peninsula cultural landscape and

its contribution to the understanding of the historic development of Acadia National Park over

the past century. 

The NPS has completed a feasibility study of

potential options for public transportation (e.g.,

buses and ferries) with the goal of reducing 

private automobile use. The study will help

identify solutions that can reduce adverse

impacts to the Schoodic Loop Road, which is an

important element of the cultural landscape.

Certain transportation options that may be

identified in the study could have the potential

to impact the cultural landscape in the future

(e.g., construction of new elements such as bus

pull-offs/turn-arounds, access to Schoodic

Loop Road from ferry service). However, if the

guidance provided by the Secretary of the

Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic

Properties (1995) is integrated into the study, it

would likely preclude consideration of options

that could later negatively impact the cultural

landscape. 

Under all alternatives, certain lands encompassed within the potentially eligible Schoodic

Peninsula Historic District, including the transportation circulation and trail systems, are 

proposed for rezoning from their existing

"Natural Environment Subzone" of the "Natural

Zone" to "Preservation Subzone" of the

"Cultural Zone," an action intended to preserve

significant aspects of the cultural landscape of

the peninsula. The rezoning and subsequent

management of these portions of the proposed

historic district under the Secretary of the

Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic

Properties (1995) would result in minor to 

moderate, localized to regional benefits. 

The maintenance of the Schoodic Point facilities is proposed under all alternatives. The

Schoodic Point facilites, including the restrooms, are remarkably unchanged since their

completion and retain significant integrity of

location, setting, and design, all of which reflect

their historic use. The facilities exhibit integrity

of materials and workmanship and NPS will

maintain the structures in a manner consistent

with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for

the Treatment of Historic Properties (1995). As

such, proposed maintenance activities at

Schoodic Point are considered to be a negligible

to minor, site-specific benefit to this element of

the larger cultural landscape. 
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 137

The Frazer Point picnic area and restrooms are

also proposed for maintenance under all alternatives. This picnic area is included within the

boundaries of the potentially eligible Schoodic

Peninsula Historic District. However, because

of its age, it is considered a non-contributing

element to the proposed historic district itself,

and only offers some help in understanding the

general historic development of the Schoodic

District and Acadia National Park. The majority

of the site was constructed in 1964, as part of

the Mission 66 program, although the restrooms

are a recent addition. The picnic area includes

numerous fire pits, picnic tables, informal footpaths, pumphouse, pier, etc. Maintenance activities at Frazer Point conducted in a manner

which do not compromise the integrity of the

potentially eligible historic district are considered short-term, negligible site-specific impacts

to these Mission 66 cultural resources. 

Under all alternatives, the Rockefeller Building

and powerhouse located on the former navy

base are proposed for zoning to "Preservation/

Adaptive Use Subzone" of the "Cultural Zone."

This subzone is defined as, "Use, with necessary

modifications, of historically significant structures for leasing, public activities, or administrative activities and functions that perpetuate the

characteristics that qualify these resources for

listing in the National Register of Historic

Places" (NPS 1992). The management of these

structures under this zone is considered a

minor, site-specific benefit to these historic

structures.

Under all alternatives, maintenance/preservation

proposals for properties eligible for listing in

the National Register of Historic Places within

the Schoodic District would adhere to the

Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the

Treatment of Historic Properties (1995) for those

resources, ensuring that their eligibility status is

retained. As benign neglect can result in cumulative adverse impacts to cultural resources, this

effort is considered a long-term, site-specific

benefit of minor to moderate intensity for the

Rockefeller Building relative to 2001 conditions. 

Under all alternatives, NPS would evaluate

structures on the Schoodic Peninsula with the

stated objective of making necessary modifications to ensure universal access to the public.

Many structures in the park, particularly within

the former navy base, are not considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.

However, for those that are, it is NPS's intent to

maintain them in a manner that does not jeopardize their eligibility for listing in the National

Register of Historic Places. To ensure this, all

structure modifications designed to provide

universal access to eligible historic structures

would adhere to the Secretary of the Interior's

Standards for the Treatment of Historic

Properties (NPS 1995). Under these standards,

the proposed modifications for universal access

to eligible historic structures are considered to

have negligible to minor, site-specific adverse

impacts to cultural resources. For the buildings

that are not eligible for listing in the National

Register of Historic Places, their proximity to

eligible structures or cultural landscapes should

be considered so as to avoid indirect adverse

effects to them. Conducted in this manner,

modification of ineligible structures to provide

universal access is considered a negligible

impact to cultural resources.

Under all alternatives, the U.S. Navy's collection

at the former navy base would be conveyed to

NPS. Acquisition of these data would further

NPS's proposed objective of enhancing interpretive and educational visitor programs regarding the historic land use of the peninsula,

including the former navy base operations.

These records have traditionally been held by

the U.S. Navy, limiting access to the public and

park staff. As a result of the transfer, this information would now be available for new research

and educational opportunities by park staff and

the public, creating a minor, regional benefit to

the park. 

Impacts of Alternative A: No Action

Analysis - No major changes in management of

the Schoodic District are planned under the No

Action Alternative. The NPS would manage all

park programming proposed for the former

navy base property. Primary sources of potential impacts to cultural resources under this

alternative are the slight increase in visitor

(approximately 1,800 annually) and vehicular

use and the use of historic structures located on

the base. Approximately 20 program partici-
138 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

pants would visit the base daily. Many of the

base buildings would be placed on layup status

and would be protected and maintained. The

current road system of the former navy property

would remain unchanged. 

The 6-mile Schoodic Loop Road is the focal

point of the eligible Schoodic Peninsula

Historic District. Its condition and appropriate

maintenance are primary considerations regarding the cultural landscape of the Schoodic

District. With the cessation of the navy operations at Big Moose Island in July of 2002, 350

daily vehicle trips have been eliminated along

the Schoodic Loop Road. Under the No Action

Alternative, it is estimated that about 20 program participants would drive (two per car) to

the base daily, resulting in approximately 10

additional park-related trips a day between July

and September. With the elimination of the 350

trips by navy personnel and the addition of ten

seasonal trips by program participants, daily

vehicular traffic would be significantly

decreased along the Schoodic Loop Road 

compared to 2001 conditions. Because of its

potential to delay the need for future major

maintenance actions, this is considered a minor

benefit to the cultural landscape. Under the No

Action Alternative, the use of a few of the base

buildings is proposed, including the Rockefeller

Building. As noted above under “Common to

All Alternatives,” reuse and maintenance of the

Rockefeller Building would be guided by the

Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the

Treatment of Historic Properties (1995). Adhering

to the standards would keep impacts from reuse

to no more than minor. 

Original landscaping would not be restored on

base property under this alternative. This 

continuing altered state of the base area may be

viewed as a detraction from the larger Schoodic

Peninsula cultural landscape as well as the character of the Rockefeller Building and its

grounds, although because it is identical to

existing conditions, has no impact relative to

2001 conditions.

Cumulative Impacts - Some ongoing uses of

the Schoodic District may be threatening 

cultural resources. The projected, though small,

increase in visitation under the No Action

Alternative could indirectly result in degradation of more fragile aspects of the cultural landscape (e.g., trails, undocumented cultural

resources). As visitor numbers and risks to 

cultural resources increase, so too does the

need to educate and involve the public in historic preservation efforts. Since the No Action

Alternative provides for few new opportunities

to enlist the public's help in cultural resource

preservation endeavors, cumulative adverse

impacts to cultural resources are possible.

However, as mitigating factors, the completion

of a comprehensive cultural landscape inventory, the determination and monitoring of

acceptable visitation, and the discouragement of

social trail use proposed under all alternatives

would provide critical information necessary for

the park to avoid potential cumulative adverse

effects to cultural resources within the Schoodic

District. Depending on the cultural resource

involved, these efforts could result in minor to

major benefits.

Conclusions - Under the No Action Alternative,

as is true for all alternatives, the proposed

inventorying and monitoring of cultural

resources in the Schoodic District and the 

subsequent use of the data to establish acceptable visitation would result in benefits ranging

from minor to major, particularly for archeological resources. Revegetating social trails on

Little Moose Island or elsewhere in the study

area could have site-specific, minor to major

benefit to archeological resources, but creating

a trail could have negligible to minor impacts

from disturbing them. 

As with all alternatives, regional benefits ranging from minor to moderate would likely result

from the Schoodic Peninsula Historic District.

Rezoning lands in the proposed Schoodic

Peninsula Historic District to preserve significant aspects of the cultural landscape of the

peninsula and subsequent management under

the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the

Treatment of Historic Properties (1995) would

result in minor to moderate, localized to

regional benefits. As is the case under all alternatives, maintenance of developed areas in the

park and modifications to some structures to

provide universal access would result in negligible to minor, site-specific impacts to cultural

resources.
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 139

Changing the zoning to a more protective 

subzone and managing historic resources

according to the Secretary of the Interior's

Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties

(1995) could have minor to moderate benefits for

the continued integrity of the cultural resources.

The standards would also keep historic building

modifications from resulting in more than minor

impacts. 

Compared to 2001 conditions, the No Action

Alternative would result in significantly fewer

vehicular trips to Big Moose Island. This reduction in vehicular use is considered a minor,

localized benefit to the cultural landscape of the

Schoodic Peninsula, particularly to the Schoodic

Loop Road. The very limited increase in visitation could result in slightly greater but unquantifiable risks to cultural resources in the area.

Of the three alternatives, the No Action

Alternative would result in the lowest level of

visitor and vehicular use of the Schoodic

District. Consequently, it is likely to pose the

least risk to cultural resources. 

The NPS's acquisition of the U.S. Navy's collection would be a minor regional benefit to NPS.

The No Action Alternative would result in no

impairment of cultural resources located at the

Schoodic District. 

Impacts of Alternative B: National Park Service

Management

Analysis - The activities most likely to affect

cultural resources under Alternative B are associated with the increased visitation and

expanded use of former navy base property.

The NPS would create and manage the facilities

and programs at the Schoodic Education and

Research Center on the former navy base.

Educational programming would be expanded

over the No Action Alternative and additional

navy base buildings are proposed for use. An

increase of approximately 13,500 annual visitors

to the Schoodic District is expected, a significant increase over the No Action Alternative

(1,800), but less than half of those projected for

Alternative C (31,500). Most of these visitors

would be participants in increased educational

programming offered at the base. As many as

150 visitors could participate in day programs at

the base; overnight accommodations for up to

90 would be available. 

Under this alternative, approximately 40 acres

of disturbed landscape at the former navy base

could potentially be restored, primarily through

the removal of unnecessary buildings. These

actions involve ground disturbance that has the

potential to significantly impact buried archaeological sites, primarily through the loss of

cultural context of artifacts, features, etc. Since

the ground surface of the area where disturbance is planned has not been inventoried in

the past, the potential exists that undocumented

archeological sites could be encountered.

However, structure, pavement, and landscape

restoration are considered to pose a relatively

low risk of affecting subsurface resources. In

addition, a recent reconnaissance study (Berger

& Assoc., Inc. 1999) indicated a low probability

of significant archeological sites in the study

area. Therefore, the impact to buried cultural

resources (prehistoric or historic) of removing

buildings in this alternative is likely to be no

more than negligible to minor and site-specific

compared to No Action (where no structures

are proposed for removal). This potential

impact could be mitigated to negligible by the

involvement of a professional cultural resource

specialist in advance of any ground-disturbing

activities. 

The increased availability of educational/interpretive visitor materials proposed under this

alternative would focus on visitor understanding

of the Schoodic District and its previous land

use, including the navy base property.

Visitation is projected to increase under this

alternative and with it, so too does the risk of

impacting archeological resources. Through

appropriate informational materials, NPS can

further educate and involve visitors in historic

preservation efforts. The completion of a 

comprehensive cultural landscape inventory and

the determination of acceptable visitation are 

complementary to the increased visitor education efforts. It is expected than an increase in

educational and interpretive visitor information

related to historic preservation issues would

result in site-specific benefits of unknown 

magnitude to cultural resources, possibly ranging from negligible to moderate in intensity

compared to No Action. Minor regional bene-
140 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

fits to cultural resources may also be realized

through the enhanced information regarding

historic land use of the Schoodic District.

Similar benefits are expected under Alternative

C. 

When compared to the No Action Alternative,

Alternative B would result in an increase in

vehicular use of the Schoodic Peninsula road, as

a result of an expanded SERC. The 6-mile

Schoodic Loop Road is the focal point of the

potentially eligible historic district on the

Schoodic Peninsula and its condition and

appropriate maintenance are primary considerations. With the departure of the navy base

operations at Moose Island, 350 daily vehicle

trips have been eliminated along the Schoodic

Loop Road. Under this alternative, a general

decrease in vehicular traffic of about 60 cars per

day on average along the Schoodic Loop Road

compared to 2001 conditions is considered a

minor, localized benefit to this element of the

potentially eligible historic district because it

could delay the need for major maintenance

actions. When compared to the No Action

Alternative, Alternative B would result in about

65 additional vehicles per day and a minor

increase in the probability and resulting impact

of major road maintenance on the Schoodic

Loop Road. 

Under Alternative B, approximately 40 acres of

land now covered with buildings, pavement, or

asphalt would be revegetated. The removal of

these buildings may provide less-obstructed

views from other areas of the park, as well as a

better sense of the features and layout of the

original base. The benefits to visitors from

restoring some of the early cultural context of

the base is likely to be only negligible or minor. 

Under Alternative B, the Rockefeller Building

would be the focal point of the Schoodic

Education and Research Center. The exterior

would be preserved and the interior rehabilitated to accommodate the additional programming. Exterior and interior alterations would

be conducted in accordance with the Secretary

of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of

Historic Properties (1995), and, therefore, considered a minor to moderate, site-specific benefit.

Alternative C proposes modifications to the

Rockefeller Building which are similar in their

overall effects and benefits.

The NPS proposes to landscape the Rockefeller

Building consistent with the 1934 grading and

planting plans. As planned, the landscape

redesign around the Rockefeller Building is 

considered a minor, site-specific benefit to the

structure as a result of the reestablishment of its

original setting. Alternative C proposes similar

beneficial vegetation restoration. No such

restoration is proposed under the No Action

Alternative.

In addition to the plans for the use of the

Rockefeller Building, use or removal of other

base buildings is proposed under this alternative. Even though the Rockefeller Building and

powerhouse are the only structures on the base

eligible for the National Register of Historic

Places, all of the structures contribute something to the general historic context of base

development at Big Moose Island. Their rehabilitation and reuse would further NPS's educational programming plans and are complementary to the goal of incorporating navy base 

history into interpretive visitor information, a

possible negligible to minor benefit to cultural

resources. The removal of these buildings may

have a negligible to minor impact on historic

resources.

Cumulative Impacts - Some ongoing uses of

the Schoodic District may threaten cultural

resources. In addition, the projected increase in

visitation under Alternative B could indirectly

increase the risk of degradation of more fragile

aspects of the cultural landscape (e.g., trails,

undocumented cultural resources). Under

Alternative B, visitor information and education

would be increased and enhanced, presenting

new opportunities to enlist the public's help in

cultural resource preservation. Such efforts

could result in significant cumulative historic

preservation benefits of unknown intensity. In

addition, the completion of cultural resource

inventories, the determination and monitoring

of acceptable visitation, and the revegetation of

Little Moose Island social trails proposed under

all alternatives would provide critical direction

necessary for the park to avoid potential cumulative adverse effects to cultural resources

within the Schoodic District. These combined

efforts could result in an overall beneficial

effect of unknown magnitude, possibly ranging

from minor to major in intensity. 
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 141

Conclusions - Impacts common to all alternatives and summarized in "Conclusions" under

No Action also apply to Alternative B. These

include benefits related to the inventory of

cultural resources, the establishment of appropriate visitor levels, the proposed Schoodic

Peninsula Historic District, traffic reduction

along the Schoodic Loop Road, use of historic

preservation guidelines, and management 

zoning designed for historic preservation, the

revegetation of Little Moose Island social trails,

and the acquisition of the U.S. Navy's collection, as well as negligible or minor adverse

impacts associated with structure maintenance,

structure modifications to provide universal

access, and new trail construction on Little

Moose Island. 

Structure, pavement, and landscape restoration

of buildings on the base could result in negligible to minor impacts on subsurface archeological resources. Creating new trails could have

impacts, which could be adverse without surveys or beneficial in providing new information

and avoiding impacts if surveys are completed

first. Restoration of about 40 acres and the

removal of some buildings could provide less

obstructed views of the base, and a better sense

of the features and layout of the original base, a

negligible to minor benefit to cultural resources. 

Exterior and interior alterations of the

Rockefeller Building would be conducted in

accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's

Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties

(1995), a minor to moderate, site-specific benefit.

Restoring the landscape would provide minor,

site-specific benefits to the historic integrity of

the structure. The removal of ineligible buildings would likely have a negligible to minor

impact to their remaining historic properties.

The increased availability of educational/interpretive visitor materials would result in negligible to moderate benefits; minor regional benefits are also possible.

Alternative B would result in about 65 additional

vehicles per day and a minor increase in the

probability and resulting impact of major road

maintenance on the Schoodic Loop Road compared to the No Action Alternative. Alternative

B would result in no impairment of cultural

resources located at the Schoodic District.

Impacts of Alternative C: Collaborative

Management (Preferred)

Analysis - Increases in visitor and program use

of park facilities, including those on the base, are

the primary activities associated with impacts to

cultural resources under Alternative C. The NPS

would work collaboratively with partners to 

promote expanded educational and interpretive

programming related to natural and cultural 

history, conservation, science, music and art.

Programming would expand significantly over

the No Action Alternative, but only moderately

when compared to Alternative B. However, visitation would increase more dramatically.

Alternative C would bring approximately 31,500

annual visitors to the Schoodic Education and

Research Center and, by association, to park

facilities in the study area. This is more than

double that in Alternative B and a 17–18-fold

increase over the No Action Alternative. As

many as 350 visitors could participate in day

programs at the base; overnight accommodations

for up to 190 would be available. 

The increased availability to visitors of educational/interpretive materials proposed under this

alternative could help increase visitor understanding of the Schoodic District and its prior

land use, including the navy base property.

When compared to the other two alternatives,

visitation is projected to increase under this 

proposal and, with it, so too does the risk of

impacting archeological resources. Through

appropriate informational materials that include

cultural resource issues, NPS can further educate

and involve visitors in historic preservation

efforts. As with Alternative B, it is expected than

an increase in educational and interpretive visitor

information which includes historic preservation

issues would result in an unknown, site-specific

benefit to cultural resources, ranging from negligible to moderate in intensity. Minor regional

benefits to cultural resources may also be realized through the enhanced information regarding

the historic land use. 

Under this alternative, buildings, pavement, and

asphalt would be removed on approximately 16

acres, and natural vegetation allowed to regrow

or planted. The removal of these structures may

pose a negligible to minor, site-specific adverse

impact in their potential to affect buried cultural deposits (prehistoric or historic), but
142 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

could be mitigated to negligible by the presence

of a professional cultural resource specialist to

monitor ground-disturbing activities. 

When compared to the No Action Alternative,

Alternative C would result in an increase in

vehicular use of the Schoodic Peninsula roads

as a result of an expanded SERC. The 6-mile

Schoodic Loop Road is the focal point of the

potentially eligible historic district on the

Schoodic Peninsula and its condition and

appropriate maintenance are primary considerations. Under this alternative, average traffic

numbers will increase slightly, from 579 during

2000 when the base was occupied by the U.S.

Navy, to 619 per day, as a result of increased

visitation and program use of SERC. When

compared to the No Action Alternative (454

trips per day), Alternative C would result in

about 165 additional vehicles per day and a

minor to moderate increase in the probability

and resulting impact of major road maintenance

on the Schoodic Loop Road.

Under Alternative C, approximately 16 acres of

land now covered with buildings, pavement, or

asphalt would be revegetated. The removal of

buildings may provide less obstructed views

from other areas of the park, as well as a better

sense of the features and layout of the original

base. The benefits to visitors from the restoring

of some of the early cultural context of the base

is likely to be only negligible or minor. 

Under Alternative C, it is proposed that the

exterior of the historic Rockefeller Building be

preserved while its interior be rehabilitated for

use by NPS and its partners. As in Alternative

B, this structure would remain a focal point of

park programs. Exterior and interior preservation activities would be conducted in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's

Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties

(1995). The preservation and rehabilitation of

eligible historic properties is considered a

minor to moderate, site-specific benefit to the

structure, a similar effect to that expected under

Alternative B.

As under Alternative B, this alternative includes

the proposal to re-create landscaping similar to

that of the original Rockefeller Building in

accordance with the 1934 grading and planting

plans. The action would offer minor, site-specific benefits to the overall integrity of the

Rockefeller Building site. No such action is

proposed under the No Action Alternative.

Actions under Alternative B would result in 

similar benefits as those proposed under this

alternative.

In addition to plans to use the Rockefeller

Building, reuse of several other base buildings is

proposed under this alternative. Their rehabilitation and reuse furthers the development of an

education and research center. Impacts to 

historic resources resulting from proposed use

of other navy base structures under this alternative are considered negligible, with a potential

minor, localized benefit realized related to the

enhancement of historical interpretive visitor

information, a result similar to that under

Alternative B. Negligible impacts to the

Rockefeller Building are possible through the

removal of ineligible structures.

Cumulative Impacts - Some ongoing uses of

the Schoodic District threaten cultural

resources. In addition, projected increases in

visitation are greater under Alternative C than

in the other two alternatives and could indirectly result in greater degradation of more

fragile aspects of the cultural landscape (e.g.,

trails, undocumented cultural resources). As

visitor numbers increase, so too does the need

to educate and involve the public in cultural

resource protection. Under Alternative C, visitor information and education would be

increased and enhanced, presenting new opportunities to enlist the public's help in historic

preservation efforts. Such efforts could result

in significant cumulative historic preservation

benefits of unknown intensity. Completion of a

comprehensive cultural landscape inventory, the

determination and monitoring of acceptable 

visitation, and the revegetation of social trails

on Little Moose Island would provide critical

information necessary for the park to further

avoid cumulative adverse effects to cultural

resources within the Schoodic District. The

involvement of additional partners would

enhance the capacity of NPS to maintain 

cultural resources. Depending on the specific 

cultural resource involved, these combined

efforts could result in an overall beneficial

effect of unknown magnitude, possibly ranging

from minor to major.
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 143

Conclusions - Impacts common to all alternatives and summarized in "Conclusions" under

No Action also apply to Alternative C. These

include benefits related to the inventory of

cultural resources, the establishment of appropriate visitor levels, the proposed Schoodic

Peninsula Historic District, traffic reduction

along the Schoodic Loop Road, use of historic

preservation guidelines, and management 

zoning designed for historic preservation, the

revegetation of Little Moose Island social trails,

and the acquisition of the U.S. Navy's collection, as well as negligible or minor adverse

impacts associated with structure maintenance,

structure modifications to provide universal

access, and new trail construction on Little

Moose Island. 

Structure, pavement, and removal or restoration

on the base could result in negligible to minor

impacts on subsurface archeological resources.

Creating new trails could have impacts, which

could be adverse without surveys or beneficial

in providing new information and avoiding

impacts if surveys are completed first.

Restoration of about 16 acres and the removal of

some buildings could provide less obstructed

views of the base, a negligible benefit to cultural

resources. 

Exterior and interior alterations of the

Rockefeller Building would be conducted in

accordance the Secretary of the Interior's

Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties

(1995), a minor to moderate, site-specific benefit.

Re-creating landscaping compatible with 1934

designs would provide minor, site-specific benefits to the historic integrity of the structure. The

removal of ineligible buildings may have a negligible impact on the remaining historic properties.

The increased availability of educational/interpretive visitor materials would result in negligible to moderate benefits; minor regional benefits are also possible. 

Alternative C would result in about 165 additional vehicles per day and a minor to moderate

increase in the probability and resulting impact

of major road maintenance on the Schoodic

Loop Road compared to the No Action

Alternative. However, increased participation by

partners would enhance maintenance capacity.

Alternative C would result in no impairment of

cultural resources located at the Schoodic

District. 

IMPACTS TO VISITOR EXPERIENCE

Impacts Common to All Alternatives

All three alternatives call for the identification

of acceptable levels of visitation over time,

which may result in some restrictions regarding

visitor access, especially in sensitive areas or at

sites such as Schoodic Point which have the

potential to reach unacceptable levels of crowding (more than 70 people at one time).

Similarly, the development and use of management zones could create restrictions, and

although these measures would also provide for

the preservation of important resources, they

could be seen as a minor to moderate adverse

impact by visitors. The plan to improve the

availability of information about the park could

be helpful in educating people so that restrictions are accepted, and not viewed as an adverse

impact.

The removal of the fence around the base area

will create greater access to the base area by

pedestrians. As a result of the fence removal,

there could be negative long-term impacts as

visitors begin to see more erosion and trampling. In addition, the appearance of the base

area will be less military and more natural without the perimeter fence, a clear benefit to visitors.

The revegetation of social trails and the creation

of an official maintained trail on Little Moose

Island will increase the trail system of the

Schoodic District, which would generally be

viewed positively. The closure of some of the

social trails could be a minor adverse impact for

those users who have frequented those trails in

the past, but improvements to other trails 

combined with a much better loop trail would

offset the negative impact. 

All three alternatives also call for allowing only

low-impact recreational uses which are compatible with the quiet enjoyment of the island.

This is in line with visitor surveys which found

that the vast majority of visitors like the park

just the way it is.

Impacts of Alternative A: No Action

Analysis - Alternative A would result in the

removal of few or no buildings on the base,
144 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

although perimeter fencing around the base

would be eliminated, information to visitors

would be available at the gatehouse, and five

park employees would be located on the peninsula. These factors would increase the park-like

feel of the base. However, since the base would

be closed to general visitor use, the benefits of

these few changes would not be widely experienced, and would therefore be negligible or

minor. Also, since most buildings would be

maintained and placed in layup status, the 

current military atmosphere in the area of the

base would largely remain. Some visitors to the

area would find the appearance of so many

unused buildings unattractive.

The Rockefeller Building and powerhouse will

simply be maintained for possible future renovation under this alternative, rather than altered

inside for reuse, so there will be no short-term

impact from construction noise or dust on the

visitor experience.

Under this alternative, there will be no educational or interpretive programs for the general

public; however, there is a projected use by

school groups of approximately 20 participants

per day. This will be a much smaller human

presence than when the base was in operation,

so it will create a quieter and more peaceful

experience for those visitors who had been near

the base before its closure. Since most people

had little or no contact with the base, the

impact to recreational visitors would be minor.

The Navy Morale, Welfare, and Recreation

Division operated a campground at the former

base to serve active-duty, reserve, and retired

military personnel and their families. The

campground consists of 14 sites (10 with full

hook-ups, two with water, and two with no

hook-ups). Under Alternative A, the occupancy

rate of the campground would be significantly

reduced. The campground would be primarily

used by volunteers and researchers conducting

projects in the park. This alternative would

have 22 rooms or campsites available for

overnight visitor use, resulting in negligible 

benefits to the visitor experience. 

Since both peak and off-peak recreational use

will likely decrease relative to 2001 conditions,

there would be no overall adverse impact on the

perception of crowding and trail erosion as a

result of this proposal. Because navy personnel

are no longer using the Schoodic Loop Road,

traffic has been reduced, especially in the early

morning and late afternoon. Nearly half the

visitors to Schoodic surveyed by NPS (NPS

2002) would prefer no cars on the road the day

of their visit. Without base commuter traffic

and the Schoodic Education and Research

Center, the probability of this or of encountering only a very few cars during a trip to the

peninsula would increase. Accounting for relative percentages of daily commuter and seasonal

recreational traffic on the Schoodic Loop Road

at Schoodic, Alternative A could result in as

many as 50,000 fewer car trips or 130 on average

per day than when the base was fully occupied.

Although this could offer moderate or even

major benefits to recreational visitors, the bulk

of visitors use the roads during midday or afternoon. Therefore the benefit of fewer commuter

cars is not likely to affect the average visitor

experience or provide more than negligible or

minor beneficial impacts to the visitor experience. Also, although few or no additional users

of the park facilities at Schoodic would be present, there would be negligible beneficial impacts

to those that are present on crowding during

early and late off-peak hours in this alternative

compared to 2001 conditions. 

Cumulative Impacts - Visitation to the

Schoodic District would likely continue to

increase slowly, as will use of the entire park

(U.S. Department of Transportation 2002). At

about 1% per year (the steady rate of growth for

the entire park since 1990), visitation to

Schoodic will increase by 10–15% over the life

of the plan, even with no base reuse. This will

add to current crowding. Although most indicators of quality measured by surveys in 2000 and

2001 showed visitors were not experiencing the

feeling of being crowded while at Schoodic, 

visitation to Schoodic Point did average around

70 people during midday. This is the number of

people the average survey respondent felt was

both unacceptable and the point at which NPS

should begin restricting use. Even the slow

addition of visitors to the peninsula which

would take place under this alternative is likely

to have a minor to moderate impact on visitors

to Schoodic Point during this time of day. 

Increasing visitation not related to the base

reuse or any of the actions proposed in this
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 145

Draft GMPA/EIS will also increase the number of

cars on the Schoodic Loop Road, visitation to

Frazer Point (another location where visitors

were surveyed on their perception of crowding)

and the rate of resource damage on trails. A

10–15% increase in the number of cars on the

road or visitors to Frazer Point would not have

more than a minor impact on visitor experience

at these locations. This is because there is a

large degree of difference between current 

conditions and the levels at which visitors would

find crowding unacceptable. However, resource

damage on trails is already at the level at which

visitors believe NPS should take preventive

action or apply use restrictions. Additional use

(10–15%) of these trails would likely result in

more impact and more visitors finding that

impact unacceptable. 

Conclusions - All alternatives anticipate the use

of zoning and monitoring to identify acceptable

visitation, a possible minor to moderate impact

on accessibility and the visitor experience. The

reduction in human activity at the base relative

to 2001 conditions is a minor benefit to visitors

seeking a peaceful experience. Closing social

trails and creating a loop trail on Little Moose

Island would have relative benefits to visitors,

although some may experience minor adverse

impacts from closing social trails.

Negligible to minor benefits to recreational

users of park facilities in the study area from a

reduction in crowding at those facilities, and

from reduced commuter traffic relative to 2001

conditions are likely. However, this benefit is

likely to be offset by growth in visitation to

Acadia National Park, which is unrelated to

reuse of base facilities.

Even the slow addition of visitors to the peninsula is likely to have a minor to moderate impact

on visitors to some park facilities, such as

Schoodic Point and the trails to and from

Schoodic Head. Less human activity at the base

than under 2001 conditions will contribute to a

quieter and more peaceful experience for visitors to the peninsula, a minor benefit.

Because very few or no structures will be

removed, no or few short-term constructionrelated impacts will occur, such as noise and

dust that would occur under Alternatives B and

C. This is a possible negligible short-term

impact of No Action compared to 2001 conditions when the base was operated by the U.S.

Navy. No impairment of the visitor experience

would occur.

Impacts of Alternative B: National Park Service

Management

Analysis - Alternative B would offer a distinctly

different visitor experience than the No Action

Alternative. The Schoodic Education and

Research Center would be established at the

former navy base. Special events would open

the base to the public. These events could host

as many as 400 people. Although still relatively

few compared to when the base was occupied

by the U.S. Navy, a significant increase in the

numbers of people and cars would be obvious

compared to the No Action Alternative. Many

structures would be removed over several years.

Of all the alternatives, this alternative would

involve the most revegetated landscape.

Portions of the Rockefeller Building would be

open to general park visitors.

The removal of up to 15 of the base buildings

would have adverse impacts to both program

participants and visitors to the study area within

earshot of the construction. As noted above,

the large majority of visitors to the peninsula

now come because the area is peaceful, natural,

and relatively uncrowded. For these visitors,

construction noise and dust over what could be

a several-year period would have major adverse

impacts to their visitor experience, and may

even cause them to seek other, quiter places to

visit. For program participants or visitors who

do not have the preconception of the peninsula

as a quiet and undisturbed area, the construction noise and dust may have only moderate

impacts. 

In addition to noise and dust, heavy equipment

vehicles would use the Schoodic Loop Road to

access the base. This slow-moving construction

traffic could have adverse impacts on some visitors, especially given that nearly half those 

surveyed (NPS 2001, 2002) indicated they would

prefer to have no cars on the road other than

their own, and that scenic driving was cited as

the most popular activity in the park. However,

unless construction involves many new vehicles

using the road throughout the day, it is unlikely
146 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

that traffic density would grow from its current

average of 2.8 vehicles to the 7.5 visitors felt

would be unacceptable, and so the impact

would likely be no more than a minor one.

Building removal would eventually lead to the

revegetation of some 40 acres of disturbed landscape, which could have a minor or moderate

beneficial effect on visitor experience with

regards to scenic beauty, wildness, and naturalness. The former base area would eventually

look more campus-like and natural than it does

presently. 

Under this alternative, the historic Rockefeller

Building and powerhouse would be restored and

retrofitted for educational and interpretive programs and could include such features as laboratories, classrooms, exhibit space, and accommodations for students and researchers. This,

along with the restoration of the surrounding

landscape, could have a minor to moderate

localized beneficial impact on visitor perception

of scenic beauty on the base. These new educational and interpretive opportunities would be

seen as a beneficial impact by those visitors who

felt they were lacking, and by new visitors as

well, but would be seen as an adverse impact by

those visitors who wanted the base to stay

exactly as it is. During the actual restoration

and renovation process, however, there could be

the same types of temporary adverse impacts on

visitor experience from noise and dust

described above for building removal. Because

these impacts would last for a shorter period of

time, they would likely be short-term, minor or

moderate in nature.

A reduction in vehicle traffic from the baseline

year of 2001 (when navy personnel were still

commuting to the base) could have a beneficial

effect on visitor experience with regards to the

perceptions of solitude and naturalness.

However, since the loss of commuter traffic

would occur at times of the day when visitors

are not using the peninsula, and since construction traffic could be the highest for this alternative, the benefit is likely to be only a negligible

or minor one. Compared to the No Action

Alternative, Alternative B is likely to increase

traffic by about 5,000 vehicles per year. During

the summer months, when traffic is more concentrated, the increase in program participants

could add 40–50 cars per day to the Schoodic

Loop Road, a 9–11% increase. Since these

would be visitors, rather than commuters, the

chances they would be on the road during 

mid-day or afternoon are greater, as are the

chances they would adversely affect the visitor

experience of crowding on the road. However,

the loss of commuter vehicles would mitigate

this increase, and an 11% increase would not

bring midday traffic near to levels where volume

is considered unacceptable.

The increase in both day use and overnight

guests using former base lodging could have an

adverse impact on crowding during peak as well

as early and late off-peak hours, especially if

program participants are taken out in large

groups to view key park sites. If program 

participants are taken to these popular sites

during peak-use times, the level of crowding

could increase past the point which survey

respondents felt was tolerable. At Schoodic

Point, visitation at peak-use times is already

above the level people find acceptable, and the

addition of even a few more visitors at these

times would increase crowding to the point at

which respondents felt use should be restricted.

This would create a major adverse impact for

visitors to Schoodic Point, since it is the most

popular area in the park, and since crowding is

such an important issue to visitors. Schoodic

Point is also within easy walking distance of the

former navy base, and so is likely to be a

favorite site to visit or study.

At Frazer Point, counts indicated that 20–25

people were present at peak-use times. This is

slightly below the level which people indicated

they would prefer (35.3 people at one time), and

is well below "acceptable" and "tolerable" 

levels. It is therefore less likely that use by

program participants would have more than

minor impacts at Frazer Point. 

Although the overnight use will be less than in

1999 when navy personnel were still on the base,

it will be much greater than under the No

Action Alternative. Overnight visitor use would

create more nighttime illumination in the area

of the base, but the effect on visitor experience

of the night sky would probably be negligible. 
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 147

Changes in parking and circulation designed to

make the park more hospitable to pedestrians

could have a minor beneficial impact on visitor

experience with regards to wildness and naturalness, since fewer cars would be in circulation

in some areas. If parking information is made

available at the entrance to the park, and trailheads are clearly marked, the benefits would be

greater. 

A recent survey conducted by NPS of visitors to

Schoodic (Manning et al. 2002) asked those

using park trails about resource damage there.

Most indicated existing resource damage was

fairly high and believed it was the upper limit of

damage NPS should allow. Creating trails to

connect the former navy base to the Schoodic

Head trail system could provide benefits in

reducing the need to drive to trailheads. This

increase in accessibility would help to mitigate

erosion on existing trails, but would require

education through signs, brochures, or other

means, and erosion control in some cases to

prevent existing moderate impacts to the visitor

experience on Schoodic Head trails from

becoming major ones. 

Although NPS does not plan to promote the

Schoodic District per se, increased availability

of information, as well as the word-of-mouth

promotion which could occur after program

participants get to see the park, could actually

result in growth in visitor use that is beyond the

current projection of 1% annually. If educational and interpretive programs turn out to be

more popular than expected and grow accordingly, impacts on crowding at park facilities and

trails in the study area will also increase in

severity.

Cumulative Impacts - The cumulative impacts

identified above for the No Action Alternative

would apply to Alternative B as well.

Conclusions - All alternatives anticipate the use

of zoning and monitoring to identify acceptable

visitation, a possible minor to moderate impact

on accessibility and the visitor experience. The

reduction in human activity at the base relative

to 2001 conditions is a minor benefit to visitors

seeking a peaceful experience. Closing social

trails and creating a loop trail on Little Moose

Island would have relative benefits to visitors,

although some may experience minor adverse

impacts from closing social trails.

Alternative B would result in increased human

activity at the base, and an increase in the 

perception of crowding at park facilities, trails

and roads relative to No Action. Noise and dust

associated with the removal of up to 15 of the

base buildings could have moderate to major

impacts on visitors to the peninsula. Minor to

moderate benefits to visitor experience from the

restoration of about 40 acres on the base to 

natural conditions is also likely. The use of the

Schoodic Loop Road by construction vehicles

could have additional minor impacts to visitors

who have sought out the peninsula for quiet,

scenic driving. 

Rehabilitation of the Rockefeller Building would

have short-term minor to moderate adverse

impacts on visitor perception of wildness, naturalness, and peace and quiet during the actual

renovation process, but would have long-term

minor to moderate beneficial impacts on these

same indicators after restoration. 

Reductions in traffic related to base closure

would provide negligible to minor benefits to

visitors seeking a solitude experience, but

increases related to program use would have

minor adverse impacts on traffic volumes 

compared to the No Action Alternative. 

Growth in visitation could also create minor to

moderate adverse impacts on visitor perception

of crowding at popular park sites in the study

area. Increased visitor and program participant

use of trails would increase perceptions of

crowding and erosion; these would be somewhat offset by comprehensively integrating and

adding to trails in the study area, although more

intense mitigation is needed to prevent existing

moderate impacts on some trails from become

major ones. Greater overnight use compared to

No Action would have minor impacts on the 

visitor experience of a natural night sky. 

Changes in parking and circulation designed to

make the park more hospitable to pedestrians

could have a minor beneficial impact on visitor

experience. No impairment of the visitor experience would occur.
148 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

Impacts of Alternative C: Collaborative

Management (Preferred)

Analysis - The changes in the visitor experience

described under Alternative B would occur in

even more dramatic fashion in Alternative C. A

significant feature of Alternative C is the option

for alternative uses such as retreats, conferences, and special events. These types of activities could presumably bring large numbers of

people into the base area at once. Visitors who

are new to the park, as well as some current 

visitors, may well find these events fun and

enjoyable. It is conceivable, however, that visitors who were accustomed to the park's quiet

and solitude might be significantly adversely

impacted by these currently unspecified events,

although high levels of use at the base existed

during the 2001 survey when most visitors were

satisfied with the park as it was.

Under this alternative, fewer structures would

be removed than in Alternative B, but more than

in the No Action Alternative. Because removal

could take less time, the noise and dust impacts

relative to Alternative B would also be reduced.

For the large majority of visitors to the peninsula who now come seeking a peaceful, quiet

experience, the impact of construction 

compared to No Action would be moderate to

major. For program participants or visitors who

do not have the preconception of the peninsula

as a quiet and undisturbed area, the construction noise and dust may have only minor or

moderate impacts. Impacts from construction

traffic would also be less severe, and may only

have negligible to minor impacts on visitors who

come to Schoodic for a scenic driving experience. 

Although construction impacts would not last as

long, Alternative C would also not create as

much open space through removal of buildings

as Alternative B. Only about 16 acres of land

would be restored to natural conditions, a negligible to minor beneficial impact on the visitor

experience of the base compared to No Action. 

Under this alternative, the historic Rockefeller

Building and powerhouse would be restored and

retrofitted for educational and interpretive 

programs and could include such features as

laboratories, classrooms, exhibit space, and

accommodations for students and researchers.

This, along with the restoration of the 

surrounding landscape, could have a minor to

moderate localized beneficial impact on visitor

perception of scenic beauty on the base. During

the actual restoration and renovation process,

however, there could be the same types of

temporary adverse impacts on visitor experience from noise and dust described above for

building removal. Because these impacts would

last for a shorter period of time, they would

likely be short-term minor or moderate in

nature.

Compared to No Action, there would be an

increase in traffic of about 10,000 vehicles per

year. Since almost a third of the annual vehicles

are present during the summer months, this

could mean as many as 100 more cars per day.

Since visitor counts showed that people entered

the park between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. and

that most visitors came between 10:00 a.m. and

2:00 p.m., this translates to about 7.3 more cars

on the road on average throughout the day, with

numbers being greater at midday. Additional

visitation not related to the Schoodic Education

and Research Center would add to these traffic

counts, and commuter trips related to base

closure could reduce them somewhat, although

commuter traffic does not generally occur at the

same time as peak visitation. Since visitors saw

2.8 cars on the road in 2001, and would tolerate

no more than 7.8, it is quite probable that traffic

will exceed the level of tolerance for visitors at

midday during the peak season. This would be

a moderate to major impact with regards to traffic. This impact could be reduced with the

expansion of the ferry and other public transportation.

An increase in program participants of this

magnitude, including up to 190 overnight guests,

could have major impacts on crowding and the

visitor experience at popular park facilities in the

study area, both during peak and off-peak hours.

Since the former navy base is within easy walking

distance of Schoodic Point, it may be particularly

affected. Visitation to Schoodic Point is already

above the level which people find acceptable,

and the addition of even a few more people at

these times would increase crowding to the point

at which people felt use should be restricted.

This would create a major adverse impact for 

visitors to Schoodic Point, since it is the most

popular area in the park, and since crowding is

such an important issue to visitors. 
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 149

At Frazer Point, counts indicated that 20–25

people were present at peak-use times. This is

slightly below the level which people indicated

they would prefer (35.3 people at one time), and

is well below "acceptable" and "tolerable" 

levels. The addition of 350 program participants per day, many of whom will seek developed sites such as Frazer or Schoodic Point 

during their stay, could increase crowding to

levels beyond which those surveyed indicated

they would prefer, but is not likely to increase it

to beyond acceptable levels, and so is a moderate impact. 

Greater numbers of overnight guests could also

result in more artificial illumination at night,

and could have a minor adverse impact on views

of the night sky compared to No Action. 

Changes in parking and circulation designed to

make the park more hospitable to pedestrians

could have a minor beneficial impact on visitor

experience by creating a campus-like and natural

feel, since fewer cars would be in circulation in

some areas. If parking information is made available at the entrance to the park, and trailheads

are clearly marked, the benefits would be greater. 

An increase in the use of trails in the study area

could result in major impacts to the visitor

experience on those trails, as a recent survey

(NPS 2001, NPS 2002) indicated most respondants believe erosion and damage to vegetation

on Schoodic Head trails is already at the limit of

what NPS should allow. 

Although visitation is expected to increase by

1% per year, there will be greater numbers of

program participants than with Alternative B, so

this growth could increase beyond this projection as people return with friends and promote

the park through word-of-mouth. The resulting

impacts to park facilities and trails would be

greater as a result.

Cumulative Impacts - The same cumulative

impacts as identified above for No Action would

apply to Alternative C.

Conclusions - All alternatives anticipate the use

of zoning and monitoring to identify acceptable

visitation, a possible minor to moderate impact

on accessibility and the visitor experience. Use

of design guidelines would improve the campuslike feel of the base, a minor benefit. The

reduction in human activity at the former navy

base relative to 2001 conditions is a minor benefit to visitors seeking a peaceful experience.

Closing social trails and creating a loop trail on

Little Moose Island would have relative benefits

to visitors, although some may experience

minor adverse impacts from closing social trails.

Alternative C would result in increased human

activity at the base, and an increase in the 

perception of crowding at park facilities, trails,

and roads relative to No Action. Noise and dust

associated with the removal of up to 5–10 of the

base buildings could have minor to major

impacts on visitors to the peninsula. Negligible

to minor benefits to the visitor experience from

the restoration of about 16 acres on the base to

natural conditions is also likely. The use of the

Schoodic Loop Road by construction vehicles

could have additional negligible to minor

impacts to visitors who have sought out the

peninsula for quiet, scenic driving. 

The rehabilitation of the Rockefeller Building

would have short-term minor to moderate

adverse impacts on visitor perception of wildness, naturalness, and peace and quiet during

the actual renovation process, but would have

long-term minor to moderate beneficial impacts

on these same indicators after restoration. 

Reductions in traffic related to base closure

would provide negligible to minor benefits to

visitors seeking a solitude experience, but

increases related to program use would have

moderate to major adverse impacts on traffic

volumes compared to the No Action Alternative. 

Growth in visitation could also create moderate

to major adverse impacts on visitor perception

of crowding at popular park sites in the study

area. Increased visitor and program participant

use of trails would increase perceptions of

crowding and erosion. Greater numbers of

overnight guests could result in a minor adverse

impact on views of the night sky compared to

No Action. 

Changes in parking and circulation designed to

make the park more hospitable to pedestrians

could have a minor beneficial impact on visitor

experience by creating a campus-like and natural feel. No impairment of the visitor experience would occur.
150 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

IMPACTS TO

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

Visitor Impacts from Acadia National Park

In 2000, Daniel Stynes and Dennis Propst at

Michigan State University developed the Money

Generation Model Version 2 (MGM2) based on

a National Park Service economic model that

estimates the economic benefits of national

parks for regional economies (Stynes et al.

2000). MGM2 estimates the impacts that park

visitors have on the local economy in terms of

their contribution to sales, income, and jobs in

the area. Stynes et al. expanded the original

model to include the economic effects of NPS

salaries, park construction projects, and other

park-related activities; and expenditures by

other outside parties, such as state spending for

park access roads and dollars spent by outside

interests for marinas, motels, restaurants, and

other park-related capital development projects.

The economic model produces quantifiable

measures of park economic benefits that can be

used for planning, concessions management,

budget justifications, policy analysis, and 

marketing. 

Impacts Common to All Alternatives

In 2001, recreation visits to Acadia National

Park totaled 2.52 million. According to

Economic Impacts of Selected National Parks;

Update to Year 2001 (Stynes and Sun 2002), local

day visitors contributed 5% of overall recreation visits, day visitors from other regions 25%,

and visitors staying at lodges and campsites

were 60% and 10%, respectively. The 2.52 million recreation visits were converted to 820,000

party days (the number of days each visitor

party spends in the local region based on an

average of three people per visitor party), which

was the spending unit in the MGM2 analysis.

On average, visitors spent $165 per party per day

at the local area. Total visitor spending was

estimated to be $134.85 million in 2001.

The $134.85 million spent by visitors to Acadia

had a direct economic impact of $116.02 million

in sales, $41.05 million in personal income

(wages and salaries), $61.60 million in value

added, and 2,830 jobs. Among all sales, $50.65

million was from the lodging sales, $29.17 million from food and drinking places, $11.86 million from admission fees, and $12.97 million

from the retail trade. As visitor spending circulates through the local economy, secondary

effects created additional $19.64 million in 

personal income and 765 jobs. In summary, 

visitors to Acadia spent $134.85 million dollars

in 2001, which supported a total of $170.12 

million in sales, $60.69 million in personal

income, $95.52 million in value added (the sum

of employee compensation, proprietary income,

and indirect business tax), and 3,594 jobs

(Stynes and Sun 2002).

Assuming a steady rate of growth of 1% annually with 2.52 million recreation visits in 2001 as

the basis, an additional 406,000 annual recreation visits are projected for Acadia by 2015.

The additional 406,000 recreation visits can be

converted to 132,000 party days according to

the MGM2 formula. Assuming visitors to

Acadia spend $165 dollars per party per day at

the local area, total visitor spending would

increase by $21,780,000 (current value) by 2015.

This new spending would support an annual

total of $27.48 million in sales, $9.80 million in

personal income, $15.43 million in value added,

and 580 jobs.

In estimating the economic impact of the three

alternatives, it is assumed that additional benefits would accrue from attracting visitors to new

programs and activities at the Schoodic District

beyond the projected increase in park visitation.

Impacts of Alternative A: No Action

Analysis - As noted above, Acadia's annual

recreation visits are projected to increase by 1%

per year from 2001 to 2015, which will result in

the corresponding economic benefits described

above. In addition, this alternative would

attract about 1,800 visitors to park programs

and activities annually.

Assuming that half the 1,800 visitors would be

visiting Acadia National Park in any case, there

would be a net of 900 new visitors drawn to the

park by the programs and activities at Schoodic.

Assuming that the 900 new visitors would spend

an average of $55 per person per day for three

days, Alternative A would increase annual visi-
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 151

tor spending by $148,500 (current value) by 2015.

This new spending would support an annual

total of $187,000 in sales, $67,000 in personal

income, $105,000 in value added, and 4 jobs.

The benefits of this alternative would be negligible.

Additional economic benefits of unknown magnitude from the spending of salaries for employees at Schoodic and from the secondary effects

of visitor spending would occur in the local

community. Staff may occupy housing vacated

by navy personnel upon closure of the base,

with a resulting negligible benefit to the rental

or housing market locally. If they reside in the

community, the local unemployment rate will

decrease very slightly.

Cumulative Impacts - The gain in economic

prosperity associated with a small program staff

and 1,800 participants, as well as the increase in

visitation expected regardless of the alternative,

is completely offset by the adverse impact to the

local economy as a result of base closure by the

U.S. Navy. In the FY 1997, the Naval Security

Group Activity Winter Harbor employed 505

enlisted and civilian personnel, with over 300

living in nearby towns, including military housing in Winter Harbor. The total payroll of the

navy facility was $10,900,000.

A recent study completed by the University of

Maine (Gabe and Allen 2000) indicates impacts

to the local community's economy related to the

spending of this payroll are likely. The indirect

impact of the base closing includes the decrease

in spending by the U.S. Navy at local businesses

and subsequent decreases in purchases made by

these businesses at other enterprises in Hancock

County. This amount was estimated by

University of Maine analysts to be $1,823,351

annually, with a one-time loss of 90 jobs. The

induced economic impact results in a decrease

in personal income to other workers in Hancock

County, which was estimated to be $3,957,206

annually, with a one-time loss of 196 jobs.

According to the University of Maine study,

Hancock County is being faced with a total 

economic impact of $16,680,557 due to the 

closing of the navy base.

In addition to direct economic losses, navy

personnel occupied many social niches in the

community, including as parents of school-aged

children, sports coaches, church attendees, and

other important roles. Approximately 70–75

children of base personnel attended local

schools, and more than 80% lived off base (NPS

2002 visitor survey) in Winter Harbor and other

local communities. Infrastructure, such as

water, sewer, roads, power, etc., was sized to

some degree to accommodate 350–500 base 

personnel. Housing was also rented or purchased by navy personnel. The closing of the

base had adverse impacts on all of these 

economic and social factors for the community. 

Conclusions - Increases in visitation to

Schoodic independent of the reuse scenario

would bring negligible benefits to the local

economy. The addition of 1,800 annual program

participants and four jobs to the region would

result in additional negligible benefits to the

economy in the form of increased spending, a

slight reduction in unemployment, and a possible slight reduction in housing vacancy. These

small benefits would be outweighed by significant adverse impacts to spending, jobs, personal

income, community infrastructure, housing,

schools, and the social fabric of the region

resulting from base closure by the U.S. Navy.

Impacts of Alternative B: National Park Service

Management

Analysis - As noted above, Acadia's annual

recreation visits are projected to increase by 1%

per year from 2001 to 2015, which will result in

the corresponding economic benefits described

above. In addition, this alternative would attract

about 13,500 new visitors to park programs and

activities annually at the Schoodic Education

and Research Center.

Assuming that half the 13,500 visitors would be

visiting Acadia National Park in any case, there

would be a net of 6,750 new visitors drawn to

the park by the programs and activities at the

Schoodic Education and Research Center.

Assuming that the 6,750 new visitors would

spend an average of $55 per person per day for

three days, Alternative B would increase annual

visitor spending by $1.11 million (current value)

by 2015. This new spending would support an

annual total of $1.41 million in sales, $501,000 in
152 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

personal income, $789,000 in value added, and

30 jobs. This would represent a minor benefit

(5%) over visitor spending for Alternative A.

Additional economic benefits of unknown 

magnitude from the spending of salaries for

employment at Schoodic and from the secondary effects of visitor spending would occur in

the local community. Staff may occupy housing

vacated by the navy personnel upon closure of

the base, with a resulting negligible to minor

benefit to the rental or housing market locally.

If they reside in the community, the local unemployment rate will decrease slightly.

Cumulative Impacts - The same adverse

impacts identified under No Action for base

closure would apply to Alternative B as well.

However, Alternative B would go further in 

mitigating these adverse impacts by adding more

program participants and staff than Alternative

A. 

Conclusions - Increases in visitation to

Schoodic independent of the reuse scenario

would bring minor benefits to the local economy. The addition of 13,500 annual program

participants and 30 jobs to the region would

result in additional minor benefits to the economy relative to 2001 conditions in the form of

increased spending, a slight reduction in 

unemployment and a possible slight reduction

in housing vacancy. Minor benefits to the local

economy and to local schools, housing, 

unemployment, and social facets of the community relative to No Action are possible. While

socioeconomic benefits of Alternative B would

be outweighed by the adverse impacts from base

closure, Alternative B would go further in

reversing overall losses in spending.

Impacts of Alternative C: Collaborative

Management (Preferred)

Analysis - As noted above, Acadia's annual

recreation visits are projected to increase by 1%

per year from 2001 to 2015, which will result in

the corresponding economic benefits described

above. In addition, this alternative would attract

about 31,500 new visitors to park programs and

activities annually at the Schoodic Education

and Research Center.

Assuming that half the 31,500 visitors would be

visiting Acadia National Park in any case, there

would be a net of 15,750 new visitors drawn to

the park by the programs and activities at SERC.

Assuming that the 15,750 new visitors would

spend an average of $55 per person per day for

three days, Alternative C would increase annual

visitor spending by $2.60 million (current value)

by 2015. This new spending would support an

annual total of $3.29 million in sales, $1.17 million in personal income, $1.84 million in value

added, and 69 jobs. This would represent a

moderate benefit (12%) over visitor spending

for Alternative A.

Additional economic benefits of unknown magnitude from the spending of salaries for employees at Schoodic and from the secondary effects

of visitor spending would occur in the local

community. Staff may occupy housing vacated

by navy personnel upon closure of the base with

a resulting negligible to moderate benefit to the

rental or housing market locally. If they reside

in the community, the local unemployment rate

will decrease as well. 

Cumulative Impacts - The same adverse

impacts identified under No Action for base

closure would apply to Alternative C as well.

The University of Maine noted that the closing

of the navy base would have a total negative

economic impact of $16,680,557. The payroll was

$10,900,000. There will be a decrease in spending by the U.S. Navy at local businesses and 

subsequent purchases by those businesses of

$1,823,351. This spending decrease in the community will have an induced economic impact of

a decrease of $3,957,206 in personal income to

other workers in Hancock County. 

Alternative C is expected to add $2.6 million in

spending and as many as 69 new jobs to the

region. It would offset some of the loss of the

U.S. Navy spending and could have moderate

positive impacts on unemployment, housing,

vacancies, and the unfilled capacities of

community infrastructure, schools, and the fabric of the region.

Conclusions - Increases in visitation to

Schoodic independent of the reuse scenario

would bring negligible to minor benefits to the

local economy. The addition of 31,500 annual

program participants and 69 jobs to the region
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 153

would result in moderate benefits to the 

economy both relative to 2001 conditions and

the No Action Alternative in the form of

increased spending, a slight reduction in 

unemployment, and a possible slight reduction

in housing vacancy. Moderate benefits are 

possible for the local economy and to the local

schools, housing, unemployment, and social

facets of the community relative to No Action.

This alternative would offset part of the economic loss related to base closure and offer

additional benefits in direct and indirect 

spending. 
Activity Alternative A: No Action Alternative B: NPS

Management

Alternative C: Collaborative

Management (preferred)

AIR QUALITY

Implementation of public transportationMinor local benefit Same as No Action Same as No Action

Study of expanded bicycle connections along the Schoodic

Loop Road

Minor local benefit Same as No Action Same as No Action

Limiting parking in the park;

informing visitors at entrance

Minor benefit Same as No Action Same as No Action

Use of base structures containing < 1% asbestosNegligible adverse impact Similar to No Action but

slightly higher risk as more

buildings would be occupied

Similar to No Action but

slightly greater risk than other

two alternatives as more buildings would be occupied

Reductions in vehicular use at

Schoodic and in the use of boilers on the base

Major local benefit compared to year 2001; negligible regional benefitMinor increase in emissions compared to No

Action

Minor to moderate increase in

emissions compared to No

Action 

WATER RESOURCES

Changes in use/demand for

drinking water

Negligible to minor benefit

to groundwater resources

from reduced demand

compared to 2001 conditions

Negligible to minor

impacts to groundwater

resources compared to No

Action

Negligible to minor impacts to

groundwater resources but

greater than Alternative B

Changes in wastewater dischargeModerate to major benefit

to water quality in Arey

Cove from reduced discharge compared to 2001

conditions 

Unknown, but possibly

moderate adverse impact

to Arey Cove water quality.

Increased discharge compared to No Action

Unknown, but possibly moderate to major adverse impact to

Arey Cove water quality

Soil erosion, petroleum products from vehiclesNegligible to minor

adverse impacts to surface

waters

Same as No Action Same as No Action

SOILS

Revegetation of social trails on

Little Moose Island (soil stabilization)

Minor localized benefit Same as No Action Same as No Action

Creation of 0.75 mile of trail on

Little Moose Island

Negligible to minor

adverse impacts

Same as No Action Same as No Action

Erosion caused by general

increase in use of Schoodic

(with no other changes)

Moderate to major cumulative impacts Same as No Action Same as No Action

Reductions in erosion due to

visitor use controls in critical

habitats

Benefit of unknown magnitudeSame as No Action Same as No Action

Reduction of fuel storage, vehicle maintenance, hazardous

material handling

Minor to moderate local

benefit

Same as No Action Same as No Action

Changes in levels of trail use

(new program participants)

Minor benefit to soils

compared to ongoing

moderate adverse impacts

under 2001 conditions 

Negligible to minor

adverse impacts compared

to No Action

Minor adverse impacts compared to No Action

Increased use of peninsula trails

by visitors (cumulative impact)

Increase existing impacts

from moderate to major

Same as No Action Same as No Action

TABLE 10. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS (SHEET 1 OF 6)
Activity Alternative A: No Action Alternative B: NPS

Management

Alternative C: Collaborative

Management (preferred)

SOILS (continued)

Removal of base structures;

landscape revegetation

No effect (no structure

removal/ landscape revegetation proposed)

Major localized benefit to

soils (40 acres revegetated)

Moderate localized benefit to

soils (16 acres revegetated)

VEGETATION

Inventory/monitoring of natural

resources, determination of

acceptable visitation levels, use

of management zoning

Major localized benefits

for vegetation on Little

Moose Island, minor to

moderate benefits in other

currently less disturbed

vegetative communities

Same as No Action Same as No Action

Revegetation of social trails on

Little Moose Island and creation of a 0.75 mi. trail 

Major local benefits for

patches of rare plants and

coastal headland vegetation 

Same as No Action Same as No Action

Monitoring/control of aggressive non-native plantsMinor benefit for freshwater wetlands on the

peninsula

Same as No Action Same as No Action

Acquisition of a conservation

easement to the north of the

existing Schoodic District

Minor to major benefits to

forest vegetation on the

peninsula

Same as No Action Same as No Action

Removal of unused structures

(e.g., fencing) in the study area

Minor to moderate localized benefits to vegetation Same as No Action Same as No Action

Removal of base buildings; vegetation restoration No effect (no building

removal, vegetation

restoration proposed)

Major local benefit (40

acres restored)

Moderate local benefit (16

acres restored)

Changes in level of trail use

(new program participants)

Moderate benefits to vegetation relative to 2001 use

(very few program participants)

Negligible impacts with

limited trail use in fragile

areas

Negligible impacts with limited

trail use in fragile areas

Increased visitor use of study

area trails (cumulative impact)

Could increase current

impacts to vegetation from

moderate to major unless

mitigated

Same as No Action Same as No Action

COASTAL RESOURCES

Inventory/monitoring of natural

resources, determination of

acceptable visitation levels,

management zoning, appropriate visitor information

Minor to moderate benefits to coastal resources in

intertidal areas of the

peninsula; moderate or

major localized benefits

for common eiders and

other nesting seabirds

Same as No Action Same as No Action

Revegetation of social trails on

Little Moose Island and creation of a 0.75 mi. trail 

Moderate localized benefits for coastal vegetation Same as No Action Same as No Action

TABLE 10. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS (SHEET 2 OF 6)

Acadia National Park | National Park Service 155
Activity Alternative A: No Action Alternative B: NPS

Management

Alternative C: Collaborative

Management (preferred)

COASTAL RESOURCES (continued)

Addition of new educational

programs

Negligible benefit (minimal programming)Moderate or major localized impacts to intertidal

area

Same as Alternative B

Unrestricted use of intertidal

areas by program participants

Negligible to minor benefits to common eiders and

other seabirds relative to

2001 conditions 

Moderate to major local

impacts to a variety of

resources; impacts to common eiders and other

seabirds additive and

adverse unless mitigated

Same as Alternative B, with

major impacts more likely

WILDLIFE

Inventory/monitoring of natural

resources, determination of

acceptable visitation levels, management zoning

Major localized benefits

for wildlife, including the

federally threatened bald

eagle 

Same as No Action Same as No Action

Acquisition of a conservation

easement to the north of the

existing Schoodic District

Minor to major benefits to

wildlife 

Same as No Action Same as No Action

Implementation of public transportationNegligible to minor benefits for wildlife Same as No Action Same as No Action 

Base building removal, vegetation restorationNo effect (no building

removal or restoration proposed)

Minor, localized benefit to

wildlife (40 acres restored)

Negligible to minor benefit to

wildlife (16 acres restored)

Program use Possible unknown benefits

of fewer people related to

base closure

Minor to moderate impacts if use is unregulated;

no more than minor if

restricted; minor to moderate impacts to nocturnal

mammals 

Minor to moderate impacts if

use is unregulated; no more

than minor if restricted; moderate impacts to nocturnal

mammals

Increased visitor use of study

area (cumulative impact)

Negligible to minor

adverse effect in vicinity of

trails

Same as No Action Same as No Action

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Inventory/monitoring of cultural

resources, determination of

acceptable visitor levels

Minor to major benefits to

cultural resources 

Same as No Action Same as No Action

Revegetation of social trails on

Little Moose Island

Minor to major, site-specific benefits to archeological resources Same as No Action Same as No Action

TABLE 10. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS (SHEET 3 OF 6)

156 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment
Activity Alternative A: No Action Alternative B: NPS

Management

Alternative C: Collaborative

Management (preferred)

CULTURAL RESOURCES (continued)

Ground disturbance related to

trail revegetation and construction of a new 0.75-mile trail on

Little Moose Island

Negligible to minor

impacts to archeological

resources 

Same as No Action Same as No Action

Nomination of proposed

Schoodic Peninsula Historic

District to the NRHP, rezoning

as "Preservation Subzone"

Minor to moderate benefits to cultural resources,

local to regional in scope

Same as No Action Same as No Action

Maintenance activities at

Schoodic Point in accordance

with the Secretary of the

Interior's Standards

Negligible to minor, sitespecific benefits Same as No Action Same as No Action

Zoning of the Rockefeller

Building and powerhouse

as"Preservation/Adaptive Use

Subzone" of the "Cultural

Zone"

Minor, site-specific benefits to these historic structures Same as No Action Same as No Action

Maintenance and preservation

of exterior of Rockefeller

Building in accordance with the

Secretary of the Interior's

Standards

Minor to moderate, sitespecific benefitSame as No Action Same as No Action

Retrofitting of potentially

NRHP-eligible structures for

universal access in accordance

with the Secretary of the

Interior's Standards

Negligible to minor, sitespecific impacts to cultural

resources

Same as No Action Same as No Action

Acquisition of navy archives and

collections by the NPS for use

in interpretive and educational

visitor programs

Minor, regional benefit to

cultural resources

Same as No Action Same as No Action

Changes in traffic volumes Minor benefit to cultural

landscape

Minor impacts to cultural

landscape, particularly

Schoodic Loop Road

Minor to moderate impacts to

cultural landscape, particularly

Schoodic Loop Road

Base building removal No effect (no building

removal proposed)

Negligible to minor Same as Alternative B

Vegetation restoration No effect (no restoration

proposed)

Negligible or minor benefit to the cultural landscape of the potentially eligible Schoodic Peninsula

Historic District

Same as Alternative B

TABLE 10. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS (SHEET 4 OF 6)

Acadia National Park | National Park Service 157
Activity Alternative A: No Action Alternative B: NPS

Management

Alternative C: Collaborative

Management (preferred)

CULTURAL RESOURCES (continued)

Increased visitor information

related to historic preservation

No effect (no increased

information proposed)

Negligible to moderate

benefits to cultural

resources

Same as Alternative B

Landscaping sympathetic to

1934 design around the

Rockefeller Building

No effect (no landscaping

proposed)

Minor, site-specific benefit Same as Alternative B

Rehabilitation and reuse of ineligible base structuresNo effect ( no rehabilitation and reuse proposed)Negligible to minor benefits to cultural resources Same as Alternative B

VISITOR EXPERIENCE

Determination of acceptable

levels of visitation, implementation of management zoning

(limiting access)

Minor to moderate

adverse impact to visitor

experience

Same as No Action Same as No Action

Removal of fencing around the

base (greater access)

Minor benefit Same as No Action Same as No Action

Revegetation of social trails and

construction of a maintained

trail on Little Moose Island 

Minor benefits to visitors;

minor adverse impacts for

those who frequent these

social trails 

Same as No Action Same as No Action

Increase in visitor use Minor to moderate

impacts at Schoodic Point

and trails around Schoodic

Head at midday, minor

impacts at Frazer Point

Major impacts for visitors

to Schoodic Point at midday; minor impacts at

Frazer Point

Major impacts for visitors to

Schoodic Point at midday;

moderate impacts at Frazer

Point

Overnight visitor use Negligible impacts on

views of night sky at the

base

Same as No Action Minor adverse impacts on

views of the night sky at the

base

Changes in traffic volume Negligible or minor benefits Negligible or minor benefits Moderate to major impacts 

Slow-moving construction traffic (building removal and renovation, etc.)No effect (no building

removal proposed)

Minor impacts to

Schoodic Loop Road 

Negligible to minor impacts to

Schoodic Loop Road

Creation of more natural feel of

base area

No effect (negligible base

modifications proposed)

Minor benefits Same as Alternative B

Level of human presence in the

Schoodic District

Minor benefit on visitor

perception of quiet and

solitude

Negligible to minor

impacts on visitor perception of quiet and solitude 

Same as Alternative B

Building removal and renovationNo effect (no building

removal proposed)

Moderate to major, shortterm impacts from noise

and dust (15 buildings

removed) 

Minor to major, short-term

impacts (5–10 buildings

removed)

TABLE 10. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS (SHEET 5 OF 6)

158 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment
Activity Alternative A: No Action Alternative B: NPS

Management

Alternative C: Collaborative

Management (preferred)

VISITOR EXPERIENCE (continued)

Restoration of landscape No effect (no restoration

proposed)

Minor or moderate benefits to visitors (40 acres

restored)

Negligible to minor benefit to

visitors (16 acres restored)

Rehabilitation of Rockefeller

Building

No effect (no rehabilitation proposed)Minor to moderate localized benefits on visitor

experience 

Same as Alternative B

Improvements to base parking

and circulation

No effect (no improvements) Minor benefits for visitors Major benefits

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

Increase in visitor use, program

participants, and staff

Negligible benefit to

socioeconomic environment (1,800

participants/year, 5 staff) 

Minor benefit to socioeconomic environment

(13,500 participants/year;

30 staff)

Moderate benefit to socioeconomic environment (31,500

participants/year; 60 staff) 

Employee and visitor spending

in nearby communities

Benefits of unknown magnitude Same as No Action Same as No Action

Rental of housing by parks staff Negligible benefit to the

local economy

Negligible to minor benefit

to the local economy

Same as Alternative B with

slightly increased benefits

* No impairment of any NPS resource or value would occur in any alternative

TABLE 10. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS (SHEET 6 OF 6)

Acadia National Park | National Park Service 159

Acadia National Park | National Park Service 161

PART FIVE: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

SUMMARY OF PLANNING

This plan was prepared through a process of

continuous consultation with Acadia National

Park and other National Park Service staff, and

with a large number of stakeholders including

governmental bodies, educational and cultural

organizations, businesses, elected officials, and

individual members of the public.

Planning began in 1999 when Superintendent

Paul Haertel was first informed that Naval

Security Group Activity Winter Harbor, was

slated to cease operation by July 2002. He

sought help from the NPS Northeast Region,

and Sarah Peskin, Chief Planner for New

England, and John Kelly, Outdoor Recreation

Planner, were assigned. Together they and 

others participated in a series of public forums

and quarterly coordinating meetings hosted by

three successive commanding officers of NSGA

to plan for an orderly transition of management

from the U.S. Navy. Because only part of the

base would legally revert back to NPS, key

stakeholders included the towns of Winter

Harbor and Gouldsboro, the Maine congressional delegation, the State of Maine, and a large

number of individuals and organizations with

responsibilities and concerns about the loss of

an important employer and historic presence in

this rural area. 

Quarterly transition meetings were held from

2000 until 2002 to coordinate matters such as

land and property disposition, environmental

surveys, sharing of resource data, reuse opportunities, and other issues involving multiple

entities. Responsible officials from local, state,

and federal agencies, and representatives of the

Congressional delegation participated in each of

these meetings. Each meeting had a public 

component allowing interested people to get

current status reports, and have their questions

addressed. These meetings were well attended

and covered by local weekly and daily newspapers. Acadia National Park managers and

Schoodic planning team leaders attended regularly and participated in all the public forums. 

At these meetings, the planning team explained

how the NPS process fit into overall efforts to

prepare for the departure of the Navy. The

Schoodic planning team prepared a background

document titled Schoodic Point Navy Base Reuse:

Site Orientation and Overview in 2001 with

maps, photographs, and other information

about the Schoodic District. Also included was

a statement of guiding principles and goals on

which planning would be based. 

Following the U.S. Navy's departure, the

Schoodic planning team continued to brief the

State of Maine and local communities on the

planning process and to seek their input on a

formal and informal basis. These consultations

included ongoing coordination with the Maine

State Planning Office, NPS participation in the

Maine Rural Development Council's Schoodic

area workshop in March 2001, and a meeting

with the Schoodic Area League of Towns (SALT)

in February 2002. SALT includes the towns of

Franklin, Gouldsboro, Sorrento, Steuben,

Sullivan, and Winter Harbor. The Schoodic

planning team also met regularly with Schoodic

AreaFutures, a nonprofit organization that

formed in 1999 to provide a forum for discussion and promote ideas about the ways the local

communities can address change on the

Schoodic Peninsula. 

Since February 2001, the Schoodic planning

team has briefed the park's Advisory

Commission on the status of the general 

management plan at nine of its regular meetings. The 16-member Advisory Commission is

the park's Congressionally authorized citizen

advisory group representing the State of Maine,

local towns, and the public at large. All

Advisory Commission meetings are open to the

public. In addition to completing consultations

on the Draft General Management Plan

Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

(DGMPA/EIS), the Schoodic planning team has

worked continuously and cooperatively with the

local communities on the development of the

Schoodic National Scenic Byway, expansion of

the Island Explorer shuttle bus to Schoodic, and

preparation of a comprehensive plan for the
162 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

Town of Winter Harbor. These efforts relate

directly to the use and development of the

Schoodic District. 

The team conducted two formal public meetings

at Sullivan High School in 2000 and 2002 to

provide information about the planning process

and to seek public comment. A mailing list was

developed and attendees were invited to mail

back suggestions and remain on the list for

future updates. A newsletter was published in

2001 with background information and preliminary concepts for further discussion and analysis. In 2001, John Kelly moved to Acadia

National Park as the Park Planner to provide

local coordination and support for the planning

process. Throughout the course of the project,

key documents were posted on the Acadia

National Park website where they remain for

reference. These publications may be found at: 

www.nps.gov/acad/schoodic/home.htm

The Schoodic planning team is sensitive to

tribal interest in the proper stewardship of

resources on the peninsula. The five federally

recognized tribes in Maine have been and will

continue to be consulted in conjunction with

the preparation of the DGMPA/EIS for the

Schoodic District. Consultations with the

Maine tribes were initiated at a meeting in

February 2002. The tribal leaders and park staff

agreed that there was strong potential for a

partnership at the proposed Schoodic

Education and Research Center. Tribal 

members expressed interest in utilizing the

facilities for tribal meetings or activities that

educate the public on Wabanaki culture. A second meeting at Schoodic took place with tribal

leaders in July 2002. The leaders had an opportunity to tour the base and visit a number of the

buildings and facilities. Again, there was strong

interest on the part of the leaders present to

think of ways that the tribes could utilize the

facilities as a gathering place and to hold 

programs to teach the public about the

Wabanaki people. The most recent tribal meeting was held in December 2002, and was hosted

by the Aroostook Band of Micmacs and the

Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians. Participants

were brought up to date on the ongoing planning efforts for the Schoodic District and their

input was sought. 

Consultation with the Maine State Historic

Preservation Officer (SHPO) has been ongoing

during research for and preparation of National

Register nominations for the Schoodic

Peninsula District and the Rockefeller Building.

On March 28, 2002 the DGMPA/EIS was discussed as part of an overall review meeting.

Further consultation will take place during

review of the DGMPA/EIS.

An open house was held at Schoodic in October

2002 so that interested parties could tour the

former navy base site that had not been open to

the public while an active military installation.

Throughout the planning process, articles have

appeared in publications and on websites of the

Friends of Acadia, and National Parks

Conservation Association. These two large

membership organizations have helped NPS stay

in touch with members of the public beyond

those who live year round in the immediate

vicinity of Schoodic. Local press coverage and

the Friends of Schoodic website have kept

neighbors and others informed.

A public meeting will be held while the

DGMPA/EIS is on review and the draft will be

distributed and posted on the website.

Comments will be addressed as decisions are

made and the amendment is made final.
LIST OF DRAFT GENERAL

MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT

RECIPIENTS 

Federal Agencies

Acadia National Park Advisory Commission

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation

Service

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration 

Department of Defense, Office of Economic Adjustment

Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:

Northeast Region

Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge

Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, First

District 

Department of the Navy:

Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Northern

Division

Naval Satellite Operations Center, Detachment Alpha 

Naval Security Group Command

Department of Transportation:

Federal Highway Administration, Maine Division

Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1

General Services Administration, New England Region

Indian Tribes

Aroostook Band of Micmacs

Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians

Passamaquoddy Tribe:

Indian Township Reservation

Pleasant Point Reservation

Penobscot Indian Nation

State Agencies 

Department of Conservation

Department of Economic and Community Development

Department of Education

Department of Environmental Protection

Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

Department of Labor

Department of Marine Resources

Department of Transportation, Office of Passenger

Transportation

Maine Historic Preservation Commission

Maine Rural Development Council

Office of Tourism

State Planning Office

University of Maine:

College of Education

College of Natural Sciences, Forestry, and Agriculture

Cooperative Extension

Lobster Institute

Maine Sea Grant

School of Marine Sciences (Darling Marine Center)

Senator George J. Mitchell Center for Environmental and

Watershed Research

Local Agencies

School Union 92

School Union 93

School Union 96

School Union 98

Town of Bar Harbor

Town of Cranberry Isles

Town of Franklin

Town of Frenchboro

Town of Gouldsboro

Town of Isle au Haut

Town of Mount Desert

Town of Sorrento

Town of Southwest Harbor

Town of Steuben

Town of Sullivan

Town of Swans Island

Town of Tremont

Town of Trenton

Town of Winter Harbor

Elected Officials

U.S. Senator Susan Collins 

U.S. Senator Olympia J. Snowe 

U.S. Representative Tom Allen (1st District)

U.S. Representative Michael H. Michaud (2nd District)

Governor John E. Baldacci 

State Senator Dennis Damon (Senate District 5)

State Senator Christine R. Savage (Senate District 12)

State Senator Kevin L. Shorey (Senate District 4)

State Representative Leonard Earl Bierman (House District

132) 

State Representative Edward R. Dugay (House District 131) 

State Representative Theodore Koffman (House District 130) 

State Representative Hannah Pingree (House District 129) 

Hancock County Commissioner Fay A. Lawson (District 3)

Organizations

Abbe Museum

Acadia Corporation

Appalachian Mountain Club

Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences

Carriages in the Park, Inc.

Coastal Acadia Development Corporation

College of the Atlantic

Conservation Education Foundation of Maine

Down East Resource Conservation and Development

Council

Downeast and Acadia Regional Tourism

Acadia National Park | National Park Service 163
Downeast Transportation Inc.

Eastern Maine Development Corporation

Eastern National

Frenchmen Bay Conservancy

Friends of Acadia

Friends of Schoodic

Gouldsboro Historical Society

Hancock County Planning Commission

Humboldt Field Research Institute

Maine Association of Sea Kayak Guides and Instructors 

Maine Audubon Society

Maine Coast Heritage Trust

Maine Community Development Association

Maine Community Foundation

Maine Environmental Education Association

Maine Environmental Research Institute

Maine Science and Technology Foundation

Maine Sierra Club

Maine Tourism Association

Marine Environmental Research Institute

Mount Desert Island Biological Laboratory

National Park Tours

National Parks Conservation Association

Natural Resources Council of Maine

Oli's Trolley

Schoodic Area Futures

Schoodic Arts for All

Schoodic Healthy Communities

Schoodic Peninsula Chamber of Commerce

Schoodic Scenic Byway Committee

The Island Institute

The Jackson Laboratory

The Nature Conservancy

U.S. Naval Cryptologic Veterans Association

Winter Harbor Historical Society

LIST OF PREPARERS

National Park Service Planning Team

Sarah Peskin, Director of Special Planning Projects, 

Northeast Region, Team Co-Captain

John T. Kelly, Park Planner, Acadia National Park, Team CoCaptain

Justin Berthiaume, Landscape Architect, Northeast Region

Brian Aviles, Landscape Architect, Northeast Region

James O'Connell, Community Planner, Northeast Region

Kate Fichter, Planner, Northeast Region

Lena Vassilev, Intern, Northeast Region

Consultants

Heidi West, Total Quality NEPA (Environmental Impact 

Statement)

Robert Manning, Park Studies Laboratory, School of Natural 

Resources, University of Vermont (Visitor Surveys)

Clarissa Rowe, Alison Richardson, Lisa Roth; Brown, 

Richardson and Rowe, Landscape Architects (Design 

Guidelines)

Lauren Meier, Eliot Foulds, David Uschold, Olmsted Center 

for Landscape Preservation (Cultural Landscape 

Reports)

Michael G. Dyer, Scott A. Peterson, Tom Crikelair,

U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and

Special Programs Administration, John A. Volpe 

National Transportation Systems Center (Alternative 

Transportation Assessment)

Steve Kahl, Heritage Partners (Partnership Development)

Tish Tanski, Heritage Partners (Business Plan/Program 

Development) 

Drew Leff, GLC Development/Heritage Partners 

(Development Feasibility)

Catherine Barner, Heritage Partners

Michelle Bierman, Heritage Partners (Administrative Systems 

Support)

Glen Mittelhauser (Natural Resources)

Lars Hanslin (Partnerships)

Naomi Porat, Porat Consulting (Market and Economic 

Assessment)

Laure Blair, Porat Consulting (Market and Economic 

Assessment)

Acadia National Park Advisors

Karen Anderson, GIS Specialist

Mike Blaney, Land Resource Specialist

Len Bobinchock, Deputy Superintendent

Robert Breen, Air and Water Quality Specialist

David Buccello, Chief Ranger

Phil Church, Schoodic Maintenance Foreman

Bruce Connery, Biologist, Wildlife Resources

Linda Gregory, Botanist

Paul Haertel, Former Superintendent 

Judith Hazen Connery, Natural Resource Specialist

Mike Healy, Administrative Officer

Charles Jacobi, Recreation Specialist

Douglas Jones, Fire Management Officer

David Manski, Chief of Resource Management

Boyd McFarland, Information Technology Specialist

Ed Pontbriand, Schoodic District Ranger

Sheridan Steele, Superintendent

Lee Terzis, Cultural Resource Program Manager

James Vekasi, Chief of Maintenance

Deb Wade, Chief of Interpretation

Bill Weidner, Schoodic Ranger

Stuart West, Branch Chief - Remote Areas

National Park Service Advisors

Marie Rust, Director, Northeast Region

Robert W. McIntosh, Associate Regional Director, Planning 

and Partnerships

David Hollenberg, Associate Regional Director, Design, 

Construction, and Facility Management 

Peter Steele, Project Manager, Northeast Region

Paul Weinbaum, Historian, Northeast Region

164 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment
Accessibility - The provision of NPS programs, facilities, and services in ways that include individuals with

disabilities, or make available to those individuals the same benefits available to persons without disabilities. 

Archeological Resource - Any material remains or physical evidence of past human life or activities that are

of archeological interest, including the record of the effects of human activities on the environment. An

archeological resource is capable of revealing scientific or humanistic information through archeological

research. 

Carrying Capacity - The type and level of visitor use that can be accommodated while sustaining the desired

resource and visitor experience conditions in a park. Carrying capacities for national park units are established using the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection framework, which is a planning process that

determines the desired resource and visitor experience conditions based on measurements of quantifiable

indicators and standards.

Conservation Easement - A legal agreement between a landowner and another party that protects the conservation value of a parcel by limiting uses and changes that the landowner may make to it. The holder of the

conservation easement may monitor the property to enforce the restrictions.

Cultural Landscape - A geographic area, including both cultural and natural resources and the wildlife or

domestic animals therein, associated with a historic event, activity, or person, or exhibiting other cultural or

aesthetic values. There are four non-mutually exclusive types of cultural landscapes: historic sites, historic

designed landscapes, historic vernacular landscapes, and ethnographic landscapes.

Cultural Resource - An aspect of a cultural system that is valued by or significantly representative of a culture, or that contains significant information about a culture. A cultural resource may be a tangible entity or

a cultural practice. Tangible cultural resources are categorized as districts, sites, buildings, structures, and

objects for the National Register of Historic Places, and as archeological resources, cultural landscapes,

structures, museum objects, and ethnographic resources for NPS management purposes.

Defensible Space - The space needed for firefighters to adequately defend structures from oncoming wildland fires, or to stop a structural fire before it ignites wildland vegetation. Defensible space describes the

desired result of planning, siting, and constructing developed facilities in a way that minimizes their vulnerability to wildfire threats and maximizes their protection against wildfire hazards.

Downeast Maine - A region in Maine that consists of the coastal areas of Hancock and Washington counties.

The name was coined in reference to sailing in an easterly direction, downwind from Boston.

Environmental Impact Statement - A detailed NEPA analysis document that is prepared when proposed

actions or alternatives have the potential for significant impact on the human environment. 

Ethnographic Resources - Objects and places, including sites, structures, landscapes, and natural resources,

with traditional cultural meaning and value to associated peoples. Research and consultation with associated

people identifies and explains the places and objects they find culturally meaningful. 

Geologic Resources - Features produced from the physical history of the Earth, or processes such as exfoliation, erosion and sedimentation, glaciation, karst or shoreline processes, seismic, and volcanic activities. 

General Management Plan - A plan that clearly defines direction for resource protection, visitor use, and

development in a park, and serves as the basic foundation for decision-making over a 10–15-year time frame.

Historic Property - A district, site, building, structure, or object significant in the history of American archeology, architecture, culture, engineering, or politics at the national, state, or local level. 

Impact - The likely effects of an action or proposed action upon specific natural, cultural, or socioeconomic

resources. Impacts may be direct, indirect, cumulative, beneficial, or adverse. Severe impacts that harm the

integrity of park resources or values are known as "impairments." 

GLOSSARY

Acadia National Park | National Park Service 165
Impairment - An impact so severe that, in the professional judgment of a responsible NPS manager, it

would harm the integrity of park resources or values and violate the 1916 NPS Organic Act. 

Leave No Trace - Principles and practices that emphasize the ethic of leaving a place free and clear of

human presence. Applied to all forms of recreation management within wilderness or other sensitive

resource areas. 

Lightscape (natural) - The state of natural resources and values as they exist in the absence of humancaused light. 

Management Prescriptions - A planning term referring to statements about desired resource conditions

and visitor experiences, along with appropriate kinds and levels of management, use, and development for

each park area. 

Management Zones - These zones identify how geographic areas in the park will be managed to achieve

a combination of desired conditions. Each zone prescribes a unique combination of physical, biological,

social, and managerial conditions along with specific management strategies that should be taken to

achieve the desired resource conditions and visitor experiences for a given zone.

National Register of Historic Places - The nation's official list of properties (districts, sites, buildings,

structures, and objects) having national, state, or local historic significance and deemed worthy of preservation. The National Register was established under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. 

National Environmental Policy Act Process - The objective analysis of a proposed action to determine

the degree of its environmental impact on the natural and human environment; alternatives and mitigation

that reduce that impact; and the full and candid presentation of the analysis to, and involvement of, the

interested and affected public. Required of all federal agencies by the National Environmental Policy Act

of 1969. 

Recreation Visit - The entry of a person into the park for recreational purposes. Recreational visits do

not include commuter traffic, people traveling through the park to inholdings, and tradespeople conducting business in the park. NPS employees and their families, concessioner and cooperating association

employees, contractors, and those conducting activities associated with cooperative agreements are not

counted as visits.

Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (The) - A set of guidelines for preserving, rehabilitating, restoring, and reconstructing historically significant districts, sites,

buildings, structures, and objects. Preservation focuses on the maintenance and repair of existing historic

materials and retention of a property's form as it has evolved over time. Rehabilitation acknowledges the

need to alter or add to a historic property to meet continuing or changing uses while retaining the property's historic character as it has evolved over time. Restoration depicts a property at a particular period

of time in its history, while removing evidence of other periods. Reconstruction re-creates vanished or

non-surviving portions of a property for interpretive purposes.

Social Trail - A trail that is not officially designated or maintained by NPS and develops by continuous

human use rather than by purposeful design and construction.

Soundscape (natural) - The aggregate of all the natural, non-human-caused sounds that occur in parks,

together with the physical capacity for transmitting natural sounds. 

Sustainable Practices/Principles - Those choices, decisions, actions, and ethics that will best achieve

ecological/biological integrity; protect qualities and functions of air, water, soil, and other aspects of the

natural environment. Sustainable practices allow for use and enjoyment by the current generation while

ensuring that future generations will have the same opportunities.

166 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 167

Adessi, L.

1995 "Human Disturbance and Long Term Changes on a Rocky Intertidal Community." Ecol. Appl., 4:

786-797.

Anthony, Robert G., R.J. Steidl, and K. McGarigal

1995 "Recreation and Bald Eagles in the Pacific Northwest." In Knight, Richard L. and Kevin J.

Gutzwiller (eds.), Wildlife and Recreationalists: Coexistence through Management and Research.

Washington, DC: Island Press, 223-41.

ASZ Associates, Seareach-CMI, and the Maguire Group

2001 "Reuse Opportunities and Strategies, Corea Naval Base and Navy Housing in Winter Harbor."

Prepared for Eastern Maine Development Corporation.

Bowles, Ann E.

1995 "Responses of Wildlife to Noise." In Knight, Richard L. and Kevin J. Gutzwiller (eds.), Wildlife

and Recreationalists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Washington, DC: Island

Press, 109-156.

Burger, Joanna

1995 "Beach Recreation and Nesting Birds." In Knight, Richard L. and Kevin J. Gutzwiller (eds.),

Wildlife and Recreationalists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Washington, DC:

Island Press, 281-295.

Calhoun, A.K., J. Cormier, R. Owen, Jr., A. O'Connell Jr., C. Roman, and R. Tiner

1994 "The Wetlands of Acadia National Park and Vicinity." Miscellaneous Publication 721-Maine

Agricultural and Forest Experimentation Station. Orono: University of Maine Press.

Coffin, Tammis E., H.R. Tyler, and Michael W. Broyer

1989 "An Evaluation of Sites Representing Coastal Granite Bedrock Shoreline in the New EnglandAdirondack Region for Their Eligibility as National Natural Landmarks." Augusta: Maine State

Planning Office.

Cole, David N., and Peter B. Landres

1995 "Indirect Effects of Recreation on Wildlife." In Knight, Richard L. and Kevin J. Gutzwiller

(eds.), Wildlife and Recreationalists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Washington,

DC: Island Press, 183-202.

Conkey, Laura E., M. Keifer, and A.H. Lloyd

1995 "Disjunct Jack Pine Structure and Dynamics, Acadia National Park, Maine." Ecoscience, 2 (2):

168-176. 

Drury, William

1980 "Habitats of Special Interest in Acadia National Park."

Famous, Norman

1999 "Inventories of Birds." In Biological Inventories of Schoodic and Corea Peninsulas, Coastal Maine,

1996 (NPS Technical Report NPS/BSO-RNR/NRTR/00-4). Boston: National Park Service.

Feurt, Christian Baumann

2001 "Tidepool Etiquette: A Community Education and Monitoring Program to Protect Significant

Intertidal Habitats in Kennebunk, Maine." Kennebunk: Kennebunk Conservation Commission.

Foley, Mary K., L.L. Gregory, and C.W. Greene

1989 "The Ecology of Sub-Alpine Plant Communities of the Summits of Acadia National Park."

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Gabe, Todd M., and Thomas G. Allen

2000 "Economic Impacts of Winter Harbor Naval Base Closure on Hancock County, Maine." Orono:

University of Maine Press.

Glanz, William E.

1999 "Terrestrial Mammal Inventory." In Biological Inventories of Schoodic and Corea Peninsulas,

Coastal Maine, 1996 (NPS Technical Report NPS/BSO-RNR/NRTR/00-4). Boston: National Park

Service.

Glanz, William E., and Bruce Connery

1999 Biological Inventories of Schoodic and Corea Peninsulas, Coastal Maine, 1996 (NPS Technical

Report NPS/BSO-RNR/NRTR/00-4). Boston: National Park Service.

Grubb. Teryl E., W.M. Bowerman, J.P. Giesy, and G.A. Dawson

1992 "Responses of Breeding Bald Eagles, Haliaeetus leucocephalus, to Human Activities in

Northcentral Michigan." Canadian Field-Naturalist, 106 (4): 443-453.

Jones, Kyle

Undated "Acadia National Park Lands with Colonial Nesting Birds."

Joseph, David

2001 "GPRA Air Quality Goal 1A3 FY2000 Annual Performance Report." Denver: National Park

Service Air Resources Division, Research and Monitoring Branch.

Kahl, S., D. Manski, M. Flora, and N. Houtman (eds.)

2000 "Water Resources Management Plan, Acadia National Park." Prepared for the National Park

Service.

Knight, Richard L., and D.N. Cole

1995 "Wildlife Responses to Recreationalists." In Knight, Richard L. and Kevin J. Gutzwiller (eds.),

Wildlife and Recreationalists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Washington, DC:

Island Press, 51-69.

Kuss, F.R., A.R. Graefe, and J.J. Vaske

1990 "Visitor Impact Management: A Review of Research." Volume I. Washington, DC: National Parks

and Conservation Association.

Louis Berger Group, Inc., and The Cultural Resource Group

1999 "Cultural Resources Survey, Naval Security Group Activity, Winter Harbor, Maine." Prepared for

the Northern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command.

Maine Department of Conservation, National Areas Division

1998 "Fact Sheet: Northern White Cedar Seepage Forest."

1999 "Fact Sheet: Jack Pine."

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

2001 "Midwinter Waterfowl Survey Data for Maine, January 1995-2000."

2002 "Bald Eagle Fact Sheet."

Maine State Planning Office

2001 "30 and 1,000-How to Build a Knowledge-Based Economy in Maine and Raise Incomes to the

National Average by 2010."

168 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 169

Manning, Robert, Steven Lawson, William Valliere, James Bacon, and Daniel Laven

2002 "Schoodic Peninsula, Acadia National Park, Visitor Survey 2000-2001." Burlington: University of

Vermont School of Natural Resources.

Mattfield, G.

1974 "The Energetics of Winter Foraging by White-Tailed Deer: A Perspective on Winter." Doctoral

Thesis, State University of New York.

McGarigal, K., R.G. Anthony, and F.B. Isaacs

1991 "Interactions of Humans and Bald Eagles on the Columbia River Estuary." Wildlife Monographs,

115: 1-47.

Milne, Bruce T., and R.T.T. Forman

1986 "Peninsulas in Maine: Woody Plant Diversity, Distance, and Environmental Patterns." Ecology,

67 (4): 967-974.

Mittlehauser, Glen, B. Connery, A. Breen, and T. McGrath

1995 "Biological Inventory of Acadia National Park and U.S. Navy Lands on the Schoodic Peninsula,

Maine."

Mittlehauser, Glen, J. Hazen Connery, and J. Jacobs

1996 "Inventories of Selected Flora and Fauna on 10 Islands of Acadia National Park, Maine."

(Natural Resources Technical Report NPS/NESO-RNR/NRTR/96-01). Boston: National Park

Service.

Murray, S.N., Denis T.G., and J.S. Kido, and J.R. Smith

1999 "Human Visitation and the Frequency and Potential Effects of Collecting on Rocky Intertidal

Populations in Southern California Marine Reserves." California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries

Investigations Report 40: 100-106.

National Park Service

1992 "Acadia National Park Resource Management Plan."

1992a "Acadia National Park General Management Plan."

1995 "The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties."

1995 "Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors: A Resource Book."

(4th Edition).

1997 "Birds of Acadia National Park."

1999 "NPS Air Quality Briefing Statement, October 5, 1999."

1999a "Air Resource Program Summary, Acadia National Park, Maine."

2000a "Director's Order 12 and Handbook: Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis,

and Decision Making."

2001a "National Park Service 2001 Management Policies"

2001b "Draft National Register Nomination for Schoodic Peninsula."

2002 "Wetlands of Schoodic Peninsula, Acadia National Park."

Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Northern Division

1987 "Naval Security Group Activity Winter Harbor, Maine Long Range Forest Management Plan, FY

1987."

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center

1998 "Bird Checklists for Acadia National Park." 
Owen, Ray Jr., and Lindsay Hall Hodgman

1989 "Population Study and Winter Feeding of Eagles in the Acadia National Park Vicinity." Prepared

for the National Park Service.

Schindler, D.W.

1988 "Effects of Acid Rain on Freshwater Ecosystems." Science, 238: 149-53.

Spencer, Howard E., Jr., and Alan Hutchinson

1974 "An Appraisal of the Fishery and Wildlife Resources of Eastern Hancock County." Augusta:

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.

Spencer-Famous, Marcia, and M. Perera

1999 "Additions to the Vascular Plant List of the Schoodic Region, Coastal Maine." In Biological

Inventories of Schoodic and Corea Peninsulas, Coastal Maine, 1996 (NPS Technical Report

NPS/BSO-RNR/NRTR/00-4). Boston: National Park Service.

1999a "Bryophyte Vegetation Inventory." In Biological Inventories of Schoodic and Corea Peninsulas,

Coastal Maine, 1996 (NPS Technical Report NPS/BSO-RNR/NRTR/00-4). Boston: National Park

Service.

Stynes, D.J., D.B. Propst, W.H. Chang, and Y. Sun

2000 "Estimating National Park Visitor Spending and Economic Impacts: The MGM2 Model." East

Lansing: Department of Park, Recreation, and Tourism Resources, Michigan State University.

Stynes, D., and Y. Sun

2002 "Economic Impacts of Selected National Parks, Updates to Year 2001."

U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics

2000 "Estimated National Average Vehicle Emissions Rates by Vehicle Type and Fuel (Grams per

Mile." From unpublished data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. www.bts.gov.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Special Programs Administration, John A. Volpe

National Transportation Systems Center

2001 "Acadia National Park: Assessment of Alternate Transportation for Schoodic Peninsula."

Prepared for the National Park Service.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1999 "National Air Quality and Emission Trends Report."

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

2001 "USFWS Gulf of Maine Coastal Program-Coastal Nesting Islands Project Update." 

Zimmerman, Gutherie

1999 "Inventory of Bats." In Biological Inventories of Schoodic and Corea Peninsulas, Coastal Maine,

1996 (NPS Technical Report NPS/BSO-RNR/NRTR/00-4). Boston: National Park Service.

170 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 171

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: PARKWIDE INTERPRETIVE THEMES

Acadia National Park uses the following five themes to guide its interpretive approach for the entire

park, including Schoodic. Recent history, including the Navy's use of the peninsula, is included in the

third theme, which addresses human activities. These themes will guide program planners as they

develop materials for Schoodic. 

• National parks offer opportunities to fulfill emotional and spiritual needs for

renewal and invoke attitudes of reverence and stewardship.

Because of the deep affection that they held for Acadia, private citizens took the actions necessary

to preserve these beautiful landscapes, places where it is still possible to observe and be renewed

by nature. As a national park, Acadia has continued the tradition of providing spiritual respite and

encouraging responsible stewardship.

• The flora and fauna of Acadia National Park and surrounding waters comprise a rich

mix of temperate, neotropical, and boreal species significant in their biodiversity.

At Acadia, land and sea meet and the Northern and Temperate Zones overlap resulting in an abundance of life and significant biodiversity. Bordering the Gulf of Maine and the Atlantic Ocean and

protecting habitats with temperate, neotropical, and boreal species, Acadia is zoologically and

botanically rich.

• The cultural resources of Acadia National Park document human activities that span

five thousand years.

Acadia's human history begins with centuries of seasonal use by native peoples followed by a

period of European contact, exploration, and settlement initiated by the French. Decades of commercial use by lumbermen, shipbuilders, and fishermen overlapped and even fostered increased

pressure for conservation and the evolution of tourism. 

• Acadia National Park provides many opportunities to increase our understanding of

natural systems and human impact on them.

Acadia is a living scientific laboratory, offering significant opportunities for education and continued, multidisciplinary ecosystem research. 

• The natural landforms of Acadia National Park illustrate the dynamics of many geologic processes.

Acadia is a geologic primer on the effects of intense heat and pressure followed by the irresistible

erosive power of glaciers and the continued, persistent impact of powerful waves crashing ashore.
ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION

ANNUAL NPS OPERATING COSTS

Personnel:

Management/Administration $22,000

Visitor Protection 226,000

Resource Management 0

Research Learning Center 225,000

Maintenance 323,000

Subtotal $796,000

Utilities 99,000

Contract Services 81,000

Supplies and Materials 67,000

Vehicles 14,000

TOTAL ANNUAL NPS OPERATING COSTS $1,057,000

APPENDIX B: COST ESTIMATES

172 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 173

ALTERNATIVE B: NPS MANAGEMENT

ANNUAL NPS OPERATING COSTS

Personnel:

Management/Administration $254,000

Visitor Protection 335,000

Resource Management 122,000

Research Learning Center 225,000

Maintenance 621,000

Subtotal $1,557,000

Utilities 148,000

Contract Services 144,000

Supplies and Materials 135,000

Vehicles 30,000

TOTAL ANNUAL NPS OPERATING COSTS $2,014,000

CONSTRUCTION*

Predesign Studies $113,000

Site Demolition 304,000

Building Demolition 552,000

Building Rehabilitation 3,810,000

Site Work 2,073,000

Landscaping 249,000

Subtotal $7,101,000

Planning, Design, Construction Supervision 

@35% of Subtotal 2,445,000

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $9,547,000

*Cost estimates are preliminary Class C based on year 2004 dollars.
174 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

ALTERNATIVE C: COLLABORATIVE MANAGEMENT

(PREFERRED)

ANNUAL NPS OPERATING COSTS

Personnel:

Management/Administration $352,000

Visitor Protection 499,000

Resource Management 122,000

Research Learning Center 225,000

Maintenance 530,000

Subtotal $1,728,000

Utilities 88,000

Contract Services 328,000

Supplies and Materials 180,000

Vehicles 40,000

TOTAL ANNUAL NPS OPERATING COSTS $2,364,000

Note: For Alternative C, it is assumed the nonprofit organization

would provide an additional $812,000 for maintenance and 

utilities.

CONSTRUCTION*

Predesign Studies $113,000

Site Demolition 361,000

Building Demolition 218,000

Building Rehabilitation 5,545,000

Site Work 2,090,000

Landscaping 249,000

Subtotal $8,576,000

Planning, Design, Construction Supervision 

@ 35% of Subtotal 2,962,000

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $11,538,000

*Cost estimates are preliminary Class C based on year 2004 dollars.
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 175

Introduction

In 2001, the John A. Volpe National

Transportation Systems Center of the U.S.

Department of Transportation prepared Acadia

National Park: Assessment of Alternate

Transportation for Schoodic Peninsula. The

report identifies and assesses four alternatives

for the Schoodic District by examining three

transportation modes: buses, ferries, and bicycles. NPS (NPS) would implement an alternative transportation system in cooperation with

the State of Maine, local communities, and private operators. 

A travel demand model was developed from several data sources and fieldwork by the project

team to identify patterns of travel between

Mount Desert Island and the Schoodic District.

The data, which were drawn from Hancock and

Washington counties, include demographic data

(population and employment); NPS research on

park visitation; land use and growth trends;

existing transportation services; trip-to-work

and other transportation needs; and anticipated

needs of recreational visitors to Schoodic. Data

were based on the 2000 census and extrapolated

to project transportation needs to 2015.

The following transportation alternatives proposed in the study have no correlation to the

Draft General Management Plan Amendment

alternatives:

Alternative 1: This is a "no action" alternative.

Conditions would remain as they were at the

time of the study.

Alternative 2: This alternative would provide a

year-round commuter bus service linking Bar

Harbor and the Schoodic Peninsula, a park-andride facility in Winter Harbor, and a local bus

route taking park-and-ride users to nearby villages and the park at Schoodic. This alternative

does not include ferry service.

Alternative 3: This alternative is the preferred

alternative, as selected by the Volpe Center consultants. This alternative would provide ferry

service and bus service from May to October for

commuters and recreational users between Bar

Harbor and the Schoodic Peninsula. A parkand-ride facility would be located in Winter

Harbor, and there would be a bus route to take

park-and-ride users to nearby villages and the

park at Schoodic. The bus would also serve as a

backup for ferry cancellations and winter service.

Alternative 4: This alternative would provide

year-round ferry service between Bar Harbor

and the Schoodic Peninsula for recreational and

commuter users, a park-and-ride facility in

Winter Harbor, and a bus route to take parkand-ride users to nearby villages and the park at

Schoodic. There would be backup bus service

for ferry cancellations due to weather and operational problems.

Bus Service

Bus service concepts were developed for direct

transportation between Bar Harbor and

Schoodic District, and for local service. Two

potential levels of bus service include the following:

Level One bus service would use two buses for

limited commuter links between Bar Harbor and

the Schoodic Peninsula. One bus would accommodate 35–40 passengers and provide four daily

round trips from its base in Winter Harbor. The

second bus would be slightly smaller, accommodating about 28 passengers. This bus would be

based in Winter Harbor at night and would

remain at The Jackson Laboratory during the

day, offering one round trip between Winter

Harbor and Bar Harbor daily. Level-one service

would involve approximately 15.5 vehicle service hours per day and cost approximately

$97,000 per year.

Level Two bus service is more intensive and

would use two regularly scheduled buses, one

based in Winter Harbor and the other in Bar

Harbor. The bus based in Winter Harbor would

offer two daily round trips, one in the morning

and one in the afternoon. With this bus, there

would be the option for evening service. The

bus based in Bar Harbor would offer two morning round trips with one midday round trip and

one late afternoon round trip. Both buses

would accommodate 35–40 passengers and

involve approximately 20 vehicle service hours

per day. The cost of this "bus-only" service

APPENDIX C: ALTERNATE TRANSPORTATION STUDY SUMMARY
176 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

would be approximately $125,000 per year for

regular weekly service. Proposed year-round

operation costs are estimated at $69,000 per

year. If weekends are included in this estimate,

there is an additional cost of $9,100 per year.

The Jackson Laboratory has expressed interest

in year-round service. Linking service between

The Jackson Laboratory and Bar Harbor residential areas with ferry service may be possible

as a less expensive option than operating separate shuttles. During summer months, a second

bus may be needed. The estimated cost of shuttle service in Bar Harbor is $50,000 with an

additional cost of $5,600 for another bus in

summer months.

The report also suggests that a van could shuttle

NPS staff and SERC users between downtown

Bar Harbor and park headquarters. This

expanded service is estimated to cost $19,000

per year. 

Ferry Service

Because round-trip driving distance between

Bar Harbor and Winter Harbor is approximately

90 miles, ferry service across Frenchman Bay

may be more efficient transportation for commuters. The proposed ferry services would

draw on three target markets: commuters in

Downeast Maine, users of SERC, and tourists

and recreational users. Residents and park visitors to Mount Desert Island would provide virtually all demand for the proposed ferry service.

According to a NPS visitor survey, 10% of visitors to Acadia National Park visited the

Schoodic District. Of the residents of the

Schoodic Peninsula, 5% make annual recreational trips to Mount Desert Island. 

The seasonal service that extends from May to

October would run during weekday morning

and evening peak hours seven days a week. If

year-round service were selected, ferries would

run for 50 weeks with two weeks for maintenance; schedules would be similar to the seasonal ferry service. Demand calculations are

based on voyage time, headway times, and distance that ferry users must travel. The projected costs of a ferry round trip are $6 for

commuters, with recreational fares of $20 for

adults and $12 for children. The latter fares

could decrease demand because of the high

price a family would pay. For example, a family

of five with bikes might opt to drive to Schoodic

instead of paying $76 plus the likely additional

cost of transporting bikes. The report specifies

that over 90% of projected revenue would come

from recreational use; therefore, if the demand

decreases due to high cost, revenue would

decrease.

Vessel and Terminal Considerations: The Volpe

Center inspected possible terminal sites in Bar

Harbor and Winter Harbor. When looking at

candidate terminals for future ferry services, the

Volpe Center considered the following criteria:

navigational approach, depth and bottom characteristics, infrastructure, parking, and proximity to target markets. 

Of the docks considered in Winter Harbor, the

site that best meets the criteria is a private

marina and dock on Sargent Street in Winter

Harbor. The marina dock would be the easiest

to navigate into because it has a better dock

infrastructure, and there is an ease of access

and parking. Other docks considered had multiple and significant problems.

The Volpe Center also investigated types of

potential ferry vessels. In addition to evaluating

the feasibility of a catamaran, the project team

evaluated a single-hull boat with a minimum

speed of 18 knots (a speed that could make a

round trip in 80 minutes), a length of less than

65 feet, and a passenger capacity of 50–100.

Using a monohull vessel is preferred because it

is more cost-effective. A monohull vessel would

have the capacity to carry more passengers,

while only cutting the travel time by a few minutes. 

Based on other ferry services, the Volpe Center

calculated the cost of a Bar Harbor to Winter

Harbor ferry service. Costs included vessel

debt repayment and direct and indirect operating cost. Direct operating costs would include

crew, fuel and lubricant, hull insurance, and

vessel maintenance. Indirect operations costs

would include terminal-related costs, protection

and indemnity insurance, docking fees, marketing and advertising, and general administration.
Potential Routes and Schedule: The ferry service would cross Frenchman Bay, which has challenging winds in varying directions. The proposed route between Bar Harbor and Winter

Harbor is about 7.4 nautical miles. The ferry

would provide opportunities for commuters

between Bar Harbor and Winter Harbor to have

shorter traveling time to and from work.

During commute hours, the ferry schedule

would be determined mostly by The Jackson

Laboratory shift changes since lab employees

are expected to make up the majority of the

commuters. Ferry and bus schedules were

designed around a 25-minute trip time between

Bar Harbor and Winter Harbor, and a minimum

layover of 10 minutes between ferry runs,

resulting in a total of about 80 minutes between

round-trip ferry departures. The projected

ferry schedule includes nine round trips, which

would include three round trips between 5:15

a.m. and 9:00 a.m., two round trips between

10:00 a.m. and 12:40 p.m., and three roundtrips

between 1:30 p.m. and 6:40 p.m. Seasonal service is preferred over year-round service because

it will maximize recreational revenues and minimize operational costs, such as labor and fuel.

To be successful, the ferry service would need

well-designed transit links at both ends to serve

commuters and recreational passengers.

Ferry Service with Bicycles: Based on surveys

conducted by the University of Vermont, 17 to

26% of park visitors bike-ride in the park. The

success of the ferry service would depend in

part on other components of the transportation

system. Factors that should be considered are

bicycle lane improvements in and around

Schoodic, availability of bike rentals on both

sides of the ferry trip, availability of free or lowcost bicycle transport on the ferry, ample parking at ferry sites, and local bus service links

from the Bar Harbor and Winter Harbor docks.

The ferry service should be intermodal, allowing people to get and use bicycles at either end

of the ferry trip. The ferry terminals should be

biker friendly. Bike racks should be provided

for commuters, and bicycle route maps and signage should be made readily available. 

Road Conditions for Bicycles

Because of the one-way Schoodic Loop Road in

the park, visitors must bike a 12-mile loop consisting of State Route 186, secondary roads, and

roads within the park. Moore Road is an entry

road leading into the park at Frazer Point, and

Wonsqueak Road is an exit road joining State

Route 186 outside the park. All roads outside

the park are one-lane each way and have an

average speed limit of 35 mph with narrow

gravel shoulders. The daily traffic on these

roads averages about 800 to 1,000 cars. The

road within the park is one-way but splits into a

two-way road leading 0.5 mile to Schoodic

Point. There are no provisions on any roads to

provide safe, designated bicycle lanes. There

are no shoulders on the Schoodic Point Road,

and other roads inside the park have dirt or

gravel shoulders. Narrow shoulders on all

roads, including the state roads, are extremely

unsafe. Furthermore, none of the roads has any

signs or lane striping for bicyclists.

The preferred alternative according to the Volpe

Center consultants to make the Schoodic

District more bicycle friendly is to retain the

one-way loop configuration from Frazer Point

to the park exit at Birch Harbor, reassigning the

existing lanes by using the right lane as the bicycle lane with an extended shoulder and the left

lane for vehicular traffic. Although this could

lead to traffic congestion during the peak visitor

season, proposed ferry and bus services would

mitigate this problem by reducing automobile

traffic. 

Road Impacts and Enhancements

Over the next 15 years, traffic on the Schoodic

Peninsula is expected to increase by about 1% a

year on the State Route 186. Under the preferred transportation alternative (#3), the traffic

analysis shows the following:

• Traffic on State Route 186 would increase,

but the increase would be less than if no

action were taken.

• The number of vehicles on Moore and

Wonsqueak roads, both inside and outside

the park, would decrease under all scenarios

except the high-use scenario in 2015.

• Vehicle capacity on roads inside the park

would increase if one of the lanes on the

one-way loop were made into a bike lane.

Acadia National Park | National Park Service 177
• Parking shortages, particularly in summer,

would occur at Schoodic Point, which is used

by 90% of visitors.

Recommended enhancements to improve travel

and reduce traffic on these roads include the

following:

• State Route 186 should be striped, maintained, and expanded to accommodate bikes

and turning.

• Moore and Wonsqueak roads outside the

park need to have paved shoulders and, in

some places, be widened.

• Roads inside the park should continue to be

one-way, and one lane should be made into a

bicycle lane. The park should consider

widening the road toward the land side, minimize the removal of coping stones, restrict

parking to designated areas, and use traffic

counters at entry and exit points.

• Schoodic Point Road should be widened,

striped, and marked to show that bicyclists

and pedestrians have the right of way.

Although traffic on roads in the Schoodic

District would steadily increase over the next 15

years, the increase could be mitigated by commuters and visitors using the ferry and bus service. These new services could be concentrated

at times of peak demand and at chokepoints

such as parking lots.

178 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 179

APPENDIX D: NAVY BASE BUILDING REUSE TABLES
180 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

Program Space
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 181
182 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

Design guidelines are a useful tool for achieving

design consistency and quality in a place

expected to change over time. Because the

Schoodic Education and Research Center

(SERC) is a new institution under development,

creating a unique identity is important, yet it

must also be compatible with the setting and

architectural quality of Acadia National Park, as

exemplified by the Rockefeller Building. 

Studies conducted during preparation of this

plan concluded that the only significant historical resources at SERC are the Rockefeller

Building and powerhouse. The future SERC

campus should thus exemplify good contemporary site planning and design, and reference but

not try to imitate Acadia’s distinctive built environment. Treatment of buildings and structures

eligible for the National Register will be governed by the Secretary of the Interior’s

Standards. In general, site improvements should

capture the history and beauty of the Schoodic

Peninsula, enhance the use and interpretive

potential of the site, and provide safety and universal accessibility for users of all abilities.

New guidelines should be adopted for the SERC

campus. The guidelines should identify

preferred materials so that the built environment reflects the local landscape. Materials

should be rugged, simple, and durable and have

minimal impacts on the landscape. The standards should promote the use of sustainable,

native materials, requiring minimal maintenance

and labor. The standards should include materials and construction methods for site furnishings, such as benches, tables, shelters, trash

receptacles, railings and pavements. A handbook should be developed and could include

signage typeface, colors and types of signs,

roadway dimensional requirements, and plant

materials.

The following goals were identified to guide

work on the campus. They were used as the

basis for the illustrative Conceptual Site Plan for

the lower campus that appears as Figure 13 and

can be used to develop more specific guidelines.

Improve Circulation and Safety

• Reduce pedestrian/vehicle conflicts and

facilitate walking

• Provide clear and attractive signs

• Redesign campus entrance

• Organize parking areas to work better for

specific user groups

• Provide overflow parking for special events

but limit number of permanent spaces

• Improve accessibility throughout the campus

to meet ADA standards

• Provide access to all sides of buildings for

fire suppression

• Maintain space around buildings to protect

them from wildland fire through the periodic

selective removal of selective vegetation

Create Campus Character

• Reinforce use of the historic Rockefeller

Building as a campus focal point 

• New design, site furnishings, and construction materials reflect Acadia’s history and

tradition

• Create a “great lawn” to recapture the original ocean vista from the Rockefeller

Building, with perhaps with a natural wildflower meadow that could be used for special events

• Reduce vehicular use by exploring suitable

bicycle and pedestrian connections from the

campus to the Schoodic District circulation

system.

• Use native plants in landscape design

• Select materials and design for low maintenance

• Provide a uniform sign system

• Change roadway lighting design to preserve

the night sky

• Minimize impervious surfaces to reduce

runoff and improve groundwater recharge

APPENDIX E: DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR SCHOODIC EDUCATION AND RESEARCH CENTER
ACTION COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT1

COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Prepare historic structure reports, cultural landscape reports,

and other cultural resource studies such as ethnographic and

archeological 

Programmatic exclusion B.4

Install signs Programmatic exclusion B.12

ALTERNATIVE A

Preserve Rockefeller Building; modify for handicap accessibility;

upgrade utilities to meet life safety standards

SHPO review

ALTERNATIVE B

Rehabilitate Rockefeller Building; modify for handicap accessibility; upgrade utilities to meet life safety standards; reconfigure

interior for offices, conference room, visitor contact, exhibit

space.

SHPO review

Remove asphalt and redesign circulation system and landscaping

on former navy base.

SHPO review

Remove base buildings previously determined ineligible for listing on the National Register (e.g., Bldgs. 10, 138, 213, 192, 184, 185,

190, 191, 185, 162, 8, 46, 140, 209, 155, 172, 208, 223, 224, 232)

SHPO review

Revegetate 40 acres of disturbed landscape SHPO review

ALTERNATIVE C

Rehabilitate Rockefeller Building; modify for handicap accessibility; upgrade utilities to meet life safety standards; reconfigure

interior for offices, conference room, visitor contact, exhibit

space

SHPO review

Remove asphalt and redesign circulation system and landscaping

on former navy base

SHPO review

Remove base buildings previously determined ineligible for listing on the National Register (e.g., Bldg. 8, 10, 46, 140, 155, 172, 192,

208, 209, 213, 223, 224, 232)

SHPO review

Revegetate 16 acres of disturbed landscape SHPO review

APPENDIX F: SECTION 106 CONSULATION REQUIREMENTS FOR PLAN UNDERTAKINGS

The following consultation requirements for the indicated management options are subject to section 106 of

the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended.

1 Per Programmatic Agreement Among NPS (U.S. Department of the Interior), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,

and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, 1995.
184 Schoodic | Draft General Management Plan Amendment

Background

As part of a nationwide initiative called the

"Natural Resource Challenge," the National

Park Service (NPS) has approved the creation of

a Research Learning Center at Acadia National

Park. The NPS is establishing Research

Learning Centers across the country to promote

research in national parks and provide related

educational opportunities to the public. 

One of the primary goals of Research Learning

Centers is to attract scientists to conduct

research in national parks. Research results will

help park managers make science-based management decisions. Research Learning Centers

will also provide opportunities to synthesize

research findings and share this information

with the broader research community, as well as

the public. Research Learning Centers are

designed to facilitate public-private partnerships that involve a wide range of people and

organizations.

Acadia's Research Learning Center 

The NPS would establish the Schoodic

Education and Research Center (SERC) at

Schoodic Point with classrooms, laboratories,

offices, and lodging for researchers, educators,

and students of all ages. SERC would managed

by a new nonprofit organization and consist of

partners that will conduct research and education programs in support of SERC's mission. 

SERC's mission would be to facilitate education

and research that promotes the understanding,

protection, and conservation of the natural and

cultural resources of the National Park System,

and advances related research at the regional,

national, and international levels. Its goals are

to facilitate:

• interdisciplinary research that enhances the

understanding of the natural and cultural

resources of the National Park System and

related research at the regional, national, and

international levels; 

• innovative, curriculum-based learning and

stewardship programs designed to translate

science into learning for people of all ages

and abilities;

• collaborative interaction and outreach

among partners that promotes science and

learning; and

• a repository of information and other

resources for educators and researchers.

SERC would expand and improve many of the

park's ongoing research and educational activities, and provide opportunities for collaboration

and exploration among a variety of partners. It

would bring together internationally recognized

teaching and research institutions, federal land

management and scientific agencies, local public

schools, and nonprofit organizations to create

an exceptional learning and research community. The NPS would work with researchers to

share information about the park's resources

and related topics with the public. Possible

educational opportunities include environmental study courses for K-12 students, science

teacher training programs, and life-long learning classes. SERC would complement the

growing research momentum in environmental

science, marine science, and genetics that is

underway in Downeast Maine.

Partnerships

SERC would consist of partnerships among

independent organizations and agencies that

collaborate on research and education in

support of its mission. Partners will participate

in programmatic decisionmaking for SERC, and

make a substantial, long-term commitment and

contribution to its operation. Partners would

also be responsible for funding their respective

programs and activities. Commercial, manufacturing, marketing, or similar activities would not

take place at SERC. 

Research at SERC could focus on such areas as

predictive modeling and assessment of ecosystems, effects of environmental change on the

genetics of populations, environmental sensing

and analysis, and environmental informatics

(i.e., developing new ways to gather, analyze,

and use environmental information). Partners

would provide opportunities for the public to

learn about their respective research activities

and share information through a range of programs and media, such as publications, websites,

APPENDIX G: SCHOODIC EDUCATION AND RESEARCH CENTER UNDER ALTERNATIVE C
Acadia National Park | National Park Service 185

and on-site classes, tours, and demonstrations.

Topics for research and education could include

anthropology, archeology, astronomy, atmospheric science, biochemistry, biology, ecology,

wildlife management, environmental conservation, ethnography, fisheries, oceanography,

genetics, geography, geology, historic preservation, history, social science, information technologies, and pedagogical techniques. 

The NPS would participate as a research and

education partner, as well as share in the

responsibility of developing and managing

SERC. Acadia National Park's research activities would include biological inventories, longterm monitoring of park ecosystems, data management, and research of air and water quality,

wildlife, vegetation, geology, cultural resources,

and the visitor experience. Park education programs would include the Schoodic Education

Adventure, Artists-in-Residence, and Resource

Acadia seminars. 

Nonprofit Organization 

The NPS would support the creation of a new

independent nonprofit organization to assist in

developing and managing SERC. The nonprofit

would be an umbrella organization to coordinate the use of the facilities and development of

programs by partners. It would have sufficient

autonomy to be creative and expeditious in

developing and managing SERC while fully protecting the interests of the NPS. The nonprofit

would operate SERC under a long-term lease or

cooperative agreement with the NPS, which

would include the assignment of real property

for its direct use and for reassignment to tenant

partners. The NPS would provide security, law

enforcement, emergency medical services, and

fire protection for the SERC campus, and maintain its roads, grounds, building envelops, and

utility systems. The nonprofit and NPS would

share responsibilities for site renovation and

construction to convert buildings to research

and education use and facilitate the efficient

reuse of the site.

The nonprofit would carry out various development and management functions for SERC that

tentatively include the following: 

Program management and partnership coordination: 

• cultivate partnerships

• coordinate education and research programs

among a variety of partners 

• promote and facilitate communication and

collaboration among partners 

• ensure that all partners contribute to the

mission of SERC through the sharing of

information, technology, and specialized

equipment/facilities, as appropriate 

• market SERC and provide public information

on its programs and activities through a website, publications, and other media

Property management and administrative

support: 

• arrange for short and long-term occupancy

of the buildings by partners 

• manage contracts with partners 

• administer rents, fees, and other income 

• provide hospitality services, including lodging, catering, housekeeping, custodial, and

other appropriate service contracts 

• schedule the use of shared space (meeting

rooms, laboratories, dining halls, lodging) 

• ensure that partners implement sustainable

design and practices in all activities 

• assist in the development and support of an

alternative transportation system 

• maintain interiors of assigned/leased facilities 

• ensure compatibility and connectivity with

SERC's local area network and the Internet 

• ensure that partners' programs and activities

are compatible with the Schoodic General

Management Plan Amendment, and NPS

laws, regulations, and policies

Long-term development: 

• develop strategic plans and long-term funding strategies

• recruit new tenant and non-tenant partners,

as appropriate 

• fund and mange capital improvement projects necessary to attract desired partners 

• solicit and administer federal, state, donation, and revenue funds to support SERC

As the nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of

our nationally owned public lands and natural and cultural resources. This includes fostering wise use of

our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the environmental and cultural

values of our national parks and historical places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor

recreation. The department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their

development is in the best interests of all our people. The department also promotes the goals of the Take

Pride in America campaign by encouraging stewardship and responsibility for the public lands and promoting citizen participation in their care. The department also has a major responsibility for American

Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island territories under the administration of

the United States of America. 

The National Park Service cares for special places saved by the American people so that all may experience

our heritage.

Experience your AmericaTM
National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Acadia National Park - Maine

Northeast Region

printed July 2004