Acadia National Park

Maine

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

May 2018

Acadia National Park

Draft Transportation Plan /

Environmental Impact Statement
Cover photo credit: Gregg TeHennepe
ACADIA NATIONAL PARK

DRAFT TRANSPORTATION PLAN / 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Acadia National Park preserves approximately 35,000 acres in Hancock and Knox Counties in 

the northeastern United States along the mid-section of the Maine coast. Acadia National Park 

was established in 1916 as Sieur de Monts National Monument and redesignated as Lafayette 

National Park in 1919. In 1929, Congress authorized the National Park Service (NPS) to accept a 

donation of land on the Schoodic Peninsula and the park’s current name was adopted. The park 

now consists of parts of Mount Desert Island plus a part of Isle au Haut to the southwest of 

Mount Desert Island, the tip of the Schoodic Peninsula on the mainland to the east, and most of, 

or parts of, 16 smaller islands. The park also preserves almost 13,000 acres in conservation 

easements within its legislated boundary, which runs from the Penobscot River ship channel to 

just east of the Schoodic Peninsula.

Annual visitation to Acadia National Park grew by 58% between 2006 and 2016. Most visitation 

occurs from June through October and during the National Park Service centennial celebration 

in 2016 3.3 million visits were recorded. The most popular destinations include Cadillac 

Mountain, sites along the Ocean Drive corridor, and Jordan Pond. Resource-based recreational 

activities include viewing the scenery, walking, hiking, bicycling, camping, horseback and 

carriage riding, sea kayaking, and canoeing. The park provides opportunities for educating 

visitors about its resources and values through a variety of interpretive activities including 

guided walks, amphitheater presentations, education programs, and outreach activities.

The popularity of Acadia National Park is growing, as revealed in the regular increase in 

visitation from year to year. One of the many reasons to visit the park is to experience the scenic 

and historic transportation corridors, be they the historic motor roads, hiking paths, or carriage 

roads. Regardless of the ultimate destination in the park, most visitors arrive via motor vehicle 

and must access their desired destination via the park’s historic roads. The park’s transportation 

infrastructure was constructed in the early 20th century and consists of narrow, twisting historic 

roads and narrow, low historic bridges that were designed for automobile types, speeds, and 

volumes different than those experienced today. In addition, the number of designated parking 

spaces along Park Loop Road and elsewhere in the park are not sufficient to meet visitor 

demand. With over 3 million visits concentrated in a short season, it is impossible to meet 

demand for accessing park features, and especially for supplying parking spaces, without 

significant resource impacts, reduced safety, and adversely impacting the visitor experience. 

Today’s increased automobile traffic volumes and speeds, combined with an increasing number 

of visitors choosing to travel the park roads by walking, bicycle, recreational vehicle, and 

commercial bus, have created safety issues, resource protection concerns, and adverse impacts 

to visitor enjoyment of the park.

The purpose of this transportation plan is to outline a comprehensive approach to providing

safe and efficient transportation and a variety of high-quality experiences to visitors to Acadia 

National Park while ensuring the protection of park resources and values. This planning process 

examines current and potential visitor transportation and access opportunities and develops 

long-term strategies for providing access, connecting visitors to important experiences and 

places, and managing visitor use. Many of the park’s planning and management documents do 

not reflect current visitor magnitude or needs, so this plan provides updated guidance for 

addressing current and future visitor transportation strategies, management techniques, and 

resource protection concerns. 
Executive Summary

ii

To meet the purpose and need of the plan and address these issues (and others as described in 

chapter 1), the transportation plan includes an identification of the highest value resources and 

desired visitor experiences in the park, as well as strategies for managing those resources and 

experiences in light of existing and expected proliferation of transportation challenges. 

Overall, this plan seeks to achieve the following goals:

1. Establish desired conditions for natural and cultural resources and visitor experience at 

destinations and travel corridors throughout the park.

2. Adopt strategies to address parking and roadway capacity limitations and associated 

impacts on resources, safety, and visitor experience.

3. Establish guidance to improve safety and reduce conflicts among oversized vehicles (e.g., 

buses, RVs, campers), motorcycles, bicyclists, and passenger cars operating on 

park roads.

4. Enact potential improvements to transportation infrastructure to increase safety and 

enhance resource stewardship, sustainability, and NPS operational efficiency, while 

protecting the integrity and historic character of the park.

5. Improve visitor orientation, increase compliance with park entrance passes, manage 

road-based commercial tours, and support the Island Explorer public transit service.

6. Partner with local communities and the State of Maine to address local and regional 

transportation-related issues, sustainable public transit service, and enhanced cultural 

and natural resource protection.

7. Incorporate into the park’s transportation planning efforts those of neighboring 

communities with regard to Island Explorer service enhancements and potential projects 

such as reuse of the Bar Harbor ferry terminal and the proposed parking solutions in 

downtown Bar Harbor.

THE PLANNING PROCESS

This plan uses the visitor use management framework to develop a long-term strategy for 

managing visitor use in the park (see chapter 1). Planning and managing visitor use help achieve 

the NPS mission of conserving park resources and values for the enjoyment of present and 

future generations. Proactively planning for visitor use supports responsive management that

increases the ability of the National Park Service to encourage access, improve visitor 

experience, and maximize visitor opportunities while protecting resources. The general 

planning process used for this plan is consistent with the guidance outlined by the Interagency 

Visitor Use Management Council (www.visitorusemanagement.nps.gov).

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

To address the issues described above, the park has developed three alternative futures (or 

“alternatives”) and a no-action alternative for transportation management in the park. These 

alternatives are designed as three distinctly different approaches that address how and when 

visitors would access different popular destinations in the park and how and when the capacity 

of the transportation corridors and parking lots would be limited to ensure the protection of 
Executive Summary

iii

natural and cultural resources and the visitor experience. The action alternatives all include 

variations on a reservation system that would involve fees that are designed to support plan 

actions. For a full description of these alternatives, see “Chapter 2: The Alternatives.”

The National Park Service has identified alternative C as the NPS-preferred alternative. This 

alternative would best accomplish the purpose and need of this plan while protecting cultural 

resources, providing visitor access to park resources, and high-quality visitor experience of the 

transportation system and recreation opportunities. The NPS-preferred alternative provides 

strategies that give the National Park Service the tools needed to more effectively manage high 

levels of visitation while achieving plan goals. It also includes the greatest level of flexibility and 

provides adaptive management of future shifting visitor transportation needs and stresses on 

park resources. The preferred alternative is also the most responsive to values, issues, and 

suggestions made by the public during engagement efforts.

Alternative A (No Action)

The no-action alternative would continue current management (as outlined in the park’s general 

management plan) and provides a basis for comparing the other alternatives. There would be no 

major changes from current operations, and changes that did occur would be on a reactionary, 

not proactive, basis. The park’s transportation system would continue to support mobility and 

access on foot and by bicycle, Island Explorer bus, and private and commercial motor vehicles. 

Management of park visitors would continue to vary seasonally as visitor demand and needs 

change, with many management strategies focusing on the peak season between mid-May and 

mid-October. Throughout the park, the physical capacity of roads and designated parking lots 

would be generally unchanged. Parking would remain available to all users on a first-come, firstserved basis and right lane parking would continue to occur, but restrictions and prohibitions 

may be implemented when needed. Physical changes to roads and parking would be limited and 

related to safety, accessibility, resource protection, and accommodating alternative 

transportation—not to capacity. Temporary or permanent closures of roads and parking areas 

may occur if necessary to address safety and security concerns or to ensure the financial 

sustainability of the overall transportation system. 

Additional key actions include:

 The Hulls Cove Visitor Center would continue to accommodate current uses with no 

expansion of parking or other site amenities. The Acadia Gateway Center would be 

developed and operated as described in the Acadia Gateway Center Environmental 

Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).

 Development of the Acadia Gateway Center into a regional tourism hub with expanded 

parking and public transit opportunities would continue to be supported by the park and 

park partners.

 The park’s transportation system on the Schoodic Peninsula would continue to be 

managed to support low-density recreational use and provide alternatives to the use of 

private vehicles. 

 Island Explorer would continue to be provided during the peak season to the degree 

funding allows. Designated parking for Island Explorer would continue to be provided.
Executive Summary

iv

Actions Common to the Action Alternatives

A number of management actions and strategies would be implemented under all of the action 

alternatives (B, C, and D). Many of these strategies are practical, common sense approaches to 

managing transportation in Acadia National Park and therefore do not vary by alternative. The 

following list focuses on the key actions and strategies being proposed; for more details please 

see chapter 2.

 Reservation Systems: Each of the alternatives propose different types of reservation 

systems to manage parking availability. The reservation systems in all of the action 

alternatives would only apply to motor vehicles, not to pedestrians or bicycles. The 

number of reservations available would correspond with management actions needed to 

manage within the desired resource and experiential conditions and the identified visitor 

capacities. A percentage of reservations would be held aside for short-term purchase. 

Reservations could be made online and at automated reservation kiosks in key locations.

 Indicators, Thresholds, and Visitor Capacities: All of the action alternatives would 

establish park visitor capacities and resource and traffic indicators and thresholds. These 

indicators would be monitored after the reservation system is implemented to ensure 

that the maximum amount of visitor use that can be accommodated is not exceeded. If 

these indicators approach their respective thresholds, then additional management 

action would be taken such as expanding the reservation system.

 Public Transit: Under all of the action alternatives Island Explorer service inside the 

park would be expanded as necessary up to the park’s visitor capacity and, as funding 

permits, to facilitate access for those unable to secure a vehicle reservation during their 

desired entry time. The operating season of Island Explorer service would be expanded 

to coincide with that of the reservation system. However, if the service results in surges 

of activity that degrade resources or visitor experience, or if demand exceeds either the 

volume of transit the park is able to financially support or area visitor capacities, the 

reservation system may be expanded to Island Explorer routes serving the park.

 Visitor Information, Orientation, Enforcement, and Safety: Increased information 

would be provided to visitors, both before they arrive at the park and when they arrive. 

Visitors would be provided with enhanced trip-planning tools, advice on vehicle/bicycle 

safety, and information about car-free options to access and explore the Mount Desert 

Island District. Information about congestion and parking availability would be 

monitored and disseminated. Park staff would also work with cellular communication 

providers and local communities to improve cellular service in the park to provide better 

visitor information and orientation and increase safety.

 Management of Other Mount Desert Island Park Attractions and Trailheads: At the 

Acadia Mountain trailhead, park staff would work with local governments, the Maine 

Department of Transportation, and other stakeholders to identify an alternative, offhighway option for trailhead parking. For all of the other attractions and trailheads not 

directly covered by the action alternatives, park managers would take incremental 

actions to address existing and anticipated parking-related traffic congestion and unsafe 

instances of roadside parking. A memorandum of understanding would be developed 

with state, local, and county departments of transportation and law enforcement to 

improve safety through enforcement of roadside parking restrictions near these and 

other trailheads along state highways and local and county roads.
Executive Summary

v

 Vehicle Size Requirements: To improve safety and the historic character of Park Loop 

Road, only vehicles that fit the geometry of the road and heights of the bridge 

underpasses would be permitted. This requirement would apply to all passenger and 

commercial vehicles and would be phased in over several years. Passengers of vehicles 

that do not meet bridge height and/or road geometry restrictions would need to transfer 

to an alternate mode of transportation such as an authorized commercial tour or bus.

 Commercial Visitor Services: During the active reservation season, the number of 

oversize commercial vehicles allowed at key locations (or in the case of alternative D on 

Park Loop Road) at one time would be managed to ensure desired conditions are 

maintained and visitor capacities at the park’s primary attractions are not exceeded. The 

total number of visitors arriving by oversize commercial vehicles would be allocated 

between concessions and commercial use authorizations in a manner that best achieves 

desired conditions for the visitor experience and resource protection. All park-approved 

activity-based experience (e.g., step-on guides, tour operators, nature guides, biking 

tours, art/photography workshops, climbing schools, summer camps, water activities)

operating under a commercial use authorization would be required to use vehicles 

carrying 15 or fewer passengers that fit in a standard parking space. Access to standard 

parking spaces under the reservation system for these commercial use authorization

holders would be managed in the private vehicle allocations or through a contract, 

operating plan, or permit.

 Schoodic Transportation Management: The Schoodic Peninsula would continue to be 

managed as outlined in the 2005 Schoodic General Management Plan Amendment.

Parking would continue to be allowed in designated areas on a first-come, first-served 

basis. The speed limit on the Schoodic Loop Road would be reduced. Visitors would be 

provided with enhanced trip-planning information and tools about car-free options to 

access and explore the Schoodic District. Park managers would work with partners to 

improve bicycle connections to the park and to improve safety for those biking the 

circular route, including Schoodic Loop Road and State Route 186. An accessible 

pedestrian trail would be installed between the Schoodic Education and Research 

Center campus and Schoodic Point. The overall amount of designated parking in the 

Schoodic District would not be increased. Any changes to parking lots and parking 

locations would be made to improve circulation, enhance safety, provide accessible 

parking, or protect resources rather than to increase the number of parking spaces.

Historic roadside pullouts on the Schoodic Loop Road would be maintained, but 

expansion of informal pullouts would not be permitted. Public transit opportunities 

would remain as they are today, and park managers would continue to support use of the 

Island Explorer service to access popular destinations.

 Climate Change: No new facilities or infrastructures would be proposed by the 

alternatives in areas threatened by erosion or storms. Key natural and cultural resources, 

facilities, and processes that are at risk from climate change would be identified and 

monitored for change. Park transportation facilities and infrastructure would be 

managed in a way that prepares for and adapts to the effects of climate change. If there is 

an unacceptable risk of continued damage, damaged infrastructure would likely not 

be replaced.
Executive Summary

vi

Alternative B

This alternative would address transportation and congestion issues by establishing a 

reservation system for parking at five of the primary attractions and trailheads along Park Loop 

Road during peak times and seasons, and eliminating right lane parking to improve transit 

safety and ease. Parking reservations would be required at Cadillac Mountain, Sand Beach, 

Thunder Hole, Jordan Pond House, and Sieur de Monts. Gates and queuing lanes would be 

constructed where needed to validate reservations and to control access on some first-come, 

first-served lots. 

Additional key actions include:

 The existing parking lot at Eagle Lake initially would remain as a first-come, first-served 

parking lot with the addition of an automated gate to restrict access into the lot when it 

is full.

 Additional parking would be provided at Hulls Cove, and the visitor center would be 

redesigned and relocated.

 The visitor services at the Thompson Island Information Center (on the west side of 

State Route 3) would be relocated to the Acadia Gateway Center in Trenton, and the 

structures then repurposed for other uses.

Alternative C (Preferred Alternative and Proposed Action)

This alternative would address transportation and congestion issues by establishing a timedentry reservation system for the Ocean Drive corridor, Cadillac Summit Road, and the Jordan 

Pond House North Lot during peak use season. During initial implementation of the plan, all 

other parking lots in the park would continue to be managed on a first-come, first-served basis; 

but the alternative includes an adaptive management strategy that directs park managers to 

monitor traffic and resource conditions elsewhere in the park. If monitoring indicates traffic or 

resource conditions worsening beyond acceptable thresholds (discussed in detail in chapter 2 

and appendix A), access to Island Explorer routes entering the park, vehicle access to other 

parking lots, or vehicle access to the entire Park Loop Road may be added to the reservation 

system.

Additional key actions include:

 Right lane parking would be retained in the near term but eventually phased out as other 

options such as expanded Island Explorer service and parking become available.

 The existing parking lot and restroom on the north side of State Route 233 at Eagle Lake 

would be removed and a new larger parking lot would be constructed south of the 

highway at an NPS maintenance storage yard known as Liscomb Pit.

 Additional parking would be provided at Hulls Cove, and the visitor center would be 

redesigned and relocated.

 The visitor services at the Thompson Island Information Center (on the west side of 

State Route 3) would be removed and the area restored to natural conditions. These 

services would be relocated to the Acadia Gateway Center in Trenton.
Executive Summary

vii

Alternative D

This alternative would provide a systemwide approach to manage vehicle volumes on Park Loop 

Road during the peak use season. Automated gates and additional entrance stations would be 

installed at all access points to Park Loop Road. A timed-entry reservation system would be 

established for vehicle access to Park Loop Road during the peak use season. Once a visitor 

passes through an entrance station or automated gate during their reserved entry window, all 

parking lots on Park Loop Road would be available on a first-come, first-served basis. Under 

this alternative, most of Park Loop Road, including Lower Mountain Road, would be one way in 

a counterclockwise rotation. The counterclockwise flow would be a reversal of direction on the 

current one-way sections of the road.

Additional key actions include:

 Most right lane parking would be eliminated.

 Most entrances to Park Loop Road would be converted to exit-only, new entrance 

stations would be built at Wildwood Stables and Paradise Hill Road, and the Sand Beach 

entrance station would be removed.

 The existing parking lot and restroom on the north side State Route 233 at Eagle Lake 

would be removed and a new larger parking lot would be constructed south of the 

highway along an abandoned section of State Route 233.

 A new parking lot accommodating approximately 40 vehicles would be established 

within the footprint of an existing NPS administrative storage area known as Satterlee Pit 

near the south end of Schooner Head Road.

 At Hulls Cove, the existing visitor center would be removed and a small visitor contact 

station would be rebuilt closer to an expanded Hulls Cove parking lot.

 The Acadia Gateway Center would serve as the park’s primary visitor center.

 The visitor services at the Thompson Island Information Center (on the west side of 

State Route 3) would be relocated to the Acadia Gateway Center in Trenton, and the 

structures then repurposed for other uses.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

Each of these alternatives has positive and negative impacts for park resources and visitor 

experience. These trade-offs are described as “environmental consequences.” The potential 

environmental consequences of implementing any of the alternatives are addressed for visitor use 

and visitor experience, cultural resources, and socioeconomics. For a full description and analysis 

of the environmental consequences see “Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences.” 

Alternative A (No Action)

Overall, this alternative would cause mostly adverse impacts on visitor access and experience 

resulting from unconstrained access that results in congestion and parking challenges. This 

alternative would result in adverse impacts on the historic motor road and cultural landscapes. 

The park’s historic motor road system and cultural landscapes can be expected to deteriorate at 

an increase rate as visitation and congestion continue to increase during peak times. Existing 
Executive Summary

viii

contributions to the local and regional economies would continue to be beneficial; however, the 

actions in alternative A would be inadequate to support the long-term regional efforts in 

enhancing tourism and increasing visitor access in the area.

Alternative B

Both beneficial and adverse impacts would occur to visitor access and visitor experience; 

however, these adverse impacts would be less than in alternative A. The beneficial impacts 

would mostly be focused on the ability of visitors with reservations to find parking at the few 

locations that would be managed and the opportunity for continued spontaneity in access to 

Park Loop Road. Alternative B, however, would also result in adverse impacts on the visitor 

experience quality because the alternative does not proactively address competition for parking 

at most of the parking lots and does not directly manage the most congested road corridors. It is 

likely there would still be high levels of congestion in parking lots and along roadways during 

most days of the summer season, which would adversely impact visitor experience. This 

alternative would result in beneficial effects to the historic character of Park Loop Road by 

eliminating right lane parking, though some adverse impacts would occur to historic character 

and integrity of the road and to the park’s cultural landscapes by installing gates and entry 

stations to control parking lot access. Restricting vehicle sizes to those appropriate to the 

historic roads is another beneficial impact on cultural resources and would also improve the 

visitor experience. Continuing to allow spontaneity in pass through traffic under alternative B 

would result in both beneficial and adverse impacts on the socioeconomic environment: 

beneficial impacts would result due to the wide range of recreational opportunities and visitor 

access being provided under the alternative, adverse socioeconomic impacts would occur due to 

the persistence of some congestion issues and visitors’ perceptions of limited access.

Alternative C (Preferred Alternative and Proposed Action)

Under this alternative, both beneficial and adverse impacts would occur on visitor access and 

visitor experience, although overall most would be beneficial. This alternative provides visitors 

who obtain a corridor reservation more opportunity for spontaneity than alternative B, while 

still allowing access to most of Park Loop Road to visitors who do not have reservations. This 

alternative also enhances the quality of the experience along these key corridors and at key 

destinations. These actions have both beneficial and adverse impacts on visitor experience and 

access and the local economies that are tied to those aspects of park visitation. The activities 

described in alternative C result in a significant adverse impact on the historic character of Park 

Loop Road because it creates a segmented driving experience counter to its historic design. It 

also involves some construction of modern infrastructure that detracts from the historic 

character of the road and cultural landscapes. It ultimately eliminates right lane parking (though 

initially formalizing it), a major beneficial impact on the road’s historic character. This 

alternative would result in improvements in visitor experience and access, a long-term beneficial 

impact on the local and regional tourism industry.

Alternative D

Under this alternative, both beneficial and adverse impacts on visitor experience would be 

realized. Overall, this alternative provides the highest degree of flexibility and opportunity for 

spontaneity for visitors who have access to the Park Loop Road system. In addition, because the 

entire road is managed, visitors with access can expect the experience to be mostly free of 
Executive Summary

ix

congestion, though parking at the most popular destinations may not be availiable at all times. 

This alternative also enhances the quality of the experience along these key corridors and at key 

destinations. These actions have both beneficial and adverse impacts on visitor experience and 

access and the local economies that are tied to those aspects of park visitation. Conversely, full 

management of Park Loop Road by reservation means that visitors without reservations would 

not be able to engage in a scenic drive via personal vehicle. Overall, this alternative provides the 

most beneficial impacts on cultural and scenic resources in the park. Full management of the 

historic Park Loop Road would eliminate congestion and restore the historic character by 

creating conditions for free-flowing traffic. Adverse impacts on cultural and scenic resources 

include formalization of some right lane parking, addition of modern infrastructure, the 

expansion of one-way travel counter to the historic design of the road, and driver exposure to 

fewer historic vistas and more negative views because of counterclockwise flow on Park Loop 

Road. Under alternative D, less visitors would be able to access the park via private vehicle at 

one time; however, issues with vehicle congestion would be significantly improved resulting in a 

higher quality visitor experience and an increased likelyhood of return visits to the region.

Alternative D would result in both beneficial and adverse impacts on the socioeconomic 

environment: beneficial impacts would result due to improvements in visitor experience and 

access, adverse socioeconomic impacts would occur due to the persistence of some congestion

issues and visitors’ perceptions of limited access that may result in reduced length of stay or 

decrease in visitation.
Executive Summary

x

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
xi

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I

CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED 1

Introduction 1

Purpose and Need for the Transportation Plan 1

Plan Goals 3

Description of the Park 3

Background 4

Visitor Use Management 7

The Planning Process 7

Desired Conditions for Selected Fundamental Resources and Values 8

Scope of the Transportation Plan / Environmental Impact Statement 12

Issues and Impact Topics Retained For Detailed Analysis 12

Issue: Changes to Visitor Access and Use Patterns 12

Issue: Protecting Historic Resources and Historic Character 13

Issue: Changes to Commercial and Local Use 14

Issues and Impact Topics Considered but Dismissed from Further Analysis 14

Next Steps in the Planning Process 17

Implementation 18

CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES 19

Introduction 19

A Road with Many Names 19

Alternative A: No Action 21

Concept 21

Management of the Park Loop Road 21

Management of Other Mount Desert Island Attractions and Trailheads 22

Public Transit 22

Commercial Visitor Services 22

Actions Common to all Action Alternatives 23

Reservation Systems 23

Indicators, Thresholds, and Visitor Capacities 24

Public Transit 25

Visitor Information, Orientation, Enforcement, and Safety 25

Management of Other Mount Desert Island Park Attractions and Trailheads 26

Vehicle Size Requirements 27

Commercial Visitor Services 27

Schoodic Transportation Management 29

Alternative B: Site Management 30
Contents

xii

Concept 30

Primary Differences Between Alternative A and Alternative B 31

Management of Park Loop Road 31

Management of Other Mount Desert Island Park Attractions and Trailheads 33

Hulls Cove, Acadia Gateway Center, and Thompson Island 33

Schoodic Peninsula 33

Public Transit 34

Commercial Visitor Services 34

Alternative C: Corridor Management (Preferred Alternative and Proposed Action) 34

Concept 34

Primary Differences Between Alternative A and Alternative C 34

Management of the Park Loop Road 35

Management of Other Mount Desert Island Park Attractions and Trailheads 37

Hulls Cove, Acadia Gateway Center, and Thompson Island 39

Public Transit 41

Commercial Visitor Services 41

Alternative D: Park Loop Road Management 41

Concept 41

Primary differences between Alternative A and Alternative D 43

Management of the Park Loop Road 43

Management of Other Mount Desert Island Attractions and Trailheads 45

Hulls Cove and Acadia Gateway Center and Thompson Island 47

Schoodic Peninsula 47

Public Transit 47

Commercial Visitor Services 47

Best Management Practices and Mitigation Measures 47

Alternatives and Actions Considered but Dismissed 48

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 51

Introduction 51

Historic Motor Road 51

Development History 51

Significance 53

Purpose 55

Current Condition 56

Cultural Landscapes 58

Sieur de Monts Spring 58

Cadillac Mountain 58

Jordan Pond House 59

Thunder Hole 61

Schoodic Peninsula 62

Visitor Use and Experience 63

Introduction 63
Contents

xiii

Overview of Visitor Use and Experience 63

Visitor Access and Recreational Opportunity 65

Mount Desert Island 67

Park Loop Road 68

Cadillac Summit Road 70

Ocean Drive 70

Schoodic Peninsula 72

Diversity and Quality of Visitor Experience 74

Mount Desert Island 75

Park Loop Road 75

Cadillac Summit Road 76

Ocean Drive 76

Schoodic Peninsula 76

Visitor and User Safety 77

Socioeconomics 78

Socioeconomic Area of Consideration 79

Selected Social and Economic Characteristics 79

Park Visitation and Its Economic Effects 83

Park Visitation, Transportation, and Local Quality of Life 89

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 93

Introduction 93

Sustainability and Long Term Management 93

Analyzing Cumulative Impacts 94

Historic Motor Road 94

Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 94

Cultural Landscapes 102

Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 102

Visitor Use and Experience 107

Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 107

Impact Analysis Questions 107

Visitor Access and Recreational Opportunity 107

Visitor Experience Quality 116

Visitor and User Safety 121

Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 121

Socioeconomics 124

Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 124
Contents

xiv

CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 135

Introduction 135

Public Scoping 135

Public Engagement on the Preliminary Concepts 136

Agency and Tribal Consultation 137

US Fish and Wildlife Service, Section 7 Consultation 137

Section 106 Consultation with Maine State Historic Preservation Office 137

Consistency with the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 138

Consultation with American Indian Tribes 138

Agencies, Organizations, & Persons Receiving Copies of Draft Environmental Impact Statement 138

Partners 138

Tourism/Business 139

Elected Officials 139

Towns 140

Libraries 140

Community 140

State of Maine 141

National 141

Federal 141

Tribes 141

Preparers 142

Acadia National Park 142

National Park Service – Northeast Regional Office 142

National Park Service – Washington Support Office 142

National Park Service – Denver Service Center 143

US Department of Transportation – Volpe Center 143

Consultants 144

APPENDIX A: INDICATORS, THRESHOLDS, AND VISITOR CAPACITY 145

APPENDIX B: ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY TABLE 177

APPENDIX C: MISSION, GOALS, AND PRESERVATION STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC MOTOR ROAD 

SYSTEM 179

APPENDIX D: BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND MITIGATION MEASURES 181

APPENDIX E: SELECTED REFERENCES, GLOSSARY, AND ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 193
Contents

xv

Figures

Figure 1. Location of Acadia National Park and Primary Locations Referenced in This Plan 5

Figure 2. Acadia National Park Map 20

Figure 3. Park Loop Road Geometry Requirements 28

Figure 4. Jordan Pond House Road Parking Area Concept 38

Figure 5. Liscomb Pit Parking Area Concept 40

Figure 6. Hulls Cove Parking Area Concept 42

Figure 7. Old Route 233 Parking Area 46

Figure 8. Current Conditions at the Jordan Pond House Cultural Landscape 61

Figure 9. Recreation Visitors Per Year from 1990–2016 64

Figure 10. Recreation Visitation Per Month Averaged Over the Past Five Years (2011–2016) 64

Figure 11. Island Explorer Route Map (http://www.exploreacadia.com/routefinder.htm) 67

Figure 12. Island Explorer Ridership 1999–2016 67

Figure 13. Park Loop Road Map 69

Figure 14. Total Vehicles Entering Ocean Drive By Year 71

Figure 15. Mean Monthly Traffic Counts at Sand Beach (1990–2014) 72

Figure 16. Island Explorer Route of Schoodic Peninsula 73

Figure 17. Traffic Counts at Schoodic Peninsula 1990–2014 74

Figure 18. Percent of Visitor Groups Engaging in Specific Recreational Activities 75

Figure 19. Relative Shares of Park Visitor Spending in the Local Economy, 2016 84

Figure 20. Scheduled Cruise Ship Visits to Bar Harbor, 2002 (light shade) vs. 2016 (dark shade) 86

Figure 21. Estimated Daily Vehicles on Park Loop Road by Alternative (May–October) 110

Figure 22. Daily Vehicles on Cadillac Summit Compared to Action Alternatives (May-October) 112

Figure 23. Vehicles At One Time (VAOT) On Park Loop Road By Alternative 118
Contents

xvi

Tables

Table 1. Visitor Use Management and the Planning Process 8

Table 2. Estimated Number of Daily Parking Reservations 32

Table 3. Estimated Number of Reservations for Daily Private Vehicles on Park Loop Road 36

Table 4. Alternatives and Actions Considered but Dismissed from Further Analysis 48

Table 5. Vehicle Parking Time Per Parking Lot (Manning et al. 2008) 72

Table 6. Past, Current, and Future Actions Used in Analysis of Cumulative Impacts 95
 Purpose and Need

Chapter 1
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
1

CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED

INTRODUCTION

The National Park Service (NPS) is proposing to implement a transportation plan for Acadia 

National Park to improve visitor experience and protect resources on the transportation 

network itself and at the park attractions it provides access to. 

This draft transportation plan / environmental impact statement (EIS) evaluates several 

management options (alternatives) to meet the purpose and need of the plan. The plan will also 

serve as an amendment to the park’s general management plan (GMP). It has been prepared in 

accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA); regulations of the 

Council on Environmental Quality (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500–1508) (CEQ); 

NPS Director’s Order 12: Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decisionmaking, DO-12, 2011, and the NPS NEPA Handbook (NPS 2015). The general planning process 

used for this plan is consistent with guidance developed by the Interagency Visitor Use 

Management Council (IVUMC, http://www.visitorusemanagement.nps.gov). 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

The purpose of the transportation plan is to outline a comprehensive approach to providing safe 

and efficient transportation and a variety of high-quality experiences to visitors in Acadia 

National Park while ensuring that park resources and values are protected. The environmental 

impact statement presents and analyzes several management options to improve safety on park 

roads; reduce conflicts among oversized vehicles (e.g., buses, RVs, campers), motorcycles, 

bicyclists, and passenger cars; address visitors walking along park roads; reduce crowding and 

congestion at key visitor destinations, access points, and travel corridors; identify transportation 

infrastructure improvements to increase safety and enhance resource stewardship; and provide 

guidance on managing commercial services. The transportation plan would apply to all NPSmanaged transportation corridors on Mount Desert Island and the Schoodic Peninsula over the 

next 10 to 15 years. The plan does not include Isle au Haut because a visitor use management 

plan was previously developed to address visitor use/transportation issues for this island.

The plan is needed to protect and maintain the park’s purpose and significance and to protect its 

fundamental resources and values. Conditions are such that these resources and the park’s 

purpose and significance are currently under threat.

The park’s historic transportation infrastructure was constructed in the early 20th century and 

consists of narrow, twisting historic roads and narrow, low historic bridges that were designed 

for automobile types, speeds, and volumes different than those experienced today. With over 

3.3 million visits concentrated in a short season, it is currently impossible to meet demand for 

visitor access to park features, and especially for supplying parking spaces without substantial 

resource impacts, reduced safety, and detracting from visitor experience. Because the Park Loop 

Road is a nationally significant historic resource and high-quality visitor experiences are tied to 

more moderate vehicle volumes on that historic resource, there are limited options for altering 

infrastructure to manage congestion issues.

Transportation issues at the park are diverse and complex. Typical traffic includes private 

vehicles, concession tour buses, commercial motor coaches, limousines, taxis, vans, the Island 

Explorer (a regional public transit system that also serves destinations in the park), bicycles, and 
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

2

pedestrians. The high volumes of visitors accessing popular visitor destinations during peak 

times are causing gridlock, crowding, emergency response delays, cultural and natural resource 

damage, safety concerns, and overwhelming levels of visitor service facilities use. Heavy traffic 

and congestion diminishes the quality of visitor experience during peak times and at popular 

destinations, creating a demand for parking and road access that exceeds the capabilities of the 

historic transportation-related infrastructure. Furthermore, modern vehicles too large for the 

narrow character and alignment of the park’s historic roads leads to unsafe conditions and 

increased conflicts among user groups, particularly pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers of 

large vehicles. 

The checkerboard nature of the park boundary on Mount Desert Island and the multiple access 

points to park roads cause safety, congestion, and management issues. A network of state 

highways bisects the park providing access to many popular park locations. Parking congestion 

along the shoulders of these highways, combined with bicyclists and pedestrians immediately 

adjacent to vehicles traveling at highway speeds and people unfamiliar with the potential road 

hazards all combine to create safety threats that, because of multiple jurisdictions and 

authorities, must be addressed by state, local, and NPS managers working together for solutions.

In addition to increasingly high levels of visitor use on Mount Desert Island, use is expected to 

increase in the Schoodic District of the park. New recreational facilities on the Schoodic 

Peninsula and anticipated increases in visitation may require NPS staff to more actively manage 

use to protect resources and protect opportunities for low density recreation, solitude, and 

quiet experiences. 

The park’s general management plan (NPS 1992) and Schoodic general management plan 

amendment (NPS 2005) identified management actions to reduce crowding and vehicle 

congestion in high-density use areas by reducing reliance on automobiles by providing 

nonmotorized mobility options and by establishing a public transportation system. This public 

transportation system (the Island Explorer) was established in 1999 to provide public transit 

service from feeder routes near visitor accommodations and a hub in downtown Bar Harbor to 

destinations throughout the park. The Island Explorer service now plays a key role in providing 

alternative transportation throughout much of the park, but demand for popular transit routes 

occasionally exceed system capacity. 

All segments of the historic motor road system on Mount Desert Island and the Schoodic 

Peninsula are identified in the general management plan as the “Park Loop Road” and are 

considered a key historic property. One of the numerous resource planning directives 

articulated in the general management plan is to “Protect the Aesthetic and Historic Values of 

the Park Loop Road and Other Auto Roads.” Specifically, the general management plan states 

that the park will “protect and enhance the original design intent of the historic Park Loop Road

” and develop and implement guidelines “for the management of the road and its landscape 

corridor to protect the overall design.” The general management plan also states that

 new construction will be minimized and will use materials harmonious with those 

already used

 existing additions or alterations to the system will be evaluated for compatibility and 

possible removal

 no new parking will be added except at Wildwood Stables
Description of the Park

3

Lastly, the narrow historic park roads and low bridges were not designed for the large vehicles 

that currently use park roads, many under commercial use authorizations. Managing these 

commercial enterprises, nonprofit organizations, and groups within the context of a crowded 

park presents a significant challenge for park managers, which will be addressed with this 

transportation plan and subsequent commercial services planning. 

PLAN GOALS

This transportation plan seeks to achieve the following goals:

1. Establish desired conditions for natural and cultural resources and visitor experience at 

destinations and travel corridors throughout the park.

2. Adopt strategies to address parking and roadway capacity limitations and associated 

impacts on resources, safety, and visitor experience.

3. Establish guidance to improve safety and reduce conflicts among oversized vehicles (e.g., 

buses, RVs, campers), motorcycles, bicyclists, and passenger cars operating on 

park roads.

4. Enact potential improvements to transportation infrastructure to increase safety and 

enhance resource stewardship, sustainability, and NPS operational efficiency, while 

maintaining the integrity of the historic character.

5. Clarify how the scale, design, and function of the Acadia Gateway Center and Hulls Cove 

Visitor Center can help mitigate crowding and congestion, improve visitor orientation, 

increase compliance with park entrance passes, manage road-based commercial tours, 

and support the Island Explorer public transit service.

6. Partner with local communities and the State of Maine to address local and regional 

transportation-related issues, sustainable public transit service, and enhanced cultural 

and natural resource protection.

7. Incorporate the park’s transportation planning efforts with those of neighboring 

communities with regard to Island Explorer service enhancements and potential projects 

such as reuse of the Bar Harbor ferry terminal and the proposed parking solutions in 

downtown Bar Harbor. 

DESCRIPTION OF THE PARK

Acadia National Park preserves approximately 35,000 acres in Hancock and Knox Counties in 

the northeastern United States along the mid-section of the Maine coast. Acadia National Park 

was established in 1916 as Sieur de Monts National Monument and redesignated as Lafayette 

National Park in 1919. In 1929, Congress authorized the National Park Service to accept a 

donation of land on the Schoodic Peninsula and the park’s current name was adopted. The park 

now consists of parts of Mount Desert Island plus a part of Isle au Haut to the southwest of 

Mount Desert Island, the tip of the Schoodic Peninsula on the mainland to the east, and most of, 

or parts of, 16 smaller islands. The park also preserves almost 13,000 acres in conservation 

easements across its legislated boundary, which runs from the Penobscot River ship channel to 

just east of the Schoodic Peninsula.

Annual visitation to Acadia National Park grew by 58% between 2006 and 2016. Most visitation 

occurs from June through October and during the National Park Service centennial celebration 
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

4

in 2016 3.3 million visits were recorded. The most popular destinations include Cadillac 

Mountain, Sand Beach, and Jordan Pond. Resource-based recreational activities include viewing 

the scenery, walking, hiking, bicycling, camping, horseback and carriage riding, sea kayaking, 

and canoeing. The park provides opportunities for educating visitors about its resources and 

values through a variety of interpretive activities including guided walks, amphitheater 

presentations, education programs, and outreach activities.

BACKGROUND

The 1992 general management plan for Acadia National Park and the 2005 Schoodic general 

management plan amendment recognized the growing issue with congestion associated with 

transportation within park districts. Both documents discuss the development of alternative 

transportation system approaches to minimize the use of motor vehicles in the park with the 

goal of “implementing a transportation system as an alternative to or replacement for private 

automobile access” (NPS 1992).

In 2016, park staff developed a foundation document that provides the underlying principles 

that guide the development of this plan. The foundation document identifies what is most 

important about Acadia National Park (including the park’s purpose and significance), notes 

special mandates and administrative commitments that affect management of the park and 

identifies fundamental resources and values in the park. This plan was designed to be consistent 

with the park’s purpose and significance and ensures the protection of the park’s fundamental 

resources and values. The fundamental resources and values related to this planning effort are

 Range of Visitor Experience

 Network of Historic Roads, Historic Carriage Roads, and Trails

 Cultural Landscapes, Ethnographic Resources and Values

 Mosaic of Habitats Supporting Diverse Flora and Fauna

 Clean Air and Water

 Scenic Resources and Values

Twenty-five years ago, the 1992 general management plan recognized that congestion and 

overcrowding were having a negative impact on visitor experience and park resources and 

prescribed broad actions that would reduce these impacts. This transportation plan identifies 

the specific implementation level actions needed to achieve the goals of the 1992 general 

management plan. The 1992 plan called for managing access to specific locations to reduce 

resource damage and perceptions of overcrowding, including “the summits of Cadillac, 

Penobscot, Sargent, Champlain, and Pemetic Mountains; Little Moose Island; and Big Heath. 

Parking for these areas will be confined to existing lots with no overflow and no right lane
Background

5

FIGURE 1. LOCATION OF ACADIA NATIONAL PARK AND PRIMARY LOCATIONS REFERENCED IN THIS PLAN

parking on Park Loop Road.” The 1992 plan also identified actions to “retain opportunities for 

low-density recreation on the west side of Mount Desert Island and Schoodic Peninsula . . .” 

These actions included enforcing visitor capacity limits on the existing parking lots on Mount 

Desert Island and Schoodic Peninsula with the intent to “retain current use levels and the 

existing naturalness and solitude of these parts of the park.” Furthermore, the 1992 plan 

identified limiting parking along Park Loop Road as a means of reducing congestion and 

overcrowding impacts. The plan described eliminating parking “from the right lane of the Park 

Loop Road wherever road geometry poses a safety hazard.” The action was described as 

appropriate for enhancing the 

...scenic driving by removing the safety concerns, traffic flow restrictions, and visual 

impact of right-lane parking. 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 towns will be sought to eliminate overflow 

parking along state highways... No new parking areas will be constructed along the 

Park Loop Road, and no existing parking areas will be expanded except at 

Wildwood Stables. Additional parking will be provided at Eagle Lake and at the 

head of Valley Cove Road (to replace existing parking at Valley Cove). Visitors will 
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

6

be encouraged to travel the Park Loop Road as a scenic drive-through and to use 

alternative access – including the alternative transportation system, trail links, 

carriage roads, and bicycle routes – for destination travel.

It was recognized in that plan that establishment of the alternate transportation system would 

occur before the enforcement of new parking restrictions.

Even before the 1992 general management plan established management direction to deal with 

congestion and overcrowding , previous park planning efforts had tackled the issue. In 1988, the 

National Park Service published an environmental assessment (EA) and finding of no significant 

impact (FONSI) in association with establishing one-way traffic along Kebo Mountain Road, 

adding it to the already established 12-mile portion of one-way Ocean Drive. The change to 

one-way travel was made to address problems with safety, parking, and shared access for 

bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists. It also established the limited use of right lane parking to 

ease pressure on overfilled lots. When considering alternatives for the plan laid out in the 1988 

environmental assessment, the park used several studies on traffic volume and visitor 

preferences (based on the perception of safety and preference of views by direction) that helped 

them reach a preferred alternative to establish over half of Park Loop Road as one-directional 

travel in a clockwise direction.

In 1999, a three-phase transportation strategy was developed with the assistance of an 

interagency team of transportation, community, and Acadia National Park managers. This 

strategy was an effort to reduce traffic on local roads, primarily State Route (SR) 3, the primary 

access route to Mount Desert Island and the park. Phase 1 of the transportation strategy 

established the Island Explorer transit system operated by Downeast Transportation, Inc., and 

developed a transit hub at Village Green in Bar Harbor. Phase 2 expanded the Island Explorer 

fleet, extended the season and routes, and increased the frequency of service as the limited 

availability of drivers would allow. Since its inception in 1999, the Island Explorer transit system 

has carried over 7 million passengers. The Island Explorer is supported by donations from the 

local communities and organizations, local private businesses, and Acadia National Park.

Phase 3 of the transportation strategy included creating the Acadia Gateway Center along SR 3 

in the town of Trenton, Maine, outside the park’s boundary and approximately 2.0 miles north 

of the Hancock County Bar Harbor Airport. In addition to providing a more convenient 

location to fuel Island Explorer buses and establishing a bus maintenance facility, this site is 

strategically located to intercept traffic on SR 3 before it reaches Mount Desert Island. As the 

facility would be developed, visitors who stop at the Acadia Gateway Center would find 

information about the National Park Service and area chambers of commerce, purchase park 

entrance passes, learn about commercially operated tours, learn about the park through 

historical and informational displays, park their vehicles, and ride Island Explorer buses.

In 2007, the National Park Service adopted the Acadia Gateway Center Environmental 

Assessment prepared by the Maine Department of Transportation and Federal Transit 

Administration, concurring with their decision to build the Acadia Gateway Center in Trenton, 

Maine, off SR 3. The assessment called for build-out of the center in four phases. Phases 1 and 2 

involved the construction of the now-existing Acadia Gateway Center facilities and

establishment of the Downeast Transportation office and maintenance facilities. Phases 3 and 4 

would involve construction of an expanded NPS welcome center and theater and establishment 

of a NPS staff presence at the Acadia Gateway Center. Phases 3 and 4 have not yet 

been completed.
Visitor Use Management

7

The National Park Service continues to support full completion, including phases 3 and 4 

(subject to implementation funding) of the Acadia Gateway Center. Under the current planning 

effort, the alternatives that involve reservation-only vehicle access to popular park destinations 

would result in increased need for parking outside the park and increased use of alternative 

transportation for visitor access. The fully developed Acadia Gateway Center will help serve that 

need.

As mandated for all units in the national park system, concession contracts or commercial use 

authorizations (CUAs) are required for all commercial visitor services operators including 

nonprofits that receive monetary gain for activities where park resources are used for 

recreational purposes (i.e., shore excursions, step-on guides, wholesale tour operators, nature 

guides, biking tours, art/photography workshops, climbing schools, summer camps, water 

activities). The park developed a commercial services plan in 2000 that provides guidance for 

the management of commercial uses in the park, including the types and levels of 

transportation-related commercial services that are appropriate. This transportation plan is 

consistent with and supports the objectives of the commercial services plan (2000).

VISITOR USE MANAGEMENT

Visitor use management is the proactive and adaptive process of planning for and managing 

characteristics of visitor use and its physical and social setting and using a variety of strategies 

and tools to sustain desired resource conditions and visitor experience. Visitor use management 

is important because the National Park Service strives to maximize opportunities and benefits 

for visitors in a particular area while achieving and maintaining desired conditions for resources 

and visitor experience. Managing visitor access is inherently complex. It requires that NPS 

managers analyze not only the number of visitors but also where they go, what they do, their 

impacts on resources and visitor experience, and the underlying causes of those impacts. 

Managers must acknowledge the dynamic nature of visitor use, the vulnerabilities of natural and 

cultural resources, and the need to be responsive to changing conditions.

Proactively planning for visitor use maximizes the ability of agencies to encourage access and 

protect resources and values. In this plan, visitor use refers to human presence in an area for 

recreational purposes including education, interpretation, inspiration, and physical and mental 

health. Visitor use simply refers to the types of activities that people engage in at parks, but also 

includes the amount, timing, and distribution of visitor activities and behaviors. 

The Planning Process

This plan uses the visitor use management framework to develop a long-term strategy for 

managing visitor use in the park. The planning process used for this plan is outlined below and is 

consistent with guidance outlined by the Interagency Visitor Use Management Council 

(www.visitorusemanagement.nps.gov). Studies conducted by multiple sources related to visitor 

use, the condition of natural resources related to visitor use, and visitor preferences in the park 

also informed development of the alternatives.
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

8

Table 1. Visitor Use Management and the Planning Process

Visitor Use Management Framework 

Elements

Framework Steps and Alignment with the Planning 

Process and Corresponding Chapter Location

Element 1: Build the Foundation

Building the foundation is the first of the four 

elements of the visitor use management framework. 

The purpose of this element is to help managers 

understand what needs to be done, how to organize 

the plan, and how to define the resources needed to 

complete the plan.

1. Clarify the plan purpose and need (chapter 1).

2. Review the area’s purpose and applicable legislation, 

agency policies, and other management direction 

(chapter 1).

3. Assess and summarize existing information and current 

conditions (e.g., current conditions of natural, cultural, 

and recreation resources and visitor experience 

opportunities in the area) (chapter 3).

4. Develop a plan strategy (chapter 1).

Element 2: Define Visitor Use Management Direction

The purpose of this element is to answer critical 

questions about what the planning effort is trying to 

achieve and the acceptable levels of impacts from 

visitor use.

5. Define desired conditions for the planning area 

(chapter 12).

6. Define appropriate visitor activities, facilities, and services 

(chapter 2).

7. Select indicators and establish thresholds (chapter 2; 

appendix A).

Element 3: Identify Management Strategies

This element is intended to help managers identify 

management strategies and actions to achieve and 

maintain the desired conditions of the plan area. This 

element also identifies visitor capacity. The goal of 

element 3 is to define how visitor use would be 

managed to achieve desired conditions.

8. Compare and document the differences between existing 

and desired conditions, and for visitor use-related 

impacts, clarify the specific links with visitor use 

characteristics (chapter 3).

9. Identify visitor use management strategies and actions to 

achieve desired conditions (chapter 2).

10. Where necessary, identify visitor capacities and strategies 

to manage use levels within capacities (appendix A).

11. Develop a monitoring strategy (chapter 2; appendix A).

Element 4: Implement, Monitor, Evaluate, and Adjust

This element focuses on implementing management 

actions, monitoring, evaluating monitoring results, 

and making adjustments to management strategies 

and actions based on monitoring results. This phase 

of the planning process focuses on making progress 

toward meeting desired conditions as well as 

evaluating potential unintended consequences of the 

actions for visitors or resources.

12. Implement management actions.

13. Conduct and document ongoing monitoring and 

evaluate the effectiveness of management actions in 

achieving desired conditions.

14. Adjust management actions if needed to achieve desired 

conditions and document rationale. 

DESIRED CONDITIONS FOR SELECTED FUNDAMENTAL RESOURCES AND VALUES

The desired conditions are defined as statements of aspiration that describe resource conditions 

(including fundamental resources and values), visitor experience and opportunities, and 

facilities and services that an agency strives to achieve and maintain in a particular area. Desired 

conditions describe what conditions, outcomes, and opportunities are to be achieved and 

maintained in the future, not necessarily what exists today. Desired condition descriptions 

describe what the particular area will look like, feel like, sound like, and functions like in the 

future. The desired conditions guide the development of indicators and thresholds needed for 

monitoring and adaptive management. They also provide basic criteria to evaluate the 

appropriate types and levels of management, development, and access needed to achieve those 

conditions.
Desired Conditions for Selected 

Fundamental Resources and Values

9 

Definition of Desired Conditions

Desired conditions are defined as “a park’s natural and cultural resource conditions that the National Park 

Service aspires to achieve and maintain over time, and the conditions necessary for visitors to understand, 

enjoy, and appreciate those resources.” NPS Management Policies 2006

The park’s fundamental resources and values (FRVs) are those features, systems, processes, 

experiences, stories, scenes, sounds, or other attributes determined to warrant primary 

consideration during planning and management processes because they are essential to 

achieving the purpose of the park and maintaining its significance. The FRVs are also an integral 

part of how visitors experience Acadia National Park and its network of roads, parking lots, and 

transportation routes, which help the visitor to experience those resources and share in the 

values. Desired conditions were developed for these fundamental resources and values as part 

of this comprehensive planning effort. Please refer to the park’s foundation document for 

descriptions of the fundamental resources and values associated with transportation planning in 

the park. Each alternative was developed to be compatible with attaining these desired 

conditions, as well as meeting the purpose and need for the plan. Please refer to “Appendix A: 

Visitor Capacity Determination” for a discussion of how these desired conditions inform visitor 

capacity for each of the key locations within the park’s transportation network.

Range of Visitor Experience. 

Goal— Provide for a range of opportunities to experience the landscape that provide a highquality, resource-related visitor experience while ensuring a safe and positive social 

environment.

Desired Conditions

 Visitors are provided with safe, convenient, conflict-free, and sustainable access to park 

resources and experiences using a variety of means including private automobile, 

commercial transportation, Island Explorer buses, or by foot or bicycle.

 High-quality programs, services, and facilities are provided that are accessible and usable 

by all people.

 Visitors are informed about the area, know what to expect, and have planned their visit 

before they arrive at the park.

 Visitors have a variety of options to access areas throughout the park via private 

automobile, commercial transportation, Island Explorer buses, or by foot or bicycle.

 High-quality experiences are provided in settings with a range of visitor densities (high 

to low) that are not dominated or degraded by crowding or congestion of vehicles or 

visitors. These settings are characterized by high-quality natural and cultural resources, 

natural soundscapes, and dark night skies. The number of visitors to key park attractions 

is managed in a way that prevents conflicts over available parking spaces, between 

different activity participants, and provides access for a variety of activities.

 The Western Mountain roads and the surrounding areas and trails are managed for lowdensity use and solitude.
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

10

 Visitors understand the historic significance of the park’s cultural resources, including 

the motor roads, as historic resources.

 Traffic is predominantly free flowing with occasional congestion at acceptable levels that 

will usually abate on its own and does not compromise safety and emergency response. 

Visitors in private vehicles are able to find parking space at destinations most of the time 

but with acceptable delays. The Island Explorer buses can easily circulate throughout the 

park. Dead-end roads (located at Great Head, Duck Brook, Beech Mountain, Echo Lake, 

Bass Harbor Light, Lower Hadlock Pond, Long Pond, and other places ) are managed to 

avoid congestion and ensure emergency access at all times.

 Visitor facilities support key visitor experiences related to fundamental resources or 

values.

 Visitors with disabilities have equitable opportunities to access all park facilities where 

possible.

 Views from Cadillac Mountain summit are dominated by a natural landscape that is 

interspersed with unobtrusive rural community development.

 Visitors can have a quiet, contemplative experience at Sieur de Monts. Visitors can have 

an easygoing environment for birding, botanizing, and enjoying the natural and cultural 

landscape. Vehicles in the area are consistent with the quiet, contemplative nature of this 

place. Large vehicles do not park in the area.

 Entrance facilities have adequate capacity to accommodate a variety of transportation 

modes. Equitable queuing options are available. Specific locations provide a high-quality, 

seamless transition among various transportation modes. 

 Access to the Western Mountain roads and Long Pond Fire Road and their associated 

parking lots and trails is intentionally limited to maintain a low density experience. 

Public transit is not provided to these areas. Visitors have a relatively low-density 

experience with ample opportunities for solitude and limited developed recreational 

facilities and limited services.

Network of Historic Roads, Historic Carriage Roads, and Trails.

Goal— Protect the aesthetic and historic values of historic roads, historic carriage roads and 

trails in the park.

Desired Conditions

 The park’s historic road and trail networks retain their overall design, character-defining 

features, and intended historic uses, including private automobile touring.

 The original intent and historic significance of Park Loop Road and other historic roads 

are conveyed to visitors.

 Transportation-related development beyond the existing footprint is minimized and 

designed in accordance with other rustic designs and is sustainable and adaptive to a 

changing climate.

 Infrastructure is resilient to the effects of climate change.

 Future transportation infrastructure design and construction is sustainable relative to sea 

level rise, increasing storm intensities, and other climate-related future conditions.
Desired Conditions for Selected 

Fundamental Resources and Values

11

 To ensure visitor safety and avoid conflicts, the number and size of all vehicles accessing 

key areas does not exceed the road’s design and parking capacity.

 Visitors experience driving the motor roads as originally intended for low speed, vehicle 

touring.

Cultural Landscapes, Ethnographic Resources and Values.

Goal— Protect, preserve, and rehabilitate the cultural heritage and landscapes of the park.

Desired Conditions

 The historic attributes and uses contributing to the park’s cultural landscapes are 

preserved and protected.

 The character, integrity, and significance of the cultural landscape embodied in the 

historic motor road system are maintained.

 The integrity of ethnographic resources and values is safeguarded to preserve significant 

attributes and uses that contribute to historical significance. 

 Development blends with and supports the character, integrity, and historic significance 

embodied in the park’s cultural landscapes, including the historic motor road system. 

Mosaic of Habitats Supporting Diverse Flora and Fauna.

Goal— Protect and preserve the park’s natural resources, giving priority to those that are 

exceptionally fragile or significant.

Desired Conditions

 A climate-resilient, ecologically diverse native biotic community is present and thriving.

 Visitor-related impacts such as loss of soil and vegetation along roadsides from parked 

cars and along trails from high volumes of hikers are minimal. 

 An associated abundance of flora and fauna, including terrestrial and aquatic 

ecosystems, are supported.

 The park’s transportation system is designed and constructed to ensure the protection of 

rare and special status species and habitats. Natural processes are safeguarded to 

preserve natural ecosystem integrity. The natural processes that connect the hydrologic 

and other natural features and systems of the park are unhindered by transportationrelated use, management, and infrastructure.

Clean Air and Water.

Goal— Maintain or improve air and water quality.

Desired Conditions

 Transportation activities and systems would continue to be managed in accordance with 

the park’s classification as a class I area under the Clean Air Act of 1977.

 The physical, chemical, and hydrological properties of the park’s streams, rivers, lakes, 

and other water bodies reflect natural water quality conditions that meet or exceed 

applicable water quality standards and drinking water values.
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

12

Scenic Resources and Values.

Goal— Preserve opportunities for visitors to enjoy the park’s scenery.

Desired Conditions1

 Views of the natural environmental and cultural landscapes are protected.

 Vehicles do not dominate visitor views and experiences at key attractions.

 Visitors easily find their destination and understand their options for accessing 

trailheads. Visitors have the freedom to roam and explore the surrounding areas, with 

some areas closed for resource protection.

 Transportation information is available to visitors online and at visitor centers.

SCOPE OF THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Issues and Impact Topics Retained For Detailed Analysis

The National Park Service conducted scoping to confirm the purpose of and need for the 

project, identify potential management alternatives, and identify the issues relevant to analysis of 

those alternatives. The National Park Service conducted scoping with federal, state, and local 

agencies with jurisdiction by law or special expertise, nongovernmental entities, other interested 

and affected parties, and the general public.

Through scoping, the National Park Service and cooperating agencies developed a list of issues 

associated with transportation management in the park. These issues are “problems, concerns, 

conflicts, obstacles, or benefits that would result if the proposed action or alternatives, including 

the no-action alternative, are implemented” (NPS 2015a, section 4.2). Issues identified during 

scoping and retained for detailed analysis are described below.

Issue: Changes to Visitor Access and Use Patterns

Visitor experiences on park roads allow for recreational opportunities such as viewing 

remarkable and unique scenery and driving on roads that have national significance for their 

character and construction. Park roads bring visitors to a variety of experiences from hiking the 

summits, combing the shoreline, and enjoying vistas. Acadia National Park receives 

approximately 3.3 million annual visits. These visitors are affected by management of the Acadia 

transportation system. During the park’s peak season and hours, visitors have degraded

experiences, both on roadways themselves and while attempting to access park resources and 

experiences, due to vehicle congestion on roads, parking lots, and transit systems; overcrowding 

on trails and other key attractions; blocked vistas; and compromised wayfinding. 

Furthermore, congestion associated with high volumes of people accessing parklands during 

peak season causes safety concerns and a reduced level of service along those roads. In some 

cases, the congestion can limit the ability of first responders to reach an emergency situation 

 

1 Additional desired conditions for this FRV can be found in the Motor Road Vista Management Plan (2016). 
Scope of the Transportation Plan /

Environmental Impact Statement 

13

promptly. Motor coach heights exceed bridge underpass heights on the Park Loop Road and on 

SR 233, requiring coaches to cross the center line to pass under bridges. Additionally, Cadillac 

Mountain is accessible via a narrow, twisting historic road constructed in 1932 that serves 

visitors in private vehicles, 45-foot-long commercial buses, and on bicycles. There are no 

shoulders or other accommodations for bicycle use along this roadway; drivers who want to 

pass bicyclists do not have room to do so without crossing the center line. Visitors also walk 

along the side of the road to the summit. 

The action alternatives consider potentially significant changes and restrictions on how visitors 

access, move about, and experience the park. These changes could impact the timing and 

distribution of visitor use in many areas of the park. These changes could also impact the 

experience quality in parking lots, at attraction sites, and along roadways. These were primary 

concerns in the planning process. 

Associated impact topics:

 Visitor Use and Experience

 Socioeconomics

 Visitor and User Safety

Issue: Protecting Historic Resources and Historic Character

Most of the park’s motor roads are a historic resource and cultural landscape. In addition, the 

park includes a number of other cultural landscapes and associated historic structures, all of 

them accessed by the historic motor road system. The park’s historic Park Loop Road, built 

between 1922 and 1958, encompasses a unique historic design that was established to provide an 

unbroken scenic automobile tour throughout all natural settings of the park. The road system 

became the primary means of accessing the most popular destinations in the park, themselves 

historic cultural landscapes with unique design characteristics that include access points to the 

historic road and designed vehicle circulation patterns and parking lots. The development of the 

historic motor roads and associated cultural landscapes followed a picturesque design style and 

became one of the nation’s most comprehensive examples of NPS rustic design, a style that 

blends human-built infrastructure into the physical environment to complement the natural 

world. The historic character of the nationally significant Park Loop Road and associated 

landscapes is dependent upon both its historic fabric and design and its interaction with the 

surrounding landscape, including viewsheds into and out of landscapes and experiencing scenic 

vistas along the intended tour of the motor road. Experiencing the scenic views provided by the 

historic motor road system is a fundamental resource and value for Acadia National Park and a 

defining historic characteristic of the Park Loop Road.

Current congestion in the historic road corridor and at popular destinations in historic cultural 

landscapes create situations that threaten the historic fabric of the road and associated 

landscapes. Driving and parking beyond the road surface, as well as associated ad hoc solutions 

to congestion and overcrowding, threaten adverse effects on the historic character of park roads 

and their eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Proposed 

changes in access points to control congestion and their associated modern infrastructure 

improvements threaten impacts to the historic fabric and character-defining design of the road 

and associated cultural landscapes along the road. Proposed changes in circulation and methods 

of transport affect the historic character-defining experience of touring the Park Loop Road and 
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

14

access to relevant viewsheds and vistas. Proposed changes to the ways in which visitors access 

individual cultural landscapes (both through physical modification of the landscapes and via 

adjustments that increase or decrease visitor density and vehicle sizes) could affect the intended 

use of the landscapes and their historic character. Physical and operational changes to park 

transportation systems could significantly impact the park’s historic resources and their design 

characteristics, and could threaten their eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places. 

Associated impact topics:

 Historic Motor Road, Character and Condition

 Cultural Landscapes, Character and Condition

Issue: Changes to Commercial and Local Use

Recreation-related tourism plays an important role in the local and regional economy. The 

alternatives included in this plan propose varying levels of recreational access, opportunities, 

and changes in commercial uses that may affect the local community’s travel and tourism 

sectors. New transportation access management systems may affect local residents’ ability to 

spontaneously visit certain areas of the park, may affect the size and number of buses as well as 

traffic in and around Acadia. Local businesses, including road-based commercial tour operators, 

commercial guides, and nature tours, that use park roads and parking lots to access resources 

outside the transportation corridor may also be affected. The proposed action alternatives may 

consider potentially significant changes to commercial visitor services and visitor access to the 

park that may affect local communities’ social and economic systems and their enjoyment of 

natural and cultural resources. 

Associated impact topics: 

 Visitor Use and Experience

 Socioeconomics

Issues and Impact Topics Considered but Dismissed from Further Analysis

Through the scoping process, the following issues were initially raised during scoping but were 

eliminated from further consideration for the reasons below.

Archeological Resources. Acadia National Park contains significant prehistoric and historic 

archeological resources dating back at least 5,000 years. The entire park has been evaluated for 

the potential for buried archeological resources and over 220 sites are known to park managers. 

The proposed actions associated with this transportation plan do not take place in the vicinity of 

any of these known resources, and the plan is not expected to affect archeological resources 

known to exist in the park. However, various components of the action alternatives presented in 

chapter 2 do propose ground disturbing activities in areas that have not been fully surveyed to 

identify the presence of archeological resources. These actions include expanded parking and 

visitor center infrastructure at Hulls Cove, demolition and site restoration at Thompson Island, 

construction of a parking lot and access road at Eagle Lake, and establishment of parking 

facilities at Acadia Mountain and the Satterlee Pit site. In the event that they were to be 

undertaken, full archeological survey of project areas would be completed, along with inventory 

and evaluation of the historic significance of any archeological resources encountered, in 
Scope of the Transportation Plan /

Environmental Impact Statement 

15

advance of any ground-disturbing activities. These investigations would be carried out in 

consultation with the Maine Historic Preservation Commission (MHPC) (state historic 

preservation officer [SHPO]) and the park’s associated tribal governments. If significant 

archeological resources were discovered and determined to be threatened by any proposed 

projects, the park would employ best practices for their preservation and consult with the 

Maine Historic Preservation Commission, tribal governments, the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, and other stakeholders on their ultimate treatment. Therefore, the topic of 

archeological resources was dismissed from further analysis.

Winter Recreational Use. The majority of park visitors are accommodated during the peak and 

shoulder seasons between May and October. The proposed reservation systems in this plan 

would only apply during the peak season in the park, currently between mid-May through midOctober. During the off-peak season, many park roads are closed and issues with congestion, 

conflicts between visitor use and resource protection and visitor experience are rarely 

experienced and are managed in the park on a case-by-case basis. The alternatives described in 

this plan relate to strategies for transportation management during the peak season only, and the 

ability of the National Park Service to manage transportation for winter use would continue as 

under the no-action alternative. Therefore, consideration of the transportation system in winter 

would not direct or inform this planning effort. However, park managers may choose to 

adaptively manage the time periods during which the reservation systems are in place. As the 

climate warms, use during spring and fall months has increased. If these trends continue to 

expand the peak season of use, dates during which the reservation and public transit systems 

operate may extend earlier and/or later into the year.

Natural Resources. Acadia National Park supports a wide diversity of ecological community 

types, as well as hundreds of species of plants and animals including some that are globally, 

federally, and locally rare. The park’s ecosystems and natural wildlife communities are a 

fundamental resource and value of Acadia. Periodic high volumes of visitors and traffic 

congestion can lead to resource trampling at popular destinations and damage associated with 

shoulder driving and out-of-bounds parking. Each of the action alternatives in this plan 

proposes options to avoid or alleviate these impacts. In addition, all alternatives seek to 

eliminate resource damage associated with visitor use without installing significant 

infrastructure, which itself could variably impact natural resources, depending on the scale of 

construction. Under any of the alternatives considered, adverse impacts on natural resources 

would be minimal and would not vary among alternatives. Most areas in which construction 

would take place are already developed or disturbed. At Eagle Lake the preferred alternative 

would result in some disturbance and loss of vegetation, wildlife, and soil, primarily due to 

widening the access road and construction of a new connector trail. However, less than 1 acre 

would be altered, and impacts would be minimal with the application of best management 

practices. No special or unique vegetation, soil, and wildlife would be lost and the abundance 

and distribution of vegetation and wildlife in the area would not substantially change. 

Developments may also be proposed in the future in the Jordan Pond and Acadia Mountain 

areas under the preferred alternative, but without additional details on these developments it is 

not possible at this time to analyze the impacts on vegetation, soil, and wildlife in these areas—

additional impact analysis and compliance will be needed for these areas when details on the 

proposed developments are known. Based on best available information, no known federal or 

state listed species are known to occur within the above construction areas with the possible 

exception of the federally threatened northern long-eared bat. Surveys would need to be done 

prior to construction to determine if rare or sensitive species are present and if impacts can be 
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

16

avoided. Because northern long-eared bats may be present, the National Park Service would 

consult with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) prior to any construction to ensure that 

adverse impacts to this species are avoided. Under all of the action alternatives, park managers 

would be working to improve the condition of fundamental resources and values related to 

natural resources. The topic would not inform or direct decision making in this planning effort 

and was dismissed from further analysis.

Air Quality. Emissions from vehicles in the park affect local air quality. Although the park is not 

in a nonattainment area (as defined under the Clean Air Act), changes in transportation 

management could affect local air quality and emissions. However, because all action proposals 

of this transportation plan seek to eliminate or reduce instances of traffic congestion and idling 

(and subsequent impacts on air quality from excess vehicle emissions), any action taken would 

similarly benefit air quality. Analysis of the benefits to air quality would not vary among the 

alternatives. Therefore, the topic would not inform or direct the decision making in this 

planning effort and was dismissed from further analysis. 

Water Quality. Vehicle use and road maintenance can introduce environmental pollutants into 

park ecosystems and waterways. Vehicle fluid leaks, accidental fuel discharges, and solid waste 

contamination (litter and vehicle parts) are all associated with active roadways. In addition, road 

maintenance activities such as paving projects, striping, and wintertime salting, all have the 

potential to negatively impact water quality. These issues are typically considered and impacts 

minimized on a case-by-case basis. None of the alternatives considered in this plan would affect 

the park’s ability to manage these impacts, nor would any alternative change the frequency or 

intensity of these impacts. No new developments or actions are being proposed in this plan that 

would degrade the water quality of lakes and ponds that serve as drinking water for local 

residents. Under alternatives C and D, parking lots are proposed within the Eagle Lake 

watershed; however, design of those parking lots would incorporate best practices for 

stormwater management, and when considered in context with existing uses and the proposed 

revegetation efforts, the proposals are likely to result in a net improvement to water quality. 

Therefore, the topic would not inform or direct the decision making in this planning effort and 

was dismissed from further analysis. 

Environmental Justice. Although local residents include minority and low-income populations, 

these populations would not be particularly or disproportionately affected by activities 

associated with construction or implementing the alternatives. The park staff and planning team 

solicited public participation as part of the planning process and gave equal consideration to all 

input from persons regardless of age, race, income status, or other socioeconomic or 

demographic factors. 

All of the action alternatives in the plan include the use of reservations to manage vehicle 

volumes in the park. These reservations would be accompanied by a modest (likely less than 

$10) fee to cover the costs to operate the reservation system, monitor traffic conditions, and 

support alternative transportation options such as the free Island Explorer service. These 

reservations, and the increased fee associated with them, are not proposed for many areas of the 

park. Visitors would still be able to access the park in a variety of ways that would not be subject 

to an additional fee. Regardless of alternative selection, implementation would not result in any 

identifiable adverse human health effects on any population, including minority or low-income 

populations. For these reasons, environmental justice as an impact topic was dismissed from 

further analysis. 
Scope of the Transportation Plan /

Environmental Impact Statement 

17

Indian Trust Resources. No Indian trust resources are located in the park and the lands 

comprising the national park are not held in trust by the Secretary of the Interior for the benefit 

of Indians. Therefore, the issue of Indian trust resources was dismissed from further analysis.

Trails and Carriage Road Systems. The transportation plan addresses safety issues on park 

motor roads and crowding at popular visitor destinations in the park. No alternative proposes 

changes to the physical alignment, characteristics, management, or maintenance of hiking trails 

or carriage roads. Some alternatives propose new parking lots and associated connector trails to 

adjacent carriage roads and hiking trails, but no modifications to existing trails or changes in 

their current uses are proposed.

The alternatives do propose managing vehicle levels on roadways and parking lots that provide 

access to hiking trails and carriage roads. Additionally, a monitoring framework that includes 

indicators and thresholds for trails and carriage roads and an associated visitor capacity 

determination is included in appendix A. These indicators, thresholds, and visitor capacity 

determinations are designed to ensure that management of the park’s roads, parking lots, and 

transit services do not cause adverse impacts on the historic trails and carriage roads and the 

visitor experience on them. 

No changes are proposed in any of the alternatives regarding pedestrian and bicycle access on 

the Park Loop Road, including Cadillac Mountain, Ocean Drive, Jordan Pond House, and Sieur 

de Mont. No reservations would be required to bike in these areas or for bicycle access to the 

parking lots. Therefore, this topic was dismissed from further analysis.

Isle au Haut and Remote Islands. The transportation system would continue to support lowdensity visitor use of Isle au Haut, consistent with the 2014 visitor use management plan. No 

adjustments to management of transportation on the island are proposed in this plan. The 

National Park Service would continue to use a cooperative agreement to ensure ferry service to 

Duck Harbor; there would continue to be a passenger ferry dock at Duck Harbor. The National 

Park Service would continue to ensure motor vehicle access along the park road, although the 

extent of upkeep would continue to vary based on available funding.

The transportation plan proposes no adjustment in current strategies for management of the 

park’s other remote islands, which would continue to be managed as they currently are under 

existing plans and policies. No landing facilities would be constructed on the islands. 

Commercial use of remote islands would continue to be prohibited. Therefore, this topic was 

dismissed from further analysis.

Boating. This draft plan / environmental impact statement addresses land-based transportation 

and visitor use. While the alternatives do propose changes to parking and vehicle access, 

including vehicles trailering and launching boats, none of the alternatives propose any changes 

to managing boat use on the water. Therefore, boating was dismissed from further analysis.

NEXT STEPS IN THE PLANNING PROCESS

The release of this draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) will be followed by a 60-day 

public comment period. Public comments will then be analyzed and used to shape a final 

environmental impact statement (FEIS). After release of the final environmental impact 

statement for a 30-day no-action period, a record of decision approving the plan may be 

prepared for signature by the NPS regional director. The record of decision documents the NPS 
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

18

selection of an alternative for implementation. The plan can then be implemented, depending 

on funding and staffing.

Implementation

A record of decision does not guarantee funds and staff for implementing the approved plan. 

The National Park Service recognizes that this is a long-term plan and, in the framework of the 

plan, park managers would take incremental steps to reach park management goals and 

objectives. The park would actively seek alternative sources of funding, but there is no guarantee 

that all the components of the plan would be implemented.

The implementation of the approved plan could also be affected by other factors such as 

changes in visitor use patterns, additional data or regulatory compliance requirements, 

competing national park system priorities, and unforeseen environmental changes. Additionally, 

a financial feasibility analysis would be completed to determine the best way to meet the goals 

for management of commercial vehicles in the park. This analysis may be followed by the 

development of a concession prospectus or new restrictions on commercial use-authorized 

activities.
Alternatives

Chapter 2
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
19

CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES

INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes alternatives for transportation and visitor use management in Acadia 

National Park. The alternatives were developed by soliciting input from park staff, stakeholders, 

other government agencies, and the public on key issues and potential management strategies.

In the following sections, the no-action alternative (alternative A), actions common to all action 

alternatives, and three action alternatives (alternatives B, C, and D) are described. Next, best 

management practices are described and mitigation measures discussed. Chapter 2 concludes by 

identifying alternatives and actions that were considered by the planning team but dismissed 

from further consideration.

Under the no-action alternative, current management continues, and the alternative provides a 

basis for comparing the other alternatives. The actions common to all action alternatives include 

common sense approaches to managing transportation in Acadia National Park that do not vary 

by alternative. The action alternatives present various approaches to managing park resources 

and values, including a spectrum of visitor opportunities and amenities.

For each alternative, a concept statement is presented followed by management actions and 

strategies that would guide Acadia National Park’s management of the park’s transportation 

networks. These strategies (for action alternatives B, C, and D) are organized under the 

following topics: 

 Management of the Park Loop Road

 Management of other Mount Desert Island attractions and trailheads 

 Hulls Cove and Acadia Gateway Center

 Schoodic Peninsula

 Public transit

 Commercial services

Note that, unless otherwise stated, management of commercial vehicles is addressed separately 

from management of private vehicles. For a summary of all alternatives, see appendix B. 

A Road with Many Names

Park Loop Road is known locally by a number of different names along different segments of 

the road. Management strategies included in this plan use those local names to refer to specific 

areas or segments of Park Loop Road. To clarify which management strategies apply in which 

locations, those local names are shown on the map below.
Chapter 2: Alternatives

20

FIGURE 2. ACADIA NATIONAL PARK MAP
Alternative A: No Action

21

ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION

Concept

Under the no-action alternative, current transportation management policies, procedures, and 

programs for the Acadia National Park transportation system would continue. There would be 

no major changes from current operations, and changes that did occur would be on a 

reactionary, not proactive, basis. The park’s transportation system would continue to support 

mobility and access on foot and by bicycle, Island Explorer, and private and commercial motor 

vehicles. 

Management of park visitors would continue to vary seasonally as visitor demand and needs 

change, with many management strategies focusing on the peak season between mid-May and 

mid-October. The National Park Service would update facilities on an as-needed basis to be 

resilient and adapt to the effects of climate change.

Throughout the park, the physical capacity of roads and designated parking lots would be 

generally unchanged. Parking would remain available to all users on a first-come, first-served 

basis, but restrictions and prohibitions may be implemented when needed. For example, 

Cadillac Mountain may be temporarily closed to vehicle access if traffic and congestion prevents 

emergency vehicle access. Physical changes to roads and parking would be limited and related to 

safety, accessibility, resource protection, and accommodating alternative transportation, not to 

capacity. Temporary or permanent closures of roads and parking areas may occur if necessary to 

address safety and security concerns or to ensure the financial sustainability of the overall 

transportation system. 

Management of the Park Loop Road

The scenic motor tour experience along Park Loop Road would remain a priority visitor 

experience. The historic road is a cultural resource, and the original design of the road would 

continue to be protected and preserved through adherence to design and maintenance 

treatment plans. Park Loop Road would continue to serve as a critical component of the 

transportation network serving many high-density use areas. Right-lane parking would remain 

available in areas where it is currently permitted, subject to adjustments for safety purposes. 

These areas include the one-way sections of the Park Loop Road from Bear Brook picnic area to 

the Stanley Brook Road junction (start of the two-way). To minimize congestion, protect 

resources, and enhance visitor experiences, the amount of parking along Park Loop Road would 

not be increased, and park staff would continue to encourage visitors to use means other than 

private vehicles, such as Island Explorer buses, for travel to their destination.

Existing motor vehicle entrances to Park Loop Road would remain. The National Park Service 

would continue to direct visitors to the Hulls Cove, Cadillac Mountain, Sieur de Monts, and 

Stanley Brook entrances as the primary access points to Park Loop Road.

Motor touring to the summit of Cadillac Mountain by private vehicle and authorized 

commercial services would continue. Parking capacity at the summit would not be increased—

parking would continue be available on a first-come, first-served basis. Park staff would 

continue to manage congestion, direct traffic, and temporarily close the road if necessary to 

ensure access to the summit by emergency vehicles. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives

22

Access to Sieur de Monts from both Park Loop Road and SR 3 would remain as it is now. The 

parking lot would continue to be used by hikers and visitors to the Wild Gardens of Acadia, 

Nature Center, and Abbe Museum. Parking would continue to be on a first-come, first-served 

basis.

Management of Other Mount Desert Island Attractions and Trailheads

Park staff would continue to manage roadside parking on an as-needed basis. On NPS-managed 

roadways, the focus would continue to be on measures such as managing illegal parking and 

enhancing parking lot and travel efficiency to improve safety, resource conditions, and visitor 

experience. On those roadways bordering park lands but owned by others, park managers 

would continue to work with partners to improve safety and resource protection.

Hulls Cove and Acadia Gateway Center. The Hulls Cove Visitor Center would continue to 

accommodate current uses with no expansion of parking or other site amenities. The Acadia 

Gateway Center would be developed and operated as described in the Acadia Gateway Center 

Environmental Assessment (MDOT and FTA 2006).

Schoodic Peninsula. The park’s transportation system on the Schoodic Peninsula would 

continue to be managed for low-density recreational use and provide alternatives to the use of 

private vehicles. The National Park Service would continue to provide information about 

bicycle use, including use of the Schoodic Woods parking lot for day use visitors. Large vehicles 

(RVs and commercial vehicles larger than 15-passenger vans) would continue to be prohibited 

south of the campground, except for Island Explorer buses and vehicles accessing the Schoodic 

Education and Research Center. Schoodic Loop Road would remain a two-lane, one-way road, 

except for the two-way road to Schoodic Point. No new parking lots would be established. 

Existing parking would continue to be managed to protect resources. Informal parking in the 

right lane along Schoodic Loop Road would not be permitted.

Public Transit

Island Explorer service would continue to be provided during the peak season to the degree that 

funding allows. Island Explorer buses do not serve the Cadillac Mountain summit. Designated 

parking for Island Explorer would continue to be provided at locations throughout the park. 

Commercial Visitor Services

Under the no-action alternative, the park would maintain current restrictions that apply to all 

motor vehicles including commercial vehicles such as prohibitions on carriage roads, seasonal 

closures of gravel roads, and size restrictions for dead-end roads and some parking lots. The 

park currently has concession contracts with two tour operators (trolley and bus) and would 

continue to allow concession bus tour opportunities for the life of existing contracts. Renewed 

or new contracts would also be considered. Concession operations would continue to be

subject to the same roadway, access, and height/length restrictions as commercial use 

authorizations. Oversize vehicles would continue to be prohibited from parking lots and 

roadways that do not have adequate room for maneuvering or turning around, such as the 

southern end of Schooner Head Road (Great Head Road), Bubble Pond parking lot, and Bass 

Harbor Head Road.
Actions Common to All Action Alternatives

23

All NPS-owned roads would remain closed to commercial vehicles except for buses on Park 

Loop Road and Cadillac Summit Road, buses traveling to and from the Schoodic Education and 

Research Center, and vehicles making deliveries to the park, concessioners, and CUA holders 

conducting authorized business. 

Designated parking for authorized oversize commercial vehicles (vehicles that do not fit within a 

standard parking space such as a motor coach) would continue to be provided at locations 

throughout the park. Oversize commercial vehicles would continue to be managed by existing 

policies that limit the number and locations of parking spaces for oversize commercial vehicles 

in the park.

As specified in the operating plan of the concession contract for the Jordan Pond House, a 

concessioner would continue to manage the Jordan Pond House South Parking Lot. 

ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES

The following management actions are common to all action alternatives. Additionally, best 

management practices and mitigation measures that apply to all the action alternatives are 

described later in this chapter. Many of these strategies are practical, common sense approaches

to managing transportation in Acadia National Park and therefore do not vary by alternative. 

They include enhancing Island Explorer service in the park; actions associated with managing 

transportation systems on Mount Desert Island and the Schoodic Peninsula; monitoring the 

effectiveness of transportation management; and strategies to adapt to climate-related changes.

Unless otherwise noted, all of the following actions apply only to NPS lands on Mount Desert 

Island.

Reservation Systems

All of the action alternatives propose a different configuration of reservation systems to manage 

the volume and timing of vehicle entry at various locations throughout the park. These 

reservations only apply to motor vehicles and not pedestrians or bicycles. The purpose of the 

reservation system is to manage use in these locations within the desired resource and 

experiential conditions of the sites. For each of these areas, desired conditions and visitor 

capacities have been identified (see chapter 1 and appendix A, respectively). These conditions 

and analyses were used to identify the maximum amount and type of use that could be 

accommodated at each location (see appendix A for site-by-site analysis). Regardless of the type 

of reservation system described in the alternative:

 The numbers of reservations available would correspond with management actions 

needed to manage the identified visitor capacities. 

 A percentage of reservations would be held aside for short-term purchase (i.e., day of, 

day before, week of). Leftover advance reservations and no-shows would be added to 

the short-term reservation pool.

 Reservations could be made online and at automated reservation kiosks in key locations, 

including park visitor contact stations at the Village Green, Hulls Cove Visitor Center, 

and Acadia Gateway Center.
Chapter 2: Alternatives

24

 Timed-entry reservations (alternatives C and D) would not restrict length of stay, only 

time of entry. Parking reservations (alternative B) would only be valid for a specified time 

period and would therefore manage length of stay. 

 Reservations would be valid only when accompanied by an entrance pass. Entrance 

passes could be purchased in tandem with reservations, separately online, or at many 

locations including visitor information centers on Mount Desert Island and the 

Schoodic Peninsula.

 Operation of the reservation system would be funded through a new service charge 

and/or a transportation fee associated with the reservation. The fee or service charge 

would be tied to the cost of operating the reservation system and supporting visitor 

access through expanded transit service. 

 After initial implementation of the reservation system, the number of reservations, or the 

length of time a parking reservation is valid, would be adjusted up or down to ensure the 

highest possible utilization of the existing parking supply while avoiding parking-related 

congestion and to allow park staff to manage to desired conditions and within related 

thresholds and identified visitor capacities.

 As is described in the “Public Transit” section below, if demand for Island Explorer 

service exceeds either the volume of transit the park is able to financially support, or the 

visitor capacities for specific areas of the park, the reservation system may be expanded 

to Island Explorer routes serving the park in order to manage visitor demand for transit 

access

Indicators, Thresholds, and Visitor Capacities

This transportation plan identifies visitor capacity and establishes indicators and thresholds 

using the framework created by the Interagency Visitor Use Management Council (the council). 

Indicators measure conditions that are related to visitor use, and monitoring is conducted to 

track those conditions over time. The results of monitoring are used to inform and select 

strategies to be used by park managers to not exceed the maximum amount of visitor use that 

can be accommodated for a site (visitor capacity). This iterative practice of monitoring, 

implementing potential management strategies, and then continuing to monitor to gauge the 

effectiveness of those actions allows park managers to maximize benefits for visitors while 

achieving and maintaining desired conditions for resources and visitor experiences in a dynamic 

setting. The indicators to be monitored at Acadia National Park related to the transportation 

plan are

 vehicles at one time at key destinations

 roadway level of service

 number of Island Explorer trips with “leave behinds”

 people per viewscape at key visitor use sites

 encounters on medium-use and low-use trails

 extent of informal trails

Traffic and resource conditions would continue to be monitored throughout the park after the 

reservation system is implemented using these indicators, which are described in greater detail 
Actions Common to All Action Alternatives

25

in appendix A. These indicators will help to show when conditions such as closures and traffic 

slowdowns, potential increases in user conflicts, crowding at key sites, and natural and cultural 

resource degradation (e.g., formation of social trails) are occurring and could be indicative of a 

condition that is not consistent with the desired conditions of the transportation system, 

fundamental resources and values, or other desired conditions of the park. If these indicators 

approach their respective triggers or thresholds, the reservation system may be expanded to 

include access to Island Explorer routes accessing the park, vehicle access to other NPSmanaged parking lots and corridors both on and off Park Loop Road, or vehicle access to the 

entire Park Loop Road. Implementing the reservation system for the entire Park Loop Road 

would require reconfiguring some existing park entrances to be exits only, constructing new or 

relocating existing entrance stations, and potentially making the entire Park Loop Road one 

way. For detail on the indicators, thresholds, related corrective actions, and identified visitor 

capacities see appendix A.

Public Transit

Park managers would continue to promote the availability and expansion of Island Explorer 

service in the park under all of the action alternatives. Island Explorer service inside the park 

would be expanded, as necessary, up to the determined visitor capacities for specific sites and, as 

funding permits, to facilitate an alternative means of access for those unable to secure a vehicle

reservation during their desired entry time. The operating season of Island Explorer service in 

the park would be expanded to coincide with that of the reservation system. However, should 

monitoring of indicators at key locations in the park find that Island Explorer service is 

contributing to surges of activity at popular destinations that cause congestion, degrade visitor 

experience, and/or damage cultural and natural resources, Island Explorer service would be 

modified to correct this condition. Additionally, if demand for Island Explorer service exceeds 

either the volume of transit the park is able to financially support or the visitor capacities for 

specific areas of the park, the reservation system may be expanded to Island Explorer routes 

serving the park in order to manage visitor demand for transit access. The specific indicators 

and thresholds associated with these actions are described in appendix A. 

Visitor Information, Orientation, Enforcement, and Safety

Increased information would be provided to visitors, both before they arrive at the park and 

when they arrive. An education strategy would be developed that includes mobile and online 

information and signage explaining reservation requirements, information on trip planning and 

orientation, and reservation availability. Enforcement of existing parking restrictions would 

continue in addition to those necessary to implement the strategies proposed in the alternatives.

Visitors would be provided with enhanced trip-planning tools, advice on vehicle/bicycle safety, 

and information about car-free options to access and explore the Mount Desert Island District. 

Information about congestion and parking availability would be monitored and disseminated as 

practicable for the available technology and infrastructure. Examples range from manual 

monitoring of parking areas and notice via variable message signage about parking availability to 

integration of global positioning system (GPS) technology on a commercial traffic and 

navigation app that would automatically notify drivers heading to Mount Desert Island of park 

and ride options at Acadia Gateway Center, Hulls Cove Visitor Center, and from most hotel and 

lodging accommodations.
Chapter 2: Alternatives

26

Additionally, the park would work with cellular communication providers and local 

communities to improve cellular service throughout the park. Improved cellular service would 

enable the park to provide better visitor information and orientation and increase safety. It is 

also critical for many of the strategies proposed in the alternatives including the use of appbased, on-demand ride services in the park. Installation of this infrastructure would require 

additional site-specific planning and applicable compliance at the time that site planning is 

undertaken.

Management of Other Mount Desert Island Park Attractions and Trailheads

Each of the action alternatives propose alternative solutions to address roadside parking at the 

Eagle Lake carriage road entrance to manage particularly unsafe conditions created by limited 

sight distances, vehicle congestion, and high-speed traffic adjacent to visitors who park and walk 

along the shoulders of SR 233. These same unsafe conditions exist at the Acadia Mountain 

trailhead along SR 102. At that site, the park would work with local governments, the Maine 

Department of Transportation, and other stakeholders to identify an alternative, off-highway 

option for trailhead parking. Once the alternative parking area is constructed, park managers 

would work with the State of Maine to put in place and enforce no-parking restrictions along 

the shoulder as well as to revegetate areas denuded of vegetation. Because it is not known at this 

time where the new parking area would be located, or what the actual design of the site would 

be, the National Park Service would conduct additional site-specific planning and applicable 

compliance at the time that site planning is undertaken.

Additionally, the National Park Service would work to develop a memorandum of 

understanding with state, local, and county departments of transportation and law enforcement 

to improve safety through enforcement of roadside parking restrictions near these and other

trailheads along state highways, and local roads.

At park attractions and trailheads elsewhere on Mount Desert Island park managers would take 

more incremental management actions, using a series of management options to address 

existing and anticipated parking-related traffic congestion and unsafe instances of roadside 

parking. These areas include Ikes Point, Ship Harbor, Wonderland, Bass Harbor Head Light, 

Echo Lake Beach, Valley Cove, Beach Mountain, Great Head and Schooner Head, Duck Brook 

Road, Parkman Mountain, Norumbega Mountain, Brown Mountain, the Tarn parking area, the 

Long Pond Boat Launch, and the Western Mountain roads and Long Pond Fire Road. Some of 

these areas currently experience periodic congestion pressures, but these pressures are likely to 

change and shift as park managers implement the reservation system and other site

improvements described in the alternatives. Several options for management of existing and 

anticipated parking and congestion have been identified for each of the parking areas. These 

include both formalizing and prohibiting shoulder parking; removing, expanding, relocating, or 

developing new parking lots; improving public transit service; adding parking lots to the 

reservation system; constructing automated gates and adding queuing lanes to manage traffic 

flow into lots once they are full; and striping informal parking spaces. As implementation of the 

reservation system begins, park managers would monitor changes to visitor use and traffic 

patterns and adjust management of these areas as needed, using one or more of the described 

management options. Prior to implementation of these options, site-specific planning and 

applicable compliance would be completed.
Actions Common to All Action Alternatives

27

Vehicle Size Requirements

To improve safety and the historic character of Park Loop Road, only vehicles that fit the 

geometry of the road and heights of the bridge underpasses would be permitted. These 

requirements would be phased in over several years. The requirements would vary based on the 

road geometry and bridge height restrictions of each segment of Park Loop Road and Cadillac 

Summit Road. Figure 3 below depicts these requirements for each section of Park Loop Road. 

Height and length restrictions already in place for other areas of the park would remain 

unchanged. All requirements would be clearly posted at entrances to the park, along Park Loop 

Road, and on the park’s website. Until these requirements are established, oversize vehicles

would be required to adhere to site control measures. Passengers of vehicles that do not meet 

bridge height and/or road geometry restrictions would need to transfer to an alternate mode of 

transportation such as an authorized commercial tour or bus that uses smaller vehicles to fit 

road geometries. These transfers could occur at the Acadia Gateway Center, Hulls Cove Visitor 

Center, or other locations

Commercial Visitor Services

Commercial visitor services would continue to be authorized through concession contracts 

and/or commercial use authorizations under all of the action alternatives. Consistent with the 

National Park Service Concessions Management Improvement Act of 1998, which limits 

concession operations to those “consistent to the highest practicable degree with the 

preservation and conservation of resources and values of the park unit” and authorizes only

commercial use authorizations that have “minimal impact on resources and values of the unit,” 

all commercial vehicles would be required to fit within the existing historic road and bridge 

geometries as is described above.

During the active reservation season, the number of oversize commercial vehicles allowed at key 

locations (or in the case of alternative D, on Park Loop Road) at one time would be managed to 

ensure desired conditions are maintained and visitor capacities at the park’s primary attractions 

are not exceeded. This would occur through requirements established in their operating 

conditions specified in their contract(s) or commercial use authorizations. The total number of 

visitors arriving via a commercial operator that are permitted at one time at these key 

destinations is identified in appendix A. Depending on necessary and/or appropriate criteria 

and financial viability, the National Park Service would allocate road-based commercial tours

between concessions and commercial use authorizations in a manner that provides 

opportunities for visitor use and enjoyment and best achieves desired conditions for the visitor 

experience and resource protection. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives

28

FIGURE 3. PARK LOOP ROAD GEOMETRY REQUIREMENTS
Actions Common to All Action Alternatives

29

Any park-approved activity-based experience (e.g., step-on guides, wholesale tour operators, 

nature guides, biking tours, art/photography workshops, climbing schools, summer camps, 

water activities) operating under commercial use authorizations would be permitted throughout 

the park but would be required to use vehicles carrying 15 or fewer passengers that fit in a 

standard parking space. Access to standard parking spaces under the reservation system for 

these CUA holders would be managed within the private vehicle allocations identified in 

appendix A and regulated through the operating requirements specified in their commercial use 

authorization.]

App-based, on-demand ride services use an online network or app to pair passengers with 

drivers who provide such passengers with transportation in the driver’s vehicle. These services 

are well established in many metropolitan areas and are an emerging form of transportation on 

Mount Desert Island. While implementing this plan, park managers would work with drivers 

and/or transportation network companies (developers of the app) to facilitate access to the park 

and to set in place an appropriate fee structure for this commercial use.

Schoodic Transportation Management

The Schoodic Peninsula would continue to be managed as outlined in the 2005 Schoodic 

general management plan amendment. This plan calls for the National Park Service to manage 

for a low-density visitor experience, retaining the opportunities for solitude and quiet. Parking 

would continue to be allowed in designated areas on a first-come, first-served basis. The speed 

limit on the road would be reduced.

Visitors would be provided with enhanced trip-planning information and tools about car-free 

options to access and explore the Schoodic District. On-site information would primarily be 

signage along the entrance road. The parking lots at Schoodic Point, Frazer Point, and the day

use parking lot at Schoodic Woods Campground would be monitored at the campground office 

to provide congestion information. This information would be provided to visitors by variable 

message signage along the entrance road and by social media. The information would highlight 

the availability (or relative nonavailability) of parking in the day use lot.

Several steps would be implemented to increase visitor safety in the Schoodic District. The 

current one-way section of Schoodic Loop Road would remain as two lanes traveling in the 

same direction with a speed limit of 25 miles per hour (mph). Park managers would work with 

partners and local communities to improve bicycle connections to the park, including a safe 

connection between the ferry terminal and park entrance. Park staff would also work with 

partners to improve safety for those biking the circular route, including Schoodic Loop Road 

and SR 186. An accessible pedestrian trail would be installed between the Schoodic Education 

and Research Center campus and Schoodic Point. This would enhance safety for those 

individuals and organized groups that currently walk along the roadway between the center and 

Schoodic Point. 

The overall amount of designated parking in the Schoodic District would not be increased. Any 

changes to parking lots and parking locations would be made to improve circulation, enhance 

safety, provide accessible parking, or protect resources rather than to increase the number of 

parking spaces. There are a limited number of designated, historic roadside pullouts on the 

Schoodic Loop Road. These pullouts would be maintained, but expansion of informal pullouts 
Chapter 2: Alternatives

30

would not be permitted to limit impacts on cultural and natural resource values of the 

historic road. 

Public transit opportunities on the Schoodic Peninsula would remain as they are today, and park 

managers would continue to support use of the Island Explorer service to access popular 

destinations. All future access management actions and strategies would maintain adequate 

access to the Schoodic Education and Research Center. Should monitoring indicators at key 

locations on the Schoodic Peninsula find that Island Explorer service is contributing to surges of 

activity at popular destinations that cause congestion, degrade visitor experience, and/or

damage cultural and natural resources, Island Explorer service would be modified to correct 

this condition. For example, the transit service might not serve a specific trailhead during peak 

periods if the number of people on the trail at one time is so high that it exceeds visitor 

experience or resource thresholds.

Park managers would work with partners and local communities to provide an opportunity for 

bike rentals and other necessary and appropriate commercially provided visitor services that 

help achieve the desired conditions for visitor experience and resource protection in the 

Schoodic District.

Potential and corrective management strategies also would be adopted for the management of 

private vehicle use, bicycle use, and Island Explorer service. For example, park managers may 

choose to

 Deploy additional electronic signage to provide visitors with information on status of 

parking lots (e.g., “Frazer Point is Full – Park Elsewhere”).

 Work toward increasing the frequency of Island Explorer service in the park and the 

extent of Island Explorer service in communities near the park. 

 Increase enforcement of endorsed parking only.

 Require park and ride/bike from the day use lot when Schoodic Loop Road reaches 

specified capacity.

 Establish a reservation system to manage vehicle access. 

For additional information on corrective actions and related indicators and thresholds, see 

the “Indicators, Thresholds, and Visitor Capacity” section in appendix A.

ALTERNATIVE B: SITE MANAGEMENT

Concept

Under alternative B, parking reservations would be required for visitors to park at five of the 

primary attractions and trailheads along Park Loop Road during peak times and seasons.

Parking reservations would be valid for a specified time period and would therefore manage 

length of stay. These five parking lots and roads include Jordan Pond North Lot, Sand Beach, 

Thunder Hole, and Sieur de Monts in addition to Cadillac Mountain Road. Right lane parking 

would no longer be permitted anywhere on Park Loop Road. Commercial operators seeking
Alternative B: Site Management

31

vehicle access to any of the five parking lots under the reservation system would operate 

through requirements established in their operating conditions, which could include a separate 

reservation system if necessary. The number of spaces for vehicles at the five reservation-only 

areas would be defined for different types of uses and vehicle types. Gates or other control 

mechanisms would be installed at some of the parking lots to manage the number of vehicles 

allowed at one time. All other parking lots would continue to be on a first-come, first-served 

basis. Island Explorer service frequency (but not extent) in the park would be managed to 

enhance visitor experience and resource stewardship.

Primary Differences Between Alternative A and Alternative B

 A parking reservation system would be established for five parking lots on Park Loop 

Road.

 Right lane parking along Park Loop Road would be eliminated.

 Eagle Lake initially would remain a first-come, first-served parking lot with the addition 

of an automated gate to restrict access to the lot when it is full.

 Additional parking would be provided at Hulls Cove, and the visitor center would be 

redesigned and relocated.

 The visitor services at the Thompson Island Information Center (on the west side of SR 

3) would be removed and the structures repurposed.

Management of Park Loop Road

Overview. Under alternative B, parking related congestion would be managed by establishing a 

parking reservation system for vehicles at five of the primary attractions and trailheads along 

Park Loop Road—Cadillac Mountain, Jordan Pond, Thunder Hole, Sand Beach, and Sieur de 

Monts. Under this alternative, private vehicles would continue to be able to drive Park Loop 

Road as they do under the no-action alternative, but reservations for private vehicles would be 

needed to park at these lots and to access Cadillac Summit Road. Elsewhere along Park Loop 

Road, in areas not serviced by the reservation system, parking lots would be managed on a firstcome, first-served basis. Gates would be installed at some of the first-come, first-served lots to 

manage lot capacity. If first-come, first-served parking lots regularly become overcrowded, they 

may be considered for inclusion in the reservation system.

Parking reservations for these five areas would be valid for a specified time period and are 

designed to maintain conditions within identified visitor capacities. This time period could 

range from 1 hour to as long as 4 hours, depending on the lot. The time period would be 

established initially based on existing use profile of the lot, but the number of reservations in 

each time period bin (1h, 2h, or 4h) could be proportioned to optimize parking availability. 

Vehicles would be required to exit the parking lot prior to the expiration of their permitted time 

period. This would therefore manage length of stay for visitors arriving by personal vehicle.

All parking in the right-hand lane of Park Loop Road would be eliminated to improve traffic 

flow and allow passing of bicycles and slow-moving vehicles. Parking at roadside pullout spaces 

and scenic overlooks would be enforced as short term (e.g. 15 minute) parking.
Chapter 2: Alternatives

32

Hours and Seasonality of the Reservation System. The parking reservation system for 

Cadillac Mountain, Jordan Pond, Thunder Hole, Sand Beach, and Sieur de Monts would 

generally be in place during the peak visitor season (approximately mid-May to mid-October). 

This time period could be lengthened or shortened to correspond with the operating season of 

the Island Explorer service or changes to the seasonality of high-use visitation patterns. 

 Cadillac Mountain. During peak season, all vehicle access to Cadillac Mountain would 

be by reservation only. Initially, the time period where entry reservations would be 

required would be set from 4:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. during the reservation season. These 

hours would be lengthened or shortened as necessary, corresponding with shifting 

visitation patterns to protect a high-quality visitor experience. No motor vehicle access 

to the summit road would be allowed without a parking reservation during the 

designated reservation hours in peak season.

 Sand Beach, Thunder Hole, Jordan Pond House, and Sieur de Monts. Parking 

reservations would be required at the Jordan Pond House and Sieur de Monts lots from 

7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and 4:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on the Ocean Drive lots during the 

reservation season. These hours would be lengthened or shortened as necessary,

corresponding with shifting visitation patterns to protect a high-quality visitor 

experience.

Number of Reservations Available. The numbers of reservations available would

correspond with actions needed to manage these locations within the desired resource and 

experiential conditions of the sites. For each of these areas, desired conditions and visitor 

capacities have been identified (see chapter 1 and appendix A, respectively). These desired 

conditions and management actions were used to identify the maximum amount and type of use 

that could be accommodated at each location (see appendix A for a site-by-site description). 

Using these capacities, along with the existing availability of parking and the designed duration 

of stay specific to Cadillac Mountain, Jordan Pond House, Thunder Hole, Sand Beach, and Sieur 

de Monts, estimates on the daily number of private vehicles that could be accommodated at 

each site were projected (table 2). After initial implementation of the reservation system, the 

number of reservations, or the length of time a parking reservation is valid, would be adjusted up 

or down to ensure the highest possible utilization of the existing parking availability while 

avoiding parking-related congestion and to allow park staff to manage to desired conditions 

within related thresholds and identified visitor capacities.

TABLE 2. ESTIMATED NUMBER OF DAILY PARKING RESERVATIONS

Location Visitor Capacity 

(people at one time)

Estimated Private Vehicle 

Reservations (vehicles per day)

Cadillac Summit (including Blue Hill Overlook) 600 people 1,510 vehicles

Jordan Pond House (north lot) 935 people 1,130 vehicles

Sand Beach 550 people 1,520 vehicles

Thunder Hole N/A 830 vehicles

Sieur de Monts 190 people 450 vehicles
Alternative B: Site Management

33

Infrastructure Changes Required to Implement the Reservation System. For all the 

parking lots under the reservation system, gates and signage would be installed to validate 

reservations and provide visitor information and orientation. All installations would follow 

guidance from the 2007 cultural landscape report for the historic motor road and incorporate 

appropriate design to protect the historic character of Park Loop Road:

 Cadillac Mountain. A queuing lane and gate would be installed near the base of Cadillac 

Summit Road where parking reservations would be validated.

 Sand Beach, Thunder Hole, Jordan Pond House, and Sieur de Monts. Reservations 

for these lots would be validated by installing either an automated or staffed gate near 

the entrance to the lot or through self-serve reservation validation kiosks allowing 

visitors to park and then retrieve proof of reservation from the automated kiosk (a 

receipt or hang tag for the vehicle’s dash).

 Bubble Pond and Bubble Rock. Although not initially on the reservation system, 

automated gates would be installed at both of these parking lots to control traffic ingress 

and egress once the parking lots are full. This gate may be modified or replaced to 

validate reservations if these lots are added to the reservation system.

Management of Other Mount Desert Island Park Attractions and Trailheads

Eagle Lake. Under alternative B, the existing parking lot at Eagle Lake would remain a firstcome, first-served parking lot with the addition of an automated gate to restrict access when the 

lot is full. This gate may be modified or replaced to validate reservations if these lots are added 

to the reservation system. Only vehicles with boat trailers would be permitted to park at the 

Eagle Lake Boat Launch on the south side of SR 233. Park managers would work with the State 

of Maine to initiate and enforce no-parking restrictions along the road shoulder as well as to 

revegetate areas where needed.

Hulls Cove, Acadia Gateway Center, and Thompson Island

Hulls Cove. Changes to the Hulls Cove area would be the same as described under 

alternative C.

Acadia Gateway Center. Under alternative B, no changes would be made to the plans for the 

Acadia Gateway Center as described in the Acadia Gateway Center environmental assessment

(MDOT and FTA 2006) (see also chapter 1). 

Thompson Island. The visitor services at the Thompson Island Information Center (on the 

west side of SR 3) would be removed and the structures repurposed. Visitor information 

services would be relocated to the Acadia Gateway Center. The picnic area and restrooms on 

the east side of the highway would be maintained for visitor use.

Schoodic Peninsula

See the section in this chapter, “Actions Common to All Action Alternatives.”
Chapter 2: Alternatives

34

Public Transit

The use of Island Explorer would be encouraged as described in the section, “Actions Common 

to All Action Alternatives” in this chapter. 

Commercial Visitor Services

Commercial visitor services would be managed as described in the section, “Actions Common 

to All Action Alternatives,” in this chapter. 

ALTERNATIVE C: CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND 

PROPOSED ACTION)

Concept

To manage parking-related congestion and crowding along Park Loop Road, a timed-entry 

reservation system would initially be implemented for the Ocean Drive corridor, Cadillac 

Summit Road, and the Jordan Pond House North Lot during peak use season (from mid-May to 

mid-October). During initial implementation of the plan, all other Acadia parking lots would 

continue to be managed on a first-come, first-served basis. As described in “Actions Common to 

All Action Alternatives.” (see section titled “Indicators, Thresholds, and Visitor Capacities”) 

park managers would continue to monitor traffic and resource conditions elsewhere in the park. 

If monitoring indicates traffic or resource conditions worsening beyond acceptable thresholds, 

access to Island Explorer routes entering the park, vehicle access to other parking lots, or 

vehicle access to the entire Park Loop Road may be added to the reservation system.

Primary Differences Between Alternative A and Alternative C

 A timed reservation system would be established initially for parking at Jordan Pond, 

vehicle access to Cadillac Summit Road, and the Ocean Drive corridor. This system 

could eventually be expanded to include other parking lots or the entire Park Loop 

Road.

 Right lane parking along Park Loop Road would be retained in the near term but 

eventually phased out as other options and parking become available.

 The existing parking lot and restroom on the north side of SR 233 at Eagle Lake would 

be removed and a new, larger parking lot would be constructed south of the highway at 

an NPS maintenance storage yard known as Liscomb Pit.

 Additional parking would be provided at Hulls Cove, and the visitor center would be 

redesigned and relocated.

 Visitor services at the Thompson Island Information Center (on the west side of SR 3) 

would be removed and the area restored to natural conditions.
Alternative C: Corridor Management

35

Management of the Park Loop Road

Overview. Parking-related traffic congestion on Park Loop Road would be managed through 

establishing a timed-entry vehicle reservation system for the Ocean Drive corridor (between the 

Sand Beach Entrance Station and the Fabbri picnic area/Monument), Cadillac Summit Road, 

and the Jordan Pond House North Lot. The Jordan Pond House South Lot would continue to 

be managed by the concessioner under the existing concession agreement. 

Under this alternative, private vehicles would continue to be able to travel the entire Park Loop 

Road, not including the Ocean Drive corridor, as they do under the no-action alternative.

Reservations for private vehicles would be needed to park at Jordan Pond House, for vehicle 

access to Cadillac Summit Road, or to proceed past the Sand Beach Entrance Station to the 

Ocean Drive corridor. Elsewhere along Park Loop Road, in areas not serviced by the reservation 

system, parking lots would be managed on a first-come, first-served basis. Travel direction and 

one-way sections of Park Loop Road would continue as under the no-action alternative. 

Visitors traveling southbound on Park Loop Road toward the Sand Beach Entrance Station 

without a vehicle access reservation would be encouraged (through signage) to exit at Sieur de 

Monts. Alternatively, visitors could exit at Schooner Head Road.

The timed-entry system would provide reservation holders with a specific time window during 

which their vehicle would be permitted to enter the corridor or parking lot. Once inside the 

corridor or parking lot, there would be no restrictions on length of stay. The length of the initial

entry window may be lengthened or shortened as park managers work to optimize the 

reservation system; however, it is estimated that initial timed-entry windows would be in 15-

minute to 2-hour time blocks.

As stated in the 1992 general management plan, the long-term goal of the National Park Service 

is to remove right lane parking from the Ocean Drive corridor to restore a driving experience 

that more closely resembles the road’s original design intent and to improve safety by providing 

an additional travel lane for bicyclists and slow-moving vehicles. During initial implementation 

of the plan, the right lane of the Park Loop Road would continue to serve as overflow parking 

for up to 400 vehicles on busy days. Over a period of several years the number of right lane 

parking spaces would be reduced to approximately 128 spaces in the Ocean Drive corridor and 

approximately 30 spaces near the Precipice trailhead. While most of these remaining spaces 

would eventually be phased out as alternatives of right lane parking are developed, they would 

be painted to physically demarcate driving lane shifts and parallel parking spaces. The phasing 

out of most right lane parking would occur as alternatives to right lane parking are developed 

and would also correspond with an in-kind reduction of available vehicle reservations for the 

Ocean Drive corridor. These alternatives of right lane parking would include additional Island 

Explorer service, coupled with expanded park-and-ride parking at the Hulls Cove Visitor 

Center and the Acadia Gateway Center. Other alternatives to right lane parking include ondemand transportation service and road-based commercial tours and shuttle buses. For 

additional details on these services, see the “Commercial Visitor Services” section in the 

“Actions Common to all Action Alternatives” section above.

Hours and Seasonality of the Reservation System. The reservation system for the Jordan 

Pond House North Lot, Cadillac Mountain, and the Ocean Drive corridor would generally be in 

place during the peak visitor season (approximately mid-May to mid-October). This time period 
Chapter 2: Alternatives

36

could be lengthened or shortened to correspond with the operating season of Island Explorer or 

changes to the seasonality of high-use visitation patterns. 

Reservations would be required starting as early as 4:00 a.m. on Cadillac Mountain and Ocean 

Drive Corridor and 7:00 a.m. at the Jordan Pond House North Lot. Reservations for all three 

areas would be required for entry as late as 9:00 p.m. These hours would be lengthened or 

shortened as necessary corresponding with shifting visitation patterns to protect a high-quality 

visitor experience.

Number of Reservations Available. Initially, the number of reservations available would

correspond with management actions needed to manage these locations within the desired 

resource and experiential conditions of the sites. For each of these areas, desired conditions and 

visitor capacities have been identified (see chapter 1 and appendix A, respectively). These 

conditions and analyses were used to identify the maximum amount and type of use that could 

be accommodated at each location (see appendix A for site-by-site description). Using these 

capacities, along with the existing availability of parking and the anticipated turnover rates 

specific to the Jordan Pond House North Lot, Cadillac Mountain, and the Ocean Drive 

corridor, projections on the daily number of private vehicles that could be accommodated at 

each site were made (table 3). At least two daily reservations for vehicles with boat trailers would 

be provided at the Jordan Pond House North Lot. After initial implementation of the 

reservation system, the number of reservations would be adjusted up or down to ensure the 

highest possible use of the existing parking supply, while avoiding parking-related congestion

and to allow park staff to manage desired conditions within related thresholds and identified 

visitor capacities.

TABLE 3. ESTIMATED NUMBER OF RESERVATIONS FOR DAILY PRIVATE VEHICLES ON PARK LOOP ROAD

Location Visitor Capacity (people 

at one time)

Daily Private Vehicle 

Reservations (vehicles per 

day)

Cadillac Summit (including Blue Hill Overlook) 610 people 1,450 Vehicles

Jordan Pond House (north lot) 935 people 1,230 Vehicles

Ocean Drive corridor N/A 3,880 Vehicles

Infrastructure Changes Required to Implement the Reservation System. During 

initial implementation of the reservation system, the Sand Beach Entrance Station would be 

used to validate reservations on the Ocean Drive corridor. To prevent crowding and congestion 

at the causeway, Fabbri Picnic Area/Memorial, and at Otter Point, Otter Cliffs Road would be 

converted to exit only by installing a gate on the road near the park boundary. Permitted 

commercial uses and transit vehicles would still be allowed to enter Park Loop Road through 

the gate.

At the Jordan Pond House North Parking Lot and on Cadillac Summit Road, a staff person and,

if needed, a temporary or mobile reservation validation gate (booth or kiosk) would be used 

during the initial implementation phase to validate reservations. This step would allow park 

managers to test the effectiveness and optimal placement of this minimal infrastructure solution. 

Initially, using staff or temporary reservation validation infrastructure rather than permanent 

installations also provides an opportunity for the National Park Service to test the effectiveness 
Alternative C: Corridor Management

37

of the reservation system at these sites and determine whether a more permanent infrastructure 

is needed or if a reservation system for the entirety of Park Loop Road would be more effective 

at managing congestion and resource conditions. 

If through monitoring of the indicators and standards (see appendix A), the National Park 

Service determines that managing parking congestion at these sites is effective, a more 

permanent reservation validation infrastructure would be developed. At Cadillac Summit Road, 

this more permanent infrastructure may include development of a queuing lane and reservation 

validation gate near the base of the road. At Jordan Pond House, this more permanent 

infrastructure may include installation of a similar reservation validation gate or a self-serve 

reservation validation kiosk allowing visitors to park and then retrieve proof of reservation from 

the automated kiosk (a receipt or hang tag for the vehicle’s dash). All temporary or permanent 

installations follow guidance from the 2007 cultural landscape report for the historic motor road 

and incorporate an appropriate design to protect the historic character of Park Loop Road.

In addition to the infrastructure described above, providing permanent use of reservations at 

the Jordan Pond House Lots may also eventually require a comprehensive redesign of both 

parking lots to provide a single point of entry and a queuing lane. Figure 4 depicts this 

conceptual redesign. Construction of the parking lots as depicted in figure 4 would result in 

clearing trees and vegetation within an approximately 1-acre area. However, because it is not 

known at this time whether this redesign is necessary (based on monitoring the effectiveness of 

the reservation system as described above) or what the actual design of the site would be, the 

National Park Service would conduct additional site-specific planning and applicable 

compliance prior to moving forward with implementation.

Signage on Park Loop Road would be required to notify visitors when they are approaching a

reservation-only area. Signs placed just prior to the Sieur de Monts exit would encourage

visitors without an Ocean Drive corridor reservation to exit. Placing the sign at this location

would decrease the volume of exiting traffic on Schooner Head Road. All signs would be

designed to maintain consistency with the historic character of Park Loop Road to the extent

possible.

Management of Other Mount Desert Island Park Attractions and Trailheads

Eagle Lake. The existing parking lot and restroom on the north side of SR 233 at Eagle Lake

would be removed. These facilities would be relocated to the south (off the highway) at Liscomb 

Pit, an approximately 2-acre area currently used as a maintenance storage yard. Although the 

parking lot itself would be constructed on top of the previously disturbed maintenance yard, a 

new connector trail to the Eagle Lake Carriage Road would be constructed from the new 

parking area at Liscomb Pit. The gravel-surfaced carriage road connector would be 

approximately 600 feet long and 16 feet wide and, similar to the carriage roads, managed for 

nonmotorized travel. Construction of the connector trail would require heavy grading 

equipment and the removal of approximately 0.25 acre of soil and vegetation.
Chapter 2: Alternatives

38

FIGURE 4. JORDAN POND HOUSE ROAD PARKING AREA CONCEPT
Alternative C: Corridor Management

39

The new parking lot at Liscomb Pit would have a capacity of approximately 125 parking spaces

to accommodate the number of vehicles typically parked in the existing lot and along the 

highway during an average day during peak visitor use. Additionally, the access road (Liscomb 

Pit Road) from Eagle Lake Road (SR 233) would be widened by approximately 10 feet and 

improved—directional and warning signs would be installed to ensure safety. This road 

widening would require the use of heavy equipment to remove some large trees and vegetation 

and add fill material adjacent to the existing shoulder, affecting approximately 0.4 acre of soil 

and vegetation. The maintenance stockpiles and vehicle storage at Liscomb Pit would be 

relocated to an abandoned section of Eagle Lake Road adjacent to park headquarters, as well as 

an existing storage area known as Satterlee Pit near the south end of Schooner Head Road. Prior 

to using Satterlee pit for this maintenance storage function the park would conduct additional 

site-specific planning and applicable compliance as appropriate. Figure 5 depicts conceptual site 

plans outlining the proposed construction footprint for all infrastructure development at 

Liscomb Pit. 

The previous parking lot and restroom area on the north side of SR 233 at Eagle Lake Road 

would be revegetated. “No Parking” signs would be installed along SR 233, the impacted 

shoulders would be revegetated, and management stones and/or curbing would be installed to 

prevent roadside parking. 

Parking at the boat launch on the south side of SR 233 would remain but be reserved for vehicles 

with boat trailers. Additionally, the park may pursue a redesign of that parking area and boat 

launch to better accommodate that use. However, because it is not known at this time what the 

actual design of the site would be, the National Park Service would conduct additional sitespecific planning and applicable compliance prior to moving forward with implementation.

Hulls Cove, Acadia Gateway Center, and Thompson Island

Overview. Establishing a reservation system for high-use areas in the park would expand the 

need for highly visible and accessible visitor orientation and initial contact facilities. Orientation 

and additional parking (outside the reservation system) would be provided at two locations: the 

future Acadia Gateway Center and the expanded and enhanced Hulls Cove Visitor Center. The 

rebuilt and enlarged Hulls Cove Visitor Center would serve as the park’s primary visitor contact 

and orientation facility. The existing parking lot at Hulls Cove would be expanded to provide 

parking options for visitors using enhanced public and commercial visitor services into 

reservation-only areas of the park.

Hulls Cove. The Hulls Cove Visitor Center would continue to serve as the primary contact and 

orientation point for visitors to Acadia National Park. A new plan for development of the site 

would be proposed that includes a substantial expansion of parking capacity and a new and 

enlarged visitor center. The plan would include approximately 200–250 additional parking 

spaces (in addition to the current capacity of 270). This new parking would be distributed 

among an expanded primary parking lot, an overflow parking lot, and a new lot associated with 

a rerouted access to the adjacent carriage road system. The new parking lot would be designed 

to separate bus circulation from passenger vehicle traffic. It would include parking for buses and 

recreational vehicles and queuing space for bus staging. The new parking capacity at Hulls Cove 

would be intended to provide visitors without reservations a place to park and transfer to 

alternate transportation systems in the park. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives

40

FIGURE 5. LISCOMB PIT PARKING AREA CONCEPT
Alternative D: Park Loop Road Management

41

In addition to expanded parking, a new visitor center, approximately triple the size of the 

existing one, would be built at grade with the parking lot for improved universal access. The 

existing visitor center building would either be repurposed or removed and the area 

revegetated. The new visitor center would serve as the primary visitor contact and orientation 

point for the park, as well as a transportation hub. Visitors to the new facility would expect to 

receive orientation information about the park and its resources, would have opportunities to 

purchase and access commercially operated tours and shuttles, make vehicle access 

reservations, and would have access to a theater to view NPS media, restrooms, a bookstore, and 

the Island Explorer service. The new visitor center would also include office space for NPS 

employees and partners. Figure 6 depicts conceptual site plans outlining the proposed 

construction footprint for all infrastructure development at Hulls Cove.

Acadia Gateway Center. Under alternative C, no changes would occur to the Acadia 

Gateway Center as described in the Acadia Gateway Center environmental assessment (MDOT 

and FTA 2006) (see also chapter 1, “Background”). 

Thompson Island. Under alternative C, visitor services at the Thompson Island Information 

Center (on the west side of SR 3) would be removed and the area restored to natural conditions. 

Visitor information services would be relocated to the Acadia Gateway Center. The picnic area 

and restrooms on the east side of the highway would be maintained for visitor use.

Schoodic Peninsula. See the section, “Common to All Action Alternatives,” in this chapter.

Public Transit

The use of Island Explorer would be encouraged as described in the section, “Common to All 

Action Alternatives,” in this chapter. 

Commercial Visitor Services

Commercial visitor services would be managed as described in the section, “Actions Common 

to All Action Alternatives,” in this chapter.

ALTERNATIVE D: PARK LOOP ROAD MANAGEMENT

Concept

This alternative provides a systemwide approach to manage the volume of vehicles on Park 

Loop Road during the peak use season. Under alternative D, park staff would manage vehicle 

congestion by installing automated gates and additional entrance stations at all access points to 

Park Loop Road and by implementing a timed-entry reservation system for vehicle access to 

Park Loop Road during the peak use season. Once a visitor passes through an entrance station 

or automated gate during their reserved entry window, all parking lots on Park Loop Road 

would be available on a first-come, first-served basis. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives

42

FIGURE 6. HULLS COVE PARKING AREA CONCEPT
Alternative D: Park Loop Road Management

43

Under this alternative, most of Park Loop Road, including Lower Mountain Road, would be 

one-way, in a counterclockwise rotation. The counterclockwise flow would be a reversal of 

direction on the current one-way sections of the road. 

Primary differences between Alternative A and Alternative D

 A timed-entry reservation system would be established during the peak use season for 

Park Loop Road.

 Most of Park Loop Road would be made one-way, in a counterclockwise circulation.

 Most right lane parking on Park Loop Road would be eliminated.

 Most entrances to Park Loop Road would be converted to exit-only and new entrance 

stations would be built at Wildwood Stables and Paradise Hill Road.

 The existing parking lot and restroom on the north side of SR 233 at Eagle Lake would 

be removed and a new larger parking lot would be constructed south of the highway 

along an abandoned section of SR 233.

 A new parking lot accommodating approximately 40 vehicles would be established in the 

footprint of an existing NPS administrative storage area known as Satterlee Pit near the 

south end of Schooner Head Road.

 At Hulls Cove, the existing visitor center would be removed and a small visitor contact 

station would be rebuilt nearer an expanded Hulls Cove parking lot.

 The Acadia Gateway Center would serve as the park’s primary visitor center.

 The visitor services at the Thompson Island Information Center (on the west side of SR

3) would be removed and the structures repurposed.

Management of the Park Loop Road

Overview. Under alternative D, the overall volume and timing of vehicles on Park Loop Road 

would be managed through consolidating entrance points and implementing a timed-entry 

reservation system. Most of Park Loop Road would be converted to one-way traffic in a 

counterclockwise rotation. This is opposite the direction of existing one-way sections. The road 

from the Hulls Cove Visitor Center to the SR 233 / Eagle Lake Road entrancewould be one way 

in a southbound direction. Two-way sections of road would run from Stanley Brook Road to 

Jordan Pond and from the base of Cadillac Summit Road to the SR 233 / Eagle Lake Road 

entrance.

Most right lane parking would be eliminated along Park Loop Road. The only remaining right

lane parking would be physically demarcated parallel parking spaces in the right lane (when 

traveling northbound) near Sand Beach. A path leading from roadside parallel parking to the 

beach would be constructed to safely separate pedestrians from road traffic as they make their 

way to the beach.

Hours and Seasonality of the Reservation System. Advance reservations would be 

required for all private vehicles entering Park Loop Road from mid-May to mid-October. 

Reservations would be required from one hour before sunrise until sunset during the peak 

season. These hours would be lengthened or shortened as necessary corresponding with shifting 

visitation patterns to protect a high-quality visitor experience. Use of the reservation system 
Chapter 2: Alternatives

44

would correspond to Island Explorer operations (i.e., if the transit systems are operating, the 

reservation system would be active). 

Once visitors entered the park during their assigned timed entry window, they would be able to 

travel freely anywhere on Park Loop Road. There would be no limits on length of stay, but reentry outside of their designated timed entry window would be prohibited. For users seeking to 

re-enter the park multiple times per day, a certain percentage of reservations would be available 

for full-day access. The length of the initial entry window may be lengthened or shortened as 

park managers work to optimize the reservation system; however, it is estimated that initial 

timed entry windows would be in in one-hour time blocks. 

Number of Reservations Available. The number of reservations available would 

correspond with actions needed to manage these locations within the desired resource and 

experiential conditions of the sites. For each of these areas, desired conditions and visitor 

capacities have been identified (see chapter 1 and appendix A, respectively). These conditions 

and analyses were used to identify the maximum amount and type of use that could be 

accommodated at each location (see appendix A for site-by-site analysis). Using these capacities,

along with existing availability of parking and the anticipated turnover rates for all of the parking 

lots along Park Loop Road and acceptable levels of traffic on the road. Initial implementation 

would include about 4,000 reservations per day (issued in hourly time blocks for entry into the 

system). After initial implementation of the reservation system, the number of reservations 

would be adjusted up or down to ensure the highest possible use of the existing parking supply 

while avoiding parking-related congestion and to allow park staff to manage desired conditions 

and within related thresholds and identified visitor capacities.

Infrastructure Changes Required to Implement the Reservation System. Under 

alternative D, there would be few changes to the existing infrastructure associated with Park 

Loop Road parking lots. All parking lots along Park Loop Road would remain on a first-come, 

first-served basis but would only be available to visitors who have entered Park Loop Road with 

a timed reservation. 

 Cadillac Mountain. No new infrastructure or entry controls to the area would be 

established. The segment of Park Loop Road connecting Cadillac Summit Road with SR

233 would continue to be managed in a two-way traffic pattern so that visitors interested 

in visiting only Cadillac Mountain would not need to circle Park Loop Road in its 

entirety.

 Ocean Drive. The existing Sand Beach Entrance Station near Schooner Head Road 

would be removed. Access into the park via Schooner Head Road would be replaced 

with an automated entry (QR code reader or other remote system) for verifying 

reservations. Right lane parking along Park Loop Road would be eliminated except for a 

short northbound section of the road near Sand Beach where a portion of the right lane 

would be demarcated as parallel parking spaces. A path paralleling the right lane parking 

(but physically separated from motor vehicle traffic) would be constructed to facilitate 

safe access to the beach from the parallel parking area. The Schooner Head parking lot 

would serve as additional parking for Sand Beach. Additionally, a new parking lot 

accommodating approximately 40 vehicles would be established within the footprint of 

an existing NPS administrative storage area known as Satterlee Pit near the south end of 

Schooner Head Road. This additional parking would provide additional vehicle access 

to the Sand Beach area.
Alternative D: Park Loop Road Management

45

 Jordan Pond. Access to the Jordan Pond area would occur by traveling south on Park 

Loop Road from Paradise Hill or by a short length of two-way traffic on Park Loop Road

coming north from Stanley Brook Road. Because vehicles traveling to Jordan Pond from 

the south would not drive through a formal entrance station, timed-entry reservations 

would be validated at the entrance to the north parking lot. A means for controlling 

access to the lot (either a staffed or automated gate or a validation kiosk) would be 

installed at the entrance to the lot. 

Other Infrastructure Changes. Physical entrance stations with entrance lanes and a booth 

would be constructed at Wildwood Stables and at Paradise Hill Road. The Paradise Hill 

entrance would be located north of the west street extension on Paradise Hill Road. The 

entrance station at Wildwood Stables would be located near the current paved entrance to the 

stables off Park Loop Road. An adjacent service road would be used for a turnaround lane. The 

intersection of Stanley Brooke Road and Park Loop Road would be modified (widened) to 

accommodate horse trailer access into Wildwood Stables. Automated, unmanned entrances (QR 

code readers or another form of remote access) would be provided at SR 233, Otter Cliff Road, 

Sieur de Monts, and Schooner Head Road. All installations follow guidance from the 2007 

cultural landscape report for the historic motor road and incorporate appropriate design to 

protect the historic character of Park Loop Road. To better accommodate bus parking and 

access at Thunder Hole, designated bus parking spaces would be moved to the ocean side of the 

road north of the existing lot (so as not to block views), and an additional accessible drop off 

location would be established to allow two simultaneous arrivals and departures.

Management of Other Mount Desert Island Attractions and Trailheads

Eagle Lake. The existing parking lot and restroom on the north side of SR 233 at Eagle Lake 

would be eliminated to remove impermeable surfaces and restore natural wetland adjacent to 

the lake. These facilities would be relocated to the south (off the highway) along an abandoned 

section of SR 233 (old route 233). While some of this area is previously disturbed, approximately 

0.75 acre of vegetation would be cleared using machinery and heavy grading equipment to 

accommodate the new parking lot and the access road. Additionally, a new connector trail to the 

Eagle Lake Carriage Road would be constructed from the new parking area. The gravel-surfaced 

carriage road connector would be approximately 620 feet long and 16 feet wide and, similar to 

the carriage roads, managed for nonmotorized travel. Construction of the connector trail would 

require heavy grading equipment and the removal of approximately 0.25 acre of trees, soil, and 

vegetation.

The new parking lot would have a capacity of approximately 125 parking spaces to 

accommodate the number of vehicles parked in the existing lot and along the highway during a 

typical day during peak visitor use. Figure 7 depicts conceptual site plans outlining the proposed 

construction footprint for all infrastructure development at the old route 233 site.

The previous parking lot and restroom area on the north side of SR 233 at Eagle Lake would be 

revegetated. Parking at the boat launch on the south side of SR 233 would remain but be 

reserved for vehicles with boat trailers. “No Parking” signs would be installed along SR 233, the 

impacted shoulders would be revegetated, and management stones and/or curbing would be 

installed to prevent roadside parking. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives

46

FIGURE 7. OLD ROUTE 233 PARKING AREA
Best Management Practices and Mitigation Measures

47

Hulls Cove and Acadia Gateway Center and Thompson Island

Hulls Cove. Under alternative D, the existing visitor center at Hulls Cove would be demolished 

and the area restored to natural conditions. A small visitor contact station would be rebuilt 

closer to an expanded Hulls Cove parking lot. The footprint of the expanded parking lot would 

be similar to what is described in alternative C. The visitor contact station would have a smaller 

footprint than the visitor center described in alternative C, but also located within previously 

disturbed areas. The new visitor contact facility at Hulls Cove would be minimally designed for 

visitor contact and orientation, purchase of park passes, and to obtain reservations. Visitor 

education and interpretive services that currently are provided at the Hulls Cove Visitor Center 

would be moved to the Acadia Gateway Center. 

Acadia Gateway Center. Under alternative D, no substantial changes would be made to the 

planned physical development footprint of the Acadia Gateway Center facility as described in 

the Acadia Gateway Center environmental assessment (MDOT and FTA 2006) (see also chapter 

1, “Background”). However, with the transfer of visitor services now provided at the Hulls Cove 

Visitor Center, the Acadia Gateway Center would serve as the park’s primary visitor center and 

provide orientation to Acadia’s natural and cultural history and resources. Visitors would also 

be able to receive orientation to the reservation system at the center and park vehicles and 

transfer to a concession tour or Island Explorer service into Mount Desert Island and the park. 

Thompson Island. The visitor services at the Thompson Island Information Center (on the 

west side of SR 3) would be removed and the structures repurposed. Visitor information 

services would be relocated to the Acadia Gateway Center. The picnic area and restrooms on 

the east side of the highway would be maintained for visitor use.

Schoodic Peninsula

See “Common to All Action Alternatives” section.

Public Transit

The use of Island Explorer would be encouraged as described in the “Common to All Action 

Alternatives” section in this chapter. 

Commercial Visitor Services

Commercial visitor services would be managed as described in the section, “Actions Common 

to All Action Alternatives,” in this chapter. 

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND MITIGATION MEASURES

To ensure protection of the park’s fundamental resources and values, best management 

practices would be implemented under all action alternatives. Best management practices are 

grounded in NPS Management Policies 2006, and they are intended to provide a practical 

approach to everyday management of Acadia National Park’s transportation system. Best 

management practices for this plan can be found in appendix D.
Chapter 2: Alternatives

48

Under all of the alternatives evaluated in this draft plan/EIS, the mitigation measures would be 

applied to avoid and minimize potential adverse impacts on Acadia National Park’s fundamental 

resources and values. These mitigation measures are described in appendix D.

ALTERNATIVES AND ACTIONS CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED

While developing each alternative, it became evident that certain alternative concepts or actions 

were not feasible and were dismissed from further analysis in the environmental impact 

statement. These alternative concepts or actions, and the reason for their dismissal, are 

described in table 4. 

TABLE 4. ALTERNATIVES AND ACTIONS CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS

Description of Action Rationale for Dismissal

Limit Park Loop Road access 

to transit/tour access only 

(no private vehicles)

This action conflicts with the historic character of the park’s network of historic roads. 

Eliminating opportunities for scenic motor touring would adversely impact a 

fundamental value of the park. The experience of private vehicle auto touring is 

something the National Park Service desires to preserve at the park, although some 

car-free days and times of days may still take place intermittently.

In addition, the logistics of providing for 2- to 3-minute bus headways (which would 

be needed to accommodate current visitation without private vehicle access) makes 

this proposed action infeasible to implement.

Establish two-way traffic 

patterns for the entirety of 

Park Loop Road

Establishing two-way traffic on the entirety of Park Loop Road as it is currently 

designed would not allow space for bicyclists to safely operate, curtailing the range of 

visitor experience and access to an entire user group. Changing the dimensions of Park 

Loop Road to accommodate two-way traffic and bicyclists at the same time (adding 

bicycle lanes) would unacceptably impact the historic character and integrity of the 

park’s network of historic roads.

In addition, this action would not resolve issues with congestion or overcrowding in 

that most of these issues are associated with parking and overcrowding in popular 

destinations, which this action would not address.

Expand total parking 

capacity along Park Loop 

Road

To manage the Park Loop Road area in a manner consistent with the park’s general 

management plan, the transportation plan does not consider expansion of the total 

parking capacity along Park Loop Road. The 1992 general management plan 

acknowledges the direct relationship between crowding at popular destinations and 

the availability of parking at those sites and therefore established that existing parking 

capacity would be enforced and alternate means of access would be explored. 

Additionally, expanding parking in areas with rare or sensitive natural resources, such 

as on the summit of Cadillac Mountain would cause unacceptable impacts to these 

resources. Although the expansion of select lots adjacent to Park Loop Road is 

proposed under the action alternatives in the transportation plan, they would be 

balanced with other lot reductions or the elimination of roadside parking.

Widen park roads and 

manipulate historic 

infrastructure (i.e., change 

physical dimensions of 

roads and parking areas to 

accommodate more and 

larger vehicles)

Widening park roads (specifically along Cadillac Summit Road where the current road 

width is incompatible with large vehicles) or changes to overpasses with relatively low 

clearances were not considered feasible alternative elements. Because of the historic 

nature of this infrastructure, such changes would alter and diminish the historic 

character and integrity of the park’s network of historic roads. 

Funicular to Cadillac 

Mountain summit

A funicular (a type of incline railway) on Cadillac Mountain would cause unacceptably 

high levels of impacts on natural and cultural resources and would be highly visible 

from other areas of the park and thus impact scenic viewsheds and visitor experience.
Alternatives and Actions Considered but Dismissed

49

Description of Action Rationale for Dismissal

Signal-controlled one-way 

traffic on Cadillac Summit 

Road

Adding traffic signals around the tight curves of Cadillac Summit Road to avoid 

conflicts caused by large vehicle use would fundamentally alter the historic character 

of the road. In addition, given the existing congestion in this area of the park and the 

pulses in visitation caused by large motor coaches, the addition of the traffic signal 

(although it could help larger vehicles navigate the turn) would likely lead to more 

congestion issues.

Pedestrian path parallel with 

Schoodic Loop Road (from 

Schoodic Education and 

Research Center to the point) 

(note: this suggestion also 

applies to other areas of Park 

Loop Road)

Natural and cultural resource impacts associated with construction of a pedestrian 

path would be too great and incompatible with protection of fundamental resources 

of the park, including the integrity and setting of the park’s network of historic roads 

and mosaic of habitats supporting diverse flora and fauna.

Remove or relocate parking 

at Sieur de Monts

Removing or relocating the parking at Sieur de Monts would fundamentally alter the 

historic character of the area. Additionally, the loss of parking at a popular visitor 

attraction would likely lead to higher visitation and parking shortages at other trails 

and trailheads in the park.
Chapter 2: Alternatives

50

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Chapter 3

Affected Environment
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
51

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the environment of Acadia National Park that is being analyzed in this 

environmental impact statement. It focuses on the cultural resources, visitor use and experience

(including traffic and transportation), and the socioeconomic environment that may be affected 

by actions proposed in the alternatives. Please refer to the impact topics section in chapter 1 for 

a list of the impact topics that have been retained and thus are addressed in this chapter.

HISTORIC MOTOR ROAD

The Historic Motor Road System. Summarized from Cultural Landscape Report for the 

Historic Motor Road System, Acadia National Park (NPS 2007).

Development History

In 1913, the State of Maine lifted a ban on automobiles on Mount Desert Island, opening the 

door to a new means of experiencing the natural beauty of the island and the area soon to be 

designated Lafayette National Park in 1919 and eventually Acadia National Park in 1929. The 

1913 entrance of automobiles to Mount Desert Island marked the end of a contentious battle 

that had strained the relationship between the year-round and the summer residents for the 

previous 15 years. The automobile question was essentially a referendum on road building on 

the island. The year-round residents saw the roads as a pipeline for economic opportunity while 

the summer colony viewed the roads as a threat to the reasons they came to Acadia in the first

place—the island’s isolated natural beauty. Before the entrance of the automobile, more than 

200 miles of rustically designed trails and carriage roads already existed on the island, but by

1920, the major trail-building era had ended and an interest in building motor roads intensified. 

In 1929, the Seal Harbor Village Improvement Society recorded that “...an inevitable first effect 

of the oncoming of the automobile was the banishment of the horse and the desertion of foot 

paths and trails.”

John D. Rockefeller Jr. initially held a negative view of the automobile’s presence on Mount 

Desert Island. Rockefeller was an ardent supporter of the national parks and played a major role 

in the physical development of Acadia. Already in the process of building a network of carriage 

roads on Mount Desert Island in the 1920s, Rockefeller offered to donate land and financial 

support for a motor road system that would allow visitors to see the park’s diverse scenery from 

their automobiles and to keep them separated from his network of carriage roads intended for 

horses and carriages only. 

The first section of motor road built in the park was the Jordan Pond to Eagle Lake Road, built 

between 1922 and 1927. Superintendent Dorr and Rockefeller, along with landscape architect 

Frederick Law Olmsted Jr., worked together to design a motor road that could be as scenic as 

the carriage roads, but also separate from them. Ultimately, the road that was built during this 

period established a benchmark for quality and beauty in the National Park Service. There was 

considerable controversy and worry over the impact on the wilderness that the road would 

cause, but the partnership between public and private financing and effort and the 

thoughtfulness of Dorr, Rockefeller, Olmsted, and their engineers produced a new means of 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

52

enjoying the natural beauty of the park, continuing along the same aesthetic of the scenic hiking 

trails and carriage roads that merged the natural beauty with an architectural one.

Further work on the motor road system proceeded with the construction of a demonstration 

segment of Ocean Drive at Thunder Hole in 1929 and Cadillac Summit Road between 1928 and 

1932. By the end of the 1920s, planning, design, and construction of park facilities throughout 

the National Park Service became increasingly standardized. Projects were characterized by an 

emerging rustic design style derived from the picturesque style in landscape design, the 

“wilderness” qualities of the early parks, and the prairie style emphasis on native plants. In the 

summer of 1929, with the Ocean Drive demonstration section complete, construction of 

Cadillac Summit Road underway, and the Jordan Pond / Eagle Lake Road almost two years old, 

Rockefeller became a vocal proponent of the automobile in the park. His earlier idea of a limited 

number of motor roads separate from his carriage roads expanded into a much larger motor 

road system of scenic roadways taking motorists from the mountaintops to the coasts. 

Rockefeller now envisioned the concept of the Park Loop Road as a complete circuit and 

committed $4 million of his own money for improvements and the purchase of land on behalf of 

the park. By 1933, all agreements were in place to proceed with construction. That year also 

corresponded with the passage of Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal” make-work programs 

designed to address the Great Depression crisis. The New Deal provided money and labor to 

the National Park Service, mostly through the Public Works Administration (PWA) and the 

Emergency Conservation Works Act. In Acadia, the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), which 

performed “Emergency Conservation Work,” had a key role in the development of the motor 

road system, and the labor that laid down the roads. 

In 1933 and 1934, the road segments on Ocean Drive between Thunder Hole and Sand Beach 

and between Thunder Hole and Otter Cliffs were completed. During this same time period, the 

National Park Service constructed what would eventually be known as Schoodic Point Road 

(now Arey Cove Road) and Schoodic Loop Road. The Schoodic landscape was developed in the 

same rustic, picturesque style that was developed for the Mount Desert Island roads.

The National Park Service built the Stanley Brook and Otter Cliffs Roads between 1934 and 

1936. At Stanley Brook, Olmstead paid special attention to the protection of the scenic resources 

of the narrow valley. His design reduced grading depths to minimize landscape damage, 

eliminated shoulders to maintain as narrow a disturbance corridor as possible, and developed 

low bridges with wooden guardrails supported by granite posts that blended perfectly in design 

and scale with the surrounding landscape. Otter Cliffs and Stanley Brook Roads were completed 

in 1936 and Rockefeller deeded the land over to the National Park Service. In 1935, he had 

received notice that the federal government had allocated money for road construction in 

Acadia. From this point on, his role would be in land acquisition and consultation on design and 

the National Park Service would fund construction. 

The first motor road segment constructed following the 1935 appropriation became known as 

Kebo Mountain Road, built between 1936 and 1938. A second appropriation for road 

construction was made in 1936, and Rockefeller deeded the land necessary to build the Otter 

Cove Causeway and Blackwoods Road in 1938 and 1939. During the road work, plans were 

drawn up that connected Blackwoods Campground to Park Loop Road, but they were not built 

because Rockefeller did not want to enable access to any of the park’s motor roads by large 

trucks or trailers.
Historic Motor Road

53

Work on the vision of the complete park circuit, unbroken by state highways, continued. The 

Kebo Mountain Road extension and Champlain Mountain Road were built between 1939 and 

1940. Shortly thereafter, Day Mountain Road and its five associated bridge structures was built 

connecting Blackwoods Road with the Jordan Pond / Eagle Lake Road. Concurrent with Day 

Mountain Road construction was the establishment of Paradise Hill Road connecting Hulls 

Cove at SR 3 to the northern end of Jordan Pond / Eagle Lake Road. Rockefeller pressed 

urgency during Paradise Hill Road’s construction, but the project ran out of money before its 

three necessary bridges could be built. The entry of the United States into World War II 

diverted resources from the project and the road would not be completed for 11 years. 

World War II essentially halted road construction in the park. There was no money for the work 

and the engineers had all been diverted to civil defense projects. During the war, Rockefeller 

continued to promote the completion of the loop circuit and spurred the National Park Service 

to prepare for the day when the war ended and resources would again be available by 

completing planning for the remaining bridges and road segments. In 1951, Rockefeller funded 

the construction of the Day Mountain Road extension, which eliminated the use of public roads 

to complete the connection between Day Mountain Road and Jordan Pond / Eagle Lake Road. 

In 1950, the first federal money for road work since the war had begun was released and the 

bridges on Paradise Hill Road were completed by 1952. 

In 1955, Mrs. Potter Palmer deeded her Schooner Head property to the federal government. 

This gift allowed the park to connect the Kebo Mountain Road extension and Champlain 

Mountain Road on park property and represented the last segment of the motor road system. It 

allowed the completion of the Park Loop Road circuit on park property. The final segment was 

built between 1956 and 1958 as a Mission 66 project (Mission 66 was a 10-year NPS program to 

fund expansion of visitor services and improve deteriorated infrastructure in parks by the 50th 

birthday of the National Park Service in 1966) but stayed true to the pre-war rustic design of the 

National Park Service. Rockefeller lived to see the completion of his vision for the park motor 

road system and passed away in May 1960.

Significance

Acadia National Park’s 33.25-mile historic motor road system is a nationally significant property 

constructed between 1922 and 1958. The road system evokes a rustic character that is in 

harmony with the existing network of carriage roads and hiking trails and is distinctly different 

from an ordinary state or county highway. Elements common to all roads—bridges, shoulders, 

guardwalls, coping stones, retaining walls, culverts, and waterways—were purposely designed in 

the rustic design style to blend with the surrounding landscape. It is considered exemplary in the 

fields of landscape architecture and engineering and is also nationally significant for its 

association with John D. Rockefeller Jr. and his contributions to the early development of the 

national park system. The historic motor road system continues to serve Rockefeller’s vision of 

an unbroken scenic loop moving visitors through the ecosystems of Acadia and exposing them 

to the natural environment via an architecture that blends into nature and complements its 

form. The Park Loop Road remains the primary means by which most visitors experience the 

park’s resources. As such, the condition and functionality of the motor roads and the adjacent 

landscape are inextricably linked to visitors’ impressions of the park.

The accomplishments of the road designs and the natural beauty of the landscapes through 

which they pass have resulted in their recognition as two of the 150 distinct and diverse roads 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

54

designated as “American Byways” by the secretary of transportation. American Byways include 

the National Scenic Byways and All-American Roads. The program is a grassroots collaborative 

effort established to help recognize, preserve, and enhance selected roads throughout the 

United States. All-American Roads or National Scenic Byways are recognized based on one or 

more exceptional archeological, cultural, historic, natural, recreational, and scenic qualities. 

Acadia National Park manages portions of two designated byways: the Acadia All-American 

Road (which includes the entirety of Park Loop Road on Mount Desert Island) and the 

Schoodic National Scenic Byway (which includes the Park Loop Road on the Schoodic 

Peninsula). These two roads are Maine’s only designated scenic byways and bring visitors 

interested in scenic driving to the park and surrounding communities from all over the world.

The design and construction of the historic motor road included unique, character-defining 

features that have been identified and described in the Park Loop Road’s National Register of 

Historic Places nomination and its in-depth cultural landscape report. Acadia strives to protect 

these character-defining features in the course of maintenance of the road and to replace and 

repair them in kind when appropriate. The overall treatment strategy for the historic road is one 

of rehabilitation. Rehabilitation best allows sound stewardship of the historic motor road system 

through repairs, alterations, and additions, while preserving those existing historic features that 

convey the historical, cultural, and architectural values. The rehabilitation treatment 

acknowledges the reality that periodic work is needed to maintain the integrity of the road 

surfaces, shoulders, and associated engineering structures and to ensure that the historic motor 

roads contribute to a positive and memorable visitor experience. When conducting these 

projects, the park strives to protect the road’s historic character (including viewsheds and 

design intent) as well as its historic character-defining physical features that include:

 horizontal and vertical alignment

 cross-section

 bridges (except Frazer Creek)

 causeways

 road surface wearing course

 vegetated shoulders

 paved pullouts

 paved parking lots

 vegetated ditches

 mortared rubble waterways

 culverts, inlet structures, and outlet 

structures

 stone guardwalls (angular and 

rectilinear)

 earthen guardwalls

 vegetated and stone embankments

 stone retaining walls (dry-laid and 

mortared)

 gates (Civilian Conservation Corps)

 vegetated and mortared rubble 

medians

 asphalt walkways

 gravel trails

 stone steps

 granite curbs (except sawn-top)

 concrete curbs

 boulder monuments

 views and vistas (selected)

 vegetation in and along road 

corridors
Historic Motor Road

55

Purpose

The primary purpose of the historic motor road system as completed was to provide visitors in 

automobiles with recreational access to the park’s diverse landscapes and to highlight the many 

scenic views. In addition to connecting to the roadside parking areas at the park’s major 

destinations and developed areas, such as Sand Beach, Thunder Hole, Cadillac Mountain, and 

the Jordan Pond House, numerous paved pullouts were built. Many of these stops correspond 

to spectacular views and vistas (Foulds and Killion 2015). Views while in motion were also

considered, as well as landscape visibility as it relates to the direction of travel and geometry and 

placement of the road segments. The intended vistas along the Park Loop Road were first 

documented in 1958, immediately after the completion of the final segment of the complete loop 

and 11 years after the “Great Fire,” which had taken many of the trees in the park. In 1958, 

young growth was beginning to reclaim vistas. A total of 70 maintained vistas offering views of 

the mountains, lakes, shorelines, forest vegetation, and unique geological features were 

documented in the effort, and another was added when the map was revised in 1961, bringing 

the total number of vistas to 71, all but 4 of which were located on the historic motor road

system. Access to these views are a significant feature of the historic character and a part of the 

design intent of Park Loop Road. Out of concern for loss of roadside vistas due to maturing

vegetation, the park’s 1992 general management plan called for the protection and management 

of vistas of the historic motor road system. In 2015, a vista study and management plan was 

completed that determined 19 out of the 67 vistas along Park Loop Road were in good condition 

and still provided intended views from the road, 45 were impaired by vegetation growth but 

repairable with maintenance and treatment (which the plan prescribed), and 3 were proposed 

for abandonment (one due to extensive growth and poor historic documentation and two 

because the current one-way direction of travel reduces visibility). 

Rockefeller and the road designers were also concerned with the character of the driving 

experience as impacted by traffic and parking. Particularly, that vehicles on and adjacent to the 

road not impact the views and the experience of those traveling along it. In 1938, he objected to 

providing a connection between Blackwoods Campground and the park road to avoid creating a 

connection that would allow large trailers to enter Park Loop Road and impact scenery. Even 

more specific were his views on controlling roadside parking such that stationary vehicles would 

not obstruct views and impair the driving experience. 

During the construction of the Park Loop Road segment between Thunder Hole and Otter 

Cliffs in 1934, Rockefeller commented on the appropriateness of roadside parking to the scenic 

plan envisioned for the Ocean Drive segment in a letter to Walters Hill, director of the Civilian 

Conservation Corps labor force building the road segment:

Mr. Olmsted tells me that any questions in connection with the southern section of the 

Ocean Drive which you brought up were settled satisfactorily during his recent visit. 

I find on talking with him that he had forgotten our agreement not to have any more 

parking places provided along the edge of the road south of the Thunder Hole, but 

rather to provide such spaces off the road under the trees at various convenient and 

available intervals. Even if parking along the road does not block the road, it so 

seriously detracts from the beauty of the ocean view that it seems to me greatly to be 

deplored. I thought it was clear in your mind that no more roadside parking 

provision was contemplated.
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

56

It is questionable if Rockefeller could have imagined the automobiles and mass transit options of 

the 21st century, or the number of vehicles that would ultimately be traveling the picturesque 

motor road system he was working to create. However, there is no doubt that the rustic design

intent and the focus on viewscapes, vistas, and visitor experience of the natural beauty of the 

park is a character-defining feature of the motor road system and the historic infrastructure of 

the park. Of concern to this planning effort is balancing the demands of today’s visitors with the 

preservation of the historic character and the intended experience of traveling the historic 

motor roads of the park.

Current Condition

In the years following the completion of the motor road, management of the park, increasing 

visitation, and changing needs have caused changes to the landscape and historic design of the 

road. One major change (which actually was original to some of the final segments) was the shift 

from native pink granite in the final surface coat, which gave the road the same color as the 

surrounding stone outcrops, to a surface treatment of modern plant-mixed, hot-asphalt 

bituminous concrete. Today, none of the original treatment is visible. Other modifications came 

from later Mission 66 construction of visitor facilities at Cadillac Mountain summit and Sieur de 

Monts, restrooms at Bear Brook and Fabbri, and a picnic area at Frazer Point. Post-Mission 66 

developments include:

 construction of the Fabbri picnic area in the 1980s

 construction of a new Jordan Pond House in 1982 (the original structure burned in 1979)

 redesign of the parking lot, trails, and concourse

 construction of restrooms at Thunder Hole in the late 1980s and in 1997

 construction of the entrance fee station at Sand Beach in 2000 and an accessible walkway 

at the historic Thunder Hole ranger station, which is now a concessions-operated store 

and information center

The National Park Service undertook major realignments and modifications of portions of the 

historic roads as well, including:

 widening of the original, earliest segment of Jordan Pond / Eagle Lake Road

 modifying the intersection of Cadillac Summit Road and Paradise Hill Road

 realignment of the road between Jordan Pond House and Bubble Pond that abandoned 

the motor road segment passing under the Bubble Pond Bridge

 adding parking and pullouts at Jordan Pond House and Bubble Pond

 creating a grade separation on Paradise Hill Road to address congestion

The road’s associated landscape features have changed since the end of its historic construction 

period, including: 

 replacing vegetated shoulders and some drainage ditches with asphalt or loose rubble

 use of nonhistoric granite curbing and concrete walkways
Historic Motor Road

57

 rustic design features originally present in the gates and signage replaced with steel 

access gates and modern metal directional, wayside, and entrance signs

 applying painted lane striping for safety and for control in parking areas

In an attempt to control unauthorized parking along the vegetated shoulders of the road, the 

park began installing parking management stones along many sections of the road. Parking 

management stones, intended to be distinct from the finely cut, historic coping stones, are a 

visual intrusion along many roadsides today. 

Arguably, the decision to convert the Kebo Mountain to Day Mountain Road segment to oneway traffic and allow right lane parking is the most significant change to the historic Park Loop 

Road. In 1969 the two-way traffic pattern on the historic loop was changed to a one-way flow 

from north to south along a 12-mile stretch of the road from Sieur de Monts Springs to the 

intersection of Day Mountain Road. This one-way pattern opened the right lane for parking for 

the first time. In 1989, the one-way traffic pattern was extended to Kebo Mountain Road, 

further altering the historic character of the road by changing the designed traffic pattern and 

expanding the character-diminishing right lane parking. The 1989 decision was made for safety 

reasons associated with increased visitation and conflicts between bicycles and motorists, and 

was reached after several studies and with consideration of the impacts on the historic character 

of the road. It was determined that travel in a clockwise direction preserved the most important 

vistas along Ocean Drive and also reduced already compromised views of park-adjacent modern 

installations (Jackson Laboratory). More than any other modern modification to the historic 

road, the presence of vehicles parked along the roadway is the largest affront to the designed 

scenic experience of traveling Acadia’s unbroken motor tour.

In recent years the park has made efforts to successfully reintroduce some of the rustic details of 

the historic motor road system, such as signs and gates, which have been lost over time. The 

historic directional and informational signposts have been lost and replaced with the steel 

UniCor system of signs, but the park has replaced typical modern metal signposts with 4-inch by 

4-inch wooden signposts evoking a more rustic appearance. The rustic motor road access gates 

were historically one of the most visible fixtures along the historic motor road system and were 

intended to identify the entrances. Over the years, they have been replaced with more durable 

and easier to maintain galvanized steel pipe gates. The park has committed to the future use of a 

more appropriate substitute and a simplified rustic wood gate has been installed at the Schooner 

Head Overlook Access Road, which has been considered a successful substitute for the historic 

gates. 

Notwithstanding changes to Park Loop Road since 1958, and including those reversible 

modifications associated with the existence of right lane parking and the one-way traffic 

patterns; overall, the historic motor road system at Acadia National Park possesses integrity of 

location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Threats to the 

integrity of the road system include vehicle damage associated with unauthorized parking and 

off-road operation, proliferation of unpaved pullouts, parking management stones, bituminous 

asphalt waterways, lane and parking striping, unmaintained vistas, paved shoulders, signage and 

gates that are inconsistent with the rustic design style, and right lane parking. All of these threats 

are linked to increased visitation and increased traffic, both as a direct result of congestion and 

as a result of NPS management in response to it.
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

58

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES

Sieur de Monts Spring 

(Summarized from the NPS Cultural Landscape Inventory, Sieur de Monts Spring, 2009).

Situated on the east side of the island and nestled in a picturesque gorge formed by Dorr 

Mountain and Huguenot Head, the 41-acre Sieur de Monts Spring site is defined by a broad 

wetland area to the north and east (the Great Meadow), a dammed wetland to the south (the 

Tarn), and the steep wooded slopes of Dorr Mountain to the west. Sieur de Monts Spring was 

initially developed by George Dorr in 1904 and contains a complex overlay of associations 

including work by Dorr, the Village Improvement Associations & Societies, and the National 

Park Service. The landscape is a blend of elements from both the picturesque and NPS rustic 

design styles. Dorr had an Italian Renaissance Revival-style canopy structure built over a natural 

spring that flows into a nearby stone-lined, open pool. Next to the spring pool is the spring 

building (now the nature center) built in 1949 in the NPS rustic design style to replace an earlier 

CCC building destroyed in the Great Fire of 1947. Other facilities contributing to the historic 

significance of the landscape include a 1939 CCC-built parking lot and loop road and a restroom 

built by the National Park Service in 1948 and 1949. 

The period of significance for Sieur de Monts Spring is 1909–1949. The period begins in 1909

when Dorr acquired the property and built the original spring canopy and spring pool. In the 

following years, Dorr and the Bar Harbor Village Improvement Association developed the area 

with picnic grounds, paths, trails, roads, and in time, a spring building and other support 

structures. The period continues through the 1930s and early 1940s when the National Park 

Service, in consultation with the Olmsted Firm, began improving visitor facilities, simplifying 

circulation features, and updating infrastructure. The Civilian Conservation Corps contributed 

to many of these projects, including building a new spring building, improving the loop road and 

parking lot, and installing and managing new and existing vegetation. The period ends in 1949 

when the last buildings destroyed in the park’s devastating fire of 1947 were replaced.

Today, the Sieur de Monts Spring cultural landscape is composed of a collection of natural 

topography and vegetation; historic trails, parking, and motor routes (including access to the site 

via a connection to the historic Park Loop Road); historic structures including the Spring 

Canopy, Spring Building, restroom, and the Abbe Museum; smaller-scale landscape 

constructions including historic culverts on trails and the Park Loop Road, rock monuments 

and memorial plaques; and specific views and vistas designed both during the original 

development of the Sieur de Monts Spring site and during construction of the connecting 

historic motor road. The contributing features of the landscape are in good condition, but 

viewsheds are occasionally compromised by vehicle congestion and, like the other road surfaces 

and shoulders in the park, the parking lot is threatened by unauthorized parking. .

Cadillac Mountain

Cadillac Mountain (summarized from the NPS Cultural Landscape Inventory, Cadillac 

Mountain Summit, 2007) summit is a developed landscape at the top of Cadillac Mountain, the 

highest point in Acadia National Park. It is the primary summit destination, with a long history 

of both pre- and post-NPS development. The rocky summit features three high points or 

“peaks” dominated by broad granite ledges and outcrops interspersed with shrubs and grasses 

and lesser amounts of mixed conifer woodland and forest. Access to the summit is primarily 
Cultural Landscapes

59

from Cadillac Summit Road, a historic segment of the park’s historic motor road system that 

climbs the mountain’s north and west slopes and terminates as a broad, teardrop-shaped loop 

nestled between the eastern and middle peaks. Visitor facilities at the summit are limited to a 

small concession and restroom building on a wooded slope below the middle peak. 

Since the 1850s, getting to the top of Cadillac Mountain and experiencing the views has been a 

sought after experience. In the early 1920s, the carriage road had badly deteriorated, prompting 

the park’s first superintendent to include a summit motor road in the park’s motor road 

proposal. Road construction began in 1928, but the formidable granite and mountainous terrain 

kept the Department of Agriculture’s Bureau of Public Roads (now the Federal Highway 

Administration) busy until October 1931. When opened, the road was widely praised as an 

excellent example of outstanding road construction and for the use of the NPS rustic design 

style.

Parking at the summit initially consisted of a small parking lot prior to the motor road’s terminal 

loop. Realizing more parking was needed and that visitors would likely wish to stop and enjoy 

the views, NPS designers implemented plans for a much larger parking area in the terminal loop 

and new walkways and trails. A ranger station, restrooms, and a small refreshment stand called 

the Cadillac Tavern were constructed between 1932 and 1934 and were inconspicuously sited 

on a wooded slope between the middle peak and parking area so as not to impact the viewsheds. 

Like the motor road, the new facilities and circulation features also demonstrated the rustic 

design style and visually blended with the surrounding landscape. 

The year 1942 and the departure of the Civilian Conservation Corps marks the end of the period 

of significance for the cultural landscape that began with the onset of construction of the 

summit road in 1928. The landscape features and historic character of the site, which include the 

design and layout of the parking lot and vehicle circulation, as well as unobstructed views and a 

minimum of noncontributing modern infrastructure, are significant because of their association 

with the early development of Acadia National Park and the rustic design styles.

Subsequent construction at the site after the period of significance does not contribute to its 

historic significance, but only minimally detracts from it. In 1966, a new parking and overlook 

area was developed below the western peak, now called the Blue Hill Overlook. By 1983, the 

ranger station was removed and replaced by a new concession building constructed in the same 

location and design style as the historic ranger station. Today, the Cadillac Mountain summit 

remains one of the most popular developed areas in the park, its panoramic views drawing 

visitors from sunrise to sunset, this visitor experience, along with the historic design of the 

summit road, its connection to the Park Loop Road, and summit area trails are all important 

features contributing to the historic significance of the site and are in good condition. However, 

the historic road and parking lot shoulders are regularly damaged by out of bounds parking and 

congestion on the entry road, in the lots, and as a result of individual visitors crowding the site. 

This congestion negatively impacts historic vistas.

Jordan Pond House

(Summarized from the NPS Cultural Landscape Inventory, Jordan Pond House, 2009). The 

42-acre Jordan Pond House site is situated at the southern end of Jordan Pond, bound by 

Penobscot Mountain, Pemetic Mountain, and two rounded mountains called North Bubble and 

South Bubble. The historic views of the pond and the surrounding peaks are the focal point of 

the site’s main building—the Jordan Pond House—a restaurant and gift shop operated by a 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

60

concessioner. The current building dates from 1982, a replacement for the original structure 

that was lost in a fire in 1979.

Segments of the park’s historic hiking trail, carriage road, and motor road systems provide 

access to the Jordan Pond House and other features at the site that include a gatehouse complex, 

pump houses, dam and spillway, dormitory, parking lots, old building foundations, and several 

remnant stone-lined trails and roads. The landscape and associated historic features at the 

Jordan Pond House are significant because of their association with the early community 

development and the picturesque design style. 

The Jordan Pond House landscape also reflects the origins of Acadia National Park and early 

efforts to conserve and maintain a scenic area for recreation. Beginning in the early 1870s, the 

natural beauty of the site attracted local residents and summer visitors. The period of 

significance begins in 1895, when Thomas McIntire and his wife Nellie Coburn McIntire

became managers of the property when it was a well-known scenic, recreational, and dining 

destination. By the 1900s, the McIntires had made substantial improvements to the area by 

enlarging the Jordan Pond House; clearing the tea lawn to obtain views of Jordan Pond and the 

Bubbles; constructing additional support structures; and developing paths, hiking trails, and 

roads. John D. Rockefeller Jr. also understood the aesthetic value of the Jordan Pond House 

area, later directing the design and construction of the Jordan Pond gatekeeper’s house, carriage 

house, and carriage road entrance gates. In addition, Rockefeller directed the construction of 

the first segment of the historic motor road system in the Jordan Pond House area, the Jordan 

Pond / Eagle Lake Road. The period of significance extends to 1959, reflecting the continued 

use of the site for recreation and entertainment. 

There have been a number of major changes to the Jordan Pond landscape since the end of the 

period of significance. In 1963, the Jordan Pond / Eagle Lake Motor Road was realigned, 

significantly altering the landscape of the Jordan Pond House site. As a result of the realignment, 

all of the historic outbuildings on the east side of the road were removed (ice house, woodshed, 

stable, and water tower). A new entrance road and automobile parking area was established in 

front of the house and another parking area was designed for overflow parking and boaters 

where the old motor road originally curved away from the pond. On June 21, 1979, the Jordan 

Pond House was destroyed by fire. It was rebuilt in 1982, larger than the original and slightly 

resited to take advantage of the spectacular views. The immediate surrounding landscape was 

also replanted, but with consideration of original garden types and locations. A significant 

landscape modification in 1982 included a parking lot set back into the woods in the location of 

the McIntires septic field and an additional overflow parking lot in the previous location of their 

large vegetable garden. A new dormitory was constructed in 1982, south of the old McIntire 

house, which was torn down that same year. In 2009, circulation improvements to 

accommodate buses were made in the Jordan Pond House area, which included removing the 

small circular drive and replacing it with an expanded entrance drive, and adding a new 

pedestrian plaza and three bus drop-off areas (figure 8). Notwithstanding modifications to 

circulation systems and the loss of some buildings since the historic period, the developed area 

at Jordan Pond House continues to convey the historic design intent, use, and rustic design 

vocabulary.
Cultural Landscapes

61

FIGURE 8. CURRENT CONDITIONS AT THE JORDAN POND HOUSE CULTURAL LANDSCAPE

Today, significant historic features would be those involving the Park Loop Road’s connections 

to the historic carriage roads, the layout of the historic features of the overall site and associated 

greenspaces, and continued consideration and maintenance of the remaining historic landscape 

design. The historic character of the visitor experience at the site, associated with unobstructed 

and uncrowded views of the Jordan Pond House and the Jordan Pond gatekeepers house as well 

as preservation of the unobstructed vista of the Jordan Pond and the Bubbles beyond it is also a 

significant character defining feature of the cultural landscape.

Thunder Hole

(Summarized from the NPS Cultural Landscape Inventory, Thunder Hole, 2012). Thunder 

Hole is an inlet along the rocky eastern shoreline of Mount Desert Island. When a storm or the 

turning tide forces waves into this narrow channel, the air escapes with a thunderous 

reverberation that is both deafening and thrilling. Since the early 1930s, the National Park 

Service has provided formalized walkways, railings, and other visitor facilities to experience the 

natural phenomena at Thunder Hole.

The developed area of Thunder Hole encompasses approximately 2.25 acres and is accessible 

from the Ocean Drive historic motor road segment and from the historic hiking trail known as

Ocean Path. Both the road and trail trace the shoreline and offer panoramic ocean views that are 

among the best in the park. On the ocean side of the road and trail is a landscape of uneven and 

massive granite ledges. A series of curved walks, ramps, and steps make their way between the 

rocks and down to a broad ledge overlooking the Thunder Hole. Above the road, the landscape 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

62

holds considerably more trees and shrubs that screen the historic ranger station, parking lot, 

and restroom. 

Thunder Hole has long been a destination on Mount Desert Island’s eastern shore, and its 

popularity can be traced to the mid-1800s. The overall period of significance for Thunder Hole 

begins in 1890 when recreational access was improved by the Town of Bar Harbor’s 

construction of the original Ocean Drive along the shoreline from Sand Beach to Otter Point. 

The period ends in 1937 when maintenance responsibility for their paths within park 

boundaries was transferred to the National Park Service. 

The Thunder Hole Demonstration Section along Ocean Drive was completed in 1929, which 

served as a guide for the reconstruction of the entire Ocean Drive in 1933–1934 and ultimately 

made possible the development of park facilities at Thunder Hole. Landscape features and 

structures at Thunder Hole that contribute to the significance of the historic site include those 

developed during the period of significance and retaining their historic characteristics of design 

and use. They include geological forces that shaped the inlet and its natural characteristics; the 

ranger station and parking lot above the road and trail that are representative of NPS 

picturesque and rustic design styles sited to avoid marring the scenic vista; some of the 

walkways, stone steps, and granite curbs originally installed by the Civilian Conservation Corps 

that remain and contribute to the site’s rustic character; and Ocean Drive and Ocean Path 

themselves. The site’s historic significance is associated with the design of the intra-site vehicle 

circulation, including its connections to the Park Loop Road, and the unobstructed views from 

within the designed landscape. Congestion and large tour buses regularly cause negative impacts 

on the historic vistas by blocking intended views. Overcrowding also precipitates out of bounds 

parking which causes damage to the historic parking lots and road shoulders.

Schoodic Peninsula

(Summarized from the NPS Cultural Landscape Inventory, Schoodic Peninsula, 2004).

Schoodic Peninsula is a rocky, wooded headland that juts into the Atlantic Ocean at Winter 

Harbor, Maine. Five miles to the west, across Frenchman Bay, is Mount Desert Island and the 

main part of Acadia National Park. Although geographically separate, Schoodic Peninsula shares 

with the rest of Acadia not only a common history, but also the same tradition of rustic design in 

its constructed features.

The earliest major NPS construction project at Schoodic is the Park Loop Road. The roads at 

Schoodic are illustrative of the NPS mission to provide public access while seeking to conserve 

the natural beauty of the park. From a design standpoint, the Park Loop Road at Schoodic also 

shares many of the design elements used on the carriage and motor road systems implemented 

by Rockefeller on Mount Desert Island. This portion of the park was both acquired and 

developed by the National Park Service in a relatively short time span, resulting in greater 

architectural uniformity than is found elsewhere at Acadia. The hiking trails and motor road

systems exhibit a careful selection and placement of routes to provide dramatic vistas with 

minimal impact on the landscape. Related structures and engineering features including walls, 

steps, coping stones, and drainage features were constructed of local or natural materials to 

enhance the overall harmonious effect. A number of the visitor amenities constructed at 

Schoodic are also examples of the major contributions made by New Deal programs in shaping 

the park’s landscape. 
Visitor Use and Experience

63

The Schoodic Peninsula Historic District has remained essentially unchanged since the early 

1940s. It includes historic landscape features, structures, scenic vistas, and enduring characterdefining visitor experiences dating between 1929 and 1941 that are significant in the areas of 

NPS rustic design and the influence of John D. Rockefeller Jr. on the development of the 

national park system.

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE

Introduction

This section describes elements of visitor use and experience in Acadia National Park that may 

be affected by the management alternatives of this transportation plan. The description of these 

elements is based on the best professional judgment of NPS staff, public scoping for this plan, 

and both past and recent research efforts. 

The following visitor use and experience elements will be discussed:

 Visitor Experience Quality (including visitor perceptions of safety)

 Visitor Access and Recreational Opportunity (including traffic and transportation)

Overview of Visitor Use and Experience

The visitor experience at the park is nationally significant and unique. The park has a long 

history of providing respite to urban dwellers from the crowds and pace of nearby cities. The 

park contains the tallest mountains on the eastern seaboard of the United States with Cadillac 

Mountain at its apex. From these summits, visitors experience panoramic views of the Acadia 

archipelago and the surrounding mountains, forests, meadows, lakes, and shorelines. The 

glacially sculpted landscape of exposed granite domes, boulders, U-shaped valley, and cobble 

beaches make the park exceptionally scenic. The varied range of habitats from the intertidal 

zone to subalpine rocky summits and the park’s mountains, lakes, streams, wetlands, forests, 

meadows, and coastlines contribute to the diversity of plants and animals making the visitor 

experience rich with natural resource-based diversity. 

Visitation Trends. Since the establishment of the park in 1916 (known as Sieur de Monts 

National Monument at the time), the park has expanded in both size and visitation. Visitation 

records stretch back to 1919 with 64,000 annual visitors when the park was approximately 6,000 

acres. Today, the park protects more than 47,000 acres and received over 3 million visitors in 

2016. At this ratio, 3 million visitors and 47,000 acres, Acadia National Park is arguably the most 

densely visited national park (Pettengill et al. 2012). Visitation trends over the last 25 years are 

shown in figure 9 and show a noticeable uptick in visitations beginning in 2014. 

Monthly visitation (figure 10) numbers show a clear seasonal trend in visitation. The vast 

majority of park visitors are accommodated during the peak and shoulder seasons between May 

and October. The proposed reservation systems in the proposed alternatives would only apply 

during the peak season in the park, currently between Memorial Day and mid-October. The 

alternatives described in this plan relate to strategies for transportation management during the 

peak season only.
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

64

FIGURE 9. RECREATION VISITORS PER YEAR FROM 1990–2016

Visitor Characteristics. A visitor use study conducted in August 2009 (Manni et al. 2010) 

found numerous visitor use characteristics that are pertinent to this plan. The following 

paragraphs list visitor characteristics about where visitors travel from, how often they visit, 

where they visit in the park, and how they plan.

FIGURE 10. RECREATION VISITATION PER MONTH AVERAGED OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS (2011–2016)

2,000,000

2,200,000

2,400,000

2,600,000

2,800,000

3,000,000

3,200,000

3,400,000

199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016

Recreation Visitors

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Average Recreation Visitation
Visitor Access and Recreational Opportunity

65

 Visitation to the park is composed of both international (6%) and national (94%) 

vacationers. Visitors from Maine and Massachusetts comprised 29% of the visitation, 

with the remaining percentage of national visitors coming from 39 other states, 

Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico. International visitors were from 15 countries and 

comprised 6% of total visitation, with 55% from Canada, 13% from the Netherlands, 

10% from the United Kingdom, and smaller proportions from 12 other countries.

 Fifty percent were first-time visitors, while 31% visited four or more times, and 7% of 

visitor groups included members with a physical condition (77% of these groups 

reported mobility problems). 

 The most common sites visited were Cadillac Mountain (75%), Jordan Pond House and 

area (67%), Sand Beach (63%), and Thunder Hole (62%). The Schoodic Peninsula was 

reported to be visited by 11% of the surveyed visitors.2 The most common visitor 

activities reported were sightseeing/driving for pleasure (83%) and hiking on trails 

(79%), followed by walking on carriage roads and dining at Jordan Pond House (37%). 

 Only 2% of visitors reported being part of a commercial guided tour group; 1% reported 

being part of a school/education group.

 The amount of visitors that engage in preplanning their visit to the park is also important 

because any changes to transportation systems and access to the park would need to be 

clearly communicated. Ninety-five percent of visitor groups obtain information about 

the park prior to their visit, mostly using common sources including previous visits 

(58%), friends/relatives/word of mouth (51%), maps/brochures (43%), and park website 

(43%). 

 Seventy-two percent of visitors stayed overnight on Mount Desert Island with 18% of 

these visitors staying at a park campground. Similarly, 63% stayed longer than 24 hours, 

while 37% of visitor groups visited for less than 24 hours. 

 Visitor groups on Mount Desert Island chose a variety of lodging options, but the three 

most popular options were a motel or hotel (30%), private campground (18%), and a 

campground in the park (18%). Additionally, 42% of visitor groups spent two to three 

days on the island with the average length of stay for all visitor groups being 70 hours, or 

2.9 days.

VISITOR ACCESS AND RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITY

The action alternatives considered could potentially have significant changes to how visitors 

access and experience the park. Scenic driving as a visitor experience is a fundamental resource 

and value for the park, and as mentioned above, sightseeing/driving for pleasure is an activity 

that approximately 83% of visitors engage in. Changes to the management of driving and access 

to park roads could impact visitor use and experience—a primary concern in the planning 

process because there are potential impacts on visitor experience associated with the issue.

 

2 The number is likely low because the visitor sampling was only conducted on Mount Desert Island. Therefore, any respondents would 

have had to travel to both Mount Desert Island and the Schoodic Peninsula to be surveyed. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

66

The visitor use study conducted in August 2009 (Manni et al. 2010) revealed that numerous 

forms of transportation are used to visit the park including car/pickup truck/SUV/van (91%), 

bicycle (27%), Island Explorer bus (19%), vehicle with trailer camper (7%), ferry (3%), private 

boat (3%), tour bus (2%), motorhome/RV (2%), RV with towed car/boat (1%), and motorcycle 

(1%). Per group, 12% of visitors had two motor vehicles and 5% had three or more. The heavy 

use of private vehicles at the park has contributed to traffic congestion, parking issues, and has 

generally restricted visitor flow (Hallo and Manning 2009; Pettengill et al. 2012).

The most common access-related visitor services and facilities were direction signs (outside 

park) (82%), restrooms (81%), Park Loop Road (80%), parking lots (79%), directional signs 

(inside park) (74%), and hiking trails (72%) (Manni et al. 2010). 

In 1999, the National Park Service established the fare-free Island Explorer service. Figure 11

displays the most current Island Explorer routes. In 2016, ridership averaged 6,580 riders per 

day during the summer months and 2,700 riders per day in the fall months. Ridership statistics 

for the Island Explorer service are summarized in Figure 12. Island Explorer service operates 

seasonally from late June through late August, and at a reduced schedule through mid-October. 

The length of service dates are largely dictated by the limited number of available drivers (many 

of these drivers drive school buses during the school season). Expanding the number of drivers 

could be challenging because, like many other seasonal work forces in and around Acadia 

National Park, the lack of affordability of seasonal housing is a limiting factor.

A study conducted in 2008 examined the incentives and disincentives of using public 

transportation at Acadia (Holly 2009). These results suggest that the most important factors of 

using a public transportation system at the park is the frequency of buses (incentive) and the 

associated wait times (disincentive). Fare-free or low cost was also listed, but the Island Explorer 

is already fare-free. The interviews suggested a maximum interval between buses as 15 to 20 

minutes. For a full-service schedule for Island Explorer please see: 

http://www.exploreacadia.com/routefinder.htm. 

Visitor characteristics were also examined to predict public transportation use at the park 

(Holly 2009). First-time visitors were more likely to use the Island Explorer than repeat visitors.

Maine residents were also less likely to use the Island Explorer than out-of-state visitors. As 

visitors planned longer visits to Mount Desert Island, the more likely they were to use public 

transportation. Overall, the study suggested that day users (characterized by not staying on 

Mount Desert Island, repeat users, living closer to the park) are the least likely to use public 

transportation because of the total time they have to visit the park and the perceived lack of 

freedom to get around the park quickly. Visitors also cited routing as a possible disincentive to 

using public transportation. While first-time visitors want transportation to major attractions, 

repeat visitors often wanted to visit less popular sites that may or may not be serviced by public 

transportation. Holly (2009) also posed one question to day users about a visitor’s likelihood of 

using the proposed Acadia Gateway Center. Visitors’ responses included 30% very likely and 

35% somewhat likely. A follow-up question asked if visitors would be willing to leave their 

personal vehicle at the center and ride the Island Explorer; 13% responded very likely and 24% 

responded somewhat likely.
Visitor Access and Recreational Opportunity

67

FIGURE 11. ISLAND EXPLORER ROUTE MAP (HTTP://WWW.EXPLOREACADIA.COM/ROUTEFINDER.HTM)

FIGURE 12. ISLAND EXPLORER RIDERSHIP 1999–2016

Mount Desert Island

Mount Desert Island is the center island in the park, has the largest land acreage of the islands in 

and around the park, and has the most park lands. Mount Desert Island is composed of both 

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

Island Explorer Riders (Peak Day and Daily 

Average)

Island Explorer Riders (Annual)

Annual Total Summer Peak Day Summer Daily Average
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

68

park lands and private lands. Cities/towns on the island include Bar Harbor, Southwest Harbor, 

Tremont, and Mount Desert Island. 

The top 15 most visited attractions in the park are on Mount Desert Island (Manni et al. 2010).3

The island also hosts all three visitor/information centers and is the location of most of the 

carriage roads and Park Loop Road. 

Visitor access and mobility on the island is likely the same percentages as visitors reported in the 

2009 survey: car/pickup truck/SUV/van (91%), bicycle (27%), Island Explorer bus (19%), 

vehicle with trailer camper (7%), ferry (3%), private boat (3%), tour bus (2%), motorhome/RV 

(2%), RV with towed car/boat (1%), and motorcycle (1%). 

The Island Explorer public transportation system was established on Mount Desert Island to 

help relieve some of the traffic and parking problems at the park. The system provides robust 

options for traveling to every segment of the park on Mount Desert Island. Eight of the nine 

routes offered by Island Explorer are on Mount Desert Island. A more detailed map of these 

eight routes is provided and also provides information on the timing of the routes. 

Park Loop Road

The 27-mile (43 km) Park Loop Road system (figure 13) offers outstanding views of the park’s 

ocean shoreline, coastal forests, and mountain silhouettes. Visitors access Park Loop Road from 

SR 3 East, which begins at Hulls Cove Visitor Center and makes a loop around the eastern 

portion of Mount Desert Island. The road runs one-way (clockwise) from just past SR 233 to its 

connection with Jordan Pond Road (approximately 13 miles). This is the road that creates the 

foundational value of driving for pleasure in the park. This historic road system is open from 

April 15 through November, 24 hours a day, weather permitting. Additionally, the road offers 

access to Sand Beach, Thunder Hole, Jordan Pond, and Cadillac Mountain. As mentioned 

above, these are the four most popular sights in the park that between 62% and 75% of visitors 

visit. The entirety of Park Loop Road is serviced by the Island Explorer. 

Stopping along the road and parking in the right-hand lane is allowed in certain sections of the 

park. However, the park’s general management plan (1992) stated that right lane parking would 

be phased out as soon as an alternative transportation system could be established. The plan 

stated that this action would “enhance scenic driving by removing the safety concerns, traffic 

flow restrictions, and visual impact of right lane parking. Parking would be permitted only in 

designated spaces in established lots, and vehicle size would be restricted in lots where turning 

space is limited.”

 

3 It should be noted that while this survey asked “During this trip, which of these places in Acadia National Park did you and your group 

visit?” the sample was derived from visitors on Mount Desert Island (i.e., not visitors on Isle au Haut and the Schoodic Peninsula were 

sampled). 
Visitor Access and Recreational Opportunity

69

FIGURE 13. PARK LOOP ROAD MAP
70

Because the road itself is a destination and leads to major attractions in the park, the road has 

been susceptible to crowding, congestion, and parking issues. Specifically, the section of Park 

Loop Road called Ocean Drive, which extends from the Sand Beach Entrance Station to just 

past Gorham Mountain trailhead, is particularly crowed (see the “Visitor Use Levels and 

Characteristics” section). 

Cadillac Summit Road

At 1,530 feet (466 m), Cadillac Mountain is not only the tallest mountain in the park, but also the 

tallest mountain along the eastern seaboard of the United States. Cadillac Mountain is the most 

popular attraction at the park (Manni et al. 2010). Visitors to Cadillac Mountain primarily hike 

the trails around the summit area and take in the scenic views. Cadillac Mountain is accessible 

via a winding, narrow 3.5-mile road leading from Park Loop Road to the near-summit. Both 

private vehicles and commercial tour buses use this road to provide access to the summit. (The 

Island Explorer does not provide a route to Cadillac Mountain summit.) Parking at the top of 

the road is limited (approximately 120 parking spaces). Blue Hill Overlook is just short of the 

summit (0.3 mile) and offers stunning views and 38 parking spaces. A network of trails leads

from the summit parking area to the actual summit of Cadillac Mountain and the Summit Path 

allows accessibility to view and informational waysides in the summit area. The road is closed 

from December through April 14, and whenever weather conditions (e.g., dense fog or ice) 

require. Access to Cadillac Mountain is also provided by numerous trails, including North Ridge 

Trail, South Ridge Trail, and Gorge Path. Blue Hill Overlook is also accessible by Cadillac 

Summit Road.

The VSP Visitor Study shows Cadillac Mountain summit to be the most commonly visited site 

(75%) by visitor groups (N=834).

Visitor demand for the experiences and views from the top of Cadillac Mountain is very high, 

which causes a high level of congestion along this road corridor. During the 2017 summer 

season, the park began pilot testing strategies to resolve traffic and parking management issues 

on the summit as a part of the planning process. During these pilot tests, Cadillac Summit Road 

had to be closed 49 times due to large numbers of vehicles parked along the roadway and 

congestion resulting from greater at one time demand for parking than is available. These 

closures lasted anywhere from 15 minutes to over 2 hours, with an average closure lasting 63 

minutes. Had these same strategies been employed in previous years, it’s likely that similar levels 

of closures would have been needed in 2014, 2015, and 2016.

Ocean Drive

Visitor demand for the experiences and views at the key destinations along the Ocean Drive 

corridor, including the scenic driving experience of the corridor itself, causes a high level of 

congestion along this stretch of road. Over the last 10 years, the number of vehicles accessing 

Ocean Drive has increased substantially (figure 14). Over this same time period, the number of 

parking spaces for these vehicles has remained static, creating increased pressure on parking lots 

and an increased rate of vehicles parking in the right-hand lane or visitors creating parking in 

unendorsed areas (often to the detriment of park resources).
Visitor Access and Recreational Opportunity

71

FIGURE 14. TOTAL VEHICLES ENTERING OCEAN DRIVE BY YEAR

Traffic counts data near Sand Beach also show the amount of vehicle usage in that area of the 

park (figure 15).

Simulation Model of Traffic on Ocean Drive (Park Loop Road). A simulation modeling study of 

Acadia’s Ocean Drive portion of Park Loop Road (from the Sand Beach Entrance Station for 1.5 

miles just past the Gorham Mountain trailhead) was conducted in 2007 (Manning et al. 2008). 

Popular visitor attractions along this section of road include Thunder Hole, Sand Beach, 

Beehive trailhead, and Gorham Mountain trailhead. This segment was chosen for the study 

because it produced zones that corresponded with the visitor attractions and related 

infrastructure on Ocean Drive, and it provided the greatest detail in the analysis of social visitor 

capacity.

At the time of this study, visitation was around 2 million visitors compared to more recent levels 

of over 3 million visitors. This represents an approximate 50% increase in visitation. 

Transportation management of this section of road was similar then to now: visitors are allowed 

to park in the right-hand lane, several parking lots are located along Ocean Drive, parking lots 

and much of the right-hand lane become filled with vehicles during the peak use season (July–

August), and parking lots and road areas around Sand Beach and Thunder Hole are typically the 

first to reach their physical visitor capacity. 

The travel times for the entire section of road were collected from the GPS route data. The 

average time taken to travel Ocean Drive was 23.8 minutes (s = 33.3). The longest time that 

anyone in the sample took to travel the length of Ocean Drive was 280.9 minutes. The GPS route 

that this was associated with showed that the vehicle was stopped on the road near the Gorham 

Mountain Trail in zone E for several hours. The shortest time that was taken to travel Ocean 

Drive was 3.0 minutes, meaning that the vehicle moved at an average speed of 31.5 mph.

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Total Vehicles Linear (Total Vehicles)
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

72

FIGURE 15. MEAN MONTHLY TRAFFIC COUNTS AT SAND BEACH (1990–2014)

GPS data also indicated what parking lots were used along Ocean Drive and for what length of 

time. Five parking lots were used by vehicle drivers in the GPS sample (table 5 and figure 11). 

Zone C and zone D lots are small and not near any major visitor attractions.

TABLE 5. VEHICLE PARKING TIME PER PARKING LOT (MANNING ET AL. 2008)

Parking Lot Percent of Vehicles 

Using the Parking Area

Average Parking 

Time (minutes)

Standard Deviation of 

Parking Times 

(minutes)

Sand Beach 64.4 51.8 71.7

Small lot in Zone C 6.9 12.7 15.3

Key Hole 2.0 31.4 45.2

Thunder Hole 46.0 24.3 24.6

Gorham Mountain Trailhead 5.0 98.2 106.5

Schoodic Peninsula

The Schoodic Peninsula is east of Mount Desert Island and is accessible via SR 186. The 

Schoodic Peninsula is well removed from the rest of park and is a 45-minute drive from the 

Acadia Gateway Center or a 50-minute passenger ferry ride from Bar Harbor. 

In 2015, the Schoodic Woods Campground and associated day use parking area opened. The 

campground consists of 94 sites, a ranger station, 100-seat amphitheater, and 100-space day use 

parking area. The addition of these facilities on the Schoodic Peninsula has increased visitation 

to this area and park staff have seen a notable increase in bicycle traffic since this campground 

and associated facilities opened. The campground is full in July and August and dominated by 

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Visitor Access and Recreational Opportunity

73

RVs. Park staff have observed that the day use parking area is rarely more than 25% full and bike 

use of the Schoodic Loop Road has increased substantially.

A 6-mile (10 km), one-way loop road offers views of lighthouses, seabirds, and forested islands. 

Vehicle turnouts provide opportunities to stop and enjoy the scenery. Stopping on the road and 

parking outside designated pulloffs are prohibited. Bicyclists must obey the one-way traffic flow 

on the road and are encouraged to use free Island Explorer buses and bike paths. RVs are 

permitted only on the section of Schoodic Loop Road that accesses Schoodic Woods 

Campground. Unless otherwise posted, the speed limit is 35 mph (56 km/hr). Arey Cove Road 

leads (off the Schoodic Loop Road) to Schoodic Point, a windswept, rocky point providing 

spectacular views of Mount Desert Island. Visitors can also access the Schoodic Education and 

Research Center from Arey Cove Road. Arey Cove Road is two-way. Steep and winding bike 

paths provide spectacular views.

During the summer season (late June–Columbus Day) Island Explorer buses provide free 

transportation in and around the peninsula (figure 16). The bus drivers stop when waved down 

by visitors and buses are equipped with bicycle racks.

FIGURE 16. ISLAND EXPLORER ROUTE OF SCHOODIC PENINSULA

Traffic count data displayed in figure 17 reveals the drastic difference between use on the 

Schoodic Peninsula and Mount Desert Island. Further, the figure also reveals the differences in 

use per season.

Another study of vehicle congestion at the Schoodic Peninsula portion of Acadia National Park 

found that 40 cars per mile was considered the maximum acceptable density by survey 

respondents (Manning et al. 2002). Visitors also reported that an average of 67 cars per mile 

would cause them to no longer visit the Schoodic Peninsula section of Acadia National Park.
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

74

FIGURE 17. TRAFFIC COUNTS AT SCHOODIC PENINSULA 1990–2014

Recreation visits aren’t the only types of visits that occur at the park. For example, 

nonrecreation vehicles are estimated at 30 vehicles per day November through April and 75 per 

day from May to October. 

Traffic counts for the Schoodic Peninsula indicate that 2016 visitation increased compared to 

records from 2006. Particularly, the months of June, July, August, September, and October saw 

large visitor increases compared to 2015 (figure 18).

DIVERSITY AND QUALITY OF VISITOR EXPERIENCE

The park offers numerous recreation opportunities for visitors. The most popular activities 

include sightseeing/driving for pleasure, hiking on trails, and walking on carriage roads.

The park has 125 miles (201 km) of easy to strenuous trails for hiking and 45 miles (72 km) of 

winding carriage roads for walking or biking. 

A number of guided tours and ranger-lead programs are available at the park. Three 

concessioners offer different bus and horse drawn carriage tours, including a 2.5-hour narrated 

bus tour with three 15-minute stops (including Cadillac Mountain), trolley tours, and horse 

drawn carriage rides. Ranger-narrated boat cruises are also available including a Baker Island 

Cruise, Frenchman Bay Cruise, and Islesford Historical Museum Cruise. Cruises vary from 2.0

hours to 4.5 hours. Ranger-led programs are also offered throughout the day beginning as early 

as 7:00 a.m. (bird-watching) and as late as 9:00 p.m. (star gazing). Programs are offered across 

Mount Desert Island and on the Schoodic Peninsula. Programs focus on historical/cultural 

resources (e.g., Carroll Homestead Tours) and natural resources (e.g., iNaturalist Walk). There 

are also children-specific programs including Junior Ranger programs and family programs. 

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Diversity and Quality of Visitor Experience

75

FIGURE 18. PERCENT OF VISITOR GROUPS ENGAGING IN SPECIFIC RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES

Mount Desert Island

Since Mount Desert Island is the focal point of the park, has the most popular attractions, the 

largest acreage, and the most infrastructure, Mount Desert Island offers the full range of 

opportunities that exist at the park. The recreation opportunities and use on Mount Desert 

Island are likely very similar to those described above. The most popular activities are

sightseeing/driving for pleasure (83%), hiking on trails (79%), walking on carriage roads (44%), 

and dining at Jordan Pond House (37%) (Manni et al. 2010). 

Mount Desert Island has 45 miles of carriage roads that are ideal for walking, bicycling, and 

equestrian activities. Carriage roads are closed to motor vehicles, and in some sections, horses 

(https://www.nps.gov/acad/planyourvisit/upload/CRUMmap.pdf). 

Park Loop Road

During the summer months, Park Loop Road is used for two primary reasons: (1) scenic driving,

and (2) accessing other areas of the park (Hallo and Manning 2009). As mentioned above, scenic 

driving is the most popular activity at the park and some of the most popular attractions and 

recreation opportunities in the park are accessed through Park Loop Road. 

A study conducted in 2005 at the park used a mix-method approach to focus on visitors’ 

perceptions of transportation at Ocean Drive, a portion of Park Loop Road (Hallo and Manning 

2009). A total of 39 semi-structured interviews and 128 surveys were used. The qualitative 

findings suggest that about half the visitors used Ocean Drive to “get to specific sites,” while the 

other half used Ocean Drive as part of their experience in the park. Additionally, when asked 

what role Ocean Drive played in their overall experience, again, visitors were about half and half 

with respect to Ocean Drive playing or not playing a role in their experience. Considering that 

Ocean Drive was designed to provide a scenic driving-for-pleasure experience, these results 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Sightseeing/Driving for pleasure

Hiking on trails

Walking on carriage roads

Dining at Jordan Pond House Restaurant

Shopping in park

Picnicking

Biking on carriage roads

Boating/canoeing/kayaking on lakes/ponds

Birdwatching

Participating in ranger-led...

Camping at campgrounds

Rock climbing

Biking on park motor roads

Sea kayaking

Taking horse and carriage ride

Earthcaching

Other
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

76

suggest the road fulfills its intended purpose. When asked what they liked least about Ocean 

Drive, visitors overwhelmingly stated traffic and crowds. The survey responses for this study 

indicated similar answers. When asked to identify the most important features of a national park 

scenic road 81% responded “Scenery,” 72% responded “Access to important park sites and 

attractions,” and 67% stated “traffic volume.” The authors noted how a comparison of these

features suggest that ‘‘transportation-only” uses indicates the importance of more traditional 

transportation concepts. For example, traffic volume, pavement quality, and visibility of traffic 

signs/signals were all rated as important by a majority of Ocean Drive users.

Cadillac Summit Road

Cadillac Mountain is the most popular attraction in the park. It provides sweeping views of 

Acadia and the surrounding islands. Most visitors access Cadillac Mountain by car or guided 

tour for sightseeing. On an average summer day in 2016, Cadillac Summit Road is visited by 

1,630 vehicles. On an average busy day (85th percentile) this increases to 2,150 vehicles per day 

and a maximum observed of 2,650 vehicles per day. 

Ocean Drive

The 2007 Ocean Drive Study (Manning et al. 2008) used photo elicitation to derive visitor norms 

for what was “acceptable” for crowding/congestion of traffic on Ocean Drive. All respondents 

were asked to rate each photo by indicating how acceptable it was based on the number of 

vehicles shown. Respondents reported that on average they would prefer to see no more than 

4.9 vehicles in the study photo (“preference”); 11.3 vehicles in the study photo was the 

maximum acceptable number (“acceptability”); 12.5 vehicles in the study photo should prompt 

management action restrictions on Ocean Drive (“management action”); and at a use level of 

16.0 vehicles in the study photo, respondents reported that they would no longer use Ocean 

Drive (“displacement”).

Simulation Model. The results of the simulation model suggested that segments of road near 

Sand Beach, Thunder Hole, and the Gorham Mountain trailhead suffer from the most 

congestion resulting from traffic and right lane parking. The simulation also modeled increases 

in visitation. Current conditions (3 million visitors) is approximately 150% of 2007 levels (2 

million visitors). Therefore, the simulation model suggests that preferred conditions of visitors 

would not be met for a significant percentage of time during summer use for every zone except 

to segment between Sand Beach and Thunder Hole. Further, minimal acceptability for visitors 

would also be exceeded for the segment directly proximal to Sand Beach.

Schoodic Peninsula

The Schoodic Peninsula offers a plethora of recreational opportunities and a chance to explore 

Maine’s rugged coast without the congestion of Mount Desert Island. Popular activities at 
Visitor and User Safety

77

Schoodic consist of bicycling, camping, and hiking. Popular hiking trails are Alder Trail (easy), 

Anvil Trail (moderate), Buck Cove Mountain Trail (moderate), East Trail (moderate), Lower 

Harbor Trail (easy), Schoodic Head Trail (moderate), and Sundew Trail (easy). Additionally, 

visitors can choose from different camping styles, including tent camping, hike-in camping, or 

RV site (with hookups) camping. Bicyclists can ride the one-way Schoodic Loop Road or the 8.3 

miles of bike paths on the peninsula.

A 6-mile, one-way loop road offers views of lighthouses, seabirds, and forested islands. Vehicle 

turnouts along Schoodic Loop Road provide opportunities to stop and enjoy the scenery. RVs 

are only permitted on the section of Schoodic Loop Road that accesses Schoodic Woods 

Campground. Arey Cove Road leads to Schoodic point, a windswept, rocky point providing 

spectacular views of Mount Desert Island.

Ranger-led and other education programs are also offered on the Schoodic Peninsula, often 

based out of the Schoodic Education and Research Center. These programs are generally 

located at Schoodic Woods Campground or the Schoodic Institute. The program runs from as 

early as 9:00 a.m. to as late as 9:00 p.m. 

VISITOR AND USER SAFETY

It is NPS policy to provide enjoyable and safe experiences at NPS sites. The saving of human life 

will take precedence over all other management actions as the National Park Service strives to 

protect human life and provide for injury-free visits. The National Park Service would do this 

within the constraints of the 1916 Organic Act and uses discretion to not impair park resources 

or values. While recognizing that there are limitations on its capability to totally eliminate all

hazards, the National Park Service and its concessioners, contractors, and cooperators would

seek to provide a safe and healthful environment for visitors. However, the National Park 

Service cannot and does not seek to control all risk inherent in recreational activities and;

therefore, park visitors must assume a substantial degree of risk and responsibility for their own 

safety when visiting areas that are managed and maintained as natural, cultural, or recreational 

environments (NPS Management Policies 2006 8.2.5.1). The National Park Service, as a matter of 

policy, may decide not to eliminate certain risks to protect park resources and visitor experience 

and to achieve its policy objectives. For example, it is a policy objective and part of the park’s 

mission to preserve the historic roadway system as a park resource, despite the fact that it may 

not fully meet modern highway safety standards for new road construction.

Some of the specific factors influencing transportation safety in Acadia National Park include 

increasing visitation, congestion that inhibits emergency response times, shared use of the 

roadway for vehicles and bicycles, and nontraditional and disorganized parking habits. Other 

factors that affect visitor safety in the corridor include traffic speeds, signs and markers that help 

orient visitors, and visitor behavior. Visitor behavior varies across individuals and can be 

dependent on an individual’s skills, abilities, and experience. These interrelated factors are 

discussed together in this section and in the analysis of visitor safety of the alternatives in 

chapter 4.

During public scoping for this plan, there were several comments specific to visitor safety. Many 

commenters were concerned that injuries and fatalities are imminent on park roads due to 

issues such as increased congestion in summer, distracted drivers/pedestrians, speeding cyclists 

and drivers, lack of adequate space for all roadway users, and the presence of over-sized 

vehicles. Commenters had particular safety concerns on Park Loop Road, the Ocean Drive 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

78

corridor, and Cadillac Summit Road. Commenters mentioned that pedestrians cross the roads 

unpredictably and load/unload in right lane parking areas, creating unsafe conditions for

themselves and drivers. In 2016, rangers documented 476 incidents of parking violations, which 

is indicative of the extent of overparking and overcrowding that occurs in the park.

Many commenters were concerned that large motor coaches and tour buses create unsafe 

conditions for their passengers, other motorists, and visitors pursuing human-powered 

recreation (transport) on narrow Cadillac Summit Road during the crowded summer season.

The park staff makes considerable efforts to provide safety information in easily accessible 

locations and formats. Safety information is available through interaction with park staff at 

visitor centers, at entrance gates, and along the road with patrols. Safety information is also 

available on the park website, in park brochures, at some trailheads, and waysides. However, 

there are multiple points of entry into the corridor, and visitors are sometimes unaware and 

unprepared for certain risks.

The speed limit for the majority of the road is 25 mph, although there are 35 mph sections. The 

road is narrow, ranging between approximately 16 to 22 feet in width. Some sections of the road 

are one-way, while others accommodate two-way traffic. Multiple types of traffic other than 

motor vehicles, including motor coaches, bicycles, and pedestrians use the road. In 2016, there 

were 155 speeding citations issued and 57 motor vehicle accidents in Acadia National Park. The 

one fatal crash in the park in 2016 was on Cadillac Summit Road and rangers documented that 

speed was a contributing factor.

Conflicts among visitors can pose both real and perceived safety problems such as those 

between vehicles and pedestrians, or between bicyclists and vehicles. Perceived safety refers to 

an individual’s subjective level of comfort and perception of risk without investigation of 

standards or safety history. Real safety refers to actual levels of risk based on safety history and 

standards.

The roadways have become a somewhat popular route for bicyclists to connect to multiuse 

pathways outside the park. However, some members of the public commented during public 

engagement efforts that they do not feel safe to pursue nonmotorized activities on Park Loop 

Road, the Ocean Drive corridor, and Cadillac Summit Road due to high levels of congestion 

during the summer. Specific issues mentioned include, but are not limited to, large numbers of 

moving and parked vehicles on paved roads, areas without crosswalks, drop-offs along road 

edges, lack of cycling lanes, and safe space for cyclists/walkers, distracted drivers, speeding 

vehicles and cyclists, vehicles passing too closely to cyclists, overflow/congestion near parking 

areas, and the presence of large motor coaches and tour buses on Cadillac Summit Road. In 

2016, the park documented 14 bicycle crashes and speed as a contributing factor in 10 of the 14 

crashes. 

SOCIOECONOMICS

Acadia National Park is prominent in the economy and identity of the coastal region of central 

Maine and the state as a whole. An economic contributions study in 2016 estimated that 

spending by local and nonlocal park visitors in 2015, across 2.8 million recreation visits, 

supported $305 million in economic output, 3,878 jobs, and $102 million in labor income across 

11 Maine counties (Cullinane Thomas and Koontz 2016). Figures in the corresponding report 

for spending in 2016 (the National Park Service centennial year, which saw 3.3 million visits) 
Socioeconomics

79

were $333 million in economic output, 4,195 jobs, and $111 million in labor income (Cullinane 

Thomas and Koontz 2017). Total estimated visitor spending in 2016 was $274 million (Cullinane 

Thomas and Koontz 2017). Transportation access to the park plays a key role in the visitor 

experience, and thereby affects visitor expenditures in the local and regional economies. Park 

visitation and transportation management also affect local residents and people who work on 

Mount Desert Island.

Socioeconomic Area of Consideration

Multiple geographic areas and scales of analysis are relevant to the socioeconomic environment 

for the transportation plan. Most of the information in this section focuses on eight 

communities overlapping or adjacent to the park, all in Hancock County. Referred to below as 

the “core towns,” these communities are most directly affected by transportation decisions for 

the park. This includes the towns on Mount Desert Island: Bar Harbor, Mount Desert, 

Southwest Harbor, and Tremont. Many of the actions under the management actions 

specifically affect transportation patterns on the island and could affect socioeconomic 

conditions in the Mount Desert Island communities. A second group of four towns, referred to 

below as the “mainland communities” either have land in Acadia National Park that is affected 

by the transportation plan (Winter Harbor and Gouldsboro) or are situated immediately north 

of Mount Desert Island (Trenton and Ellsworth) along Maine SR 3, the primary access route to 

Mount Desert Island and the park.

Previous NPS evaluations of the economic effects of Acadia National Park have used different 

study area definitions. For the economic contributions studies mentioned above, the National 

Park Service used an 11-county study area based on a generic, nationwide approach to study 

area definition (Cullinane Thomas and Koontz 2016). This area encompasses most of Maine’s 

16 counties. In 2015, the National Park Service also implemented a more Acadia-specific study 

area when it conducted a socioeconomic monitoring pilot study (Resource Systems Group 

2015). For that study, local park staff and NPS economics staff jointly defined a five-county 

study area (Koontz 2016), consisting of the following central Maine counties: Hancock, Knox, 

Penobscot, Waldo, and Washington. The material below variously refers to data for the core 

towns, the 5 counties listed above, the 11-county economic contributions area, or the entire 

state of Maine. Most data reflect the resident populations of the communities and conditions 

during the period from 2011 to 2015 based on data from the US Census Bureau’s Five-Year 

American Community Survey (Headwaters Economics 2017; US Census Bureau, 2016), except 

as noted.

Selected Social and Economic Characteristics

Education. Among the core towns, the percentage of persons with a bachelor’s degree or 

higher is very high (50.5%) for both Bar Harbor and Mount Desert, considerably higher for 

Southwest Harbor (38.9%) than the state rate (29.0%), similar to the state rate for Tremont and 

Ellsworth and considerably lower (21.4% to 25.9%) for Winter Harbor, Gouldsboro and 

Trenton. The overall pattern consists of high levels of education on Mount Desert Island and 

lower levels of education in the core towns on the mainland. 

Unemployment. The unemployment rate in Maine during the Great Recession peaked at 

8.1% in 2009 and remained at that rate in 2010. It decreased to 4.4% in 2015. Unemployment in 

the core towns varied considerably in 2010, from 6.8% in Mount Desert (the only town with a 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

80

lower rate than the state) to 15.6% in Gouldsboro, a spread of 8.8 percentage points. By 2015, 

unemployment rates had declined considerably in all the core towns although all had rates that 

exceeded the state rate of 4.4%. The spread in rates also shrank considerably; 2015 showed a 

spread of only 2.5 percentage points, from 5.1% in Mount Desert to 7.5% in Gouldsboro. The 

overall story told by these figures is that the Great Recession hit the job market hard in many of 

the core towns. All the towns had recovered reasonably well by 2015 but still faced 

unemployment rates above the state average. (Maine Center for Workforce Research and 

Information 2016).

Household Income. Among the core towns, median household income (MHI) in Mount 

Desert ($67,543) greatly exceeds the state MHI ($49,331). MHI is similar to the state figure in 

Trenton; slightly lower in Bar Harbor and Southwest Harbor; notably lower in Ellsworth, 

Gouldsboro, and Tremont; and considerably lower in Winter Harbor ($38,542). The overall 

pattern—with Trenton and Tremont as modest exceptions—is one of greater income on Mount 

Desert Island than in the mainland core towns.

Poverty. The poverty rate in the mainland core towns of Ellsworth, Gouldsboro, Trenton, and 

Winter Harbor is considerably higher than the state rate of 13.9%. Winter Harbor has the 

highest poverty rate, at 19.5%. The poverty rate in all four Mount Desert Island towns is below 

the state’s rate. The lowest rate is in Mount Desert, at 7.3%.

Households Receiving Food Assistance. Receipt of food assistance (officially known as the 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) is another indicator of economic distress. A 

considerably larger portion of Maine’s households receive food assistance than do households 

across the nation (17.1% versus 13.2%). As with the poverty rate, the rate of receipt of food 

assistance is higher for the mainland core towns than for the Mount Desert Island towns, 

although the rate exceeds the state rate only in Ellsworth (22.2%). The rate is very low in Bar 

Harbor (5.4%) and Mount Desert (3.8%).

Median Housing Value. This indicator for owner-occupied units varies dramatically across 

the core towns. Median housing value is lowest in Winter Harbor at $169,600, which is only 

slightly below the state median value of $173,800. The median values are somewhat higher in the 

other core towns on the mainland, ranging up to $197,500 in Trenton. On Mount Desert Island, 

median values are much higher. The lowest Mount Desert Island median value is in Tremont at 

$251,700. The highest is in Mount Desert at $391,800. 

The high MHI figures for the Mount Desert Island towns attest to the desirability of those 

communities as places to live and the reflection of that desirability in the real estate market. It is 

also notable that the MHI of the non-Mount Desert Island towns is similar to, and in several 

cases above, the statewide figure even though those towns mostly perform below the state on 

other social and economic indicators such as unemployment, poverty, and receipt of food 

stamps. It is likely that location on the coast and proximity to employment opportunities on 

Mount Desert Island elevate housing values in those communities compared to many others in 

the state. Some residents of those communities are able to afford those housing prices, while 

others are in greater economic distress.

Seasonal Housing. For the state, 16.8% of housing units are intended for seasonal or 

occasional occupancy. Among the core towns, the seasonal housing rate is lowest in Ellsworth 

(11.9%), which has only a small area abutting the ocean and is more of a commercial center than 
Socioeconomics

81

a seasonal destination. The seasonal housing rate is very high in Mount Desert (47.1%), 

matching its reputation as a community with a high summertime population due to second 

homes. The rate is also very high (47.4%) in Winter Harbor. The seasonal housing rate is quite 

high among most of the other core towns (up to 39.9% in Gouldsboro). After Ellsworth, it is 

lowest in Bar Harbor (22.6%), probably reflecting Bar Harbor’s relative strength as an 

employment center among the Mount Desert Island communities, which would lead to greater 

use of residences to house employees versus nonworking visitors.

Seasonality of Unemployment. Monthly unemployment rates provide information on the 

employment market in local economies, particularly in regions where seasonal tourism is a key 

economic driver. Data from the Maine Department of Labor (2017) shows that the 

unemployment rates for the counties and towns of the five-county study area improved steadily 

from 2013 through 2016, indicating recovery from the Great Recession. The data also shows that 

some counties and towns have highly seasonal unemployment rates and others do not. Among 

the eight core towns of the study area, Bar Harbor has a high degree of seasonality in 

unemployment. For instance, in 2015 the unemployment rate in Bar Harbor began at 13% in 

January, declined to well under 4% in August, and rose again to 8% in December (and 

subsequently, 10% in January 2016). Hancock County has a modest degree of seasonality in 

unemployment, and Penobscot County has very little seasonality in unemployment. The pattern 

for the other three counties of the study area fall in between the patterns for Penobscot and 

Hancock Counties. Southwest Harbor and Tremont have strong seasonality, with Mount Desert 

somewhat less so but more than for Hancock County. The unemployment pattern for Ellsworth 

is very similar to the pattern for Hancock County. The patterns for the other mainland towns of 

Trenton, Gouldsboro. and Winter Harbor are roughly similar to that of Hancock County and 

Ellsworth.

Seasonality of unemployment has multiple socioeconomic implications. Clearly, when the 

unemployment rate is lower, more residents have income, which benefits them personally and 

benefits the local economy. Also, as the unemployment rate for community residents declines, 

and particularly when it reaches low levels (certainly when below 5%), it is likely that businesses 

are hiring significant numbers of nonresidents. This results in commuting, which can affect 

traffic and other quality of life considerations.

Commuting. Multiple factors affect commuting in the region and specifically commuting on 

and off Mount Desert Island. These include traffic created by park visitation; the availability of 

jobs on and off the island; and how wages, the availability of housing and the cost of living affect 

the ability of workers to live on Mount Desert Island or nearby. Commuting patterns are 

directly relevant to transportation planning for Acadia National Park because traffic generated 

by visitation directly affects many commuters, as discussed below.

Data from the US Census Bureau shows that in 2014, 2,103 workers lived and worked on Mount 

Desert Island, 3,133 workers commuted to Mount Desert Island I for a job and 1,411 workers 

lived on Mount Desert Island but commuted off-island for a job. The sum of the first two 

categories, 5,236, was the total number of jobs on Mount Desert Island in the first and second 

quarters of calendar year 2014. More than twice as many workers commuted to Mount Desert 

Island as commuted off, and roughly 1,000 more workers commuted to Mount Desert Island

than the sum of those who lived and worked on Mount Desert Island or lived there but 

commuted off-island (US Census Bureau 2017).
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

82

The data also shows that some off-island workers travelled great distances to jobs on Mount 

Desert Island. Nearly 12% of workers (600 people) on Mount Desert Island commuted over 50 

miles to work, and nearly 25% (1,332 people) commuted over 25 miles. 

The data reported above is consistent with information gained during interviews with 

community and business leaders as part of the research for this socioeconomics section. Park 

managers selected 12 individuals in leadership positions in business, local government, and 

nonprofit organizations on Mount Desert Island or the Schoodic Peninsula or with strong 

interests in Acadia National Park transportation-related matters. Interviews took place by 

phone during September 2016.4 Executives of two major employers on Mount Desert Island

(Jackson Laboratory and Mount Desert Island Hospital), each stated that about 55% of their 

employees live off-island and commute to Mount Desert Island to work (Interviews 2016). A 

major Mount Desert Island hotel employer reported that approximately 30% of his employees 

live on-island and the remaining portion commutes and that most seasonal workers commute 

from off-island (Interview 2016). The town manager of an Mount Desert Island community 

stated that a majority of the town’s 42 full-time year-round employees live off-island (Interview 

2016). However, most of the employees of a local retail and rental shop live on Mount Desert 

Island. Many of these employees are high school students who live on-island or are students at 

the College of the Atlantic (Interview 2016).

Retail Sector Taxable Sales. Taxable sales data shows the relative importance of certain 

retail sectors, seasonality across economic sectors, and growth in sectors over time. This analysis 

reviewed monthly taxable sales data from 2004 through 2016 from the Maine Office of Policy 

and Management (2017) and Maine Revenue Services (2017) for two Economic Summary Areas 

(ESAs). The Bar Harbor ESA consists of Mount Desert Island (all four core towns) and some 

surrounding islands. The Ellsworth ESA consists of most of the towns and villages of Hancock 

County, excepting those located within the Bar Harbor ESA and those in the southwest portion 

of the county around Penobscot Bay (e.g., Penobscot, Castine, Isle Au Haut). The Ellsworth ESA

includes all four of the mainland core towns.

The data shows that taxable retail sales for the Bar Harbor ESA are greatest in the lodging and 

restaurant sectors. Further, these sectors show extreme seasonality; their sales rise sharply 

beginning in May, peak in July and August and decline but remain higher than sales in other 

sectors in September and October. In November through April, sales in these two sectors are 

exceeded by sales in several other sectors such as food stores and building supply. The other 

retail sector has the third-highest summertime peak for taxable sales. This sector includes 

jewelry stores, gift shops, book stores, antique shops, and many other types of stores frequented 

by tourists. The data shows another notable pattern: peak month taxable sales for both the 

lodging and restaurant sectors in the Bar Harbor ESA have increased steadily from 2004 through 

2016. Peak month sales for most other sectors have seen little change over this period. (Maine 

Office of Policy and Management 2017; Maine Revenue Services 2017).

The patterns of taxable retail sales in the Ellsworth ESA are very different. In stark contrast to 

the Bar Harbor ESA, sales for the lodging sector are among the lowest across the retail sectors. 

 

4 The National Park Service has filed the details of the interviews in the administrative record for development of the transportation plan.
Socioeconomics

83

Sales for the restaurant and other retail sectors are somewhat higher, but generally less than 

sales for food stores, building supply, and the top two sectors—general merchandise and auto 

transportation. Almost all sectors exhibit significant seasonality, though less than in the Bar 

Harbor ESA. with lower sales in winter months and higher sales in summer months. In this ESA, 

some of this seasonality is probably attributable to purchases by tourists and seasonal residents 

(e.g., particularly for lodging and restaurants), while some is probably attributable to general 

seasonal purchasing patterns of residents (e.g., especially for automobiles and building supplies). 

It is also notable that for the Ellsworth ESA, most sectors do not show a clear trend from yearto-year, with the exception of a slight upward trend for general merchandise and for auto 

transportation (Maine Office of Policy and Management 2017; Maine Revenue Services 2017).

Park Visitation and Its Economic Effects

Acadia National Park figures prominently in tourism in Maine. According to 2015 visitor 

tracking research for the Maine Office of Tourism, the park is the most frequently visited site in 

the Downeast and Acadia tourism region, which consists of Hancock and Washington Counties 

(DPA 2016).

Park Visitation. In particular, the expenditures made by park visitors—drives the economic 

effects of Acadia National Park on the economies of Mount Desert Island, the surrounding 

communities, the region and the state. The more visitors or the more they spend per visit, the

greater the economic effects. The numbers of visitors also affect local communities in many 

other ways, ranging from traffic congestion and its impacts on commuting patterns and the 

ability of local residents to move around Mount Desert Island, to the peak season and offseason sense of place experienced by local residents, to long-term impacts on the local economy 

and social systems as more and more visitors come to the region and some seek seasonal 

residences or permanent homes. 

Visitation Trends and Patterns. The “Visitor Use and Experience” section of the “Affected 

Environment” chapter discusses park visitation in detail. Figure 8 in that section shows that 

visitation trended downward from 1995 to 2005, began increasing after 2005, and has gone up 

dramatically since 2013. Figure 9 in that section shows a six-year average of visitation in each 

month of the period from 2011–2016. Peak visitation occurs in July and August. June, 

September, and October are also busy months. Visitation drops to low levels in November and 

remains low through the winter. It begins to increase in April and more so in May. According to 

park staff and multiple community leaders interviewed for this report, the levels of visitation in 

September and October are a relatively recent phenomenon. Some of the increase in September 

and October is due to higher numbers of cruise ships visiting Bar Harbor, a topic discussed 

below.

Economic Effects of Acadia National Park Visitation. An NPS annual report series 

estimates the economic effects of visitation to Acadia National Park. The most recent report 

addresses the economic effects for 2016 (Cullinane Thomas and Koontz 2017). Figure 19 shows 

the relative shares of visitor spending across the directly affected sectors of the local economy 

(NPS 2017).

The total economic effects of the park include the secondary effects that occur as the direct 

visitor spending shown above flows through the local (11-county) economy (NPS 2017). 

Secondary effects comprise a substantial portion of the total economic effects—numerically 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

84

between 21.8% for jobs and 33.1% for economic output (NPS 2017). The total economic effects 

from Acadia National Park visitation include (NPS 2017): 

 4,195 jobs

 $111.1 million in labor income

 $188.3 million in value added

 $332.8 million in economic output

FIGURE 19. RELATIVE SHARES OF PARK VISITOR SPENDING IN THE LOCAL ECONOMY, 2016

Direct spending and resulting economic effects for the transportation sector are particularly 

relevant to the transportation planning effort. In 2016, $29.1 million in direct spending occurred 

in the transportation sector supporting 175 direct jobs and $5.5 million in direct labor income 

(NPS 2017). 

Park visitation also generates state government revenues through sales and lodging taxes (Maine 

does not have local sales or lodging taxes). Visitation also supports property values and property 

tax revenues by bolstering the local economy and exposing potential real estate buyers to the 

local area. Local governments collect property taxes. Many additional factors affect property 

values in the core towns and transportation plan decisions are unlikely to affect those values.

Cruise Ship Visitation and Its Economic Effects. Visitation by cruise ship passengers 

receives considerable attention in the local communities, in part due to its positive economic 

effects (particularly in the fall), and also because it has created some negative effects on the 

communities. Cruise ship visits and passenger counts for Bar Harbor have grown substantially 
Socioeconomics

85

over the last two decades. The annual count of passengers arriving in Bar Harbor was less than 

40,000 in 2000. The peak passenger count occurred in 2011, at nearly 180,000 passengers.

Cruise ship visitation is a relatively small portion of total visitation to the park. A 2016 study 

estimated that 138,285 cruise ship passengers “set foot” in Bar Harbor in 2016. It also 

determined, via survey responses, that 60% of these disembarking passengers visited the park 

(Gabe et al. 2017). Thus, an estimated 82,971 cruise ship passengers visited the park, 

representing 2.5% of the total 3,303,393 visits to the park. Virtually all cruise ship passenger 

visits to the park occur on commercial transportation. Thus, cruise ship passengers and the 

commercial operators who cater to them may be affected by the transportation plan.

Cruise ships and visitors come mainly in the fall months (September and October), as shown in 

figure 20, which compares the number of cruise ship visits by month in 2002 and 2015. Most of 

the growth in visits from 2002 to 2015 has been in September and October. In prior years, park 

visitation and the tourism economy of Mount Desert Island declined considerably in these 

months compared to the busy June to August season. These months are still less busy, but they 

now see substantial visitation. Cruise ship passengers represent a higher percentage of total park 

visitors in September and October (up to 8.4% in 2016).5 The extension of the tourism season, in 

part due to cruise ship landings, has provided a boost to many local businesses. 

Cruise ship visitors have disproportionate impacts on certain days. Cruise ships do not arrive 

every day, even in September and October, and passenger numbers vary considerably each day 

due to the number and size of ships. Busy days result in elevated economic contributions and 

increased challenges for park managers, other visitors, and local residents.

Many cruise ship passengers spend money in the local economy. Based on a survey of cruise 

ship passengers, Gabe et al. (2017) estimated that cruise ship passengers in 2016 generated $20.2 

million of spending in the local economy, which supported 379 jobs and $5.4 million in labor 

income received by employees and business proprietors. This amounts to a small but nontrivial 

portion (about 5%) of the economic effects of all park visitation. Spending by cruise ship 

passengers primarily benefits Bar Harbor, not other Mount Desert Island communities because 

most passengers mainly have opportunities to spend money while walking around Bar Harbor.

In addition, cruise ship visitation benefits some Bar Harbor businesses, such as gift shops and 

lunch restaurants, but does not benefit other sectors of the Bar Harbor economy very much. 

One economic sector that has clearly benefited from increases in cruise ship passenger visits is 

the commercial transportation industry. Bus, van, limousines, hail driving services, and taxi 

operators transport passengers to various points in the park, including Cadillac Mountain and 

other popular sites such as the Jordan Pond House and Thunder Hole. This extends the season 

for these companies and, for some, it supplements other charter tour business. It provides 

employment during the fall season to commercial drivers, tour guides, and others associated 

with the commercial transportation sector.

 

5 89,971 visits to the park by cruise ship passengers in 2016 divided by 982,850 total visits in September and October of 2016 equals 

8.4%. This percentage is a modest overestimate because some cruise ship passengers visit in other months.
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

86

FIGURE 20. SCHEDULED CRUISE SHIP VISITS TO BAR HARBOR, 2002 (LIGHT SHADE) VS. 2016 (DARK SHADE)

Source: Copied from Gabe et al. 2017, Figure 1.

Fare-Free Transit Operation (Island Explorer). The Island Explorer is a fare-free bus 

services that offers multiple routes through the Mount Desert Island portion of the park, some 

routes on Mount Desert Island that do not enter the park, and one route in the Schoodic 

Peninsula portion of the park. The system operates from June through October. A 2016 survey 

of cruise ship passengers showed that, of the passengers who visited Bar Harbor on days that the 

Island Explorer was running, 8% used the service. In addition, according to the survey authors, 

many survey respondents wrote in the margins of the survey form that they were unaware of the

fare-free bus service (Gabe et al. 2017). The “Visitor Use and Experience” section of the 

“Affected Environment” chapter describes other park visitors’ use of the Island Explorer

service. 

Commercial Transportation—Visitor Use and Business Models. Commercial

transportation services available at Acadia National Park include transportation companies that 

are operating under a commercial use authorization (CUA). These companies bring people to 

the park for tours and/or activity based experiences such as hiking, biking, nature tours, summer

camps, art/photography workshops, water activities, and rock climbing. The two current 

concession contracts provide tour services. Data for 2013 to 2016 show that all CUA holders for

bus and van services combined carry only a small fraction of the total visits to the park, even in 

September and October, the busiest months for these services. For instance, in October 2016, 

bus passengers (39,453) amounted to 11.5% of total visits to the park on Mount Desert Island
Socioeconomics

87

(344,490). In 2015, the percentage in October was the same. October consistently produces the 

highest percentage of visits occurring via CUA holders for buses and vans. The number for 

September is typically around 8%–9%, and in other months it is typically under 4%.

While visits occurring via buses, limousines, taxis, hail driving services, and vans constitute a 

small percentage of total visits, it is important to further consider trends in their use and the 

nature of these businesses. These businesses could be impacted directly by some actions under 

the transportation plan alternatives. 

Concessions. A concession contract is a binding written agreement that authorizes the 

concessioner to provide certain visitor services within a park area under specified terms and 

conditions, granted after a competitive solicitation process. The National Park Service has 

concessions contracts with two tour operators (trolley and bus): Oli’s Trolley and Acadia 

National Park Tours. Both operate scheduled tours during the main tourism season of May to 

October. The tours include narration by a qualified guide, typically include a visit to the top of 

Cadillac Mountain and may include stops at additional key attractions, depending on the length 

of the tour. Tours range from 1 to 4 hours in length and cost up to $55 per adult. These 

companies are listed on Acadia National Park’s website as tour providers. 

Both concession companies offer additional services. These include private charters in the park 

for corporate events and for weddings and other private events, rental of buses for 

transportation to other locations and step-on guides (providing qualified guides to accompany 

groups on vehicles owned by others). These services augment the income of these companies, 

but the publicly offered scheduled tours are the core of the business models of both 

concessioners.

Commercial Use Authorizations. A commercial use authorization is the legal instrument for 

park-approved business entities including nonprofit organizations to operate in the park. The 

NPS issues authorizations for commercial operations in the park not covered by a concessions 

contract. Each year, multiple bus, vans, limousines, hail driving services, and taxi companies

apply for and receive commercial use authorizations. There were 25 bus, vans, limousines, hail 

driving services, and taxi commercial use authorizations in 2003. This number first exceeded

100 (specifically, 106) in 2012. There were 132 bus, vans, limousines, hail driving services, and 

taxi CUAs in 2015 and 162 in 2016. These represented over 2,000 trips into the park by 

authorized bus, vans, limousines, and taxis between July and October of 2016.

Some of the CUA holders are based locally (in the eight core towns). Most are based in other 

parts of Maine or in other states because a major use of commercial use authorizations is by 

motor coach companies that offer tours originating outside the local area and feature Acadia 

National Park as one of the tour’s attractions. However, the motor coach companies that use the 

park the most are based in Maine.

Motor coaches are large buses, typically 40 to 45 feet in length and capable of carrying 50 or 

more passengers. They typically include onboard restrooms and are designed for passenger 

comfort over long distances. These large buses are also used by some companies for short tours 

in the park, particularly for carrying cruise ship passengers on shore excursions to the park, 

usually including the top of Cadillac Mountain as a destination. Cruise ship companies and 

shore excursion companies often hire motor coach companies to carry passengers on the 

excursions. In addition to several large companies that provide this service, many smaller 

companies provide transportation for excursions and other tours, as shown by CUA numbers.
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

88

Passenger costs for road-based commercial tours vary considerably, depending on the length 

and type of use. For instance, according to a 2016 survey, the average cost of an excursion (most 

of which would involve some form of commercial transportation) was $75 per person (Gabe et 

al. 2017). Shore excursion passenger revenues may be split between multiple parties, including 

the cruise line, the motor coach company, an excursion broker in some cases, a tour guide, and 

any food or other vendors if applicable. At the other end of the motor coach cost spectrum, 

multiday tours that include Acadia National Park can cost many hundreds to thousands of 

dollars per passenger. As of August 2017, six-day fall foliage tours from Boston up the Maine 

coast to Bar Harbor were available online for a base price of $565 per person, double occupancy 

(Tours4Fun 2017), and a more deluxe eight-night fall foliage circle tour of New England from 

Boston was advertised online starting at $2,169 (Signature Travel 2017). These revenues are also 

distributed across multiple parties, including the motor coach company, hotels, featured 

attractions, sometimes a broker, and potentially others. For all the examples noted above, only a 

portion of the revenue (the percentage varies considerably) accrues to businesses in the eight 

core towns, the five-county study area, or the State of Maine.

Information from an interview with the president of one of the larger motor coach companies 

provides an example of how a large CUA operator benefits from and uses Acadia National Park. 

The company provides charter tours that originate outside of, but include, the park, as well as 

chartered shore excursions for cruise ship passengers. Cruise ship shore excursions are its 

largest segment, and therefore, the fall season when most of the cruise ships arrive is its busiest 

time. During most other months, the company has other business, although December and 

January are very slow. The company has approximately 50 bus drivers, about 20 of whom are 

full-time or full-time equivalent (part-time drivers who work full-time hours during busy parts 

of the year). The company maintains two garages in Maine, both off of Mount Desert Island. In 

addition, some drivers keep buses at home, mainly when working for a few days in a row—they 

bring the bus back to a garage after their last shift of that week. Drivers make “good money” 

doing cruise charters. The company has many additional employees: mechanics, dispatchers, 

driver trainers, bus cleaners, and administrative staff. None of its drivers or other employees are 

based on Mount Desert Island, but the company subcontracts a few tour guides who are based 

there. It uses those guides for chartered, noncruise tours; the cruise companies provide or 

contract their own guides for excursions (Interview 2016).

According to the interviewed CUA operator, motor coach companies face a challenge under 

current transportation policies because of several “choke points” in the park due to traffic and 

limited parking spaces for motor coaches; these include: Thunder Hole, Jordan Pond House,

and Cadillac Mountain. Both short-haul (e.g., shore excursion) charter buses and long-distance 

tour buses must share a few designated motor coach parking spots, which are separate from the 

spaces reserved for the two concessioners (trolley and bus). If no spaces are available, for 

instance at Thunder Hole, a driver may have to drive by and not let customers off, which is 

unfavorable for business because guests’ experiences are diminished. Many of the charter 

companies coordinate with each other and with park staff to try to deconflict schedules, but this 

problem does occur at times. The interviewee stated that the companies doing shore excursions 

are generally good about staying on time because cruise ships are on tight schedules; problems 

tend to occur because the arrival of long-distance tour buses is somewhat less predictable. The 

interviewee stated that motor coach operators feel that motor coaches are shunned by some 

members of the public who believe they are big and noisy, but because they carry large numbers 

of passengers, they help reduce the number of vehicles on the road (Interview 2016).
Socioeconomics

89

In addition to or instead of motor coach services, some CUA operators offer entry to the park 

using small buses (typically 25 to 30 feet in length and holding up to 24 passengers) or vans 

(typically holding up to 14 passengers). These services may also include tour guides.

The National Park Service tracks numbers of commercial motor coaches, small buses, and vans 

that enter the Mount Desert Island portion of the park. The two concessioners (Oli’s Trolley 

and National Park Tours) must report their exact number of passengers. For buses and vans

with CUAs, the National Park Service estimates the number of passengers by multiplying the 

number of vehicles by 45 for commercial motor coaches, by 18 for small buses, and by 10 for 

vans. The data for 2013–2016 shows the following trends in the number of passengers and 

vehicles by type that entered the park:

 Vehicle and passenger counts for CUA holders of small buses were low across all four 

years and showed little seasonality. 

 Peak vehicle and passenger counts for CUA holders of motor coaches decreased from 

2013–2015, but increased in 2016 to roughly 2013 levels. 

 Passenger counts for the concession operators, Oli’s Trolley and National Park Tours,

were similar in monthly distribution for the three years from 2014–2016. 

 The passenger and vehicle counts for CUA holders of motor coaches and for CUA

holders of vans were highly skewed toward September and October, showing the 

importance of autumn visitation to those operators. 

 The passenger and vehicle counts for Oli’s Trolley and National Park Tours show that 

they obtained a more even proportion of their business across a longer period—June 

through October. 

 The numbers of CUA holders for vans increased from 2013–2015 in most months

compared to the same month in the previous year, especially in September and October. 

Beginning in 2014, the number of CUA vans per month became skewed toward 

September and October.

 The number of CUA holders for van passengers has increased across the four years from 

2013–2016. 

While the numbers of vehicles and passengers are clearly largest for motor coaches, those 

numbers have not grown since 2013, while vehicle counts and passengers for vans have grown. 

Some CUA holders see business opportunities in increasing the use of small buses and vans. For 

instance, one company based in Bar Harbor has purchased two small buses and six vans since 

2014. The vehicles purchased are configured for comfort—they have four comfortable seats per 

row, two on each side of an aisle of stand-up height, large viewing windows, and a quality 

speaker system. In the case of the vans, the driver is not required to have a commercial driver’s 

license because the capacity is limited to 14 passengers. Thus, the driver can also be the guide, 

speaking to the clients via a headset and speaker system (Interview 2017).

Park Visitation, Transportation, and Local Quality of Life

Interviews conducted for the socioeconomics section revealed three general areas of quality of 

life concerns related to the numbers of park visitors and how visitors are managed in the park 

and in the surrounding communities. These concerns involve people, cars, and buses. The views 

expressed in the interviews were generally, but not entirely, consistent. Diverse views are noted 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

90

below where applicable. These issues are not solely due to park visitation—not all visitors to the 

local area come to visit the park, and many split their visits between the park and other 

attractions. 

People. For some locals, the sheer number of people on Mount Desert Island is sometimes a 

concern, apart from concerns about vehicles. Restaurants can be crowded, requiring locals to 

make reservations (which at one time were rarely needed) or to allow more time to get a table. 

The number of people on the sidewalks and in the park in Bar Harbor is seen as undesirable at 

times. Some locals say that cruise ship passengers are the source of crowding issues. Others note 

that more people are in Bar Harbor on an average noncruise day in July or August than ever 

arrive by ship. They say the problem is one of perception: all the cruise ship visitors enter at the 

same place and the same time, amplifying the perception of impact, while other visitors may be 

as or more numerous but enter at different times and places. Moreover, they point out that more 

visitors come to Mount Desert Island by car than any other way (Interviews 2016).

Cars. A related problem, given the arrival of visitors by car, is parking. Locals say that Bar 

Harbor lacks adequate parking (Interviews 2016). The Town of Bar Harbor has studied parking 

adequacy and considered development of a parking garage (Bermello Ajamil & Partners, Inc. 

and Desman Associates 2014). According to the interviews, locals and visitors alike often have to 

circle around many times to find parking in town, and people also park illegally and in 

nontraditional parking areas. In Bar Harbor, Mount Desert Island Hospital purchased two 

motels, mainly for office space but also to access and create parking for its operations. Parking 

has become an issue elsewhere as well, including Winter Harbor on the Schoodic Peninsula 

(Interviews 2016).

Parking is also a concern outside the villages. Roadside parking in the park is common and is a 

safety concern: “People are driving 60 mph with people parking for a mile and half stretch, both 

sides, unloading bicycles and taking photos. Not just on the loop road, but on the public road 

traversing the park, the Eagle Lake Road.” This is dangerous for visitors who are parking or 

driving and for locals who use these roads. Locals say that more and more people are coming by 

car and this is causing traffic jams and stresses on parking. (Interviews 2016).

According to the interviews, traffic problems also create difficulties in commuting on and off 

Mount Desert Island. Several thousand people commute to Mount Desert Island for year-round 

jobs, and many more seasonal workers commute to the island as well. Managers of major 

businesses and institutions such as Mount Desert Island Hospital, Jackson Laboratory, local 

hotels, and town governments are particularly concerned about commute times because the 

majority of their employees live off-island. This impacts their employees and sometimes their 

businesses. As one manager said, “Fifteen minutes of extra commute time times twice a day, five 

days a week, adds up. It is an economic cost—it is time they aren’t with their families, late for 

work, etc. It is not inconsequential” (Interviews 2016).

Locals report that the Trenton bridge is a particular choke point for commuter traffic, because it 

is the only road on and off the island. Park visitors arriving on Mount Desert Island by car add 

to the congestion issues faced by commuters at the bridge and on other main routes on the 

island. According to one local leader, “From 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., no local tries to leave the 

island. Locals pick and choose their times.” For some businesses, Trenton bridge congestion is 

also a business operations concern. For instance, congestion sometimes delays Jackson 

Laboratory in making shipments of biomedical research mice, a major product of the lab. Traffic 

problems also extend beyond the Trenton bridge, impacting Ellsworth at times. All visitors and 
Socioeconomics

91

commuters going to or from Mount Desert Island via the two major roads in the region (SR 1 

and 1A) go through Ellsworth (Interviews 2016).

The net result of pedestrian and vehicle congestion for Mount Desert Island residents includes 

both a level of acceptance and some changes in behaviors. Interviewees for this report had these 

and other observations (Interviews 2016).

 “The people who run the businesses in town ... they tend to be our neighbors, friends, 

and rely on tourism. So most of us look at the traffic and see a good thing because it 

comes with some positive impacts to the community.”

 “Some locals leave for summer. Some don’t go out at all when there are a lot of visitors 

and some have difficulty using and traversing the park.”

 “There are times when the locals avoid downtown because the cruise ships are there and 

this has resulted in some divisiveness in the community.”

 “It is very different in the summer than it is in the winter. July, August, and half of 

September is primary visitation season. Everything is crowded and congested and then 

everything goes away and settles in for winter. For example, a lot of people from my 

community, including myself, don’t go to Bar Harbor, like to the supermarket there, 

during the summer months, we wait until the winter. It impacts your consumption and 

travel patterns in the summer.”

 “Most locals stay out of the park during tourist season. If you are a local, you would only 

hike or bike to Cadillac Mountain, not drive.”

Buses. Community views regarding the use of buses to move park visitors are mixed. According 

to the interviewees, some community members believe that buses help reduce the number of 

cars. But there are concerns that buses serving cruise ships add to congestion in downtown Bar 

Harbor as they pick up and drop off passengers. In addition, some locals are concerned about 

safety issues around buses in the park. Said one, “The big tour buses are a real struggle because 

the roads are so narrow and not designed for those types of vehicles, and they are blazing 

through to keep up with their schedules and hit the bullets—Thunder Hole, Jordan Pond 

House. It gets intense at times.” This is a concern for locals who drive through the park and for 

some businesses, such as bicycle shops, whose customers may be affected (Interviews 2016).
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

92

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
93

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the potential environmental consequences of implementing the 

alternatives being analyzed in this environmental impact statement. It is organized by resource 

topic and provides a comparison among alternatives based on issues and topics discussed in 

chapter 1 (i.e., visitor use and experience, visitor and user safety, historic motor roads, cultural 

landscapes, and socioeconomics) and further described in chapter 3. In accordance with CEQ

regulations, direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts are described and the impacts are assessed 

in terms of context, intensity, and duration (40 CFR 1502.16). This analysis is based on the 

assumption that the mitigation measures—actions taken to lessen the severity and probability of 

a potential impact—would be implemented for all of the alternatives. 

Unless otherwise noted, the geographic analysis area for all of the impact topics is the park 

boundary. When the impact analysis refers to duration, unless otherwise specified, a short-term 

impact corresponds to the period associated with the completion of construction, anticipated to

last two to three construction seasons. A long-term impact would be an effect that extends 

beyond the construction period—more than several years.

SUSTAINABILITY AND LONG TERM MANAGEMENT

For each alternative evaluated in an environmental impact statement, the National Park Service 

must consider the following: (a) any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided 

should the proposal be implemented; (b) the relationship between short-term uses of the human 

environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; and (c) any 

irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved in the proposal 

should it be implemented.

This first consideration (a) is discussed where applicable in each of the impact analyses 

contained in this chapter. 

The second consideration (b) explores long-term effects of an alternative and whether the 

productivity of park resources is being traded for the immediate use of land. All of the action 

alternatives are designed to provide enjoyment of park resources in a manner that leaves them 

unimpaired for future generations. Therefore, the actions in this plan do not compromise the 

productivity of park resources in the long term.

The third consideration requires that the National Park Service consider whether the effects of 

the alternatives are irreversible or represent irretrievable commitments of resources. Irreversible 

impacts are those effects that cannot be changed over the long term or are permanent. 

Irretrievable commitments are those resources that, once gone, cannot be replaced. All of the 

action alternatives propose some level of change to the park’s natural and cultural resources;

however, none of these changes are irreversible and therefore neither are the effects. 

In addition to the consideration above, the National Park Service is also required to consider (a) 

possible conflicts between the proposed action and the objectives of federal, regional, state, and 

local (and in the case of a reservation, tribal) land use plans, policies, and controls for the area 

concerned (1506.2(d)); (b) energy requirements and conservation potential of various 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

94

alternatives and mitigation measures; and (c) natural or depletable resource requirements and 

conservation potential of various alternatives and mitigation measures.

In regard to (a), no known federal, regional, state, and local (and in the case of a reservation, 

tribal) land use plans, or policies are in conflict with the actions proposed in the alternatives.

In regard to (b), the alternatives would largely reduce traffic and congestion in addition to 

improving the operation and energy requirements of park facilities. 

In regard to (c), petroleum is an example of a depletable resource that would be required for the 

alternatives. Under all the action alternatives, the construction of new facilities including 

structures and parking areas would require heavy equipment. Petroleum products (e.g., 

gasoline, oil) would be needed to operate this equipment. Implementation of these alternatives 

would therefore consume depletable resources.

ANALYZING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Cumulative impacts are defined as “the impact on the environment which results from the 

incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such 

other actions” (40 CFR 1508.7). Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but 

collectively significant, actions taking place over a period of time.

To determine potential cumulative impacts, past, present, and foreseeable future actions were 

identified in the park. Cumulative impacts are considered for all alternatives, including the noaction alternative, by combining the impacts of the alternative being considered with other 

ongoing, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and are presented at the end of each 

impact topic discussion. Table 6 illustrates the projects considered in the cumulative impact 

analysis for each resource.

HISTORIC MOTOR ROAD

Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts

The impacts on the historic Park Loop Road are described in terms of the potential to diminish 

or protect the integrity and/or character-defining qualities that contribute to their NRHP 

eligibility. The impact analysis was primarily qualitative in nature based on the knowledge and 

best professional judgment of planners, resource specialists, data from park records, and studies 

of similar actions and impacts as applicable.
Historic Motor Road

95

TABLE 6. PAST, CURRENT, AND FUTURE ACTIONS USED IN ANALYSIS OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Project Project Description Impact Topics

The Jackson 

Laboratory 10-Year 

Management Plan 

(Campus Zoning 

Plan) 

The Campus Zoning Plan aims to develop a true campus setting for 

Bar Harbor Campus by moving JAX Mice, Clinical & Research 

Services to Ellsworth, Maine. The zoning plan is projected to be 

completed over a 10-year period, with the intention of having 50% 

growth in research space, 100% growth in research animal facility 

space, and migration from outdated RAF rooms to modern and 

flexible/readily convertible facilities. Wood-frame buildings and 

trailers would be eliminated. The campus setting is meant to 

improve pedestrian safety, maintain and improve landscape and 

scenic views along SR 3 and Schooner Head Road streetscapes and 

provide a visitor entrance that is welcoming and informative of JAX 

history, discoveries, and current initiatives. Part of the actions 

associated with this plan are to replace some of the current 

functions with a conference center and to expand parking to 

accommodate this use.

Visitor Use and 

Experience, Historic 

Motor Road

Maine Office of 

Tourism Strategic 

Plan

The purpose of the five-year strategic plan is to strengthen tourism 

and recreation in Maine by expanding resources, capitalizing on 

changing consumer needs and buying trends, and educating 

residents and state business leaders about the economic benefits of 

tourism. The main objective of the plan is to increase direct tourism 

expenditures to $6 billion in 2019. Other goals include increasing 

business-related visitation by 2 million visitors, increase first-time 

visitors by 500,000, and grow off-season visitation by 1% each 

year. By meeting these goals, the state’s economy would be 

strengthened through incremental revenue, increased taxes, new 

jobs, etc. The strategic plan would be flexible and dynamic in order 

to meet any unforeseen changes within the five-year period.

Socioeconomics

Visitor Use Experience, 

and the Historic Motor 

Road and Cultural 

Landscapes

Bold Coast Bike Tour 

Route

The Bold Coast Scenic Bikeway is a 300-mile bicycle route that 

winds through 30 communities from the Schoodic Peninsula to 

Eastport and connects to Calais and the Canadian Maritimes via the 

East Coast Greenway and US Bicycle Route 1. Once completed in 

summer 2018, the Scenic Bikeway will be permanently signed with 

interactive online maps, downloadable trip digests, and a 

comprehensive website connecting bicyclists with all the services 

they need to complete this route.

Visitor Use and 

Experience

The cultural resources impact analysis primarily includes discussion of the following:

 To what extent would the historic character of the Park Loop Road be affected by the 

proposed project alternatives? How would the proposed alternatives affect the qualities 

for which the road was determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places?

 To what extent would significant historic resources be affected by modern infrastructure 

additions or modifications necessary to implement the alternatives?

Historic resources are irreplaceable and nonrenewable. Therefore, most direct impacts that 

affect the physical attributes and character-defining features of the road may be considered 

permanent impacts due to their nonrenewable aspects. Impacts on nonhistoric features of the 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

96

road that could be considered reversible may be considered temporary in nature if the intent is 

to ultimately reverse the impact.

Alternative A (No Action). Under alternative A, with no major changes in management of

the park, the historic fabric and unique character-defining features of the Park Loop Road

would continue to be protected via regular maintenance following the guidance provided in the

park’s general management plan and Acadia’s mission statement for the historic road system.

When repairs are necessary, the park would aspire to replace historic features in kind and while

retaining and protecting the extant historic resources would discourage the addition of new

features or techniques. The park would continue to follow the existing preservation guidelines

laid out in the cultural landscape report for the historic Park Loop Road in reference to road

surfacing and striping, maintenance of pullouts and parking lots, parking management stones,

access gates, and signage. Under existing management, the road would maintain its fundamental

purpose for sightseeing and recreational driving.. Current efforts to rehabilitate and maintain 

the scenic roadside vistas would continue as described in the park’s vista management plan. The 

park would continue to communicate needs and work with neighbors and partners to protect 

views and reduce negative scenic impacts along approaches from gateway communities, 

adjacent and internal designated scenic byways, and at neighboring properties.

Under the no-action alternative, the physical condition of the Park Loop Road can be expected

to deteriorate at an increased pace as visitation and congestion issues continue to increase. Road

shoulders are particularly vulnerable because of continued use of right lane parking (as wheels

almost always leave the pavement to park), and because large vehicles unable to navigate historic

road geometry would continue to drive on shoulders at curves, particularly on Cadillac Summit

Road. The potential for collisions between historic bridge fabric and large vehicles that do not

fit safely under them would increase. With increased congestion, more instances of shoulder

parking and the associated damage to the historic fabric of the road would continue and

increase. Increased traffic on the roads would continue to impact the historic character of the

road by obscuring viewscapes, as would continued parking in the right lane.

Over time, because of overcrowding, historic pullouts along the road intended for brief stops for

vista viewing have been converted to long-term parking. This historic character-diminishing

impact would continue and possibly increase. Minor modifications and expansions to parking

lots, as well as right lane parking and shoulder parking, could be expected to proliferate as

responses to ever-increasing visitation. These adjustments to parking options change places

where visitors congregate, which leads to changes in the routes and locations of trailheads on

historic trails (both via social trailing to access the trails and purposeful park management to

adjust trailheads to new parking realities), which damages their historic character and landscape

design.

Under the no-action alternative, oversize commercial vehicles and vehicles with trailers would

continue to use all of the historic roads. These oversized vehicles represent a threat to the

physical historic characteristics of the Park Loop Road due to their size, as they damage historic

shoulders on tight turns and have been involved with collisions with historic bridges. Oversized

vehicles also damage the historic character of the roads by blocking viewsheds when parked

alongside the road and at designed vistas. They also block viewsheds while in motion and can

cause historic character diminishing congestion when they must utilize two lanes of traffic to

navigate sharp turns.
Historic Motor Road

97

Ongoing incremental park management decisions taken to mitigate traffic problems and safety

concerns associated with congestion, which would continue to occur under the no-action

alternative, cause a permanent long-term adverse impacts on the physical integrity and character

of the historic roads. These actions include the placement of parking management stones that

are not part of the historic landscape design and obscure views of designed and intended

landscape vistas; the establishment of additional modern signage for controlling traffic and

modified lane striping, both of which introduce modern features that dilute and degrade the

historic scene; and the expansion and management of right lane parking, a parking situation that

was not a part of the historic design of the road and obscures historic vistas, and damages the

historic circulation design of the road.

Common to All Action Alternatives— Some actions to improve the quality of the 

transportation system and experience within Acadia are the same for the action alternatives B, 

C, and D. To avoid repeating them in the description of each alternative, the impacts of these 

“common” actions are discussed here. When evaluating the individual alternatives in the Final 

Acadia National Park Transportation Plan / Environmental Impact Statement, readers should 

include the material in this section because it describes impacts associated with the entire plan 

and is an integral part of each action alternative. 

All of the action alternatives include provisions that establish size restrictions on vehicles that 

travel on portions of the Park Loop Road that were designed with road geometries incompatible 

with some modern large vehicles. Limiting the size of vehicles using the road would be a 

beneficial impact on the historic Park Loop Road. Incompatibly sized vehicles threaten and 

cause damage to the historic fabric of the roads when they cannot navigate turns within the 

available lane space and off track, causing damage to historic shoulders. Oversized vehicles also 

threaten, and occasionally cause, damage to historic bridges when they collide with low 

structures. In addition, requiring all motor vehicles, including commercial vehicles, to fit the 

road geometries would result in smaller tour buses on some segments of Park Loop Road. The 

Park Loop Road was not designed for modern oversize vehicles, which block historic vistas, 

diminish the character of the Loop Road, and can cause damage to historic shoulders and 

bridges. Smaller buses would improve vista viewing and result in fewer visitors flooding historic 

scenes at one time, also an improvement to the historic scene. Under all of the action 

alternatives, park management would encourage the expansion of the Island Explorer public 

transit system, with the goal of reducing the number of vehicles on the road, a long-term positive 

improvement to Park Loop Road’s historic character.

Alternative B. Under alternative B, a parking reservation system would be established for the 

five largest lots associated with the historic Park Loop Road during the peak visitor season. The 

lots under a parking reservation would include those at the summit of Cadillac Mountain, 

Jordan Pond House, Thunder Hole, Sand Beach, and Sieur de Monts. Modern infrastructure in 

the form of staffed or automated gates would be installed at the entrances to each of these lots, 

as well as at Bubble Pond and the Bubbles lots to control traffic ingress and egress once these 

first-come, first-served lots are full. Gate appearance (whether automated or staffed) would be 

designed to the extent practical to match historic NPS rustic design characteristics; mostly 

mitigating their installation. Nevertheless, as they were not a part of the historic design of the 

road they would represent an adverse impact that would diminish the historic character and 

historic integrity of the road system because they introduce modern infrastructure to the 

historic landscape. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

98

Under alternative B, all right lane parking along Park Loop Road would be eliminated and 

established pulloff parking for vista viewing would be made time-limited. These actions would 

result in a significant beneficial impact that restores the historic character of the road by 

removing parked vehicles from the viewshed and a historically designed travel lane and protects 

and restores the historic intent of the pulloff parking lots. Removal of endorsed right lane 

parking would result in a substantial beneficial impact to the Loop Road’s historic character. It’s 

continued utilization in the face of overcrowded conditions in the park’s parking lots degrades 

the historic character of the road more than any other current condition or management. 

Further positive impacts would be realized as road shoulders currently impacted by continued 

roadside parking are repaired and restored to a more historically accurate condition.

Under this alternative, reservations are only required to park at popular destinations and there 

are no restrictions on the number of vehicles that may enter the historic transportation corridor 

at one time. Existing adverse impacts on the historic character of the roads associated with

congestion may continue or increase in intensity as vehicles are presented with fewer parking 

options. Congestion represents temporary negative impacts to the historic character of the road 

associated with blocked vistas and a compromised driving experience outside the historic intent 

of the loop.

Alternative C (Preferred Alternative and Proposed Action). Under alternative C, a 

timed-entry reservation would be established for the most popular corridors along the historic 

Park Loop Road: Ocean Drive, Cadillac Mountain, and the parking lots at Jordan Pond House. 

In order to manage the reserved entry points, temporary automated or staffed entry 

infrastructure would be needed at the intersection of Cadillac Summit Road and Park Loop 

Road, and at the entrance to the Jordan Pond House parking lots. Reservations for the Ocean 

Drive corridor would be validated at the existing Sand Beach Entrance Station. Initially, the 

infrastructure at Cadillac Mountain and Jordan Pond House would be mobile or temporary, as 

the effectiveness of the reservation system at reducing congestion and overcrowding in the park 

as a whole is evaluated. These installations would represent negative impacts that diminish the 

historic character of Park Loop Road because they introduce modern infrastructure to the 

historic scene of the road and cause breaks in the free-flowing design intent of the road. Where 

entry infrastructure is established permanently, these would become permanent intrusions in 

the historic scene. These intrusions would be minor impacts to the road’s physical integrity 

because they would be in places (at the entrance to Jordan Pond House and Cadillac Summit 

Road) that have already been modified after the road’s period of significance and could be 

designed to mirror the rustic design of other historic gates. However, more significant negative 

impacts to the historic character of the road, and its intended unbroken loop, could be realized 

if gates cause queuing of vehicles on the traffic lanes of the Park Loop Road, interrupting the 

free flowing traffic expected as part of the historic design. In addition to the reservation 

checkpoints, a new gate would be installed near the intersection of Otter Cliffs Road to convert 

that intersection to exit only from Park Loop Road, another modern intrusion into the historic 

landscape that diminishes the historic integrity and character of the road. Additional signage 

would be needed to inform visitors of the reservation-only entrances, particularly near Sieur de 

Monts, which are also modern intrusions into the historic landscape that detract from the 

historic character of the road. Guidelines for the construction of signs and gates described in the 

2007 cultural landscape report for the historic Park Loop Road would be followed for all new 

infrastructure additions, which would minimize, but not eliminate, the impacts on the physical 

character of the road. In addition, signage and gates could be expected to proliferate if new 

reservation areas were brought online if and when the adaptive management strategy of this 
Historic Motor Road

99

alternative calls for adding more lots or corridors to the reservation system. New signs and gates 

would exacerbate the adverse impacts associated with introducing modern equipment to Park

Loop Road’s historic scene, though those impacts could be mitigated by adhering to NPS Rustic 

design standards in their production and installation. In addition, the ultimate evolution of the 

adaptive management strategy of this alternative would be a complete system-wide management 

of the Park Loop Road. Under this situation many of the individual gates and signs within the 

system could be removed, lessening their impact of the historic scenery.

In addition to adverse impacts on the physical characteristics of the historic roads associated 

with infrastructure additions, other adverse impacts on the roads’ character are associated with 

this alternative. Lane-shift and parallel parking striping in the right lane of the Ocean Drive 

corridor intended to temporarily formalize right lane parking changes the historic appearance of 

the road by adding striping that was not part of the historic design and formalizing the historic 

character-diminishing use of right lane parking, which blocks designed views and the intended 

use of the road. Because the alternative calls for the phase out of right lane parking, this adverse 

impact would eventually be eliminated as the striping as right lane parking is phased out and the 

striping is removed. The ultimate elimination of right lane parking is a major beneficial impact 

on the historic character of Park Loop Road. It will remove parked vehicles from the designed 

vistas and work (along with the reservation system) to restore free-flowing traffic conditions 

more reminiscent of the historic scene along Park Loop Road.

This alternative would create a segmentation of the driving experience on the contiguous 

historic Park Loop Road. As Rockefeller and other founders of Acadia National Park designed 

Park Loop Road in segments over several decades, they maintained a consistency in design and 

in vision of an uninterrupted motor tour complementing the varying natural ecosystems of the 

park. Accomplishing this vision and consistency of rustic design while simultaneously acquiring 

the individual property parcels, navigating federal and private funding, and weathering hurdles 

presented by the Great Depression and World War II is part of the historic significance of the 

road and it’s uninterrupted route is one of its defining historic characteristics. Creating 

segmented corridors that interrupt the designed flow of the motor tour would detract from its 

historic design and intent and would be a significant adverse impact because of the degree to 

which it would diminish the historic character of the road.

Alternative D. Under alternative D, the entirety of Park Loop Road would be placed under the 

management of a timed-entry reservation system. Visitors would need a reservation to enter the 

system, but once inside could travel and park anywhere along the loop road. Under this 

alternative, the majority of Park Loop Road would be converted to one-way traffic in a 

counterclockwise direction. Counterclockwise circulation is a reverse of the current one-way 

flow on Ocean Drive. Right lane parking would be discontinued except in a single (physically 

demarcated with striping) area between the existing entrance station and Sand Beach. Several 

gates would be installed (designed to match the NPS rustic design used elsewhere in the park) to 

control access to the reservation-only loop as well as automated kiosks and new staffed 

entrances at Wildwood Stables and on Paradise Hill Road.

Reversing the direction to a counterclockwise circulation would be an adverse impact on the 

historic character of the current two-way circulation as it would involve an alteration of the 

historic design of Park Loop Road , which intended two way traffic and envisioned vistas and 

scenery that would be viewed from both directions. It would also represent an adverse impact 

on the already one-way portions of the loop road as the viewshed of the driving experience 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

100

would be compromised by more readily apparent scenes of modern buildings outside the park 

(The Jackson Laboratory), and, according to research conducted in 1988 that helped to inform 

the selection of the current one-way traffic direction, would result in access to fewer of the 

preferred vistas, including iconic views of Otter Cliffs and Bubble Rock. Though the 

establishment of one-way travel is different from the historic design intent of the road, and 

circulation in a counterclockwise direction exposes vehicles to modern disruptions of the view, 

it would improve views of Gorham Mountain and the northern section of Frenchman’s Bay and 

also provides the ability to travel in the direction and lane intended for the ocean front portions 

of the loop, a beneficial impact on the historic character over the no-action alternative. 

Establishing a one-way direction of travel on the currently two-way portions of the road would 

reduce the visibility of 16 identified and managed scenic vistas between Cadillac Summit Road 

and Jordan Pond House, some of which may be lost.

Under alternative D, there would be new infrastructure requirements along the historic Park 

Loop Road that would negatively impact its historic character. These new installations would be 

required to manage entry into the reservation-only system and to control the new one-way 

circulation pattern. New automated entry gate stations built at SR 233, and Sieur de Monts;

manned entry stations with expanded entrance lanes and booths at Wildwood Stables and at 

Paradise Hill Road; and a manned or automated entrance gate to Jordan Pond House would 

represent permanent adverse impacts on the historic character of the road. Although these gates 

and stations would be designed to the extent possible to match NPS rustic design, they would 

nevertheless be modern additions to the historic designed landscape of the road that would 

impact the historic fabric of the road in places where lane widening was necessary and diminish 

the historic character of the road by adding modern infrastructure to the historic setting.

Management of the entire loop road under a single reservation would reduce characterdiminishing congestion on the entirety of Park Loop Road and would allow removal of the 

existing modern entry station at Sand Beach, which would be an improvement to the historic 

scene as well as improvement of the free-flowing design of the historic loop that is currently 

compromised by a required stop at the entrance station. System-wide management of the loop 

would allow the park to remove modern traffic management stones from the landscape, helping 

to restore historic character to the shoulder design of the roads and lots where the stones 

currently exist. In addition, less modern signage would be required to manage a road that was 

converted to one way and some of the current signs could be removed, further restoring rustic 

historic conditions. Discontinuing most right lane parking is a beneficial impact to the historic 

character of the road as it removes vehicles that block designed and intended vistas, restores 

free-flowing traffic to lanes historically intended for travel, and eliminates shoulder damage 

associated with parked vehicles. However, permanent demarcation of right lane parking in the 

limited area near Sand Beach would adversely impact the character of the road because although 

cars now typically park in the right lane in this area, the physical demarcation of lanes and 

parking spots on the road surface would mar the historic setting and be visible at all times, even 

when visitation was not high.

The primary beneficial impacts on the historic integrity provided by alternative D is that 

systemwide management of the full Park Loop Road ensures that once they have entered, 

visitors can experience the entirety of the loop uninterrupted by additional segmentations in the 

complete circuit imagined and designed by Rockefeller and Olmstead during the early 

development of the park; that their passage would be free flowing, and their views would be 

mostly unobstructed by right lane parking and large vehicles.
Historic Motor Road

101

Cumulative Impacts on Park Loop Road— Throughout the lifetime of the road, and into the 

present, the major challenge to maintaining its historic integrity has always been the pressure of 

increased visitation and traffic. Previous impacts to the historic integrity and character of the 

road have always been in response to increased visitation, for example route and surface 

modifications, shifts to one-way travel, and the establishment of right lane parking. Continued 

pressure that could have a detectable impact on the historic roads of the park include tourism, 

marketing, and outreach initiatives articulated in the Maine Office of Tourism’s strategic plan. 

This initiative, combined with efforts of the National Park Service that encourage visitors to get 

out and into their national parks, add annually to the numbers of people coming to Acadia and 

neighboring communities. Road and parking congestion associated with over-visitation during 

peak times could be expected to proliferate under the no-action alternative, in conjunction with 

Maine’s tourism efforts (as well as the initiatives of others), adverse cumulative impacts on the 

character of the historic roads sourced in congestion and damage to historic road fabric. 

An additional threat to the historic character of the historic Park Loop Road and the designed 

driving experience associated with it includes Jackson Laboratory’s campus zoning plan and the 

efforts to expand the footprint of the laboratory campus on property neighboring the park. The 

laboratory lies within the historic viewshed of Park Loop Road and its expansion would damage 

the road’s historic landscape.

Under all action alternatives, visitation levels are ceilinged by the capacity of the reservation 

system, however that system is employed. Only under alternative D are visitation numbers along 

the entire scenic driving experience controlled, so adverse impacts, specifically an increase in 

congestion that blocks character-defining viewsheds and causes damage to historic road fabric 

from unendorsed parking and shoulder driving, could be expected under alternatives B and C in 

association with Maine’s tourism marketing efforts, although all of the action alternatives 

reduce the cumulative negative impacts of these marketing efforts. The proposed expansion of 

the Jackson Laboratory campus, to include housing developments, parking lots, and new 

administrative spaces, could represent an adverse impact on the historic character of the road 

that would be worsened by changing the direction of one-way traffic as proposed in alternative 

D, and lessened by maintaining current traffic direction as presented in the no-action alternative 

or action alternatives B and C. 

Conclusion. The no-action alternative continues and allows proliferation of adverse impacts 

on the historic character and character-defining features of Acadia’s historic motor road system. 

These impacts are primarily precipitated by overcrowding and vehicle congestion on park roads 

and in popular destinations. Alternative B attempts to reduce these impacts via creation of a 

timed-entry system to park at key destinations, controlling vehicle sizes at some locations, and 

eliminating right lane parking. It involves impacts that diminish the historic character and 

physical integrity of the roads via the installation of modern infrastructure to control parking lot 

access. These impacts would be permanent but minor because the new infrastructure could be 

designed to minimize the visual intrusion on the historic scene. Alternative C proposes a 

reservation system to enter the Ocean Drive corridor, Cadillac Summit Road, and Jordan Pond 

House, as well as an adaptive strategy that could extend reservation requirements elsewhere as 

necessary. It includes similar adverse impacts to the historic character and integrity associated 

with installation of modern infrastructure throughout the loop road system, as well as 

temporary formalization of right lane parking. A significant adverse impact inherent in 

alternative C is the segmentation of the historic driving experience, which diminishes the 

historic design and character of Park Loop Road by forcing some visitors off the designed loop 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

102

and others to stop for reservation validation. Alternative D presents a systemwide management 

strategy for the historic Park Loop Road and eliminates most right lane parking. Negative 

impacts of alternative D on the historic character of the motor road system include the 

expansion of one-way travel (contrary to the design intent of the road), formalization of a short 

segment of right lane parking, and a new entry station and gate construction.

All of the action alternatives involve positive and negative impacts on the historic character of 

the motor road system. All of the alternatives improve preservation of the historic character of 

the park’s roads over the no-action alternative. Alternative D involves the least amount of 

negative impacts, balanced with positive impacts on the historic road system, primarily because 

alternatives B and C do not manage traffic on the entire historic Park Loop Road and allow 

continued congestion and compromised historic character outside the reservation corridors or 

lots. In addition, alternative D allows an uninterrupted tour of Park Loop Road, a characterdefining feature that was part of the design strategy of the system over several decades of 

construction. Alternative B provides more beneficial impacts on the historic roads than 

alternative C because of the full elimination of right lane parking and allowance of an 

uninterrupted tour of the entirety of the loop road (though one that may be compromised by 

congestion).

All of the action alternatives include some adverse impacts to the physical integrity of Park Loop 

Road associated with the introduction of modern signs, gates, and entrance stations; these are 

minor impacts that can be mitigated by utilizing thoughtful adherence to rustic design. 

Alternatives B, C, and D all eliminate much or all of the currently endorsed right lane parking, a 

significant beneficial impact that works to restore historic character by eliminating what is 

currently the worst affront to the road’s historic character and largest threat to its physical 

integrity (due to regular shoulder damage). However, the preferred alternative also includes a 

significant adverse impact to the design intent and historic character of Park Loop Road by 

introducing a segmented driving experience that forces some visitors off the loop and others to 

stop for reservation validation.

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES

Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts

The impacts on the park’s cultural landscapes are described in terms of the potential to diminish 

or protect the integrity and/or character-defining qualities that contribute to their NRHP 

eligibility. The impact analysis was primarily qualitative in nature based on the knowledge and 

best professional judgment of planners, resource specialists, data from park records, and studies 

of similar actions and impacts as applicable.

The impact analysis primarily includes discussion of to what extent would significant historic 

resources be affected by modern infrastructure additions or modifications necessary to 

implement the alternatives, and to what extent would the historic character exhibited in the 

park’s significant cultural landscapes be affected by implementing the alternatives. 

Historic resources are irreplaceable and nonrenewable. Therefore, most direct impacts that 

affect the physical attributes and character-defining features of the park’s cultural landscapes 

may be considered permanent impacts due to their nonrenewable aspects. 
Cultural Landscapes

103

Alternative A (No Action). Under alternative A, with no major changes in management of 

the park, resource protection activities at Sieur de Monts, Jordan Pond House, Cadillac 

Mountain, Thunder Hole, the Schoodic Peninsula, and other known cultural and historic 

landscapes would continue to be on an as-needed basis as issues are identified and funds are 

available. Park staff would continue to protect cultural landscape resources by reacting to major 

visitor use and transportation issues when and where they occur. The contributing historic 

resources and unique character-defining features of Acadia’s cultural landscapes would 

continue to be protected via regular maintenance of structures, roads, trails, plants, and other 

landscape features following the guidance presented in the park’s general management plan and 

the treatment recommendations of the park’s cultural resource management program. When 

repairs are necessary, the park staff would aspire to replacing historic features in kind, while 

retaining and protecting the extant historic resources, which would discourage the introduction

of new features or techniques. 

Under the no-action alternative, visitation and congestion issues are expected to continue to 

increase. Physical conditions at the major park destinations can be expected to deteriorate at an 

increased pace, and the frequency of repairs and intervention on the landscapes can be expected 

to increase, particularly at sites like Thunder Hole, Cadillac Mountain, and Jordan Pond House.

Ongoing incremental park management actions taken to mitigate safety concerns and visitor 

satisfaction associated with overcrowding (which would continue to occur under the no-action 

alternative) may cause increasing adverse impacts on cultural landscapes. Some of these actions 

include the placement of parking management stones that are not part of the historic landscape, 

the establishment of additional signage for controlling traffic, modifications of parking patterns, 

and parking lot expansions. Incremental impacts of managing overuse of historic landscapes 

designed for fewer visitors would likely result in larger widespread adverse impacts on the 

park’s cultural landscapes under the no-action alternative.

Common to All Action Alternatives— Some actions to improve the quality of the transportation 

system and experience in Acadia National Park are the same for the action alternatives B, C, and 

D. To avoid repeating these actions in the description of each alternative, the impacts of these 

“common” actions are described here. When evaluating the individual alternatives in the Draft

Acadia National Park Transportation Plan / Environmental Impact Statement, readers should 

include the material in this section because it describes impacts associated with the entire plan 

and is an integral part of each action alternative.

In all of the action alternatives, a reservation system of some kind would be established for 

access to the most popular destinations off Park Loop Road. Specifically, these sites include the 

cultural landscapes at Cadillac Mountain, Jordan Pond House, and Thunder Hole. Establishing 

access to these landscapes by reservation would result in more control over the numbers of 

people and vehicles that are in the sites at any one time. Eliminating congestion of the 

landscapes, particularly in the parking lots, would reduce incidents of unauthorized parking and 

social trail development—both of which cause damage to the historic landscapes and fabric. In 

addition, once the congestion is controlled, park efforts to restore previously damaged 

landscape features and restore social trails will be more effective and result in an improvement 

to the condition of the cultural landscapes. Limiting access to Cadillac Summit Road to 

reservation holders and subsequently controlling the number of vehicles at a time on the road, is 

also common to all action alternatives, as is limiting vehicle size on the road to those that can 

safely navigate the turns in their lanes. These actions would serve to prevent congestion on the
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

104

summit road that diminishes its historic character as well as control driving on the shoulders, 

which damages the historic fabric and hastens deterioration of the road.

All of the action alternatives establish vehicle size limitations. Limiting vehicles to sizes that meet 

the historic geometries of the roads and parking lots in the designated cultural landscapes at 

Jordan Pond House and Cadillac Mountain would reduce the instances of damage to historic 

landscapes and historic fabric from vehicles oversized for parking lot and road conditions 

(particularly in the Cadillac Mountain cultural landscape and along its summit road). In 

addition, limiting the size of vehicles that can access Cadillac Mountain and Jordan Pond House 

would also reduce the number of passengers per bus, which would decrease pulses of high 

visitation from tour buses, resulting in less people at one time within the landscape., which 

would improve the historic viewshed by reducing the degree of visual intrusion.

All of the action alternatives are identical in their treatment of the Schoodic Peninsula. Schoodic 

would be managed for a lower density visitor experience providing a diversity of means of 

access and visitor experience. The park would continue to encourage bicycle access to the 

Schoodic historic road, including increasing outside connections through local communities. 

There would be no increase in parking or changes to the historic landscape design or number of 

pullouts. Parking enforcement would be used to discourage informal parking pullouts. In the 

event that vehicle traffic along the Schoodic National Scenic Byway through the park reached 

levels that regularly compromised scenic views or threatened the historic fabric of the road and 

landscape features, the park would implement adaptive management strategies that could 

include mandatory park and ride/bicycle use or establishment of a reservation system for 

entrance to the corridor. These actions would all serve to protect the historic character of the 

loop road on the Schoodic Peninsula.

Alternative B. Under alternative B, gates would be installed at the parking lot entrances that 

are either manned or automated at Jordan Pond House, Sand Beach, Cadillac Mountain, Sieur 

de Monts, and Thunder Hole in order to control access to these reservation-only parking lots. 

These gates or stations would be modern visual intrusions on the cultural landscapes,

diminishing their historic character. On busy days, traffic would likely queue onto the historic 

Park Loop Road behind the parking lot entrances, which would cause an undesirable impact on 

views from the cultural landscapes at Jordan Pond House, Sieur de Monts, and Thunder Hole. 

The gates themselves would be designed, to the extent possible, using NPS rustic design 

guidelines, which would minimize the adverse impact on the historic scene. 

Under alternative B, the removal of all right lane parking from the historic Park Loop Road

would reduce the potential of social trail development into adjacent cultural landscapes from 

dispersed parking areas. In addition, limiting the number of vehicles that can enter the parking 

lots at the designated cultural landscapes and on Cadillac Summit Road would reduce crowding 

and congestion in the lots, reducing instances of unauthorized parking that damages the historic 

fabric and landscape appearance and resulting in a beneficial improvement to current 

conditions.

Alternative C (Preferred Alternative and Proposed Action). Impacts on documented 

cultural landscapes associated with alternative C include similar negative impacts to alternative 

B associated with the installation of modern traffic control gates at entrances to historic 

landscapes. Initially, the stations/gates would be temporary to test the effectiveness, meaning the 

adverse impacts would be fully reversed where it is determined that a station or gate is not 

needed. In areas where the station/gate is formalized, the gate would be a permanent intrusion 
Cultural Landscapes

105

that would diminish the integrity of the landscape. Careful placement and design would help to 

minimize the adverse impacts. The alteration of the existing parking lots at Jordan Pond House 

and the creation of a new lot and landscaped area is an adverse impact on the historic character 

of the site. The existing parking lots and associated connectors to the Park Loop Road are not 

contributing historic features because they were built after the period of significance during the

road realignment in 1963. Nevertheless, the additional proposed parking lots reduce and alter 

the greenspaces at Jordan Pond House, which negatively impacts its character and integrity. 

Proper use of vegetation screening and construction of the lots following best practices 

established for work on the motor road system, would help mitigate these impacts. The addition 

of modern signage at the Sieur de Monts cultural landscape is an adverse impact on the 

character of the site, but one which could be mitigated by using sympathetic design. 

Alternative C also has potential for increased adverse impacts to cultural landscapes as the

adaptive strategies for managing the reservation system are implemented. Because the 

alternative includes options for expanding the reservation system and adding additional byreservation-only corridors and lots into the system as needed, there is the potential that the 

adverse impacts associated with the installation of gates and entry booths (along with their 

associated infrastructure), signage, and other parking controls could extend to other cultural 

landscapes, cumulatively posing a threat to the historic integrity of the collection of historic 

properties in Acadia National Park, though much of this impact could be mitigated by 

adherence to NPS rustic design standards. In addition, the ultimate expansion of the reservation 

system could include the entirety of the Park Loop Road, which could allow for the removal of 

gates and signs at individual landscapes then managed as a part of the entire system.

Alternative D. Impacts to cultural landscapes under alternative D would be primarily 

beneficial. Because visitor access to the individual cultural landscapes under alternative D are 

controlled by an overall reservation to the entire Park Loop Road, the installation of modern 

traffic control infrastructure within the landscapes would be minimal. There would also be no 

expected negative impacts to viewsheds associated with queuing at landscape entrances. One 

exception would be the Jordan Pond House where a rustic gate would be installed within a 

noncontributing portion of the historic landscape previously modified in 1963. Beneficial 

impacts associated with reducing vehicles parked in unendorsed spaces that damage historic 

fabric and reducing pulses of peak visitation and the associated impact of crowded viewsheds 

within the landscapes described in alternatives B and C are similar under alternative D.

Cumulative Impacts. Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions have 

altered, or have the potential to affect, the historic character and physical integrity of the park’s 

designated cultural landscapes with proximity and connections to the Park Loop Road. 

Throughout the modern history of the park, the major challenge to maintaining the historic 

integrity of cultural landscapes has always been the pressure of increased visitation and traffic. 

Previous impacts to the historic integrity and character of the road have always been in response 

to increased visitation, for example, the modifications to vehicle circulation at the Jordan Pond 

House and at the entrance to Cadillac Summit Road. Continued pressure that could have a 

detectable impact on cultural landscapes of the park include tourism, marketing, and outreach 

initiatives articulated in the Maine Office of Tourism’s strategic plan. This initiative, combined 

with efforts of the National Park Service encouraging visitors to get out and into their national 

parks, add annually to the numbers of people coming to Acadia and the neighboring 

communities. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

106

Over-visitation at popular destinations/historic cultural landscapes during peak times could be 

expected to proliferate under the no-action alternative, in conjunction with Maine’s tourism 

efforts (as well as initiatives of other participants), an adverse impact on the character of historic 

landscapes originating from congestion that impacts scenic vistas and unauthorized parking that 

damages landscape fabric and leads to social trailing (people making their own trails to shortcut 

designated trails). Outside efforts that tend to increase visitation levels would have no impact on 

the historic character of cultural landscapes in the park under alternative B, which completely 

controls visitation levels within individual landscapes. Under the other action alternatives, there 

could be negative impacts on historic character associated with overcrowding and vehicle 

congestion because there is still some opportunity for visitors to move between sites with 

spontaneity, but overall, the cumulative negative impacts associated with alternatives C or D 

would be less than the no-action alternative.

Conclusion. The no-action alternative continues and allows proliferation of adverse impacts on 

the historic character and character-defining features of cultural landscapes in the park. These 

impacts are primarily associated with character-damaging overcrowding and associated physical 

damage to historic landscape fabric at popular destinations. Alternative B attempts to reduce 

these impacts via creation of a timed-entry system at key destinations in the park. It involves 

adverse impacts on the historic character at Cadillac Mountain, the Jordan Pond House, Sieur 

de Monts, and Thunder Hole cultural landscapes associated with the installation of visible gates 

or entry stations. Alternative C has similar, but fewer impacts on landscapes associated with 

entry gates or stations at Cadillac Summit Road and Jordan Pond House, as well as the 

introduction of modern signage near the Sieur de Monts cultural landscape and extensive 

alterations of parking infrastructure in the Jordan Pond House landscape. All action alternatives 

remove the adverse impacts on the historic character of the landscape and damage to the 

historic fabric at Cadillac Mountain by limiting access to vehicles that fit the geometry of the 

summit road. 

All of the action alternatives involve positive and negative impacts on the historic character of 

the park’s cultural landscapes. All of the alternatives improve preservation of the historic 

character of the park’s landscapes over the no-action alternative. Historic character at cultural 

landscapes would be improved by limiting overcrowding and out-of-bounds parking under all 

of the alternatives, although alternative B provides the most control over crowds in specific 

landscapes. Alternative B involves the most modern infrastructure in the form of gates and entry 

stations installed at cultural landscapes. Alternative C also involves the construction of modern 

gates and entry stations at cultural landscape sites, but fewer are needed than in alternative B 

(though the adaptive strategies in alternative C could eventually mean more are installed). 

Alternative D involves no modern additions to significant portions of road adjacent historic 

landscapes, but offers the least amount of direct control over crowd size in specific locations 

and could result in occasional over-crowding at peak times and the associated threats that 

accompany it.
Visitor Use and Experience

107

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE

Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts

The effects of the alternatives on visitor use and experience in the project area were analyzed 

based on impacts resulting from (1) changed opportunities for access to recreation opportunities 

and key visitor experience, and (2) impacts on current visitor experience quality resulting from 

changes to visitor use patterns, visitor demand, and visitor expectations at popular destinations. 

These are important distinctions to recognize given the actions in the alternatives. Where one 

action may limit the number of people that can access a site (adverse impact) it will at the same 

time improve the quality of the experience for the visitors once they arrive at the site (beneficial 

impact). Understanding and exploring this distinction through this analysis is important to 

understanding the relative benefits and trade-offs to each alternative. For this reason, these two 

issues (access and experience quality) are analyzed separately. 

Site-specific analysis was done by park area/destination where impacts on the area/destination 

would be distinctive from parkwide impacts. The impact analysis was based on the knowledge 

and best professional judgment of planners, comparisons of conditions in previous visitor 

surveys, data from park records, and studies of similar actions and impacts when applicable. 

Impact Analysis Questions

The issues related to visitor use and experience addressed in this plan have the potential to 

negatively impact the fundamental resources and values of the park. Primarily, the FRV being 

impacted is “Range of Visitor Experience.” The actions in this plan are designed to address these 

issues and may change or impact how visitors access the park, which sites they visit, when they 

can visit those sites, and what the experiential conditions of the site would be when they arrive. 

Therefore, this analysis is driven by two key questions 

1. How would visitor access and recreational opportunity change as a result of the 

alternatives?

2. How would the quality of visitor experience and opportunity change as a result of the 

alternatives? How would the levels of crowding be affected as a result of the alternatives? 

How would visitor perceptions of safety be affected by the alternatives?

Visitor Access and Recreational Opportunity

Alternative A: No Action. The continuation of the current management of the transportation 

systems at Acadia National Park would result in some beneficial, but mostly adverse, impacts on 

visitor access and recreational opportunities. Access to all roadways, parking, and visitor use 

would continue to be unconstrained. This would result in beneficial impacts on visitor access 

because visitors would still be allowed to arrive at sites and choose opportunities spontaneously. 

However, current volumes of use would continue to result in conditions where ease of travel to 

and finding parking in preferred locations would be challenging at peak times of day and peak 

days of the year. So while the ability to freely access sites may appear to be highly beneficial, the 

current conditions make it very challenging.

High volumes of use in accessing the park during the summer season and expanding shoulder 

season can cause congestion on roads and regularly exceed parking capacities in popular 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

108

locations. This growing and unmanaged use results in congestion on roadways and a reduced 

level of service that also limits visitors’ ability to access park resources and opportunities. 

Additionally, groups arriving in oversize vehicles may continue to be displaced by crowded 

conditions in parking lots and at visitor use sites. 

Maintaining Island Explorer service in its current configuration (timing, frequency, and extent) 

of service would result in no notable impacts as visitors would continue to benefit from

continued access to visitor use sites for those who cannot or choose not to access those sites via 

personal vehicle. However, as demand for Island Explorer service grows and would continue to 

grow (as competition for parking increases and visitors seek other access options), there could 

be adverse impacts on visitors resulting in constrained access (related to long wait times) to both 

enter the park and to leave visitor use sites in the park during an increasing number of hours of 

the day and days of the year. 

Common to All Action Alternatives— Visitors who arrived at the park in a vehicle that does not 

meet the size requirements would have to use Island Explorer service or authorized commercial 

services to access the Park Loop Road, which could change their mechanism of access but not 

necessarily constraining the freedom of movement for these visitors. Additionally, actions to 

prevent use of unendorsed parking would result in fewer private vehicles being able to access 

some sites on the busiest days of the year. However, prohibiting entry to vehicles that do not 

meet road and bridge geometry restrictions may provide more access opportunities in certain 

areas to medium-sized vehicle parking where the current lack of parking prohibits their entry.

In all action alternatives, an increased number of visitors would be encouraged to use transit 

service to access key areas of the park. This would eventually lead to crowding at bus stops and 

on buses during peak times of day and days of the year if visitation continues to increase. If 

demand for the Island Explorer service were to increase to a point where crowding and 

congestion at stops and on buses is not consistent with desired conditions for this service, a 

reservation system could be implemented, further restricting growth in visitation and expanded 

access opportunities. Also, bicycle and pedestrian access would continue to be encouraged 

resulting in beneficial impacts on those user types.

Those visitors who choose to or need to access the park with a commercial service provider 

(tour, excursion, or other service) may find that the service limits at some locations (depending 

on the alternative) constrain their ability to visit some locations in the park during peak times of 

day. Some of these visitors have very limited windows in which they can explore the park (based 

on current tour packages and arrival times), so the ability to find another time or day to visit isn’t 

reasonable or feasible. 

Additionally, direction management actions at sites, corridors, or the whole loop road would 

likely lead visitors to abandon these areas of the park and select other park locations to visit 

where access is not actively managed (and consequently constrained). This could lead to 

crowding and congestion at other park sites (e.g., Acadia Mountain, Schoodic Peninsula, Echo 

Lake). This could also lead to limits on the locations where educational programs can occur 

during high use times of the year, and these programs may have to relocate to other areas of the 

park. Finally, opportunities for accessing parking to participate in canoeing or kayaking on the 

lakes and ponds could adversely be affected as parking in these lots becomes more competitive 

as a result of more visitors competing for available parking spaces for a spontaneous arrival (i.e., 

Bubble Pond). 
Visitor Use and Experience

109

Schoodic Peninsula— Actions at Schoodic Peninsula would result in no notable impacts on 

visitor access and recreation opportunity. No major changes to the way visitors currently access 

this area of the park are proposed in these alternatives. Maintaining current access patterns and 

levels to this area of the park would result in no change to visitors by providing freedom and 

spontaneity of access and full and free access to all recreation opportunities. Actions to actively 

manage the transportation systems on Mount Desert Island (see above) could result in 

additional visitors choosing to visit the Schoodic Peninsula instead of sites on Mount Desert 

Island because these locations are not on the reservation system. This could lead to increased 

competition for parking (parking will not be expanded under any alternative) if more visitors 

switch from Mount Desert Island to Schoodic Peninsula.

Impacts Related to Reservation Systems— Implementing reservation systems would result in 

beneficial impacts since visitors would be able to more effectively plan their trip without 

worrying about available parking or competing for parking availability. For others, such systems 

would result in adverse impacts because they would not be able to access a destination with their 

private vehicle if they did not plan their trip enough in advance, prefer spontaneous travel, or 

had some other barrier to obtaining a reservation. These visitors would have to find another 

destination or use Island Explorer service to access these locations. For those visitors who 

prefer spontaneous arrival, Island Explorer would still facilitate this type of access. 

Developing permit or reservation systems (details vary depending on the selected alternative) 

for parking areas or corridors would effectively redistribute use more evenly across the day and 

season. This would eliminate periods of time where lots and visitor sites are over used and 

redistribute that use to low use periods. Estimates of the number of daily vehicles that would be 

accommodated on Park Loop Road by alternative is represented in figure 21. The amount of 

available parking is relatively fixed across all alternatives, therefore, the variations in the number

of vehicles that can be accommodated per day among the alternatives mostly varies by the 

relative efficiency that can be expected of these areas, the anticipated (or managed) turnover 

rates, and the travel pattern of these vehicles. (There are additional differences in the level of 

quality that can be found in those locations, which is discussed in the “visitor experience 

quality” analysis that follows.) When comparing the alternatives to vehicle demand during 2016, 

there would be between 26 and 72 days (alternatives B and D, respectively) of the 155 days of the 

reservation season when the demand for access could exceed supply. However, that means that 

there are more days of the year when the availability of private vehicle access is not fully 

maximized. If the reservation systems are fully sold (all managed hours, all days, May–October), 

this could result in increases in total annual private vehicles accommodated for the full summer 

season (by 5%–33%). Practically speaking, the implementation of reservation systems would 

likely result in a retention of current use levels. Retention is likely if those visitors who could not 

obtain reservations still decide to come at the same time and can be accommodated by other 

transportation modes (road-based commercial tours or transit). However, some visitors who 

still prefer private vehicle access may be displaced from high use days (due to lack of permit 

availability) and may not be flexible enough to change their travel plans to lower use days of the 

year.
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

110

FIGURE 21. ESTIMATED DAILY VEHICLES ON PARK LOOP ROAD BY ALTERNATIVE (MAY–OCTOBER)6

Commercial Tour Access to Cadillac Mountain Summit— If reservations are fully utilized for 

road-based commercial tours (across all hours of the day), it should result an increase (+46%) in 

the number of visitors being able to access Cadillac Mountain summit per day via this service

(when compared to an average busy day under current conditions). 

Alternative B. The actions in alternative B (in addition to the actions analyzed under 

“Common to All Action Alternatives”) would lead to both beneficial and adverse impacts on 

visitor access and recreational opportunities. As a result of this alternative, roughly 53% of the 

parking that provides access to sites along the Park Loop Road would be on a reservation 

system. Overall, those visitors who still wish to spontaneously engage in scenic driving to all 

segments of the park roads (including all segments of Park Loop Road) would still be able to do 

so, resulting in beneficial impacts. However, those visitors without parking reservations would 

not be able to gain access to the parking areas that directly access major attraction sites. This 

would make accessing these areas by personal vehicle more challenging for those visitors who 

 

6 This chart does not include vehicles accessing Cadillac Summit as under each alternative Cadillac is managed separately from the loop 

road system. 
Visitor Use and Experience

111

do not have an advance reservation because competition for parking spaces in lots not on the 

reservation system would be high, resulting in adverse impacts on those visitors.

Visitors who are able to plan their trip, would receive beneficial impacts in that they would have 

the certainty and ability to access sites that are of interest to them by securing a parking permit 

for direct access to the most popular park sites. Those visitors who still wish to spontaneously 

engage in scenic driving of all segments of the park roads (including all segments of Park Loop 

Road) would still be able to do so. The completion of the Acadia Gateway Center would provide 

critical wayfinding and transportation information to visitors before they enter the park 

reservation system. This would help visitors by managing expectations appropriately and 

providing information about the range of park experiences and where visitors can access those 

opportunities and experiences. Parking lots not on the reservation system would still be open to 

spontaneous access, which would allow visitors the freedom to choose where and when they 

visit these locations, provided parking spaces are available at the time they arrive. 

Most importantly, those visitors without parking reservations would not be able to gain direct 

access to major attraction sites (via their private vehicles). These visitors without reservations 

would be dependent on alternative transportation to recreate in these key areas of the park 

without an advanced reservation. Those parking lots that are not on the reservation system are 

likely to still reach capacity early in the day, displacing visitors who do not or cannot arrive early. 

Competition for these lots would remain high, which would also lead to limited access in these 

areas as well as congestion in these lots (for more information about the impacts of congestion 

on visitors see impacts related to “Visitor Experience Quality”). 

Additionally, parking reservations at the lot level would mean that visitors are committed to 

specific locations at specific times for specific durations of time. This has three adverse impacts. 

First, if there is an incident that closes access to that lot, visitors would have a limited number of 

places where they could relocate and would need to compete for parking at those alternative 

locations. Second, this type of reservation system restricts the ability of visitors in private 

vehicles to easily relocate to other locations if conditions are unfavorable in that location. For 

example, if a visitor has a reservation for Sand Beach, but it is raining, that visitor wouldn’t have 

the opportunity to self-relocate to another more favorable area (such as Jordan Pond House). 

Third, the fixed length of stay could put constraints on those visitors in private vehicles who 

would like to stay in a location longer than their reservation allows. However, the intention to 

sell a range of duration options in the parking permits would make this impact fairly negligible. 

Finally, while visitors learn about the reservation system and its associated requirements, they 

may be displaced from some locations where they did not make a reservation. 

For those visitors who choose to access the park with a commercial service provider (tour, 

excursion, or other service), they may find that the service limits at some locations in this 

alternative constrain their ability to visit some locations in the park. 

Cadillac Mountain Summit— Based on 2016 data, there were 89 days (of the 155 where the 

reservation system would be in place under this alternative) where the number of cars that 

attempted to access Cadillac Mountain summit over the course of the day exceeded what would 

be supplied under the allocations described in this alternative. However, if reservations are fully 

utilized (across all hours and days of the season), it should result in a slight increase in the 

number of visitors being able to access Cadillac Mountain summit throughout the season, via 

private vehicle (+0.2%). See figure 22 for a summary of the 2016 daily total vehicles to Cadillac 

summit compared to the action alternatives.
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

112

FIGURE 22. DAILY VEHICLES ON CADILLAC SUMMIT COMPARED TO ACTION ALTERNATIVES (MAY-OCTOBER)

Ocean Drive— Based on 2016 data, there were 42 days (of the 155 where the reservation system 

would be in place under this alternative) where the number of cars that accessed the Ocean 

Drive corridor exceeded what would be allowed under the allocations described in this 

alternative. If reservations are fully utilized, it would likely result in more visitors being able to 

access this corridor, via private vehicle (+22%). If reservations are fully utilized for road-based 

commercial tours (across all hours of the day), it should result an increase (+14%) in the number 

of visitors being able to access Ocean Drive per day via this service (when compared to an 

average busy day under current conditions), and an increase in the number of visitors across the 

season (+105%). 

Alternative C (Preferred Alternative and Proposed Action). The actions in alternative C 

(in addition to the actions analyzed under “Common to All Action Alternatives”) would lead to 

mostly beneficial and some adverse impacts on visitor access and recreational opportunities. As 

a result of this alternative, roughly 58% of the parking that provides access to sites along the 

Park Loop Road would be on a reservation system. Overall, those visitors who still wish to 

spontaneously engage in scenic driving of most segments of the park roads (including most 

segments of Park Loop Road) would still be able to do so, resulting in beneficial impacts. 

However, those visitors without reservations would not be able to gain direct access by private 

vehicle to some park areas that provide access to major attraction sites. This would make 
Visitor Use and Experience

113

accessing these areas more challenging for those visitors who do not have an advanced 

reservation, resulting in adverse impacts.

Those visitors who are willing and able to obtain reservations would have the certainty that they 

would be able to access those locations they have reserved. Hulls Cove Visitor Center would 

provide critical wayfinding and transportation information to visitors before they enter the 

transportation system. This would help manage expectations related to access and provide 

information about a range of experiences available to visitors. Expanded parking in this location 

would also make it easier for more visitors to transfer to Island Explorer buses and access a 

variety of park sites. Additionally, the Acadia Gateway Center would provide orientation to both 

the transportation system and the eco-region, allowing visitors the benefit of learning about the 

park and its resources. 

Because this alternative directly manages the two most popular areas of the park for scenic 

driving, visitors would be restricted in their ability to spontaneously engage in a scenic drive of 

these road corridors (Cadillac Summit Road and Ocean Drive) if they were not able to obtain a 

reservation. As parking is not managed for individual lots in the Ocean Drive corridor, finding 

parking in the most popular lots (i.e., Sand Beach, Thunder Hole) in the park would still be 

challenging, although the number of people “competing” for these highly desirable spaces 

would be far fewer than other alternatives (A and D). Similar to alternative B, parking 

reservations at the corridor level would mean that visitors are committed to specific locations at 

specific times. This has two adverse impacts. First, if there is an incident that closes access to 

that corridor, visitors in private vehicles would have a limited number of places where they 

could relocate and would need to compete for parking at those alternative locations. Second, 

this type of reservation system restricts the ability of visitors in private vehicles to easily relocate 

to other locations if conditions are unfavorable in that location. As the whole of Park Loop 

Road is not managed, there could still be congestion along the roadways and parking lots not on 

the reservation system, limiting easy access to some park areas during peak times of the day and 

days of the year (for more information about the impacts of congestion see impacts related to 

“Visitor Experience Quality”).

For those visitors who choose to access the park with a commercial service provider (tour, 

excursion, or other service), they may find that the service limits, both the number of 

reservations available and places where tours can go at Cadillac Mountain summit and along 

Ocean Drive, which may constrain these visitors’ ability to visit these park locations. 

Cadillac Summit— Based on 2016 data, there were 96 days (of the 155 where the reservation 

system would be in place under this alternative) where the number of cars that accessed Cadillac 

Mountain summit exceeded the “at one time limits” that would be in place under alternative C

(see appendix A). Even if reservations are fully utilized (across all hours of the day, all days of the 

season), it will likely result in slightly fewer (-4%) private vehicles being able to access Cadillac 

Mountain summit throughout the season.

Ocean Drive— Another benefit of this alternative is that visitors would have a high degree of 

flexibility and spontaneity once they arrive in the Ocean Drive corridor. Once in the corridor, 

visitors are likely to obtain a parking space at or near where they would like to recreate. Based 

on 2016 data, there were 0 days (of the 155 where the reservation system would be in place 

under this alternative) where the number of cars that accessed the Ocean Drive corridor 

exceeded what would be allowed under the allocations described in this alternative. If

reservations are fully utilized (all hours of the day and days of the season), it would result in an 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

114

increased opportunity (+87%) for more visitors to access this area of the park by personal 

vehicle. If reservations are fully utilized for road-based commercial tours (across all hours of the 

day), it should result an decrease (-21%) in the number of visitors being able to access Ocean 

Drive per day via this service (when compared to an average busy day under current conditions), 

but increase the number of visitors arriving via this service across the season (+42%). 

Alternative D. The actions in alternative D (in addition to the actions analyzed under 

“Common to All Action Alternatives”) would lead to mostly beneficial and some adverse 

impacts on visitor access and recreational opportunities. As a result of this alternative, roughly 

77% of the parking that provides access to sites along the Park Loop Road would be on a 

reservation system. This alternative has the highest degree of flexibility and opportunity for 

spontaneity for visitors who have access to Park Loop Road. However, as this alternative 

manages the whole park loop road system, visitors would not be able to spontaneously enjoy a 

scenic drive in the park if a reservation is not available. 

Those visitors in private vehicles willing and able to obtain reservations would have a high 

degree of flexibility and spontaneity once they enter the Park Loop Road. Once on Park Loop 

Road, visitors are likely to be able to obtain a parking space at or near the site where they would 

like to recreate. The Acadia Gateway Center would provide critical wayfinding and 

transportation information to visitors before they enter the transportation system. This would

help manage expectations related to access and provide information about a range of 

experiences available to visitors. Reversal of the road could result in new and expanded 

interpretation opportunities for visitors; however, this could also cause the reduction of some of 

the existing interpretive opportunities. 

Alternative D significantly changes the way visitors in private vehicles access the park and the 

recreational resources along Park Loop Road. This major change would result in short-term 

adverse impacts while visitors learn the new system. As parking is not managed for individual 

lots, finding parking in the most popular lots (i.e., Sand Beach, Thunder Hole, and Cadillac 

Mountain summit) would still be challenging, though the number of people “competing” for 

these highly desirable spaces would be far fewer than under current conditions. As the lots are 

not managed directly in this alternative it could result in increased competition for these most 

popular lots because this alternative is less prescriptive on where visitors go once they are on 

Park Loop Road. Additionally, reducing the number of entry points to the loop road system 

would change the use pattern of the road, which could cause delays at the entrances. The change 

in roadway direction may reduce the relative visitor demand on places like Sieur de Monts, 

Great Meadow, and Kebo Street because these areas are now on the exit as opposed to entry 

areas of Park Loop Road. 

Those visitors who choose to access the park with a commercial service provider (tour, 

excursion, or other service), may find that the service limits both number of reservations

available and places where the tours can go at Cadillac Mountain summit and along Ocean 

Drive, which may constrain these visitors’ ability to visit these park locations. 

Cadillac Mountain Summit— Based on 2016 data, there were 102 days (of the 155 where the 

reservation system would be in place under this alternative) where the number of cars accessing 

Cadillac Mountain summit exceeded allowances under the allocations described in alternative 

D. Even if reservations are fully utilized (across the whole season), it would result in fewer 

visitors able to access Cadillac Mountain summit throughout the season via personal vehicle 

(-14%).
Visitor Use and Experience

115

Ocean Drive— Based on 2016 data, there were 9 days (of the 155 where the reservation system 

would be in place under this alternative) where the number of cars accessing the Ocean Drive 

corridor exceeded what would be allowed under the allocations described in this alternative. If

reservations are fully utilized, there is an opportunity to increase the number of private vehicles

who access this corridor throughout the season, (+40%) If reservations are fully utilized for 

road-based commercial tours (across all hours of the day), it should result an decrease (-21%) in 

the number of visitors being able to access Ocean Drive per day via this service (when compared 

to an average busy day under current conditions), but an increase in the number of visitors that 

could be accommodated across the season (+42%).

Cumulative Impacts. The projects analyzed in the cumulative impacts analysis would ultimately 

result in additional vehicles being attracted to and accommodated on Mount Desert Island and 

in proximity to the park. These actions would likely increase the demand for access to the park 

via Island Explorer (in all alternatives) and could increase the demand for access to park 

resources and experiences. This could make competition for the limited capacity of Island 

Explorer even more competitive when compounded with the reservation systems outlined in 

the action alternatives, which would adversely contribute to visitor access for this access type. 

Additionally, all the action alternatives assume that some peak season park visitors would 

choose to visit in the shoulder seasons of the year when competition for parking and access is 

not as intense. State tourism initiatives that propose growth in the shoulder seasons could 

compound the rate at which the availability of access in these seasons is fully utilized. Stated 

goals of increasing tourism overall could increase the competition for access to park resources 

and experiences during the peak season. These cumulative impacts would be persistent so long 

as visitation to the regional area increases and would become increasingly acute, island explorer 

and visitor capacities are approached on increasingly more days of the year, each year, and the 

supply of parking would not keep pace with the relative increase in demand for parking, 

displacing visitors (leading to adverse impacts for visitors) who prefer to access the park in this 

way. 

Conclusion. The actions in alternative A would lead to mostly adverse impacts on visitor access 

and recreational opportunities. Access to all roadways, parking, and visitor use would continue 

to be unconstrained. While visitors would continue to benefit from access remaining 

spontaneous, current volumes of use would continue to result in conditions where ease of travel 

to and finding parking in preferred locations would be challenging at peak times of day and peak 

days of the year. So while the ability to freely access sites may appear to be highly beneficial, the 

current conditions make it very challenging. High volumes of use in accessing the park during 

the summer season and expanding shoulder season can cause congestion on roads and regularly 

exceed parking capacities in popular locations. This growing and unmanaged use results in 

congestion on roadways and a reduced level of service that also limits visitors’ ability to access 

park resources and opportunities.

The actions in alternative B would lead to both beneficial and adverse impacts on visitor access 

and recreational opportunities. Implementation of this alternative would result in permanent 

changes to how visitors access and travel around the park resulting in both beneficial and 

adverse impacts. The beneficial impacts would be experienced at the specific sites where access 

is directly managed and would be significant as they represent a surety of access that cannot be 

found under current conditions. The most notable benefit of this alternative is the increased 

ability of visitors to plan their trip and ensure parking at a limited number of popular lots in the 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

116

park. Additionally, this alternative has the highest potential for personal vehicle access to

Cadillac Summit as it directly manages the turnover rate in the associated lots to maximize 

visitation in this location. Adverse impacts resulting from this alternative could be significant 

because increased visitation could lead to an increase in parking demand and there would be 

fewer spaces available for spontaneous arrivals. Also, as the roadways are not actively managed, 

congestion on some road segments would likely persist in restricting the freedom of visitor 

movement around the park. The increased trip planning and parking assurances make this 

alternative more beneficial than alternative A (no action). However, these benefits are limited to 

a few locations making this alternative less beneficial than alternatives C and D.

The actions in alternative C would lead to mostly beneficial and some adverse impacts on visitor 

access and recreational opportunities. Implementation of this alternative would result in 

permanent changes to how visitors access and move around the park resulting in both

significant beneficial and adverse impacts. The beneficial impacts would mostly be experienced 

in the major corridors where access is managed and provides surety of access for those visitors 

who are able to obtain reservations. Additionally, those visitors who prefer to spontaneously 

engage in scenic driving or spontaneous arrival at sites would still have that opportunity in the 

locations not directly managed by the reservation system. However, those visitors without 

reservations would not be able to gain direct access to some park areas that provide access to 

major attraction sites. This would make accessing these areas more challenging for those visitors 

who do not have an advanced reservation, resulting in adverse impacts. The increased trip 

planning and parking assurances make this alternative more beneficial than alternative A (no 

action). Also, as this alternative provides a mix of reservation and spontaneous arrival options 

and directly manages the most congested parking lots/corridors, it is more beneficial for visitor 

access than any of the other action alternatives. This alternative also provides the highest 

potential level of access for the Ocean Drive corridor (an iconic destination within Acadia 

National Park). 

The actions in alternative D would lead to mostly beneficial and some adverse impacts on visitor 

access and recreational opportunities. Implementation of this alternative would result in 

permanent changes to how visitors access and move around the park, resulting in both

significant beneficial and adverse impacts. Those visitors who are willing and able to obtain 

reservations would have a high degree of flexibility and spontaneity once they enter Park Loop 

Road. Once in the loop road system, visitors are likely to be able to obtain a parking space at or 

near where they would like to recreate. However, this alternative is the most constraining on the 

number of people that could be accommodated on a daily basis on the loop road system. 

Additionally, as the lots are not actively managed (to provide freedom of movement within the 

system) it would likely lead to minor or moderate competition for (and congestion of) the most 

popular parking lots along the loop road (i.e., Cadillac Mountain summit, Sand Beach, Thunder 

Hole). The increased trip planning and parking assurances make this alternative more beneficial 

than alternative A (no action). Because this alternative provides high surety of access and 

spontaneity in the corridor and reduces congestion to the extent practicable while retaining 

these values, this alternative provides more visitor access benefits than alternative B, but not as 

many as alternative C. 

Visitor Experience Quality

Alternative A: No Action. The continuation of current management of the transportation 

systems at Acadia National Park would result in some beneficial, but mostly adverse impacts on 
Visitor Use and Experience

117

visitor experience quality. Current traffic patterns would still allow traffic jams along major 

roadway segments, leading to adverse impacts on both the quality of the driving experience and 

the ease of access to popular locations. Additionally, parking that is not actively and directly 

managed often leads to sites that are overcrowded, diminishing the quality of the experience. 

Finally, some perceptibly unsafe and uncomfortable conditions for visitors related to traffic 

patterns would continue to occur with frequency (e.g., parking along Eagle Lake Road where 

visitors have to exit vehicles directly into an active traffic lane).

Maintaining Island Explorer service in its current configuration (timing, frequency, and extent) 

of service would result in mostly beneficial impacts because it would continue to provide access 

to visitor use sites for those who prefer this mode of travel. However, as demand for the service 

has grown and continues to grow (as competition for parking increases and visitors seek other 

access options), there could be adverse impacts on visitors resulting in long wait times (both on 

entry and egress) and crowded conditions on buses during an increasing number of hours of the 

day and days of the year. 

Common to All Action Alternatives— Instituting a visitor management framework, including 

monitoring indicators (see appendix A) and taking adaptive management actions if thresholds 

are exceeded would have a beneficial effect in the long term, reducing the extent and frequency 

of overcrowding in current and future popular areas of the park and ensuring opportunity for 

visitors to experience quiet, low use areas of the park. 

Visitor capacities for key areas of the park have been identified (see the section, “Visitor Use 

Framework,” in chapter 2 and appendix A for discussions on visitor capacity). This capacity 

quantifies the amount of visitation that can be accommodated in these areas given desired 

conditions for visitor experience and resources. The capacity analysis took into account the 

management strategies being proposed in the plan that better distribute visitation through the 

park (e.g., reservation systems, parking changes) and address many of the current issues in the 

park (e.g., crowding, use conflicts, and resource impacts). By managing to the identified 

capacities of the most popular locations of the park, the quality of the experience in these 

locations is protected for the long term. See appendix A for how visitor experience quality 

informs visitor capacities. 

Schoodic Peninsula— The strategies to manage the Schoodic Peninsula are common to all action 

alternatives and would result in beneficial impacts on visitor experience quality. The goal for 

Schoodic is to maintain opportunities for low-density recreation. This goal is reflected in the 

Schoodic general management plan and public comment on this plan. Additionally, research on 

visitor preferences for experiences on the Schoodic Peninsula overwhelmingly (95%) support 

this objective (Manning et al. 2002). 

Impacts Related to Reservation Systems— Implementation of a reservation system could lead to 

visitor perceptions that the park is a place that is less easy to visit. Reservations commit visitors 

to visiting a location at a certain time and day. If the weather isn’t compatible with the activity, 

this could lead to poor visitor experiences. Additionally, if current demand for experiences does 

not redistribute to other days of the year, those visitors who did not obtain a reservation for the 

directly managed areas would likely redistribute to other areas of the park, which could lead to 

overcrowded conditions and degraded visitor experience at those sites (e.g., Acadia Mountain, 

Eagle Lake, Schoodic Peninsula). 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

118

Figure 23 provides a summary of the number of vehicles at one time that could be 

accommodated on Park Loop Road under the conditions of each alternative, compared to the 

busiest and average busy days in 2016. The strategies in the action alternatives allow designated 

parking lots to become marginally more efficient through direct management strategies. The use 

that is currently over-parked in lots, over-parked along roadways, or classified as roadway 

congestion is redistributed to other times of day or days of the year to the extent practicable. 

However, as some alternatives (B and C) do not actively manage some lots and corridors and 

historic arrival patterns and demand prevail, it is expected that some areas of the roadways and 

some lots that are not directly managed through the reservation systems would likely still see 

higher demand than can be accommodated, resulting in overparking or roadway congestion on 

the busiest 20–25 days of the year. This “overuse” is represented in the gradients in figure 23 as 

where these vehicles will be (either on the roadway or overparked in lots) is not definitively 

predictable.

FIGURE 23. VEHICLES AT ONE TIME (VAOT) ON PARK LOOP ROAD BY ALTERNATIVE

Alternative B. The actions in alternative B (in addition to the actions analyzed under 

“Common to All Action Alternatives”) would lead to some beneficial, but more adverse impacts 

on visitor experience quality. In this alternative, some of the parking lots would be managed so 

that the sites proximal to these lots would not become overcrowded, therefore protecting the 

visitor experience in these locations. Congestion in these lots would be alleviated most of the 

time, reducing visitor stress on finding a parking spot and adaptive strategies would ensure that 

lots on the reservation system are maintained to desired conditions. This alternative manages 

some lots with a reservation system with a range of fixed duration of stay reservations for 

vehicles. While this fixed duration approach increases turnover rates and thereby increases the 

potential number of people who could access a site in a day, it may have adverse impacts to 

experience by limiting the duration of stay for visitors to a defined time block. 

 -

 500

 1,000

 1,500

 2,000

 2,500

 3,000

 3,500

 4,000

Max

Observed

Average

Very Busy

Day (P85)

Alt B Alt C Alt D

VAOT

Roadway Congestion

Over Parked Roadway

OverParked Lots

Endorsed Roadway

On-Street Parking VAOT

All Lots VAOT
Visitor Use and Experience

119

The current traffic patterns experienced at Acadia National Park would likely prevail because 

most roadway segments are not directly managed under this alternative. This would likely 

result in traffic jams at some times during high use times of the day and days of the year. These 

traffic jams may prevent visitors with reservations from accessing the location of their 

reservation in a timely manner, adversely affecting their experience. In some areas of the park,

buses would continue to obstruct scenic viewsheds in some locations at some times, adversely 

impacting the experience quality of those views. Driving times may increase (people would 

likely drive slower or linger longer in pulloffs or along roadways as people try to enjoy the 

scenic corridors without the ability to park). This could increase congestion along scenic 

corridors and reduce the efficiency of the reservation system and associated roadway level of 

service. As parking near the most popular areas would be directly managed through 

reservation systems and right lane parking would no longer be allowed, visitors may begin to 

use temporary pullouts as long-term parking areas if they are unable to access a parking area 

for a proximal visitor use site. This would likely be most pronounced along Ocean Drive, 

particularly the roadway areas near Thunder Hole. 

Alternative C (Preferred Alternative and Proposed Action). The actions in alternative C 

(in addition to the actions analyzed under “Common to All Action Alternatives”) would lead to 

mostly beneficial, but some adverse impacts on visitor experience quality. Those visitors who 

are able to obtain access to Ocean Drive and Cadillac Summit Road would benefit from a highquality experience free of extended and systemic traffic jams. Additionally, the number of 

people at each site would be managed to expectations so crowding at attraction sites would not

be experienced. Parking lots would be managed so that visitors with reservations are assured a 

place to park when they arrive. Because the most popular attractions at the park are directly 

managed through reservation systems, visitors can be confident that their experiences in those 

locations would be of high quality (i.e., free from visitor crowding). While the at one-time limits 

on use at Cadillac Summit (see appendix A) would limit the number of people at one time, 

overall this alternative could ultimately accommodate more visitor use in this area across the 

season (provided that the reservation systems for personal vehicle and road-based commercial 

tours are fully maximized). This could cause a negative impact on summit resources, and in turn 

adversely affect visitor experience of these resources. Additionally, concession service to 

Cadillac Mountain summit could provide increased interpretive opportunities as a part of that 

service, contributing to the benefits of this alternative. 

Development of the Liscomb parking area as a well-designed, environmentally friendly parking 

facility would greatly enhance the quality of the arrival experience at this area of the park and 

the transition from vehicle to recreation experience. Also, the Hulls Cove Visitor Center would 

provide an enhanced experience for learning about the park and transitioning to transit service 

from private vehicle for those visitors who use this service. The addition of a formal lot near 

Acadia Mountain would result in people being able to access the trails in this location without 

having to park along the roadsides proximal to this location.

In some areas of the park, buses (i.e., Ocean Drive and Lower Mountain Road) would continue 

to obstruct scenic viewsheds during high use times of the day and year, which adversely impacts 

the visitor experience of these views in these locations. The current traffic patterns experienced 

at Acadia National Park would likely prevail along the segments of the roadway that are not 

directly managed by a reservation system. This would likely result in traffic jams along these 

road corridors during high use times of the day and days of the year, which would adversely 

affect visitor experience. However, the driving experience on the most popular road segments 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

120

(Ocean Drive and Cadillac Summit Road) would be protected by implementation of the 

reservation system, which limits the number of vehicles at one time that can move through these 

corridors. 

Alternative D. The actions in alternative D (in addition to the actions analyzed under 

“Common to All Action Alternatives”) would lead to mostly beneficial, but some adverse 

impacts on visitor experience quality. Those visitors who are able to obtain access to Park Loop

Road would benefit from a high-quality experience, free of extended and systematic traffic jams. 

However, as individual sites and corridors in this system are not directly managed, there may be 

some transient congestion at the most popular destinations during high-use times of the day and 

days of the year. Relatedly, some areas of the park would continue to be less used. Monitoring 

indicators related to crowding would ensure that the number of people at each attraction site is 

managed to desired conditions so that crowding is not experienced. Additionally, limited bus 

access to key corridors would increase the quality of scenic views along the roadways.

Additionally, concession service to Cadillac Mountain summit could provide increased 

interpretive opportunities as part of that service, contributing to the benefits of this alternative. 

Limited access points to Park Loop Road could cause moderate congestion at those locations at 

the beginning of access times as many visitors may try to enter at these gates at the top of the 

hour to maximize their time in the corridor. Additionally, as drive in access to the resources and 

experiences to the Park Loop Road would be actively managed and limited it is expected that at 

some locations (West Street, Schooner Head Road, Otter Cliff Road, Great Meadow Drive, 

Kebo Street, and the Jordan Pond Road) visitors may park along the roadsides to either walk 

into or bike into the Park Loop Road system. This roadside parking could lead to adverse 

conditions along the roadway and may lead to crowding at sites that would require additional 

management strategies in those locations if thresholds are approached (see appendix A for more 

information on indicators, thresholds, and associated potential management actions). 

The change in the direction of travel for Park Loop Road would provide a safer alternative for 

slow-moving traffic because they would have easier access to the scenic pullouts on the right 

side (ocean side) of the roadway. Making the majority of Park Loop Road one-way would 

correct current confusion at the Stanley Brook / Park Loop Road intersection, reducing the 

potential for vehicle incidents and increasing perceived driver safety. This change in direction of 

travel could also temporarily cause confusion along the newly reversed segments of road and 

intersections for drivers who are used to driving the road in the current designated travel 

pattern. 

Cumulative Impacts. In all alternatives (including the no-action alternative) the completion of 

the Bold Coast Bike Tour Route could likely result in increased bicycle use along Schoodic Loop 

Road. This could result in the increased possibility of vehicle-bicycle incidents along this road 

segment and potentially impact the experience quality for cyclists if this route becomes popular 

during the peak season. For other cumulative impacts see the section on “Visitor Access and 

Recreation Opportunity.”

Conclusion. The greatest benefit resulting from implementation of this plan is common to all the 

action alternatives. Instituting a visitor management framework, including monitoring 

indicators and taking management actions if thresholds are exceeded, would have a beneficial 

effect in the long term, reducing the extent and frequency of overcrowding in current and future 

popular areas of the park and ensuring the opportunity for visitors to experience quiet, low-use 

areas of the park. 
Visitor and User Safety

121

Additionally, while implementation of a reservation system has some adverse impacts on visitor 

experience quality (see discussion above), over the long term it would result in sites that yield 

higher quality visitor experiences, more in keeping with the desired conditions for the “Range of 

Visitor Experiences” FRV. These benefits would be significant when compared to the current 

condition of these sites and experiences (alternative A). 

The actions in alternative B would lead to some beneficial and mostly adverse impacts on visitor 

experience quality. While the reservation systems at some locations would directly manage the 

experience quality, this alternative does not proactively address the adverse impacts associated 

with high competition for parking at most of the parking lots and does not directly manage the 

most congested road corridors. As a result, it is likely that there would still be high levels of 

congestion in lots and along roadways during most days of the summer season. As the unique 

benefits of this alternative are only limited to a few locations, this alternative has fewer benefits 

and more adverse impacts related to visitor experience quality than either alternatives C or 

alternative D. 

The actions in alternative C would lead to mostly beneficial impacts on visitor experience 

quality. This alternative takes action to directly manage the most popular (and therefore 

congested) corridors in the park. This action, in addition to the visitor use management actions 

(see impacts common to all action alternatives), would ensure that visitors have high-quality 

experiences in these key areas of the park. While there may be some intermittent crowding and 

congestion on other corridors, these events aren’t likely to detract from the overall quality of the 

experience of the park resources and the transportation system. These benefits would be most 

acutely experienced on the managed corridors. As this alternative directly manages the most 

critical areas of the park to protect and maintain a high-quality visitor experience, this 

alternative has more beneficial impacts than alternatives A or B, and similar beneficial impacts as

alternative D. 

The actions in alternative D would lead to mostly beneficial impacts on visitor experience 

quality, with some potential adverse impacts. As this alternative directly manages the park loop 

road system, it would result in significant benefits to experience quality for those visitors who 

have access to these areas. However, as the individual sites are not directly managed there could 

be some intermittent congestion and crowding in some of the most popular locations. Also, 

stricter limits on use (see access section) could result in crowded and congested conditions (and 

therefore degraded visitor experience quality) at those locations that are not directly managed. 

This alternative has more benefits than alternatives A and B, and similar benefits to alternative C.

VISITOR AND USER SAFETY

Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts

This analysis discusses impacts on visitor and user safety related to the Acadia transportation 

systems. Some of the specific factors influencing transportation safety in Acadia National Park 

include increasing visitation, congestion that inhibits emergency response times, shared use of

the roadway for vehicles and bicycles, and nontraditional and disorganized parking habits. 

Other factors that affect visitor safety in the corridor include traffic speeds, signs and markers 

that help orient visitors, and visitor behavior. Visitor behavior varies across individuals, and can 

be dependent on an individual’s skills, abilities, and experience. These interrelated factors are 

discussed together in this section.
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

122

The level of detail varies because the level of impacts would vary. If there are no impacts or only 

slight impacts associated with certain actions, then they are not discussed here. The effects of 

the alternatives are analyzed based on anticipated results from changes to traffic management 

strategies, visitor use patterns, types of use, timing of use, changes in levels of development, and 

management actions associated with each alternative. The impacts of each alternative are 

determined by describing how each impact topic would change compared to existing 

conditions. This analysis is driven by the key question: “How would visitor safety, both real and 

perceived, be affected by the alternatives?”

Alternative A: No Action. The continuation of current management in alternative A would 

result in some beneficial impacts, but mostly adverse impacts on visitor safety. Because of the 

historic road width, one-way sections are generally safer and more pleasant to drive. Where 

right lane parking is prohibited, one-way sections of roadway provide safe space for passing 

vehicles and bicyclists. The one-way sections of roadway allow safer operation of buses and 

RVs. 

However, the congested condition of the roadways under current conditions can mean that 

emergency response times are delayed during busy days (primarily on Ocean Drive and Cadillac 

Summit Road). To manage these peak congestion periods, the ranger division often has to 

allocate a majority of resources to these incidents, which makes the park staff unavailable to 

respond to other potentially more pressing, emergencies. Additionally, the current two-way 

traffic pattern nominally increases traffic on Park Loop Road by encouraging commuter traffic 

through the park (instead of taking other routes designed for commuter use). Due to the historic 

road width, the two-way section of Park Loop Road and Cadillac Summit Road is not designed 

for safe use by larger vehicles such as buses or RVs, especially when passing bicyclists or when 

meeting one another from opposite directions, which results in perceived safety risks and 

adverse impacts on safe use of the roadways. Finally, there is the potential for visitor injury from 

collisions between historic structures and motor coaches and other large vehicles that do not fit 

under historic bridges without straddling center lanes. Implementing the recommendations 

from the Traffic Safety Management Plan (2011) would mitigate many, but not all of these 

concerns. 

Common to All Action Alternatives— Reductions in vehicle size would reduce the number of 

instances where vehicles need to cross the centerline, increasing safety along roadways for 

vehicles and bicycles. Ensuring buses fit within the dimensions of the historic bridges and 

roadways would result in safer bicycle/bus encounters and would allow them to stay in their 

lanes, especially under historic bridges and in tight curves, reducing the likelihood of collisions. 

Though the road would still provide shared motor vehicle and bicycle use, replacing large coach 

buses (+/- 60 passengers) with more small buses (+/- 30 passengers) would result in nearly 

double the bicycle/bus encounters on two-way sections of roadway, and could increase the 

potential for collisions.

Alternative B. In addition to the impacts discussed in common to all, benefits in this 

alternative would result from the overall reductions in vehicle volumes on Cadillac Summit 

Road (resulting from the managed access actions in this alternative) and would reduce the 

likelihood of vehicle conflicts. 

Alternative C. The removal of right lane parking in some areas would reduce the number of 

vehicle-pedestrian conflicts and increase the safety of bicyclists. Overall, reductions in vehicle 
Visitor and User Safety

123

volumes would also reduce the likelihood of vehicle conflicts on the corridors that are actively 

managed through the reservation system. The elimination of roadside parking at Eagle Lake 

would vastly improve visitor safety along this section of road for both pedestrians accessing 

trailheads and bicyclists. Additionally, the active management of the most used corridors would 

mean that ranger staff would not need to actively manage the congestion in these areas and 

would be able to respond more readily to other incidents in the park. The overall reduced traffic 

volumes in these corridors would increase the likelihood that emergency response vehicles 

would have unrestricted access to these areas of the park. These benefits, while limited to the 

locations where the NPS has jurisdiction of the road, could greatly reduce overall safety 

concerns. 

The actions in this alternative could result in some site specific adverse impacts on visitor safety. 

Because the road would still provide shared motor vehicle and bicycle use, keeping right lane 

parking would increase the potential for vehicle/bicycle conflicts. Regulated access to corridors 

could increase the number of people who walk-in or bicycle in, which could pose safety issues 

along roadways.

Alternative D. Similar to alternative C, removal of right lane parking in some areas would 

reduce the possibility of vehicle-pedestrian conflicts and increase the perceived safety of 

bicyclists. Overall, reductions in vehicle volumes would also reduce the likelihood of vehicle 

conflicts on the corridors that are actively managed through the reservation systems, resulting in 

a lower probability of incidents. Additionally, the active management of Park Loop Road would 

mean that ranger staff would not need to actively manage the road congestion and would be able 

to respond more readily to other incidents in the park. The overall reduced traffic volumes on 

Park Loop Road would increase the likelihood that emergency response vehicles would have 

unrestricted access to these areas of the park.

Regulated access to corridors could increase the number of people who walk-in or bicycle in, 

which could pose safety issues along roadways. Changing Lower Mountain Road to one way 

could create temporary confusion and temporary driver safety hazards at the intersection of 

Lower Mountain Road and Cadillac Summit Road until visitors adjust to this change in traffic 

patterns.

Cumulative Impacts. In all alternatives (including the no-action alternative) the completion of 

the Bold Coast Bike Tour Route could result in increased bicycle use along Schoodic Loop 

Road. This could result in increased possibility of vehicle-bicycle incidents along this road 

segment and potentially impact cyclist safety if this route becomes popular during the peak 

season. For other cumulative impacts see the section on “Visitor Access and Recreation 

Opportunity” in “Visitor Use and Experience.”

Conclusion. The greatest benefit resulting from implementation of this plan is common to all the 

action alternatives. Reducing vehicle size so that vehicles can navigate park roadways without 

departing the travel lane greatly improves safety on roadways of all user types. These beneficial 

impacts would be permanent. Additionally, the active management of these areas and corridors 

would allow park staff to be more responsive (both in timing and number) to other incidents in 

the unit, resulting in long-term beneficial impacts to all users. In all alternatives, the regulated 

access to sites and corridors could lead to an increased number of visitors accessing the park as 

pedestrians or cyclists, and therefore increasing the potential for between-user conflicts on the 

roadways. However, this potential adverse impact is minor when compared to the overall 

reduction in volumes that would reduce the potential for between-user conflicts.
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

124

SOCIOECONOMICS

Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts

Economic data, visitor use data, expected future visitor use, park records, and future 

developments of the park as well as studies of similar actions and impacts were all considered in 

identifying, discussing, and evaluating expected impacts. The geographic area analyzed for 

potential impacts on socioeconomics is the five-county area around the park including 

Hancock, Knox, Penobscot, Waldo, and Washington Counties in Maine.

The effects of the alternatives on the socioeconomic environment were qualitatively analyzed 

based on potential changes in visitor use patterns, visitor demand, tourism, commercial visitor 

services, visitor spending, and resultant contributions to the local and regional economy.

General Assumptions for Socioeconomics. The following assumptions were considered 

when assessing the effects of each alternative management action:

 With no changes in park management, visitation levels for all uses would increase 

throughout the park during the time frame of the plan.

 Visitation levels in the shoulder season would continue to increase.

Alternative A (No Action). Alternative A (no-action alternative) would not result in any 

change to current contributions that park visitation and operations have on the local and 

regional economy. The dynamic and interdependent relationship between the park and local 

communities would remain unchanged. Management of park visitors would continue to vary 

seasonally as visitor demand and needs change and the physical capacity of roads and 

designated parking lots would remain generally the same. This can be expected to result in 

similar volumes of use as currently experienced where finding parking in preferred locations is 

very challenging at peak times. Visitors who prefer less crowded park experiences and who may 

not have the flexibility to adjust their travel plans to lower use days of the year would continue 

to be displaced from the most popular park sites. Visitors would continue to be able to arrive at 

sites and choose recreational experiences and opportunities spontaneously. 

Under this alternative, restrictions and prohibitions on roads and parking areas would continue 

to be implemented when needed to address safety concerns. An example of this is the temporary 

closure of Cadillac Summit Road due to extreme congestion. For visitors who have flexibility in 

their schedule to adjust their travel plans, the temporary closure of a popular location may result 

in spending more time exploring nearby attractions and returning at a less congested time. 

Longer visits to nearby areas are likely to result in higher visitor spending in the visitor service 

sector, a localized, beneficial impact to the local economy. For visitors on tight schedules, such 

as cruise ship visitors, traffic delays and lack of parking space for their road-based commercial 

tour bus can result in having to drive by and not being let off at popular destination points. In 

2016, almost 70% of cruise ship passengers spend between 4 and 7 hours off the ship. Because 

there are no substitutes for visiting another national park within a 20-mile radius from Bar 

Harbor, increased congestion that reduces access and opportunity to explore the park would 

have adverse impacts on the tourism experience of visitors on tight schedules. The ongoing 

extreme congestion at peak times, lack of visitor parking at popular visitor destinations in the 

park and at the town of Bar Harbor, as well as large visitor crowds could result in negative visitor 

experience and discourage some visitors from visiting the park again or completing their average 
Socioeconomics

125

stay. These would result in long-term minor adverse impacts on the local and regional economy 

from decreased visitor-related spending and the associated induced effects (e.g., reduced 

seasonal employment). 

This alternative would not result in changes to current contributions to commuting times. Half 

of the park’s visitation (over 1.5 million visitors) is expected to continue to be concentrated into 

the three-month period of July through September; therefore, summer congestion and traffic 

slowdowns are expected to continue to worsen. The particularly high traffic volumes and 

congestion on roads on the eastern portion of the island during peak visitor season may lead to 

park visitor experience being perceived as less safe and of diminishing quality—a potential longterm adverse impact on tourism and associated service-related business that depend on the 

inflow of tourism dollars. Under this alternative, local visitors who have the flexibility to adjust 

their plans would likely adjust their visit to coincide with either less congested times of the day 

or different times of the year when less nonlocal visitors are expected at the park. Changes to 

how locals visit the park would result in undetectable effects on the local and regional economy. 

However these effects would likely be noticeable in the locals’ quality of life as the benefits of 

living next to a national park may be perceived as diminishing. The effects on local quality of life 

are likely to be localized to the Mount Desert Island communities.

The months of September and October are likely to experience an increase in large vehicle 

traffic due to increased cruise ship visitation in those two months. Cruise ship visitation 

previously discussed in chapter 3 has greatly increased over the last 15 years. There were 64 

scheduled cruise ship visits to Bar Harbor in 2002, over 110 ships dropped anchor in Bar Harbor 

between April and October 2016, and over 160 were scheduled to visit by the end of the 2017 

season. A similar level of growth was observed in the number of bus and van CUA holders, 

which grew from 25 in 2003 to almost 120 in 2016. As the number and size of cruise ships visiting 

Bar Harbor increases, an increased number of buses that use park and local roads would be 

expected to continue. The continuation of current management is expected to result in longterm, noticeable, adverse effects on local quality of life as local residents and commuter 

concerns with the high level of visitation to the park and the effects of this visitation on 

resources, park and local infrastructure, current traffic congestion, parking, and safety issues 

would continue.

As visitor season continues to expand especially during spring and fall months when park 

operations are not fully ramped up, the demand and pressure on park services and facilities 

would continue to increase. With expanded visitor season, additional staff is needed to clean 

restrooms, pick up trash, and conduct overall custodian activities. Furthermore, under this 

alternative, resource protection and visitor safety activities would continue to be reactionary 

and take away resources (people and funds for temporary fixes such as signage) when issues 

arise. Park operations and services would remain constrained by current budgetary conditions. 

However, the no-action alternative would not further constrain park operations or services.

Because visitor commercial services would generally continue as currently managed, business 

operators would not realize any changes to the current contributions resulting from visitor 

expenses. However, without any changes to current management, congestion issues are 

expected to continue to increase. Under this alternative, commercial operators would maintain 

flexibility to adjust tours to deal with delays; however, operators using oversize vehicles have 

less flexibility due to the geometry of park roads and bridges. In practice, this means that 

oversize commercial vehicles are limited to certain areas in the park and cannot take their clients 

elsewhere in the park to substitute an experience. The lack of reserved parking for road-based 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

126

commercial tour operators at some of the most popular park visitor sites would continue to be 

an operational risk to these operators as drivers may need to circle lots while a space becomes 

available. Continued growth in congestion can be expected to be unfavorable for the long-term 

sustainability of road-based commercial tour operators, resulting in a long-term adverse impact 

on the local and regional commercial transportation sector and associated service-related 

businesses that cater to these park visitors. 

Continuation of current visitor commercial services management would continue to have shortand long-term adverse effects on facilities and roads damaged by oversize commercial vehicles. 

An example of this is the entrance station, which motor coaches collide with every year adding 

to the park facility maintenance needs. As no major changes in budgeted resources to fund NPS 

operations are anticipated under this alternative, addressing the above-mentioned damages 

would continue to be done at the expense of other park maintenance projects like culvert 

cleaning and mowing and with the limited available park maintenance staff. These would 

adversely affect the long-term sustainability of the park resources upon which visitation and the 

associated local economic activity relies. Current management would continue to provide 

commercial operators with short and long-term beneficial economic impacts from maintaining 

business in the park. 

Service-related businesses supported by park visitation would continue to benefit from visitor 

expenditures inside the park and in the surrounding area. Contributions to the local and 

regional economies that result from park visitation would continue to be beneficial.

Common to All Action Alternatives. As described under “Visitor Access and Recreational 

Opportunities,” increased parking and traffic condition information prior to visitor arrival and 

at arrival as well as decreased the number of private vehicles accessing certain areas of the park 

as part of implementing reservation systems would result in beneficial impacts on visitor access, 

opportunities, and experiences. Positive visitor experience tends to translate into visitors 

completing or extending their average stay and repeat visits, both of which would result in 

beneficial impacts on the local and regional economy. 

As described under “Visitor Access and Recreational Opportunities,” the a amount of available 

parking is relatively fixed across all the alternatives and therefore under any reservation system, 

establishing a structure that successfully move visitors from crowded areas toward other lessvisited park areas would result in a long-term, beneficial impact to the local and regional 

economies from sustained visitor-related spending and the associated induced effects. If the 

alternatives were in place in 2016, there would have been between 26 and 72 days (alternatives B 

and D, respectively) of the 155 days of the reservation system when the demand for private 

vehicle access would have exceeded available parking. This also means that there would been 

between 129 and 83 days (alternative B and D, respectively) of the 155 days of the reservation 

system when the availability of private vehicle access was not fully utilized and there is room for 

potential private vehicle access growth. Assuming the reservation system is fully utilized and 

visitors are not dissuaded from visiting the park, an additional 5%–33% private vehicles could 

be accommodated under a reservation system resulting in beneficial impacts on the local and 

regional economy due to the potential for an overall increase in access to the park. Under any 

reservation system, visitors who prefer private vehicle access may be displaced from high use 

days due to lack of reservation availability and may not be flexible enough to change their travel 

plans to lower use days of the year. A decrease in visitation would result in a reduction of 

current contributions from visitor spending in the local and regional economy. 
Socioeconomics

127

Under all action alternatives, the park would continue to promote the availability and expansion 

of the Island Explorer, up to the determined visitor capacities for key areas of the park and the 

carriage roads (see appendix A), in order to facilitate access for visitors unable to secure a 

reservation. Implementing any configuration of a reservation system has the potential to 

significantly increase demand for alternate means of transportation (i.e., Island Explorer, roadbased commercial tours, and/or app-based on-demand rides). As only 2% of current visitors 

report being part of a commercial guided tour group, the implementation of a reservation 

system is likely to result in long-term beneficial economic impacts on the local and regional 

commercial travel and tourism sectors from the additional economic activity from new 

transportation operations including increased direct visitor spending and new jobs supported. 

Although the number of people arriving via oversize commercial vehicles at one time (PAOT) 

would decrease at key park destinations, over the course of the whole day and the whole 

reservation period the total number of visitors would increase at Cadillac Summit and Ocean 

Drive, respectively, by over 40%. The total number of visitors arriving via a commercial operator 

that are permitted at one time at key park destinations is identified in appendix A. To the extent 

that commercial operators are able to offer tours throughout the full reservation system period, 

an increase in access to these sites would result in long-term beneficial impacts to the local and 

regional transportation sector and businesses that benefit from this increased spending.

Furthermore, with a decrease number of private vehicles accessing certain areas of the park, it 

may provide new or expanded opportunities for commercial visitor services, a beneficial impact 

to the local and regional commercial transportation sector. 

For visitors who arrive at the park in their own vehicles and have not made reservations in 

advance, and have flexibility in their schedule to adjust their plans, a reservation system may 

result in spending longer time in the area and exploring less visited areas of the park. Longer 

visits would result in beneficial impacts on the local economy as visitor services such as gas, 

food, and lodging accommodations are obtained in the local communities. 

For visitors who are unable to secure a reservation to access the park and are on a tight schedule, 

the new Acadia Gateway Center along with improvements at Hulls Cove and associated large 

parking lots would provide the opportunity to park and transfer to alternate transportation 

options to access areas within the reservation system and would inform them of other areas of 

the park that can be explore outside the reservation system. This would support maintaining 

overall visitor access and diverse opportunities to explore the park which may result in 

improved visitor experience from dispersed visitor use. To the extent that these additional 

information and orientation maintains visitation levels and disperses use, this would represent a 

long-term beneficial impact to the local and regional tourism and recreation economy. 

Implementing commercial vehicle size requirements is expected to result in neutral economic 

impacts on the local and regional commercial transportation sector. Although road-based 

commercial tour operators wanting to operate in the park would need to switch to vehicles that 

fit within the existing bridge height and/or road geometry, these requirements would be phased 

in over several years. With an average of 10 to 12 years of rated useful life for large and small 

heavy duty buses, it would be expected that operators would incrementally upgrade their fleet 

size as the vehicle size requirements are phased in or to meet potential commercial service 

requirements . The implementation of vehicle size requirements has the potential to displace 

some of the current commercial operators from the park and present new business 

opportunities for other commercial operators. Vehicle size requirements may favor businesses 

whose main focus is catering to park visitors and who are able to capitalize on the full park 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

128

visitor season. Commercial operators that include visiting the park as part of longer regional 

tours may need to maintain large motor coaches to serve the needs of their business which 

would require them to partner with tour operators who choose to invest in commercial vehicles 

that meet the new size requirements. Such change would result in long-term adverse impacts on 

the commercial operators who would no longer be able to conduct business in the park, but 

provide long-term beneficial impacts on the commercial operators that successfully invest in 

commercial vehicles that allow them to operate in the park. Smaller commercial vehicles would 

also help better maneuver park roads which would have a long-term beneficial impact on the 

preservation and conservation of park resources as well as reduce park repair expenses 

associated with facilities and roads damaged by oversize commercial vehicles. Furthermore, it 

may provide road-based commercial tour operators a new opportunity to take customers to 

other areas of the park that may have been previously out of reach. The switch to smaller buses 

that meet the new vehicle size requirements would result in a larger number of authorized 

commercial vehicles that would employ additional drivers. This would be a long-term beneficial 

impact on the transportation sector and the number of jobs it supports.

Under all action alternatives, the number of oversize commercial services allowed at key 

locations of the park would be actively managed through requirements established in their 

operating conditions to ensure desired conditions are maintained and visitor capacities at 

primary attractions are not exceeded. An example of how commercial vehicles may be managed 

would be through the use of a reservation system which would require additional pre-planning 

for commercial operators on when their services may be provided. Having a system in place to 

manage oversize commercial vehicle access would reduce operational risks associated with 

limited parking and would ensure that operators’ customers access the primary park 

destinations. This would be expected to result in satisfactory, high-quality visitor experiences 

that are beneficial to the long-term health of the operators’ business. However, under a 

reservation system commercial operators would lose some of the flexibility afforded by the 

current management practices. 

Acadia National Park would continue to be a significant economic driver for local and regional 

communities and would continue to work in preserving the qualities and values (recreational, 

aesthetic, ecological, and cultural/historical, among others) that enhance local quality of life. 

The elimination of roadside parking at the Eagle Lake carriage road entrance along SR 233 and 

at the Acadia Mountain off SR 102 would result in beneficial impacts on the local quality of life 

because it would improve traffic flow and safety concerns associated with sharing the limited 

road space with pedestrians, bicyclists, and moving traffic. The switch to smaller buses that meet 

the new vehicle size requirements would result in a larger number of authorized commercial 

vehicles on the road, which may increase traffic congestion both within the park and in local 

communities. The smaller size of these buses and improved ability to navigate and park in local 

communities may result in noticeably beneficial impacts to local quality of life. However the 

increased number of these smaller commercial vehicles in local communities would result in 

adverse impacts on the local quality of life as it could further aggravate locals concerns 

associated with parking in Bar Harbor and traffic problems in and around the park. Promoting 

the availability and expanding the Island Explorer public transit service under all of the action 

alternatives, as funding allows, would provide visitors the ability to access the park and move 

freely about the island. This would result in beneficial impacts to local quality of life and local 

economy by alleviating some of the congestion caused by too many vehicles on island roads and 

by creating an opportunity to provide an improved visitor experience to the area.
Socioeconomics

129

Schoodic Peninsula. The opportunity for partners and local communities to provide bike 

rentals and other necessary and appropriate commercial visitor services in the Schoodic District 

would result in beneficial impacts to the local economy. The increased range of access and 

visitor opportunities in this area such as improved bicycle connection to the park, bike rentals, 

and accessible pedestrian trails between the Schoodic Education Center and Research Center 

campus and Schoodic Point would support increased visitation in this area. Furthermore, this 

may help accommodate some of the displaced visitors from Mount Desert Island who did not 

secure a reservation to visit other key areas of the park. Increased visitor access in this area in 

conjunction with opportunity for high-quality experiences would result in long-term beneficial 

impacts to the local and regional tourism and recreation sectors. 

Alternative B. In addition to the actions analyzed under “Common to All Action Alternatives,” 

alternative B’s site management actions emphasize the protection of high-quality visitor 

experiences and resources at five of the primary attractions and trailheads along Park Loop 

Road through implementation of parking reservations at each of those areas. As a result of 

reservation system proposed under this alternative, roughly 53% of the parking that provides 

access to sites along the Park Loop Road would be actively managed. Having the certainty and 

ability to access the five sites that are in the reservation system by securing a parking reservation

would enhance visitor experience and support visitors maintaining the average length of stay 

and desire to return for future visits. As visitors who wish to spontaneously engage in scenic 

driving to all segments of the park roads will continue to be able to do so and there will be other 

areas of the park accessible without a reservation, the reservation system proposed under this 

alternative would support improved visitor experience and proactive destination stewardship. 

This would support sustainable tourism levels which in turn provide long-term beneficial 

impacts to the local and regional economies. Alternative B would result in the least number of 

days (26 out of 155 days in the reservation system) in which demand for private vehicle access to 

Park Loop Road would exceed number of available parking. Please refer to figure 20 under 

“Visitor Access and Recreational Opportunity” for the estimated daily vehicles on Park Loop 

Road by alternative. Comparted to alternatives C and D, the reservation system proposed under 

this alternative is relatively more efficient and provides greater visitor access. The smoothing of 

visitation levels and spreading of visitors to other areas of the park would allow local 

communities and businesses to continue to reap the benefits of tourism while addressing some 

of the current congestion, crowding and safety concerns.

The elimination of right lane parking along Park Loop Road has the potential to improve visitor 

experience as it will likely decrease vehicle-pedestrians conflicts and visitor safety concerns. 

This would contribute to positive visitor experiences which support maintaining or expanding 

average stays and desire to return to visit, a long-term beneficial impact on the local and regional 

tourism economy. However, until alternative parking options at Hulls Cove and the Acadia 

Gateway center are developed, removing right lane parking may displace vehicles that would 

have otherwise been parked in the right lane to other areas of Mount Desert Island. This influx 

of vehicles into the community would further aggravate locals concerns associated with parking 

in Bar Harbor and traffic problems in and around the park resulting in adverse impacts to the 

local quality of life.

Under this alternative, future construction expenditures associated with the new facility at Hulls 

Cove, rehabilitation of the existing Hulls Cove Visitor Center structure, a new Acadia Gateway 

Center as well as the gate and signage improvements associated with the reservation system 

would be greater than alternative A and would support local construction trades industry and 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

130

associated vendors and suppliers. This would result in beneficial economic impacts during the 

three- to five-year-long construction period. 

Alternative C (Preferred Alternative and Proposed Action). In addition to the actions 

analyzed under “Common to All Action Alternatives,” alternative C would actively manage 

vehicle access to three of the most popular visitor destinations (Cadillac Mountain, Jordan 

Pond, and Ocean Drive), which would provide high quality visitor experiences at these sites 

while alleviating some of the congestion and crowding along Park Loop Road. As a result of 

reservation system proposed under this alternative, roughly 58% of the parking that provides 

access to sites along the Park Loop Road would be actively managed. Having the certainty and 

ability to access the sites that are in the reservation system by securing a parking reservation

would enhance visitor experience and support visitors maintaining the average length of stay 

and desire to return for future visits. As visitors who wish to spontaneously engage in scenic 

driving to all segments of the park roads will continue to be able to do so and there will be other 

areas of the park accessible without a reservation. The reservation system proposed under this 

alternative would support improved visitor experience and proactive destination stewardship. 

This would support sustainable tourism levels which in turn provide long-term beneficial 

impacts to the local and regional economies. Based on 2016 data, there would be 42 days (of the 

155 where the reservation system would be in place under this alternative) when the demand for 

number of private vehicles access to Park Loop Road would exceed available parking under 

alternative C. Please refer to figure 20 under “Visitor Access and Recreational Opportunity” for 

the estimated daily vehicles on Park Loop Road by alternative. Comparted to alternatives B and 

D, the reservation system proposed under this alternative would provide the most significant 

increase (+87%) in vehicle access to Ocean Drive. The smoothing of visitation levels and 

spreading of visitors to other areas of the park would allow local communities and businesses to 

continue to reap the benefits of tourism while addressing some of the current congestion, 

crowding and safety concerns.

Visitor access, in conjunction with high-quality visitor experiences, is the most influential factor 

in determining length of stay in an area and willingness to return for a visit. The economic 

impacts of visitation and tourism depend on length of stay (generally speaking, the longer 

visitors stay, the more visitors spend) and willingness to return. The eventual elimination of 

right lane parking along Park Loop Road would improve visitor experience as it would help 

decrease vehicle-pedestrians conflicts and visitor safety concerns. This would contribute to 

positive visitor experiences which support maintaining or expanding average stays and desire to 

return to visit, a long-term beneficial impact on the local and regional tourism economy. 

Under the timed-entry reservation system proposed under alternative C, there would be no 

restrictions on length of stay as in alternative B. This may result in visitors continuing to have 

difficulty securing parking at the most popular visitor destinations during peak days and times, 

however the ability to secure parking in advance, coupled with reduced levels of congestion is 

likely to result in improved visitor experience from current conditions. Additionally, the 

construction of new large parking lots such as the parking areas at Eagle Lake, Liscomb Pit, and 

Acadia Mountain with associated new trail connections would further support enhanced visitor 

access at destinations outside the reservation system. 

The implementation of a timed entry reservation system with no restrictions on length of stay 

would likely result in visitation changes including strategizing park visits that could have an 

effect on the goods and services demanded (e.g., higher demand for ready-to-go meals) and 
Socioeconomics

131

amount of time spent in the local area. To the extent that other areas of the park outside the 

reservation system would satisfy visitor’s expectations for their park visit then the actions under 

alternative C would have long-term beneficial impacts on the local and regional tourism 

industry. 

Under this alternative, future construction expenditures associated with the new and enlarged 

visitor center at Hulls Cove, substantial expansion of parking capacity at Liscomb Pit and Hulls 

Cove, relocation of maintenance area to Satterlee Pit, as well as the gate and signage 

improvements associated with the reservation system would be greater than alternatives A and B 

and would support the local construction trades industry and associated vendors and suppliers. 

This would result in beneficial economic impacts during the two- to three-year-long 

construction period. 

Alternative D. In addition to the actions analyzed under “Common to All Action 

Alternatives,” alternative D would manage the volume of vehicles on Park Loop Road at a 

systemwide level during the peak visitor season. This is likely to significantly alleviate congestion 

and crowding along Park Loop Road and provide for high-quality visitor experiences. Visitor 

access in conjunction with high-quality visitor experiences are the most influential factors in 

determining length of stay in an area and willingness to return for a visit. Under alternative D,

less visitors are able to access the park via private vehicle at one time than in alternatives A 

through C. Based on 2016 data, there would be 72 days (of the 155 where the reservation system 

would be in place under this alternative) when the demand for number of private vehicles access 

to Park Loop Road would exceed available parking under alternative D. Please refer to figure 20 

under “Visitor Access and Recreational Opportunity” for the estimated daily vehicles on Park 

Loop Road by alternative. It is expected that visitors who do gain access via private vehicle 

would have exceptionally higher quality experiences and therefore are more likely to return to 

the park and Mount Desert Island for a repeat visit. Visitors who wish to spontaneously engage 

in scenic driving to all segments in Park Loop Road will not be able to do so without a 

reservation although there will be other areas and roads of the park accessible without a 

reservation. With significantly less visitors having access to these sites by private vehicle than 

current levels and with the reservation system including most of the park’s iconic destinations, it 

is possible that some visitors may perceive access to the park as restrictive which may dissuade 

them from visiting. A decrease in visitation or reduce length of stay due to an inability to access 

iconic park areas would result in long-term, adverse, economic impacts on the local tourism 

industry and associated service-related businesses. 

The proposed timed-entry reservation system supports a high degree of flexibility and 

spontaneity once visitors enter Park Loop Road, which would result in a beneficial impact on 

visitor experience. With no limits to length of stay and without the option for re-entry, visitors 

may adjust their visit patterns to maximize the amount of time they can spend at favored 

destination sites. Such change may increase demand for ready-to-go food items and create new 

demand for on-site services and goods such as vending machines and walking tours.

Additional access to the Sand Beach area from the new Satterlee Pit parking lot and new larger 

parking lot at Eagle Lake that would accommodate the vehicles typically parked along the 

highway would reduce the possibility of vehicle-pedestrian conflicts and general vehicle 

conflicts, resulting in beneficial impacts to visitor experience, access and safety.

The impacts resulting from the elimination of most parking in the right-hand lane of Park Loop 

Road on local quality of life would be the same as those described under alternative B. The 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

132

implementation of a timed-entry reservation system for all of Park Loop Road would affect 

locals who use sections of this road for commuting purposes. A reduction in access to park 

roads for local recreation and travel would result in long-term, noticeable, adverse impacts on 

local quality of life. 

Under this alternative, future construction expenditures associated with improvements at Hulls 

Cove, widening the intersection of Stanley Brooke Road and Park Loop Road; parking lot 

improvements at Thunder Hole, Satterlee Pit, and Eagle Lake; new entrance stations at 

Wildwood Stables and at Paradise Hill as well as the gate, and signage improvements associated 

with the reservation system would be greater than alternative A, but less than alternatives B and 

C. The proposed infrastructure improvements under this alternative would support the local 

construction trades industry and associated vendors and suppliers. This would result in 

beneficial economic impacts during the two- to three-year-long construction period. 

Cumulative Impacts. A number of projects analyzed in the cumulative impacts analysis (e.g., 

Maine Office of Tourism’s Five-Year Strategic Plan, potential plans to renovate Bar Harbor’s 

ferry terminal, the Jackson Laboratory Campus Zoning Plan) would ultimately result in 

additional visitors and workers being drawn and accommodated on Mount Desert Island and in 

proximity to the park. These actions would likely increase the demand for access to the park via 

Island Explorer and commercial services (in all alternatives). This could increase competition 

for the limited capacity at the iconic park sites such as Cadillac Mountain and Jordan Pond 

House, resulting in degraded visitor experience. Park visitors are an important economic driver 

that contribute to the local and regional economy through the wide variety of activities they 

engage in when visiting—eating out, shopping at local stores, exploring museums, going on 

tours, etc. However, large numbers of visitors have other impacts on the local community 

including increases in foot and traffic congestion in Bar Harbor, increase pressure on 

community infrastructure and services including roads, restrooms, and emergency services as 

well as changes to the town character that locals wish to preserve.

Social and economic impacts from implementing the action alternatives would be similar to 

those of other past, current, and future development across the region and those under the noaction alternative. These include population and economic growth across the region that would 

result in minor, long-term increases in traffic on regional and local roads; minor, long-term 

increases in visitor spending, bolstering tourism-related business in the region; long-term 

demand on community infrastructure and services; as well as tax and fee revenues to fund 

public services and facilities. The action alternatives could result in long-term, minor, economic 

effects on tourism-related business and on local traffic and safety due to the changes in visitor 

use, visitor distribution and levels.

The effects of these other past, current, and reasonably foreseeable future actions by others, 

including the possible renovation of Bar Harbor’s ferry terminal and the ongoing construction 

projects on Jackson Laboratory’s Bar Harbor campus in combination with the effects of the NPS

action alternatives, would result in minor to moderate, beneficial, cumulative effects. The effects 

of the NPS action alternatives would add a small contribution to these effects. For example, the 

visitor spending from changes in visitor use, distribution and levels would be small in 

relationship to the total spending by area residents, businesses and other industries in the area. 

Conclusion. Visitor access, in conjunction with high-quality visitor experiences, are the most 

influential factors in determining length of stay in an area and willingness to return for a visit. 

Longer length of stays and return visits tend to result in beneficial economic impacts on 
Socioeconomics

133

surrounding communities. With increasing visitor levels, traffic, and parking issues, the actions

in alternative A would be inadequate to support the regional efforts in enhancing tourism and 

increasing visitor access in the area. The increased trip planning resources and enhanced transit

services under “Actions Common to All Alternatives” make all action alternatives more 

beneficial than alternative A. 

The most notable impact of alternative B and C is the improvement of visitor access to key park 

sites via private vehicle for those without a parking reservation. These alternatives maintain high 

levels of private vehicle access to Park Loop Road while providing greater certainty and access 

to parking for those who are able to secure a parking reservation. In terms of economic impacts 

due to the levels of visitor access, alternative B and C would be more beneficial than alternatives 

A and D.

All of the action alternatives involve beneficial and adverse impacts on the local and regional 

economies and on the local quality of life. All action alternatives improve visitor access and 

support high-quality visitor experiences over alternative A. All action alternatives would result 

in short-term, beneficial impacts on the local construction trades industry and associated 

vendors and suppliers as a result of future construction expenditures associated with 

infrastructure improvements.
134

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Chapter 5

Consultation and Coordination
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
135

CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

INTRODUCTION

The National Park Service consulted with various agencies, tribes, organizations, and interested 

persons in preparing this document. The process of consultation and coordination is an 

important part of this project. The public had two primary avenues for participation during the 

development of the plan—participation in public meetings and responding to newsletters by 

submitting comments via regular mail, by hand, and electronically through the NPS Planning, 

Environment, and Public Comment (PEPC) system website. This chapter summarizes the 

opportunities the public had to participate in the planning process and consultations that 

occurred with federal and state agencies and tribes.

PUBLIC SCOPING

On August 28, 2015, the National Park Service published in the Federal Register (vol. 80, no. 167, 

pages 52336–52337) a notice of intent to develop a transportation plan / environmental impact 

statement for Acadia National Park. The notice requested the public share their thoughts, 

concerns, and ideas for the plan during a comment period extending from May 18 to September 

30, 2015. The planning team sought this public input to understand the public’s perspectives on 

key issues and management options for the future of transportation in the park. These 

comments were instrumental in the subsequent creation of the range of preliminary concepts.

To inform the public of the scoping process, a newsletter describing the context for the plan and 

how to comment was distributed in the summer of 2015. This newsletter provided a general 

overview of the planning schedule, provided background on issues and opportunities regarding 

transportation in the park, and opportunities for the public to engage in the planning process.

To reach a broad audience, the newsletter and information about public scoping were shared 

with the public in a variety of ways. An electronic copy of the newsletter was distributed to 

individuals on the park’s mailing list (185 contacts). A press release was issued announcing 

public scoping. Social media, including Facebook and Twitter, were also used during the 

scoping period to inform people about the planning effort.

Approximately 148 people also attended public open house events during the comment period. 

This included two meetings at the Peninsula School in Prospect Harbor on June 3 and July 30, 

2015, respectively, and two at Mount Desert Island High School in Bar Harbor on June 4 and 

July 29, 2015, respectively. All handwritten comments received during the public open house 

were transcribed and entered into the PEPC system.

The National Park Service also held six public outreach sessions in which uniformed employees 

solicited public feedback at a booth with sign-in sheets, newsletters, comment cards, and an 

informational poster. The public was encouraged to provide comments related to the same 

questions presented at the public open house events. Verbal public comments received at the 

sessions were recorded by the staff and later entered into the PEPC website. Visitors were also 

encouraged to mail in a public comment card or enter their comments directly into the PEPC 

website. A total of 44 visitors signed the sign-in sheets during these sessions. Dates and locations 

of these visitor outreach sessions included:

 August 3, 2015, at Schoodic Point
Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination

136

 August 8, 2015, at Eagle Lake

 August 8, 2015, at Sand Beach

 August 11, 2015, at Hulls Cove Visitor Center

 August 13, 2015, at Jordan Pond House

 August 25, 2015, at Bass Harbor Head Light

A large majority of the public comments (61%) submitted during the public scoping period were 

from Maine, but comments were also received from across the country. A total of 289 individual 

correspondences were submitted, a majority of which were submitted directly to the NPS PEPC 

website. Hard copy letters and e-mails that were mailed or delivered to the park, including those 

submitted on behalf of user and advocacy groups, were entered into the PEPC system. The 

PEPC system serves as a database where the National Park Service can analyze and summarize 

public scoping comments.

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ON THE PRELIMINARY CONCEPTS

During the summer of 2016, the NPS planning team began developing a range of preliminary 

concepts for the transportation plan. While not required by the National Environmental Policy 

Act, the planning team felt that public feedback on the preliminary concepts would be vital to 

inform development of the draft environmental impact statement. 

To inform the public of the range of preliminary concepts and provide an update on the 

planning effort, a newsletter was released on October 13, 2016. The newsletter described the 

draft goals and desired conditions for each fundamental resource and value, management 

strategies for each preliminary concept, and identified next steps in the planning processes. The 

public was asked to provide feedback on the preliminary concepts during the comment period 

that ran from October 13 to November 30, 2016. 

To reach a broad audience, the newsletter and information about the preliminary concepts were 

shared with the public in a variety of ways. Both the availability of the newsletter; the length of the 

comment period; and the dates, times, and locations for the open house events were announced in 

a news release issued on October 12, 2016. An electronic copy of the newsletter was e-mailed to 

individuals on the park’s mailing list (201 contacts), which included public scoping meeting 

attendees who provided e-mails and indicated that they would like to be added to the park’s 

mailing list. 

Approximately 230 people attended open house events. These open houses were held in 

Prospect Harbor, Maine, on Wednesday, November 2, 2016, and in Bar Harbor, Maine, on 

Thursday, November 3, 2016. All handwritten comments received during the public open house 

were transcribed and entered into the PEPC system.

A large portion of public comments (77%) submitted during the public review of the range of 

preliminary concepts were from Maine, but comments were also received from across the 

country. A total of 213 individual correspondences were received, the majority of which were 

submitted directly to the PEPC website. Hard copy letters and e-mails that were mailed or 

delivered to the park also were entered into the PEPC system.
Agency and Tribal Consultation

137

AGENCY AND TRIBAL CONSULTATION

US Fish and Wildlife Service, Section 7 Consultation

The Endangered Species Act requires (section 7(a)(2)) that each federal agency, in consultation 

with the Secretary of the Interior, ensure that any action the agency authorizes, funds, or carries 

out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. The National Park Service 

initiated informal consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Maine Field Office, in a 

letter dated July 1, 2015. The National Park Service also initiated informal consultation with the 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, in a letter dated 

July 1, 2015.

These letters notified the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries 

Service that the National Park Service had begun developing a transportation plan for Acadia 

National Park and was initiating informal consultation on the project. The letter to the US Fish 

and Wildlife Service included a list of federally listed endangered, threatened, and candidate 

species for Acadia National Park that were assessed for potential impacts, including roseate tern 

(Sterna dougallii), Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), and northern long-eared bat (Myotis 

septentrionalis). The letter requested that the agencies review for and provide advice to ensure 

adequate evaluation of the potential impacts that the transportation plan / environmental impact 

statement project would have on federally listed endangered, threatened, and candidate species.

In a letter dated July 15, 2015, the US Fish and Wildlife Service confirmed the possible presence 

of these species in the project area.

In a letter dated July 21, 2015, the National Marine Fisheries Service advised that no 

consultation was necessary due to the lack of potential for the plan to impact endangered 

species protected under the Endangered Species Act nor any essential fish habitat protected 

under the Magnuson-Stevens Fisher Conservation and Management Act.

A separate biological assessment is being prepared that analyzes the effects of the preferred 

alternative on the federally listed species listed above in accordance with the Endangered 

Species Act. The biological assessment will be submitted to the US Fish and Wildlife Service for 

their concurrence and will be included in an appendix in the final environmental impact 

statement.

Section 106 Consultation with Maine State Historic Preservation Office

In a letter dated July 1, 2015, the National Park Service (Acadia National Park) notified the 

Maine state historic preservation office of the intent to consult under section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act regarding the preparation of a transportation plan / 

environmental impact statement for the park. The Maine state historic preservation office has 

been informed of the status of the project throughout the planning process and was provided a 

copy of the preliminary concepts newsletter. 

Park staff have substantially completed cultural resource surveys of the area of potential effect. 

There may be a need to conduct additional surveys for specific project areas that are yet to be 

finalized (e.g., entrance station development, vehicle turnouts, additional parking areas) and to 

carry out monitoring during construction. However, the historic properties currently identified 
Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination

138

in the document reflect the best available information regarding the known resources that could 

be affected by project actions.

The SHPO will be provided a review copy of the draft plan / environmental impact statement to 

assess the potential effects of the proposed alternatives on cultural resources (archeological 

resources; ethnographic resources; historic structures, sites, and cultural landscapes). In 

accordance with section 106 provisions, the National Park Service will continue to consult with 

the SHPO, associated American Indian tribes, and other stakeholders as actions identified in the 

plan advance to more detailed design development and implementation stages.

Consistency with the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972

The Coastal Zone Management Act was enacted by Congress to balance the competing 

demands of growth and development with the need to protect coastal resources (16 USC 1451 et 

seq.). The Maine Coastal Program was established in 1978 and is administered by the 

Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry, Bureau of Resource Information and 

Land Use Planning.

The National Park Service is in the process of preparing the draft Federal Consistency 

Determination for consistency review by the Maine Coastal Management Program.

Consultation with American Indian Tribes

In letters dated July 1, 2015, the National Park Service (Acadia National Park) notified 

representatives of the park’s associated tribal governments of the intent to prepare a 

transportation plan / environmental impact statement for the park and to seek to consult with 

the tribes under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

Associated tribes will be provided copies of the draft plan / environmental impact statement for 

their review and comment. In accordance with section 106 provisions, the National Park Service 

will continue to consult with the tribes as actions identified in the plan advance to more detailed 

design development and implementation stages.

AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS RECEIVING COPIES OF THIS DRAFT 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Partners

Abbe Museum

Acadia National Park Tours 

Carriages of Acadia

Dawnland, LLC

Downeast Transportation, Inc. 

Eastern National

Frenchman Bay Conservancy

Friends of Acadia

Isle au Haut Boat Services

Maine Coast Heritage Trust

Mount Desert Island Search and 

Rescue

Oli’s Trolley 

Schoodic Institute
Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Receiving Copies 

of this Environmental Impact Statement

139

Tourism/Business

Acadia Corporation

Acadia Regional Chambers of 

Commerce

Bangor Regional Chamber of 

Commerce

Bar Harbor Bicycle Shop 

Bar Harbor Chamber of Commerce

Bar Harbor Merchants Association

Bar Harbor Resorts

Bar Harbor Whale Watch Co.

Bermello, Ajamil & Partners

Boland Properties

Cruise Lines International Association

CruiseMaine

Cyr Bus Lines

Destinations North America

Down East Resource Conservation and 

Development Council

DownEast & Acadia Regional Tourism

Downeast Windjammer Cruises

Eastern Maine Development 

Corporation

Ellsworth Chamber of Commerce

Frenchman Bay Research Boating

Hub of Bar Harbor

Intercruises Shoreside & Port Services 

Island Bike Rental 

Maine Motorcoach Network

Maine State Chamber of Commerce 

Maine Tourism Association

Mount Desert Chamber of Commerce

Mount Desert Regional Chambers of 

Commerce

New England Bus Association

Northeast Charter & Tour Co.

Ocean Properties Hotels Resorts & 

Affiliates

Schoodic Peninsula Chamber of 

Commerce

Southwest Cycle 

Southwest Harbor & Tremont 

Chamber of Commerce

Sunward Tours

Trenton Chamber of Commerce

Tucker Downeast Resources, Inc.

Witham Family Limited Partnership

Elected Officials

Hancock County Commissioners

Maine State Representative - 132th 

District

Maine State Representative - 134th 

District

Maine State Representative - 135th 

District

Maine State Representative - 136th 

District

Maine State Senator - 6th District 

Maine State Senator - 7th District 

Maine State Senator - 12th District

U.S. Representative Chellie Pingree

U.S. Representative Bruce Poliquin

U.S. Senator Angus King

U.S. Senator Susan Collins
Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination

140

Towns

Town of Bar Harbor 

Town of Cranberry Isles

Town of Frenchboro

Town of Gouldsboro

Town of Isle au Haut 

Town of Mount Desert

Town of Southwest Harbor

Town of Swans Island

Town of Tremont

Town of Trenton

Town of Winter Harbor

Libraries

Bass Harbor Library

Ellsworth Library

Gouldsboro Library

Jesup Library (Bar Harbor)

Maine State Library

Northeast Harbor Library

Southwest Harbor Library

Thorndike Library (College of the 

Atlantic)

Winter Harbor Library

Community

Acadia Scenic Byway Committee

Acadia Senior College

American Driving Society (The)

Bar Harbor Historical Society

Bar Harbor Village Improvement 

Association

Beatrix Farrand Society

Bicycle Coalition of Maine

Bike MDI

Camp Beech Cliff

Carriage Association of America

College of the Atlantic

Hancock County Planning Commission

Hancock County-Bar Harbor Airport

Harbor House Community Service 

Center 

Healthy Acadia

Island Institute

Jackson Laboratory (The)

Maine Audubon Society

Maine Island Trail Association

Maine Sea Coast Mission

Maine Sierra Club

MDI Land and Garden Preserve

Mount Desert Island Biological 

Laboratory

Mount Desert Island Historical Society

Mount Desert Island Hospital

Mount Desert Island League of Towns 

Mount Desert Island Regional School 

System

Mount Desert Island YMCA

Natural Resources Council of Maine

The Neighborhood House (The)

Northeast Harbor Village Improvement 

Society

Otter Creek Aid Society

Peninsula School

Schoodic Arts for All

Schoodic Scenic Byway Committee

Seal Harbor Auto Museum

Seal Harbor Village Improvement 

Society

Somes Pond Center
Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Receiving Copies 

of this Environmental Impact Statement

141

Somesville Village Improvement 

Society

Summer Festival of the Arts

Town Hill Village Improvement Society

University of Maine Cooperative 

Extension/Maine Sea Grant

Wendell Gilley Museum

Winter Harbor Historical Society

YWCA Mount Desert Island

State of Maine

Department of Economic & 

Community Development

Department of Environmental 

Protection

Department of Inland Fisheries and 

Wildlife

Department of Marine Resources

Department of Natural Resources

Department of Transportation

Maine Historical Preservation 

Commission (SHPO)

Maine Port Authority

Office of the Governor

National

American Bus Association 

National Park Conservation 

Association

National Park Foundation

United Motorcoach Association 

Federal

Acadia National Park Advisory 

Commission

Federal Highway Administration

Federal Transit Administration

US Coast Guard – Sector Field Office 

Southwest Harbor

US Environmental Protection Agency

US Fish and Wildlife Service

Tribes

Aroostook Band of Micmacs

Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians

Passamaquoddy – Pleasant Point 

Reservation

Passamaquoddy Tribe of Maine -

Indian Township Reservation

Penobscot Nation
Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination

142

PREPARERS

Acadia National Park

Mary Elizabeth “Mea” Arego, Concessions Management Specialist, Acadia National Park, BA 

(Geography and Outdoor Recreation). MS in Environmental Law (Natural Resource 

Policy); 31 years with the National Park Service.

Christie Denzel Anastasia, Public Affairs Specialist, BA Human Ecology, MA Organization 

Development; 22 years with National Park Service.

Rebecca Cole-Will, Chief of Resource Management, Acadia National Park. BA (Anthropology), 

MA (Anthropology); 12 years with the National Park Service, 20 years of experience in 

cultural resource management and museum management.

Judith Hazen Connery, Natural Resource Program Leader. BS (Natural Resources); 37 years 

with the National Park Service.

Jason Flynn, Environmental Protection Specialist, Acadia National Park. BA (Environmental 

Studies); 15 years with the National Park Service.

Gail Gladstone, Cultural Resources Program Manager, BFA (Photography/Art History), MLA 

(Landscape Architecture); 10 years with the National Park Service.

Charles Jacobi. Natural Resource Specialist. BA (Sociology). MS (Forest Recreation and Park 

Management); 35 years with the National Park Service.

John T. Kelly, Management Assistant, Acadia National Park. BS (Outdoor Recreation), Master 

of Urban and Regional Planning (Environmental Policy and Planning); 31 years with the 

National Park Service.

Michael Madell, Deputy Superintendent, Acadia National Park. BS (Environmental Studies and

Geography), MA (Recreation and Parks); 29 years with the National Park Service, 6 years 

with other federal or state land management agencies.

Kevin Schneider, Superintendent, Acadia National Park. BS (Natural Resources Recreation and 

Tourism), MPA (Public Administration); 20 years with the National Park Service.

Stuart West, Chief of Visitor and Resource Protection, BS in forestry (park management); 30 

years with the National Park Service.

National Park Service – Northeast Regional Office

Mark Alexander, Chief of Line Item Construction and Transportation. BA (Major Geography);

21 years with the National Park Service; 2 years with the US Forest Service; 2 years in 

private sector design and 4 years of City and Nonprofit Program Management 

experience.

Margo Brooks, Resource Planning Specialist. 

Jacki Katzmire, Regional Environmental Coordinator.

National Park Service – Washington Support Office

Debra Hecox, NPS Commercial Services Program – Branch Chief for Planning and 

Development. Juris Doctor; 11 years with the National Park Service; 16 years with the 

Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of the Interior.
Preparers

143

National Park Service – Denver Service Center

Kerri Cahill, Branch Chief. PhD (Forestry/Recreation Management), MSP (Planning), BA 

(Environmental Policy and English); 15 years with the National Park Service; 5 years 

with state parks and private consulting

Rachel Collins, Visitor Use Management Specialist. PhD (Parks, Recreation, and Tourism), MS 

(Experiential Education), BS (Recreation and Leisure Studies, Outdoor Recreation); 5 

years with the National Park Service, 5 years as research social scientist.

Robert Gansauer, Project Manager. BS (Civil Engineering); 8 years with the National Park 

Service.

Jordan Hoaglund, Branch Chief and Project Manager. BA (Environmental Studies), MURP 

(Master of Urban and Regional Planning); 9 years with the National Park Service.

Marc Kochheiser, Project Specialist. BLA (Landscape Architecture); 2 years with the National 

Park Service, 2 years in private sector design.

Wanda Gray Lafferty, Editor (Contractor), 5 years with National Park Service; 11 years 

environmental consulting; 5 years communications director with environmental legal 

nonprofit organization.

Charles Lawson. Cultural Resource Specialist. BS (Anthropology), MS (Anthropology); 18 years 

with the National Park Service.

Tatiana Marquez, Environmental and Natural Resource Economist. BS (Environmental 

Studies), MS (Environmental and Natural Resource Economics); 6 years with the 

National Park Service, 2 years in private sector environmental consulting.

Cynthia Nelson, Branch Chief BA (Political Science), MPA (Master of Public Administration); 

11 years with National Park Service. 

Michael Rees, Natural Resource Specialist. BA (Environmental Studies), MFS (Master of Forest 

Science); 26 years with the National Park Service, 6 years with the US Fish and Wildlife 

Service.

US Department of Transportation – Volpe Center

Heather Richardson, Community Planner, US DOT Volpe Center. BS (Environmental Policy 

and Management), MCP (Master of City Planning with transportation focus); 4 years 

with the USDOT Volpe Transportation Systems Center.
Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination

144

Consultants

Bill Cranshaw, Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc., Transportation Planner. BA (History), BS (Civil 

Engineering); 29 years private sector planning and operations experience.

Steve Lawson, Resource Systems Group Inc., Senior Director, PhD Natural Resources 

(University of Vermont); MS Resource Economics and Policy (University of Maine); BA 

Political Science (University of Vermont); 22 years of experience in natural resource 

recreation-related social science research.

Tracy Littell, Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc., Environmental Planner. BS (Biology), MEM 

(Ecosystem Science and Management); 9 years of professional experience.

Jennifer Morrissey, Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc., Federal Lands Program Manager. AB 

(American History), MS (Natural Resource Planning); 20 years of experience in public 

lands planning and management.

Richard Pinkham, Socioeconomic Analysis, BA (Geography), MS (Natural Resources Policy & 

Management). 13 years with Booz Allen Hamilton; 12 years of experience with 

socioeconomics for environmental planning.
Glossary and Acronyms,

and Appendixes
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
145

APPENDIX A: INDICATORS, THRESHOLDS, AND VISITOR CAPACITY

The visitor use management framework created by the Interagency Visitor Use Management 

Council (the council) includes a series of elements by which planning decisions are made 

concerning visitor use management. Establishing indicators and thresholds and determining 

visitor capacity are key components of this framework as applied by the National Park Service. 

Indicators measure conditions that are related to visitor use, and monitoring is conducted to 

track those conditions over time. The results of monitoring are used to inform and select 

strategies to be used by park managers in order to not exceed the maximum amount of visitor 

use that can be accommodated for a site (visitor capacity determination). In this section, 

potential management strategies are described for each indicator and would be applied together 

with the actions and intents of each alternative presented in this plan. This iterative practice of 

monitoring, implementing corrective strategies, and then continuing to monitor to gauge the 

effectiveness of those actions allows park managers to maximize benefits for visitors while 

achieving and maintaining desired conditions for resources and visitor experiences in a dynamic 

setting. In this section, the indicators to be monitored at Acadia National Park are presented, 

and the associated thresholds and strategies included below are used to inform the visitor 

capacity determination.

INDICATORS AND THRESHOLDS

Indicators translate the broad description of desired conditions into measurable attributes (i.e., 

people at one time (PAOT) at key locations, number of visitor-created trails) that can be tracked 

over time to evaluate change in resources or conditions that relate to visitor experience. They 

are a critical component of the visitor use management framework and are considered common 

to all action alternatives. The planning team considered many potential issues and related 

indicators that would identify impacts of concern, but those described in this section were 

considered the most noteworthy, given the importance and vulnerability of the resources or 

visitor experiences affected by visitor use. In identifying meaningful indicators the planning 

team also reviewed the experiences of other park units with similar issues. 

Thresholds that represent the minimum acceptable condition for each indicator were then 

assigned, taking into consideration the qualitative descriptions of the desired conditions, data 

on existing conditions, relevant research studies, and staff management experience. Although 

defined as “minimally acceptable,” thresholds still represent acceptable conditions. Also, 

establishing thresholds does not imply that no action would be taken prior to reaching the 

threshold. One goal of visitor use management is to strive to make progress toward desired 

conditions. Thresholds identify when conditions are about to become unacceptable and 

accordingly serve as a “line in the sand,” letting managers and the public know that corrective 

action must be taken to keep conditions acceptable so that progress toward desired conditions 

can be achieved over time. For some indicators, triggers have been developed. A trigger reflects 

a condition of sufficient concern for an indicator to prompt a management response to ensure 

that desired conditions continue to be maintained before the threshold is crossed. 

Indicators, thresholds, triggers (when identified), and associated potential management 

strategies (see figure A-1) that would be implemented as a result of this planning effort are 

described below. Indicators are applied across all action alternatives within the plan. In this 
Appendix A: Indicators, Thresholds, and Visitor Capacity

146

plan, thresholds can vary either by alternative, zone, or site. These variations reflect the content 

of the management strategies ascribed for each alternative. For example, if access to a site is 

restricted under one alternative the threshold would differ from that for an alternative where 

visitor opportunities at that site remain the same or are expanded. Where actions across the 

alternative do not result in differences of visitation or visitor experience to sites the threshold 

does not vary. 

Figure A-1. Management Triggers and Thresholds in Relation to Trend in Conditions

Some management strategies vary across alternatives and would be implemented on completion 

of the plan to ensure thresholds are maintained and desired conditions are achieved. Several of 

these strategies are currently in use at the park and may be increased in response to changing 

conditions. The implications of indicators, thresholds, potential management strategies, and 

visitor capacity determinations are considered as part of the actions common to all alternatives 

and therefore are analyzed as part of the alternatives in chapter 4. If additional strategies are 

needed as outlined in the potential management strategies, details of their application would be 

developed as thresholds are exceeded or approached and would be informed by monitoring 

results. 

Visitor use management is an iterative process in which management decisions are continuously 

informed and improved through monitoring to determine the most effective way to manage 

visitor use to attain desired visitor experience and resource conditions. As monitoring of 

conditions continues, managers may decide to modify or add indicators if better ways are found 

to measure important changes in resource and experiential conditions. Information on NPS 

monitoring efforts, related visitor use management actions, and any changes to the indicators 

and thresholds would be available to the public. This section presents the potential corrective 

strategies component of the plan common to all action alternatives. For each indicator, potential 

management strategies are identified. These strategies represent the range of actions in addition 

to those found within the alternatives that the National Park Service may take to meet the goals 

and desired conditions of this plan. If it is determined through monitoring that thresholds are 
Indicators and Thresholds

147

being approached or exceeded, the National Park Service would use one or more of these 

management strategies. Details of potential management strategies would be developed at the 

time they are needed in order to ensure that the most effective approach is identified. The 

potential impacts of these actions are included in chapter 4 of this plan. 

Vehicles at One Time at Key Destinations

Rationale for Indicator and Thresholds. Monitoring and managing visitor use according to 

this indicator helps ensure that visitors have safe and stress-free access to popular visitor 

destinations at key areas and along key corridors by reducing vehicle congestion and conflicts in 

parking lots. Vehicles at one time (VAOT) is a measure commonly used by park managers and 

researchers to quantify vehicle congestion in parking lots (Lawson and Kiser 2013a; Manning, 

Lawson et al. 2014). It provides an important measure of parking lot conditions in relation to 

visitor access to popular destinations as well as potential park resource impacts as a result of 

parked vehicles in unauthorized areas when lots are full.

Parking lot capacities provide an ideal threshold on which to base monitoring efforts for VAOT. 

Instances in which parking lot capacities are exceeded are indicative of vehicle congestion, 

potential safety concerns, and possible park resource impacts stemming from vehicles parking in 

unauthorized areas (Lawson, Newman, and Monz, in press). This indicator also helps to ensure 

that the reservation systems for lots, corridors, or systems are appropriately allocated to ensure 

that visitors with reservations can reach their intended destinations as allocated. The VAOT 

thresholds are determined such that the permit system in each alternative can be fully utilized 

without hitting the threshold.

Vehicles at one time in parking lots at along the Park Loop Road, Cadillac Summit, and 

Schoodic Peninsula will be used as an indicator of transportation and access conditions at 

popular visitor destinations. Parking lots at these destinations provide visitors with access to 

important park resources and experiences, including viewing scenery, hiking on trails, visiting 

historical and cultural sites, and walking or biking on carriage roads. Monitoring VAOT at one 

or more of these locations provides a reasonable basis on which overall transportation and 

access conditions at visitor destinations can be inferred. Sites that initially will be included in the 

VAOT indicator are: 

 Thunder Hole

 Jordan Pond

 Sand Beach

 Hulls Cove Visitor Center

 Sieur de Monts

 Schooner Head Overlook

 Bubble Rock

 Wildwood Stables

 Eagle Lake

 Bass Harbor Head

 Acadia Mountain

 Echo Lake Beach

 Cadillac Summit

 Blue Hill Overlook

 Schoodic Point

 Frazer Point

 Schoodic Woods Day Use Lot
Appendix A: Indicators, Thresholds, and Visitor Capacity

148

Thresholds. VAOT does not exceed the design capacity of parking lots at the visitor destination 

more than 25% of the time (about 2 hours per day or 14 hours per week) during the peak hours 

of the day (9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.).

Triggers and Corrective Actions.

 Trigger 1: Lots not on Reservation Systems. VAOT does not exceed the design 

capacity of parking lots at the visitor destination more than 20% of the time per day

during peak hours of the day (9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) for two consecutive years.

− Corrective Management Action: Implement a strategy (e.g., reservation system, gated 

access) to actively manage vehicle demand at this lot. 

 Trigger 2: All Park Loop Road Lots. VAOT does not exceed the design capacity of 

parking lots at the visitor destination (more than 80% of lot spaces) for more than 20% 

of the time per season for two consecutive years.

− Corrective Management Action—Implement Alternative D. 

− Rationale for Trigger—There may come a point where changes in visitation numbers 

or patterns are such that managing these areas or corridors is problematic for both 

visitors and for park managers, and a systems management approach may be more 

effective for managing transportation in the park. Implementing the reservation 

system for all of Park Loop Road would require reconfiguring some existing park 

entrances as exit only, constructing new entrance stations or relocating existing 

entrance stations, and potentially making all of Park Loop Road one way in a 

clockwise or counterclockwise direction. This scenario is described in greater detail 

within the systems management alternative. 

Related Potential Management Strategies—General.

 Enforcement of parking and access restrictions, as well as site-management (signage, 

curbing, paving, revegetation) to resolve overparking and visitor-created parking.

 Deploy Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) to provide visitors with information on 

status of parking lots (i.e., Frazer Point is full—park at Day Use Lot). This information 

would be conveyed to visitors prior to and/or on entry to the corridor to facilitate 

seeking alternative experiences, including those outside the corridor.

 Increase frequency of Island Explorer service in park.

 Increase extent of Island Explorer service in communities leading to park.

 Increase enforcement of endorsed parking only. 

 System management alternative (see “Triggers”).

Related Potential Management Strategies—Schoodic Peninsula Destinations.

 Consider reducing vehicles to a single lane to encourage increased bike use.

 Allow bike rental concession to encourage increased bike rental.

 Require park and ride/bike from day use lot when use of Park Loop Road reaches 

capacity.

 Establish reservation system to manage visitor use (see “Trigger 1”).
Indicators and Thresholds

149

Monitoring Strategies. Establish statistical and/or mathematical relationships among 

automated vehicle traffic recorder (ATR) data and VAOT as a basis for long-term monitoring of 

VAOT. Periodically conduct an observational study of VAOT in parking lots and adjacent 

overflow areas to establish and update statistical relationships between ATR data and VAOT 

counts. Compare observed and/or estimated VAOT to the design capacity of parking lots.

Roadway Level of Service

Rationale for Indicator and Thresholds. Ocean Drive offers sweeping views of the Atlantic 

coast and access to many of the park’s most popular visitor destinations and, as a result, is the 

most popular section of the Park Loop Road for scenic driving. Results of research in Acadia 

National Park suggest that traffic conditions on Ocean Drive are important to the quality of 

visitor experience (Hallo & Manning 2009), and the same research suggests that visitor 

perceptions of vehicle congestion on Ocean Drive may be a primary indicator of the quality of 

scenic driving experience in Acadia National Park and roadway segments proximal to Jordan 

Pond House and Cadillac Road entrance are indicative of the general quality of driving (or levels 

of congestion) along the Park Loop Road. Monitoring of roadway level of service on segments

Ocean Drive, roadways segments proximal to Jordan Pond House, and Cadillac Road entrance, 

therefore, could provide a reasonable basis on which the quality of visitor experience on Park 

Loop Road could be inferred.

According to industry standards, Level of Service D represents a travel condition where the 

demand for use is high. Under these conditions passing becomes challenging, and a high 

percentage of cars are travelling in platoons (limiting general freedom of travel along the 

roadway). Level of Service E represents a condition where demand is approaching the roadway 

capacity. Passing is virtually impossible and speeds are seriously curtailed (Highway Capacity 

Manual 2010).

Thresholds.

 Alternative B: Peak hour level of service does not fall below Level of Service E for more 

than 120 minutes per day for more than 14 days per summer for three consecutive 

summers along Ocean Drive. 

 Ocean Drive Alternatives C and D: Peak hour level of service does not fall below Level of 

Service D for more than 180 minutes per day for more than 14 days per summer for three 

consecutive summers along Ocean Drive.

Triggers and Corrective Actions.

Trigger. Peak hour level of service does not fall below Level of Service D for more than 

60 minutes per day on more than 14 days per summer along Ocean Drive.

 Corrective Management Actions

− Conduct a study to better understand visitor attitudes toward roadway congestion 

and adjust this indicator and threshold to ensure metrics are consistent with 

operational needs and visitor acceptability. 
Appendix A: Indicators, Thresholds, and Visitor Capacity

150

Trigger. Peak hour level of service does not fall below Level of Service D for more than 

60 minutes per day for more than 14 days per summer for two consecutive summers 

along Ocean Drive

 Corrective Management Actions

− Alternatives B— Evaluate implementation of the corridor or systems management 

alternative.

− Alternative C and D— Reduce the number of permits to correct condition. 

Related Potential Management Strategies.

 Deploy Intelligent Transportation Systems to provide visitors with information on status 

of parking lots (i.e., Frazer Point is full—park at Day Use Lot). This information would 

be conveyed to visitors prior to and/or on entry to the corridor to facilitate seeking 

alternative experiences, including those outside the corridor.

 Increase frequency of Island Explorer service in park.

 Increase extent of Island Explorer service in communities leading to park.

 Adjust reservation system parameters (timing, number, duration) to reduce roadway 

congestion.

Monitoring Strategies.

 TBD based on Summer 2018 data collections. 

Number of Island Explorer Trips with “Leave-Behinds”

Rationale for Indicator and Thresholds. The Island Explorer is a popular means by which 

visitors to the park can avoid driving in congested conditions and still visit and experience 

popular destinations. The park promotes Island Explorer as a means of reducing roadway and 

parking lot congestion and improving the quality of the visitor experience. Therefore, it is 

important that Island Explorer services operate in a manner that is reliable and convenient for 

visitors to use. Monitoring “leave-behinds” provides a reasonable basis by which the quality of 

Island Explorer service along Park Loop Road can be inferred. The number of “leave-behinds” 

per Island Explorer service trip will be used as an indicator of the quality of Island Explorer 

service access to visitor destinations along Park Loop Road. The term “leave-behinds” refers to 

instances in which users of Island Explorer service are unable to board a next arriving bus 

because there is no room on the bus for additional passengers. “Leave-behinds” negatively 

affect wait times for and frequency of Island Explorer service trips, both of which have been 

shown to be among the most important factors in a visitor’s decision to use Island Explorer in 

Acadia National Park and other national parks (Manning 2009; Pettengill, Manning et al. 2012; 

Manning, Lawson et al. 2014). Instances of “leave-behinds” may also indicate that visitors 

onboard the bus may be experiencing crowded conditions on the bus. This indicator would 

apply to Island Explorer service in and connecting to Acadia National Park. 

This indicator will be monitored at two types of loading locations: transportation hubs and park 

destinations. Transportation hubs (Hulls Cove, Village Green, Acadia Gateway Center, 

Schoodic Marina, and Schoodic day-use parking) are those places where a large number of 

people are arriving and transitioning to transit service. Because these areas are larger in size and 
Indicators and Thresholds

151

have more visitor services, there is a higher tolerance for leave-behinds. Park destinations are 

smaller stops with limited visitor services where leave-behinds could have a stronger negative 

influence on visitor experience because at these locations visitors have limited options to make 

other decisions (i.e., return to private vehicle, choose other route).

Thresholds.

 Transportation Hubs. No more than 3% riders are left behind on any Island Explorer 

service trip.

 Park Destinations. No more than 1% riders are left behind on any Island Explorer

service trip.

Related Potential Management Strategies. This indicator is also monitored in concert 

with the people per viewscape and encounter rates indicators (see below). Where transit service 

can be increased or modified to reduce the number of leave-behinds without violating the 

thresholds in these indicators those changes will be made. However, if changes to the transit 

service result in negative trends on related indicators, other actions (such as reservations for 

transit service) will be pursued. 

 Mount Desert Island

− Increase size of transit vehicles operating on the island (if this increase can be 

accomplished consistent with the capacity determination for the related locations).

− Increase frequency of transit service on the island (if this increase can be 

accomplished consistent with the capacity determination for the related locations).

 Schoodic Peninsula

− Modify transit service (i.e., timing, routes, number of stops) to ensure visitor 

capacities are not exceeded and desired conditions are maintained.

Monitoring Strategies. On each Island Explorer service trip, bus operators or other 

monitoring staff record each instance of a “leave-behind” and the number of people unable to 

board the bus.

People per Viewscape at Key Visitor Use Sites

Rationale for Indicator and Thresholds. Sites: People per viewscape (PPV) is a measure 

often used by park managers and researchers to quantify visitor crowding (Lawson, Chamberlin

et al. 2011; Lawson, Newman et al. 2009; Manning, Valliere et al. 2011; Lawson; Newman & 

Monz, in press). Crowded conditions have been documented to adversely affect the quality of 

visitor experience in national parks (Whittaker & Shelby 2010). Research suggests that visitors 

can identify site-specific standards for crowding (Manning, Valliere et al. 2011). These visitorbased standards can be used to guide the development of social indicators and thresholds for 

crowding. PPV is also used by park managers and researchers to quantify visitor crowding 

impacts along higher use hiking trails, walking paths, and other scenic, nonmotorized 

transportation corridors in national parks (Lawson, Newman et al. 2009; Lawson, Chamberlin et 

al. 2011; Lawson, Newman & Monz, in press).
Appendix A: Indicators, Thresholds, and Visitor Capacity

152

 Thunder Hole. People per viewscape at Thunder Hole will be used as an indicator of 

the quality of visitor experience at popular visitor destinations along Park Loop Road. 

Thunder Hole is an iconic feature of Acadia National Park and is easily accessed by a 

short path from a parking area off Park Loop Road. The popularity of this feature can 

lead to high numbers of people at one time on the Thunder Hole observation deck, 

which can cause crowding that negatively affects the quality of visitor experience. 

Monitoring of PAOT at Thunder Hole provides a reasonable basis on which the quality 

of visitor experience at popular destinations along Park Loop Road can be inferred. The 

well-delineated and contained space at Thunder Hole ensures that monitoring efforts 

will be reliable and accurate. A 2004 and 2005 study of visitors to Acadia National Park 

identified approximately 30 PAOT as the threshold beyond which visitors generally felt 

the Thunder Hole observation deck was unacceptably crowded (Anderson, Manning

et al.; Manning 2009).

 Cadillac Summit. People per view in the Cadillac Summit Loop Trail area will be used 

an indicator of the quality of visitor experience on Cadillac Mountain’s summit. Cadillac 

Mountain is an iconic feature of Acadia National Park. The summit is accessible to 

visitors arriving on three hiking trails or traveling in private vehicles, road-based 

commercial tours, or activity-based commercial use authorization holders up Cadillac 

Mountain Road. The popularity of Cadillac Mountain can lead to high numbers of 

PAOT on the summit. Monitoring of PPV in the summit area loop trail provides a 

reasonable basis on which the quality of visitor experience on Cadillac Mountain’s 

summit can be inferred and helps ensure that visitors can experience an uninterrupted 

view from the summit area. There is also a high correlation between the number of 

people in the loop trail area and the total number of people on the summit (visitor 

capacity). Therefore, this indicator also allows park managers to ensure that visitor 

capacity on the summit is not exceeded with regularity.

 High-Use Trails. Persons per viewscape along the Jordan Pond Path, Beehive Trail, 

and/or Gorham Mountain Trail will be used as an indicator of the quality of visitor 

experience on higher use hiking trails along Park Loop Road. Hiking trails along Park 

Loop Road provide access to scenic vistas of the Atlantic coast and the forests and lakes 

of Mount Desert Island. Many of these trails provide relatively short (i.e., a few miles or 

less) round-trip hikes, and are accessible to hikers with a broad range of ability levels. 

Correspondingly, these trails are popular and can become crowded at times, which can 

negatively affect the quality of visitor experience (Manning 2009). On some high-use 

trails in the park, such as the Beehive Trail, which has narrow ledges and steep ascents, 

visitor crowding may cause unsafe conditions. Monitoring of PPV along one or more of 

the trails noted provides a reasonable basis on which the quality of visitor experience on 

higher use hiking trails along Park Loop Road can be inferred. Because the 

transportation system along Park Loop Road and associated park roads serves as the 

primary mechanism by which people access these trails, it is important to monitor these 

experiences to ensure that the transportation system is not delivering more people to a 

trail than that trail can accommodate given its desired condition and related threshold.

 PPV will be monitored on one or more of the following higher use trails:

− Jordan Pond Path

− Beehive Trail

− Gorham Mountain Trail
Indicators and Thresholds

153

− South Bubble Trail

− Wonderland Trail

− Ship Harbor Trail

− Cadillac Mountain Gorge Path

− Schoodic Head Trail

To date, no studies have been completed to determine acceptable PPV levels along higher use 

hiking trails in Acadia National Park. (PPV studies on the carriage roads do not translate directly 

to potential PPV thresholds for the hiking trails.) However, studies of PPV on trails in other 

national parks can provide a range within which acceptable PPV levels for typical viewscapes on 

trails in Acadia National Park might fall. Results of a 2005 study in Muir Woods National 

Monument included a visitor-based acceptability threshold of 16 PPV for higher use or 

“primary” hiking trails, and a visitor-based acceptability threshold of 7 PPV on lower use or 

“secondary” hiking trails (Manning et al. 2005). Results of a 2003 study of visitors to Yosemite 

National Park included a visitor-based acceptability threshold of 26 PPV on the trail to Vernal 

Fall, a high-use hiking trail in Yosemite Valley (Lawson, Newman et al. 2009). It should be noted 

that the differences in PPV thresholds in these studies may be due, in part, to differences in the 

lengths of trail sections for which the visitor-based standards were measured.

Carriage Roads. Persons per viewscape on one or more sections of the carriage roads will be 

used an indicator of the quality of visitor experience on the carriage roads. Acadia National 

Park’s carriage roads are an iconic feature of the park and offer car-free bicycling and walking 

opportunities with access to scenic vistas of the forests and lakes of Mount Desert Island. 

Correspondingly, the carriage roads are popular and can become crowded at times (Manning 

2009). Monitoring of PPV along one or more of the carriage roads provides a reasonable basis 

on which the overall quality of visitor experience on the carriage roads can be inferred. Because 

the transportation system along Park Loop Road and associated park roads serves as the 

primary mechanism by which people access this recreation opportunity, it is important to 

monitor these experiences to ensure that the transportation system isn’t delivering more people

to the carriage road system than the system can accommodate given its desired condition and 

related threshold.

A 1998 study of visitors to Acadia National Park identified approximately 14 PPV per 100-meter 

segment as the threshold beyond which visitors generally felt that the carriage roads were 

unacceptably crowded. A 2009 study of visitors to Acadia National Park identified 

approximately 21 PPV per 410-foot segment as the threshold beyond which visitors generally 

felt it was unacceptably crowded (Manning 2007; Pettengill, Manning et al. 2012).

Schoodic Peninsula. People per viewscape at Schoodic Point, Frazer Point, and/or Little 

Moose Island will be used as an indicator of the quality of visitor experience on Schoodic 

Peninsula. Acadia National Park’s General Management Plan (GMP) Amendment for Schoodic 

Peninsula states that opportunities for “low-density recreation” and “solitude” should be 

maintained on Schoodic Peninsula to preserve the character of the area. Schoodic Point, Frazer 

Point, and Little Moose Island are visitor use locations on Schoodic Peninsula where the park’s 

objectives include providing visitors with opportunities to experience the beauty of the park in 

lower-density recreation areas. Monitoring of PPV at these locations provides a reasonable basis 

on which the overall quality of visitor experience on Schoodic Peninsula can be inferred. 
Appendix A: Indicators, Thresholds, and Visitor Capacity

154

A 2003 study of visitors to Acadia National Park identified 70 PPV as the threshold beyond 

which visitors generally felt a selected “photo area” at Schoodic Point was unacceptably 

crowded and 85 PPV as the threshold beyond which visitors generally felt a selected “photo 

area” at Frazer Point was unacceptably crowded (Manning 2009). 

No visitor crowding studies have been conducted to date at Little Moose Island. Little Moose 

Island has no established trails or facilities, and use on the island is dispersed. Given the 

relatively small size of the island and that there are no formally defined visitor use areas on the 

island, the indicator is specified as people at one time on all of the island. The relatively small 

size of the island suggests that the presence of even just a few groups on the island (or 

approximately 6–12 PAOT) might have a significant impact on visitor experience there.

PPV will be monitored at one or more of the following locations:

− Schoodic Point

− Frazer Point

− Little Moose Island

Thresholds.

 Sites

− No more than 30 PAOT are on the Thunder Hole lowermost observation deck more 

than 80% of the time per season. 

− No more than 220 PAOT are on the Cadillac Summit more than 80% of the time per 

season.

 High-Use Trails. No more than 10 PPV are on a selected 165-foot (50-meter) section of 

trail more than 80% of the time per day.

 Carriage Roads. 7 No more than 10 PPV are on a 100-meter section(s) of the carriage 

roads more than 70% of the time per day for peak zones. No more than 5 PPV are on a 

100-meter section(s) of the carriage roads more than 85% of the time per day for 

nonpeak zones. 

 Schoodic Peninsula

− No more than 70 PPV are in the Schoodic Point “photo/monitoring area” more than 

80% of the time per day.

− No more than 85 PPV are in the Frazer Point “photo/monitoring area” more than 

80% of the time per day.

− No more than 12 PAOT are on all of Little Moose Island more than 80% of the time 

when the island is accessible by foot.

 

7 This threshold is not new to this plan. It has been carried forward from the carriage road visitor experience and resource protection 

process (1996). Because this threshold is directly related to the transportation system, it is restated here. 
Indicators and Thresholds

155

Related Potential Management Strategies.

 Develop and implement a public information effort about the desired conditions for the 

park and actions the National Park Service is taking to achieve those conditions and how 

visitors can best experience the park. This information could be distributed through 

direct visitor contact, park publications, wayside exhibits, maps, social media, websites, 

and park partners. The goal would be to have visitors self-disperse to approved sites or 

come during lower use periods of the day or season to accommodate similar levels of 

hiker use but without concentrating that use during peak periods.

 Ensure that informational materials that cover a wide variety of topics such as locations 

for permitted activities, park rules and regulations, and Leave No Trace practices, are 

available for visitors in a variety of languages, including at times when visitor centers are 

closed. 

 Use up-to-date technology to provide information to visitors before and during their 

visits.

 Collect information or data for sites, trails, or destinations where additional information 

on visitor use patterns, levels, and behaviors could further inform thresholds. This 

information would be collected and used to refine thresholds before actions that limit or 

reduce visitor use are taken. 

 Encourage hikers to take a certain route during peak use times.

 Provide information on other visitor destinations in the corridor. Focus on destinations 

that typically have lower use levels.

 Increase maps and signage about various destinations both in and outside the park.

 Provide real-time parking lot status updates. Rangers at contact stations could relay this 

information to visitors before they reach that location.

 Limit group size to 10 individuals along trails. 

 Manage commercial uses to ensure smaller group sizes and/or timing and places tour 

groups can visit. Enforce parking in authorized spaces for commercial groups.

 Separate when and where visitor use occurs at a location. Separation could be done by 

allowing private and commercial entities to access a location at different times or by 

physically separating where one type of use occurs from others. 

 Implement a permit system for certain trails or trailheads.

Monitoring Strategies. Establish statistical and/or mathematical relationships among ATR 

data on proximal traffic counters and site locations for long-term monitoring of PPV using 

automated counter data. Periodically conduct an observational study of PPV at site locations 

(via photo monitoring or direct counts) to establish and update statistical relationships between 

ATR data and PPV counts. Compare observed and/or estimated PPV to crowding thresholds.

Encounters on Medium-Use and Low-Use Trails

Rationale for Indicator and Thresholds. Encounters along the North Ridge Trail, South 

Ridge Trail, and/or Gorge Path on Cadillac Mountain will be used as an indicator of the quality 

of visitor experience on lower-use hiking trails along Park Loop Road. Encounters is a measure 
Appendix A: Indicators, Thresholds, and Visitor Capacity

156

often used by park managers and researchers to quantify crowding on lower-use hiking trails 

(Lawson 2006; Lawson, Itami et al. 2006; Kiser, Lawson, & Itami 2008). Crowded conditions 

have been documented to adversely affect visitor experience in national parks (Whittaker & 

Shelby 2010). The North and South Ridge Trails of Cadillac Mountain feature open ridgelines 

with expansive views as they climb toward the summit. The Gorge Path is a steep, rugged trail 

and is the most challenging of the three trails. Because park visitors can drive private vehicles or 

ride tour buses to the summit of Cadillac Mountain, these trails experience lower levels of 

visitor use than if they provided the only access to the mountain summit. Correspondingly, these 

trails provide visitors with opportunities for lower density experiences on Cadillac Mountain 

before and after visiting the higher use summit area. Monitoring encounters along these trails 

provides a reasonable basis on which the quality of visitor experience on lower use hiking trails 

along Park Loop Road can be inferred.8

A 2007 study of visitors in Acadia National Park measured visitor-based standards for hiking 

encounters on trails throughout the park (Manning 2009), and a 2004 study monitored visitor 

groups’ island-wide encounters on Isle au Haut (Manning 2009). However, these studies 

pertained to encounters, not only on low-use trails, but also high-use trails and roads and they 

focused on encounters over the course of an entire day. Therefore, the results of these studies 

are not easily applicable to hiking encounters per hour on low-use trails. Studies of encounters 

in other parks and protected areas, however, can provide a range within which an acceptable 

number of encounters on lower-use trails in Acadia National Park might fall. A 2005 study of 

visitors to 13 wilderness areas in Oregon and Washington reported a median “displacement 

level” (level beyond which visitors would opt to go somewhere else to hike) of nine encounters 

per hour on relatively high use wilderness trails (Cole & Hall 2005). As a point of reference, 

observed levels of visitor use on the high-use wilderness trails in the study (20 or more groups 

per day) are similar to those observed on the Gorge Path but well below those for the North and 

South Ridge Trails (Reigner, Belensz & Lawson 2016). 

Number of people encountered per hour will be monitored on one or more of the following 

lower use trails:

 Norumbega Mountain Trail

 Triad Trail

 Hunters Brook Trail

 Western Mountains Trails

 Cadillac Mountain North Ridge Trail

 Cadillac Mountain South Ridge Trail

 Other trails based on needs identified in observational data 

 

8 Future trail planning may include data collections and/or management actions that would suggest amending this indicator and/or 

thresholds. 
Indicators and Thresholds

157

Thresholds.

 Low-Use Trails: 80% of visitors encounter no more than 15 encounters with other 

people per hike.

 Medium-Use Trails: 80% of visitors encounter no more than 40 encounters with other 

people per hike.

Related Potential Management Strategies. The following potential management actions 

would be implemented as part of the management strategy and in a descending order if 

determined to be necessary.

 Develop and implement a public information effort to inform local businesses and other 

information providers (e.g., guidebooks) about the desired experience in the corridor 

and actions the park is taking to achieve those experiences and how visitors can best 

experience the corridor. This information would be distributed through direct visitor 

contact, park publications, and wayside exhibits. The goal would be to have visitors selfdisperse or to come during lower use times of day or season to accommodate similar 

levels of hiker use but without concentrating that use during peak periods.

 Place physical barriers along roadsides so that visitors cannot park on the roadside and 

then walk to trailheads. Formalize road edges where possible.

 Actively manage (through reservation systems or other mechanisms) the proximal 

parking areas during peak periods to ensure that visitors only park in authorized spaces.

 Reduce the usable size of parking lots to reduce encounter rates on trails.

 Establish statistical and/or mathematical relationships among automated counter (e.g., 

ATR, infrared trail counter, camera) data and encounters as a basis for long-term 

monitoring of encounters using automated counter data. Periodically conduct an 

observational study of encounters via trail patrols to establish and update statistical 

relationships between automated counter data and encounter counts. Compare 

observed and/or estimated number of encounters to encounters threshold.

Extent of Informal Trails

Rationale for Indicator and Thresholds. The percent change in the condition class of 

informal trails in sensitive environments will be used as an indicator of visitor use-related

impacts to natural resources. Condition class measures are used by park managers and 

researchers to quantify the severity of visitor-caused trampling of and damage to vegetation and 

soil resources in national parks (Manning 2009; Monz et al. 2010). Condition class is a 

qualitative scale, ranging from one to five, where one refers to minimal trail disturbance and five 

refers to major trail disturbance. 

 Cadillac Summit. Cadillac Mountain’s summit features large areas of sensitive subalpine 

vegetation. Subalpine habitats are unique, isolated ecosystems that show little resilience 

to repeated trampling (Monz et al. 2010). The popularity of Cadillac Mountain as a 

visitor destination, combined with visitors’ interest in and tendency to roam off-trail on 

the mountain summit, has resulted in a network of informal trails that represents a threat 

to the long-term health of the subalpine ecosystem on the summit. Monitoring the 
Appendix A: Indicators, Thresholds, and Visitor Capacity

158

condition class of informal trails provides a reasonable basis on which the overall health 

of the subalpine environment on the summit of Cadillac Mountain can be inferred.

 In 2010, a study was completed to inventory the lineal extent and condition class of 

informal trails on Cadillac Mountain’s summit (Monz et al. 2010). The results of this 

study will be used as a baseline against which to compare future monitoring for tracking 

the percent change for thresholds and triggers. 

Objectives.

 No (or 0% of) informal trail segments on the summit of Cadillac Mountain will decline 

in condition class from the previous monitoring period.

 There will be no increase from baseline in the total lineal extent of informal trails on 

Cadillac Summit.

Related Potential Management Strategies (in descending order).

 Rehabilitate visitor-created trails in a timely manner whenever possible.

 Educate visitors regarding the sensitivity of resources and the importance of staying on 

the trail.

 Improve trail identification and signage.

 Consider designating (or re-engineering) visitor-created trails in strategic locations, as 

appropriate.

 Initiate annual monitoring in this location to confirm trends.

 Close the area to off-trail travel or consider formalizing (hardening) additional trails to 

reduce visitor-created trails. 

Monitoring Strategies. Every three years, perform GPS-based census mapping of informal 

trails in a systematically delineated area of the Cadillac Mountain summit and derive measures 

of condition class for informal trails from the remote sensing data. Compare recorded condition 

class measures and/or lineal extent to the thresholds for this indicator.

IDENTIFYING AND IMPLEMENTING VISITOR CAPACITY

Overview

This appendix provides additional information about the identifying and implementing visitor 

capacity as it relates to the visitor use management framework. Please refer to chapter 1 of this 

plan for a description of this framework that is common to all alternatives. 

Broadly speaking, visitor use management is the proactive and adaptive process of planning for 

and managing characteristics of visitor use and its physical and social setting, using a variety of 

strategies and tools to sustain desired resource conditions and visitor experience. Within this 

framework, desired conditions, indicators and thresholds, and management strategies have been 

drafted. Another component of this framework is identification of visitor capacities. Visitor 

capacity is a component of visitor use management defined as the maximum amount and types 
Identifying and Implementing Visitor Capacity

159

of visitor use that an area can accommodate while sustaining desired resource conditions and 

visitor experiences, consistent with the purpose for which the area was established. Visitor 

capacities will be used to inform and implement the management strategies selected as part of 

this visitor use management plan / environmental impact statement (plan). The National Park 

Service is legally required to identify and implement visitor capacities for all areas of a park unit 

per the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (IVUMC 2016).

The primary goal of this planning effort is to preserve the fundamental resources and values of 

Acadia National Park. By managing the maximum amounts and types of visitor use, the National 

Park Service can help ensure that resources are protected and that visitors have the opportunity 

for a range of high-quality experiences. Although visitors have mostly noted that their 

experiences are of high quality, they have also identified a number of concerns related to 

increasing use levels such as congestion in parking areas, conflicts between user groups, and 

concerns over resource impacts at swim areas and near sensitive resources. 

Through this planning effort, Acadia National Park has an important opportunity to proactively 

safeguard the highly valued experiences and resources throughout the park unit. At some sites, 

current use levels are so high that these use levels are resulting in adverse impacts to experiences

and could lead to adverse impacts to resources. In these cases, the visitor capacity has been 

identified such that these conditions are corrected as this plan is implemented. For other sites, 

current use levels do not appear to be impacting experiences or resources, and therefore, the 

visitor capacity has been identified to be at or near current use and are based on the limiting 

attributes described at the site. This appendix outlines the considerations and processes used to 

identify and implement visitor capacity for key destinations. 

Background on Visitor Use Levels and Patterns

The amount, timing, distribution, and types of visitor use in Acadia National Park influence both 

resource conditions and visitor experience. Since its establishment, visitation to the park has 

increased. Average visitation in the 1990s and early 2000s was 2.4 million visitors per year. In 

2013, visitation to the park started to climb steadily reaching 2.8 million in 2015 and 3.2 million 

in 2016. Currently, there is high demand for recreational opportunities and high levels of use in 

the park, particularly during peak summer months. Other issues facing the park that are 

associated with visitor use include crowding, visitor-created trails, impacts to soil and

vegetation, visitor conflicts, and roadway congestion. Please see the visitor use and experience 

sections of chapters 3 and 4 of this document for more details on visitor use trends and impacts.

Visitors arrive at Acadia National Park in a variety of ways including by personal vehicle, 

authorized commercial services, and alternative transportation. The levels and patterns of 

visitor use are causing negative impacts to visitor experience and resources and influencing the 

ability of the National Park Service to maintain desired conditions. Identifying visitor capacity 

can direct managers in how and when visitors access the park. Appropriate management 

strategies can then be selected and implemented to maintain desired resource conditions and 

visitor experience consistent with the purposes for which the park was established. 

Process for Determining Visitor Capacities

The approach for developing visitor capacities is based on the Interagency Visitor Use 

Management Council’s Visitor Use Management Framework and associated publications and is 

consistent with the literature and best practices on this topic. Visitor capacities were identified 
Appendix A: Indicators, Thresholds, and Visitor Capacity

160

using best practices and examples from other plans and projects across the National Park 

Service. Based on these best practices, the planning team describes the process for identifying 

capacity following four key steps: (1) determining the analysis area, (2) reviewing existing 

direction and knowledge, (3) identifying the limiting attribute, and (4) identifying visitor 

capacity. 

Step 1: Determine the Analysis Area. The amount, timing, distribution, and types of visitor 

use at Acadia National Park influence both resource conditions and visitor experiences. 

Currently, there is high demand for recreational opportunities in the park, particularly during 

summer months. The eight primary activities associated with the fundamental values of the park 

are scenic driving, hiking, bicycling, bird-watching, boating, climbing, fishing, horseback riding, 

picnicking, swimming, exploring natural habitats (tide pools and rocky summits), night sky 

viewing, and a variety of winter recreational activities. Further guidance for addressing visitor 

capacity in other areas of the park can be found in the Isle Au Haut Visitor Use Management 

Plan (2015) and the Schoodic General Management Plan (2006). 

This plan and identified visitor capacities are needed to manage and protect the park through 

the identification of appropriate kinds and amounts of visitor use so that visitors have the 

opportunity to engage with the resources at the park while ensuring the protection of those 

resources. 

Following guidance from the Interagency Visitor Use Management Council, the level of analysis 

that occurs during visitor use management planning and visitor capacity is identified based on a 

sliding scale depending on the complexity and context of the plan. During the planning process 

it was determined that 10 key areas of the unit would benefit from a capacity analysis. 

A higher level of analysis has been identified as necessary for the key locations due to present 

visitor use issues. For the other locations, desired conditions are being met under current use 

levels and a lower level of analysis is being used. The visitor capacities at these other locations 

have largely been determined to be near, at, or slightly above current use level. Future 

monitoring of use levels and indicators will inform the National Park Service if visitor capacities 

are encroached. The level of detail provided in the rationales for each capacity determination is 

commensurate with the level of complexity related to visitor capacity at that site. 

Per the 1978 Parks and Recreation Act (54 USC 100502) and following guidance from the 

IVUMC, visitor capacity determinations are legally required for key destinations and areas that 

this planning effort addresses (IVUMC 2016). Together, the eight key areas comprise the 

majority of the areas with issues and plan actions are directly related to visitor use levels. These 

locations are: 

 Sand Beach

 Cadillac Mountain

 Jordan Pond House

 Echo Lake

 Acadia Mountain and Echo Lake 

Ledges

 Eagle Lake

 Hulls Cove

 Schoodic Point

There are other areas of the park (e.g., trails, summits, and other destinations) that are subject to 

this legal requirement to define visitor capacity. However, as decisions about the management of 
Identifying and Implementing Visitor Capacity

161

these areas are out of scope for this plan, these capacity determinations will be addressed in 

subsequent planning.

Step 2: Reviewing Existing Direction and Knowledge. During this step we reviewed 

desired conditions, indicators and thresholds, with particular attention to conditions and values 

that must be protected and are most related to visitor use levels. Below, under each key area 

relevant indicators are listed, the associated thresholds and associated actions can be found 

earlier in this appendix. Relevant desired conditions, for both resources and visitor experience, 

were reviewed for each site as part of this process. For descriptions of the goals and desired 

conditions by fundamental resource or value see chapter 1. An overview of visitor use issues and 

current use levels is also provided for each key area.

Step 3: Identify the Limiting Attribute. Step three requires the identification of the most 

limiting attribute(s) that most constrain the analysis area’s ability to accommodate visitor use. 

The limiting or constraining attribute(s) may vary across the analysis area and is described under 

each key. This is an important step given that a key area could experience a variety of challenges 

regarding visitor use issues.

Step 4: Identify Visitor Capacity. To determine the appropriate amount and types of use at 

key areas, a variety of data was reviewed to understand current conditions compared to goals 

and objectives for the area.

As strategies directly influence how many people can reach a site and therefore influence 

identifying the visitor capacity. For this reason, visitor capacities can vary between the 

alternatives depending on management strategies of that individual alternative. For instance, if 

in one alternative a site is closed to visitor use the capacity determination is zero as no use is 

authorized under that alternative. In another alternative, a site may be expanded with additional 

facilities therefore resulting in a visitor capacity determination at or above current use levels.

For Acadia National Park, visitor capacities are most frequently expressed as people at one time 

increments. PAOT refers to the total number of people that are present at a site at any given 

point in time. Delineations of sites may vary depending on the specific location, and monitoring 

can be done in a variety of ways but should serve to approximate as best as possible the total 

number of people present at a location. The visitor capacities will be implemented as part of this 

planning effort. Where applicable, specific management strategies outlined in the alternatives 

that will be used to implement visitor capacities have been included in the visitor capacity for 

each area. For these and all other locations, visitor capacities will be monitored as described in 

the “Indicators and Thresholds” section of this appendix, and if associated thresholds are 

exceeded, potential management strategies would be implemented to ensure that capacities are 

not exceeded. 

Methodological Considerations. To determine the appropriate amount of use at one time at 

key locations, a variety of data was reviewed to understand current conditions compared to 

desired conditions and to quantify limiting attributes. Visitation data is collected annually by the 

park staff to track levels of visitor use parkwide. Research was conducted by a variety of 

researchers from 2005 to present on use levels, types, patterns, and preferences and perceptions 

of visitors at a specific number of key locations in the park. Results from visitor surveys inform 

visitor capacity determinations below. Research on visitor impacts to trails, including visitorcreated trails, has been used to understand and determine appropriate kinds and amounts of 
Appendix A: Indicators, Thresholds, and Visitor Capacity

162

visitor use with regard to natural resources. The National Park Service collects annual data 

including counts of fees, parking availability, trail counters, and other pieces of information. 

Lot functionality and efficiency was also taken into consideration in the identification of visitor 

capacities. Given the dynamic nature of visitor use patterns (mostly duration of stay), lots cannot 

be assumed to be 100% full at all times. Therefore, the reservation system lots use an efficiency 

factor to ensure that lots both operate at a high efficiency but simultaneously are not “oversold” 

and to ensure that when visitors arrive with a reservation they will have a parking space. For a 

directly managed lot (i.e., on a reservation system) the efficiency factor is relatively high (90%). 

Where lots are not actively managed, the efficacy factor applied is slightly lower (85%) to 

account for what could reasonably be accommodated in the lots under those conditions (Smith 

2005). 

Parking Spaces x Efficiency factor = VAOT

Where necessary, approximations have been made. For instance, a persons-per-vehicle (PPVh) 

multiplier has been used to estimate the average number of people (PAOT) who come to a site 

based on private vehicle use (VAOT). While some vehicles may include more or less than the 

multiplier used, it represents a reasonable average. The persons-per-vehicle multiplier used at 

Acadia National Park is 3 persons/vehicle (NPS 2016).

VAOT x PPVh = PAOT (visitor capacity)

Key Locations

Sand Beach. 

Review of Existing Direction and Knowledge— This analysis area includes Sand Beach itself, 

the parking areas that facilitate access to this beach and the Beehive trailhead. During a 2005 

visitor survey, 25% of Sand Beach users said that crowding was an issue in this location, and 

15% said that the lack of parking or difficulty finding parking was an issue. More than half of 

visitors in this survey said the current number of people in this area was too many, and 42% said 

that the number of people on the beach was problematic. The parking at Sand Beach also 

provides access to the Beehive Trail, which currently receives approximately 400 hikers per day.

There are currently 113 parking spaces in the two lots that provide access to Sand Beach and its 

related trailheads. These lots allow 340 PAOT to this area when the PPVh is applied to the 

number of possible vehicles. During the peak times of the day, it is estimated that an additional 

19 vehicles (maximum observed) create their own parking spaces in these lots or along the drive 

paths leading to these lots (VHB 2014). This unendorsed parking contributes an additional 57 

PAOT to the area. Additionally, right lane parking facilitates access to this area of the park.

During busy days up to 217 cars have been observed parked in the right lane proximal to Sand 

Beach (VHB 2014). This results in an additional 650 PAOT parked in this location (only about 

half of which will go to the beach). Given the current length of stay for visitors at this location 

and shuttle headway schedule for Island Explorer, this service will facilitate access to the Sand 

Beach area for up to 80 PAOT. On average, 15% of people who are arriving at Sand Beach 

(either via the parking lot or Island Explorer service) use this area as a trailhead and do not go to 

the beach itself. 

During a 2004 study, visitors were asked what their preferences were toward the number of 

people at one time on the beach in this location. The mean acceptability from this study was 248 
Identifying and Implementing Visitor Capacity

163

PAOT on the beach. Visitors, on average, said that the National Park Service should allow 557 

PAOT on the beach and they would no longer use this area at 724 PAOT. (Park Studies Lab 

2011). During the 2017 summer season, an average of 244 PAOT were counted on the beach 

during the peak time of day, and a maximum of 480 PAOT were observed on the beach (NPS 

2017c). 

Limiting Attribute and Relevant Indicators(s)— The limiting attribute in this area is social. At 

the time of the last visitor survey in this area (2004) visitor experience quality on the beach and 

trails was acceptable; lingering visitors were dispersed enough throughout the areas and 

surrounding trails such that experiences have not been notably or measurably impacted. 

Monitoring on trails proximal to this area indicate that most of the time the level of use on trails 

is within acceptable ranges most of the time, but approaching thresholds for PVV on the high 

use trails accessed by this lot and shuttle stop. 

Allowing more PAOT than expressed preferences in the 2004 visitor study (see above) this 

would cause visitors to begin to displace (which the parks considered contrary to the desired 

experiential conditions) and may cause visitors to disperse to sensitive natural resource areas off 

the beach or trails that would result in natural resource impacts.

Relevant Indicators

 VAOT at Key Destinations (Sand Beach)

 People per View on High Use Trails (Beehive Trail)

Visitor Capacity.

All Action Alternatives— Based on the expressed visitor preferences for social conditions on 

the beach and management guidance, the capacity for this area is identified to be 550 PAOT on 

Sand Beach, consistent with visitor preferences to what the public believes the beach should be 

managed to (Anderson et al. 2009). This level of use facilitates appropriate access to the variety 

of resources, without causing conditions that would lead to adverse conditions on the beach or 

along the trail segments. However, the conditions of the alternatives will allocate this visitor 

capacity differently. See below for a discussion of these allocations and for a summary of current 

conditions compared to the action alternatives. 

Alternative B— Both lots that facilitate access to Sand Beach would be maintained. However, a 

permit system would increase the efficiency of these lots. The conditions of this alternative 

would lead to up to 102 vehicles at one time to access the Sand Beach area contributing 310 

PAOT in the area. Based on current use distributions, its anticipated that 45 PAOT would never 

reach the beach (i.e., trail users and short duration sightseers), leaving 260 PAOT on the beach. 

Given the visitor use patterns, lengths of stay for visitors (median 60 minutes, mean 81 minutes; 

Park Studies Lab 2011) at this location and shuttle headway schedule for Island Explorer, this 

service will facilitate access to Sand Beach for up to 80 PAOT. Under the conditions of this 

alternative, Island Explorer service may be expanded (based on feasibility), to provide an 

additional 160 PAOT. 

Alternative C— Both lots that facilitate access to Sand Beach would be maintained. However, a 

permit system would increase the efficiency of these lots. The conditions of this alternative 

would lead to up to 102 vehicles at one time to access the Sand Beach area contributing 310 
Appendix A: Indicators, Thresholds, and Visitor Capacity

164

PAOT to the area. Based on visitor distributions, it’s anticipated that 290 of these PAOT would 

go to the beach. Given the visitor use patterns, lengths of stay for visitors (average 81 minutes; 

Park Studies Lab 2011) at this location and shuttle headway schedule for Island Explorer, this 

service will facilitate access to Sand Beach for up to 80 PAOT. Under the conditions of this 

alternative, Island Explorer service may be expanded (based on feasibility) to provide an 

additional 180 PAOT at Sand Beach. 

Alternative D— Both lots that facilitate access to Sand Beach would be maintained. However, a 

permit system would partially increase the efficiency of these lots. The conditions of this 

alternative would lead to up to 96 vehicles at one time to access the Sand Beach area,

contributing 290 PAOT to the area. Based on visitor distributions, it’s anticipated that 280 of 

these PAOT would go to the beach. Given the current length of stay for visitors at this location 

and shuttle headway schedule for Island Explorer, this service will facilitate access to Sand 

Beach for up to 80 people at one time. Under the conditions of this alternative, Island Explorer 

service may be expanded (based on feasibility), to provide an additional 190 people at one time 

to Sand Beach. 

Table A-2. Sand Beach Visitor Capacity and Allocation Summary

Allocations Current 

Condition

Alt. B Alt. C

(Preferred)

Alt. D

People arriving via private vehicle (PAOT) 660 260 290 280

People arriving via Island Explorer (PAOT) 80 80 80 80

Potential Island Explorer or other commercial 

transit expansion (PAOT)

N/A 210 180 190

Visitor Capacity 740 550 550 550

Cadillac Summit Area.

Review of Existing Direction and Knowledge— At 1,530 feet (466 m), Cadillac Mountain is not 

only the tallest mountain in the park, but also the tallest mountain along the eastern coast of the 

United States. Cadillac Mountain is accessible via a winding, narrow, 3.5-mile road. The road is 

closed from December through April 14 and whenever weather conditions (e.g., dense fog or 

ice) require. Cadillac Mountain is the focal point for Acadia National Park visitors because it 

offers sweeping views of an island-dotted landscape in all directions. A recent study reported 

that 75% of visitors went to the summit during their stay (Manni et al. 2010). This area of 

analysis includes the whole of Cadillac Summit including the summit viewing platforms, hiking 

trails, parking lots, gift shop, and ledges area.

An estimated 259,000 vehicles and at least 777,000 visitors went to Cadillac Mountain between 

June 2, 2016 and October 31, 2016 (NPS 2017b). This is an 8% increase over the same period in 

2015. Sunrise and sunset, holidays, June 25 to August 31, and 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. are the 

busiest times. Each month has peak traffic in excess of 2,000 vehicles per day. August 2016 

averaged 2,100 vehicles and at least 6,300 visitors per day. The busiest day in the year was 

Sunday, July 3, 2016, when 2,830 vehicles climbed Cadillac Mountain, even with an 81-minute 

closure in the early afternoon (NPS 2017b).
Identifying and Implementing Visitor Capacity

165

In 2014, vehicle counts were conducted on Cadillac Summit. In this study, the maximum 

observed number of vehicles on Cadillac Summit and Blue Hill lots was 192 vehicles at one time, 

which contributed 580 people at one time. On an average busy day in this study (P85) 153 

vehicles were counted in these two lots, contributing 460 people at one time to the summit area 

(VHB 2014). In addition, up to five road-based commercial tours are allowed in the summit lots 

at one time, contributing 175 PAOT. On average busy days there are 80 PAOT on Cadillac 

Summit that have arrived there by one of the trails that leads to the summit (RSG 2015). Based 

on these data collections it’s estimated that maximum observed people at one time in the 

analysis area is 830 PAOT and 715 PAOT on average busy days. 

Visitor studies suggest that visitors prefer to have about 195 PAOT in the summit area. Beyond 

this point, conditions are such on the trails and viewing platforms that visual crowding begins 

for some visitors. When there are roughly 365 PAOT in the summit area, physical crowding 

begins on the viewing platforms, and visitors in the interpretive area start to have difficulty 

moving freely (Pettengill, Manning et al. 2009; Transportation Research Board 2010). When 

visitors were asked about their preferences and tolerances for crowding on Cadillac Summit, 

they responded that the point at which management action should be taken (and also what the 

respondents viewed to be “acceptable conditions” was roughly 600 people in the summit area 

(or 30 PAOT in the 100 m section of trail) (Manning 2009). Visitors expressed that roughly 700 

PAOT in the summit area (or 25 PAOT in the viewing platforms and 225-330 PAOT in the Loop 

Trail Area) represents a condition at which visitors would begin to displace and would no longer 

return (RSG 2015; Manning 2009). 

A 2008 study assessed visitor preferences for alternative combinations of public access, resource 

protection, and design solutions to manage and protect the summit of Cadillac. Results of this 

study showed that visitors strongly support access to the summit and strongly oppose 

management actions that would result in many people being turned away. There was some 

minor support for a few visitors being turned away to support resource protection. Results of 

this study indicated that the most important issue to visitors was “visitor-caused damage to 

vegetation and soils” and visitors strongly oppose use of the summit area that leads to extensive 

damage to these resources. Relatedly, visitors were opposed to use levels that result in many 

visitors traveling off-trail. (Bullock and Lawson 2008). 

Private Vehicle Use— There are currently 157 parking spaces in the two lots (Cadillac Summit 

and Blue Hill Overlook) that provide access to Cadillac Summit. These lots contribute 355 

(157*3PPVh) PAOT to Cadillac Summit. During the peak times of the day it is estimated that 35 

vehicles at one time create their own parking spaces along the roadway. This unendorsed 

parking contributes an additional 105 PAOT to the summit area for a total of 460 PAOT on the 

summit. 

Oversize Commercial Vehicles— There are currently five commercial vehicle spaces in the 

Cadillac Summit lot. The average occupancy of these tour vehicles is 35 visitors. This 

contributes up to 175 PAOT to Cadillac Summit. 

Hiker Access— On average busy days there are 80 PAOT on Cadillac Summit that have arrived 

there by one of the trails that leads to the summit (RSG 2015). 

Limiting Attribute(s)—There are three potential limiting attributes related to visitor capacity in 

this area. They include: protecting natural resources, promoting visitor enjoyment, and reducing 

traffic congestion and crowding. 
Appendix A: Indicators, Thresholds, and Visitor Capacity

166

Natural resource constraints. The summit of Cadillac Mountain is home to plant 

species that are sensitive to visitor use. While some infrastructure solutions (trail paving, 

fencing, signage) have been implemented to prevent impacts to these resources, overuse 

of this area could result in impacts to these summit communities. Additionally, 

geographic and natural resource constraints limit the ability to expand parking beyond 

the current (2016) footprints. 

Relevant Indicators

− Extent of Informal Trails

Transportation system performance. Parking is limited in the lots that provide direct 

access to Cadillac Summit making competition for parking high during most of the day 

during the peak summer season. Additionally, visitor-created roadside parking creates 

safety issues and roadway congestion. Given the historic nature of the road and its 

cultural significance, expanding the roadway to provide endorsed parking along the 

shoulders is not feasible.

Relevant Indicators

− VAOT at Key Destinations

Visitor enjoyment. Providing quality recreational opportunities also requires that visitor 

use be managed and distributed to avoid unacceptable levels of crowding at popular 

recreation sites and primary attractions. One of the desired conditions for this area is 

that views from Cadillac summit are dominated by the natural landscape. Therefore, 

visitor capacity on the summit needs to ensure that use of the summit provides for 

conditions such that these views are achievable. Research related to visitor enjoyment of 

the summit and associated levels of use are discussed in the “Review of Existing 

Direction and Knowledge” section above. 

Relevant Indicators

− People per View on High Use Trails

− People per Viewscape

Visitor Capacity— Extensive research and study of this area suggests a number of benchmarks 

by which visitor capacity could be determined. While visitors prefer low-density experiences on 

Cadillac Summit (Manning 2009), this is a place where they are willing to tolerate higher levels 

of use so that many visitors do not need to be turned away from this resource and experience, 

provided that the natural resources in this location remain protected (Bullock and Lawson 

2008). Considering all of these factors and studies along with the operational conditions of the 

environment, the visitor capacity for this area is identified at 600 PAOT in the summit area. 

Beyond this point, social conditions would be so degraded that visitors would have previously 

visited would be displaced by crowded conditions and therefore desired conditions for this area 

would not be met. 

In practice, the conditions of each alternative lead visitor use rates and allocations that may vary 

by alternative in this analysis area due to the anticipated efficiencies of the lots under the 
Identifying and Implementing Visitor Capacity

167

different conditions of the reservation systems. See below for the visitor use allocations by 

alternative. A summary.

All Action Alternatives.

Private Vehicle Use— The 23 spaces on the outside loop would be removed to improve safety 

by removing parking from the travel way consistent, in part, with its historic design and balance 

the allocation between private vehicle and commercial access. 

Commercial Vehicles— Five commercial vehicle spaces in the Cadillac Summit lot would 

continue to be maintained. Due to all alternatives size restrictions, it is assumed that no more 

than 25 visitors can be accommodated per vehicle. This would contribute 125 PAOT to Cadillac 

Summit. 

Hiker Access— It is anticipated that with vehicle access restrictions to the summit, more visitors 

will likely choose to hike to the summit, increasing this allocation to 100 from the current 

average estimate of 80). Should encounter rates along these trails approach the threshold, trail 

access to Cadillac Summit may need to be re-evaluated. 

Alternative B.

Private Vehicle Use— Both lots that facilitate access to Cadillac Summit would be maintained. 

However, a permit system with a managed turnover rate would increase the efficiency of these 

lots. This lot would be managed for 121 spaces in the two lots (Cadillac Summit and Blue Hill 

Overlook) that provide access to Cadillac Summit. Under the conditions of this alternative,

these lots contribute 360 PAOT to Cadillac Summit. 

Alternative C.

Private Vehicle Use— Both lots that facilitate access to Cadillac Summit would be maintained. 

A permit system (that allows variable length of stay) would allow for a moderate efficiency of 

these lots. There would be 117 managed spaces in the two lots that provide access to Cadillac 

Summit. Under the conditions of this alternative these lots contribute 350 PAOT to Cadillac 

Summit. 

Alternative D.

Private Vehicle Use— Both lots that facilitate access to Cadillac Summit would be maintained. 

A permit system for the Park Loop Road would increase the efficiency of the summit lot, but 

would not increase the efficiency of the Blue Hill Overlook lot. There would be 108 managed

spaces in the two lots that provide access to Cadillac Summit. Under the conditions of this 

alternative these lots contribute 325 PAOT to Cadillac Summit. 
Appendix A: Indicators, Thresholds, and Visitor Capacity

168

Table A-3. Cadillac Summit Visitor Capacity and User Allocation Summary

Allocations Current 

Condition

Alternative B Alternative C

Preferred

Alternative D

People arriving via Private Vehicle (PAOT) 360 360 415 390

People arriving via Hiking Trail (PAOT) 80 100 100 100

People arriving via Commercial Vehicles (PAOT) 180 125 125 125

Visitor Capacity 715 600 600 600

The alternatives to not sum to 600. This is to ensure that allocations do not exceed 600 should cars arrive with more visitors or should 

hiking to the summit increase beyond projected rates.

Jordan Pond House Area.

Review of Existing Direction and Knowledge— The only dining facility in the park, the Jordan 

Pond House Restaurant, serves lunch, tea, and dinner (mid-May through late October).

Afternoon tea with popovers remains a popular tradition on a visit to Acadia. Visitors are 

encouraged to make reservations or to visit this restaurant during off-peak times. This area also 

serves as a trailhead for many popular hiking trails including the Jordan Pond Path and is a 

popular starting point for pedestrians and cyclists to access the carriage road system, and a 

major stop for cyclists who entered the carriage roads from other locations. This area of analysis 

includes the Jordan Pond House itself, its associated grounds, and the trailheads and trails that 

this parking lot provides access to. 

In the summer, visitors who can find a space to park typically still wait 45 minutes for a table; 

however, this wait time during peak use is considered acceptable. This area was intentionally 

designed to accommodate high levels of visitor use. There are currently minor natural resource 

impacts from use levels in this location. There was a general consensus among park managers 

that use levels in this area can continue at current levels (which is being driven primarily by 

available parking). In a 2004 visitor survey, visitors reported that the things they enjoyed least 

about their visit were crowding (19.5%) and lack of parking or difficulty of locating parking 

(17%) (Park Studies Laboratory 2011). 

There are currently 198 spaces in the two lots that provide access to The Jordan Pond House 

area. These lots contribute 600 PAOT to this area. During the peak times of the day it is a 

maximum of an additional 44 vehicles create their own parking spaces in these lots and 20 

vehicles are parked along the roadway segments in this area (VHB 2014). This unendorsed 

parking contributes an additional 190 PAOT to the area. Given the current length of stay for 

visitors at this location and shuttle headway schedule for Island Explorer, this service will 

facilitate access to the Jordan Pond House area for up to 170 PAOT. Currently, three 

commercial vehicles could be accommodated at one time at Jordan Pond House. These buses 

have a maximum capacity of 45 passengers each, contributing up to 135 PAOT to this area. 

Limiting Attribute(s)— The limiting attributes in this area are social. Despite currently 

acceptable visitor experience; on busy days, the carriage roads in the area can be very crowded, 

and visitor experiences of this recreation opportunity would become impacted if the number of 

visitors on busy days were to become the norm. For this reason, expanded parking should not 

be considered and bus drop offs need to be intentionally managed. At this location lingering 

visitors are dispersed enough throughout the areas and surrounding trails such that experiences 

have not been notably or measurably impacted. Monitoring on trails proximal to this area 
Identifying and Implementing Visitor Capacity

169

indicate that most of the time the level of use on trails is high (NPS 2014). In the 2013 selected 

trail census, 948 hikers (or 135 hikers per hour) were counted passing through the high use trail 

junction near Jordan Pond House. While visitor surveys (Park Studies Lab 2011) show that this 

level of use isn’t considered crowding by many as it is by some. And minor natural resource 

damage near theses trails indicates that some visitors may be departing trails to seek lower 

density experiences. 

Relevant Indicators

− VAOT at Key Destinations

− People per View on High-Use Trails

− Number of Island Explorer Leave Behinds

− Encounters on Medium-Use and Low-Use Trails

Visitor Capacity 

All Action Alternatives. Given the current length of stay for visitors at this location and 

shuttle headway schedule for Island Explorer, this service will facilitate access to the 

Jordan Pond House area for up to 170 PAOT. Exceedances of this number would likely 

lead to passenger leave behinds or stranded visitors at rates that would be incompatible 

for the desired conditions of this service. The likely reduction in vehicle size, with 

sustained level of parking for commercial vehicles would result in 105 PAOT in this area 

arriving in road-based commercial tours.

Alternatives B and C. To ensure the continued protection of the resources and 

experiences at Jordan Pond House, visitor use of this area will be managed to the 

capacity of the parking lots, as these lots were designed to accommodate an appropriate 

level of use on proximal resources. The direct managed access strategies applied in these 

alternatives will allow for 210 vehicles at one time and 630 PAOT. See table A-4 for a 

summary of these allocations and a comparison to current conditions. 

Alternative D. To ensure the continued protection of the resources and experiences at 

Jordan Pond House, visitor use of this area will be managed to the capacity of the 

parking lots, as these lots were designed to accommodate an appropriate level of use on 

proximal resources. The less direct managed access strategies applied in these 

alternatives will allow for 200 vehicles at one time and 600 PAOT. As private vehicle 

access to this area is most restrictive in this alternative, additional visitors could be 

accommodated through other means (likely carriage roads) without crossing related 

thresholds. See table A-4 for a summary of these allocations and a comparison to current 

conditions. 
Appendix A: Indicators, Thresholds, and Visitor Capacity

170

Table A-4. Jordan Pond House Visitor Capacity and Allocation Summary

Allocation Current Alt B Alt C Alt D

People arriving via Private Vehicle (PAOT) 790 630 630 600

People arriving via Carriage Roads (PAOT) N/A +20 +20 +30

People arriving via Island Explorer (PAOT) 170 170 170 170

People arriving via Road-Based Commercial Tours (PAOT) 135 105 105 105

Visitor Capacity 1155 935 935 935

Hulls Cove.

Review of Existing Direction and Knowledge— Hulls Cove is currently the only visitor center 

for the park. At this location some visitors will park for a short duration to learn about the park, 

purchase park passes (required for entry to the park), and then return to their vehicles to enter 

the park. Other visitors use this location as a transportation hub to transfer to Island Explorer 

buses. Still other visitors use this parking area as a place to transfer from vehicles to other modes 

of travel (bicycle/foot) on the carriage roads. 

The physical design of the building is limiting, and the theater and bathroom capacities are often 

exceeded. Although social capacity thresholds are likely high, as visitors expect the facility to be 

busy, wait times to speak to a ranger about park information or purchase a park entrance pass

can be at unacceptable levels. 

The current Hulls Cove parking lot has 270 spaces. This lot is occasionally overparked by 

marginal degrees (101%), but on an average design day this lot runs at 81% efficiency (which is 

considered acceptable by industry standards for this type of lot). This means that at any one time 

there are 648 PAOT (or up to 820 PAOT when parking is maximized) who are using the parking 

at Hulls Cove and are either on carriage roads, in the Hulls Cove visitor center or in the park via 

Island Explorer. 

Limiting Attribute(s)— The limiting attributes in this area of the park are experiential and 

based on a number of factors. Too many people at Hulls Cove could lead to long wait times in 

the visitor center or at bus stops for Island Explorer. Also, too many people at Hulls Cove could 

result in unacceptable conditions along the carriage roads proximal to this parking area. 

Relevant Indicators

− Number of Island Explorer Leave Behinds

− People per Viewscape on Carriage Roads

− VAOT at Key Destinations

Visitor Capacity

Alternative B. Parking at this site will be limited to the endorsed spaces in the lot. This 

lot will accommodate 270 vehicles at one time and 1,425 PAOT using this lot to access 

either carriage roads, the visitor center, or transfer to Island Explorer or a commercially 

provided tour.
Identifying and Implementing Visitor Capacity

171

Alternatives C and D. Parking at this site will be limited to the endorsed spaces in the 

lot. This lot will accommodate 470 vehicles at one time and 1425 PAOT using this lot to 

access either carriage roads, the visitor center, or transfer to Island Explorer. The 

expansion of parking in this area is not expected to increase the number of people onsite at Hulls Cove, rather, to provide visitors a place to park private vehicles and transfer 

to Island Explorer service or a commercially provided tour if they cannot or choose not 

to secure parking (either via reservation or spontaneous arrival) in another location in 

the park. 

Echo Lake.

Review of Existing Direction and Knowledge— This beach is one of a limited number of 

locations in the park where swimming is allowed due to public water supply restrictions on this 

activity. It is one of two beaches in the park with lifeguarded swimming. Most visitor groups are 

made up of family and friend groups at this location, rarely (if ever) do commercial groups visit 

this site (Park Studies Laboratory 2011). More than half of visitors to this site (63%) are repeat 

visitors, with the median visits to this site being five visits and many had intentions to return to 

Mount Desert Island in the next two years (69%) (Park Studies Laboratory 2011). 

Echo Lake Beach is a small site but can be heavily used during the summer months. Parking lot is 

often over parked, and overparking on roadways. This overparking can lead to crowded 

conditions on the beach, and visitors reported that crowding was the thing they enjoyed least on 

their visit to this site and about half of the visitors surveyed thought there were too many people 

in this area of the park (Park Studies Laboratory 2011). About a third of visitors think no 

changes are needed at this site (27%) and fewer visitors think that action needs to be taken at 

this location to manage congestion or limit use (11%) (Park Studies Laboratory 2011). However, 

visitors report that generally, crowding levels are low (Park Studies Laboratory 2011).

In 2005, visitors reported that they typically see 156 PAOT on the beach. Currently, the lot can 

accommodate 99 vehicles at one time and 297 PAOT in the lot. During busy days up to 29 

additional vehicles have been observed parked along roadways adding an additional 87 PAOT. 

The maximum observed condition at this site is therefore 384 PAOT. Roughly 10% of users to 

this area use it as a trailhead, leaving up to 345 PAOT on the beach. This condition is considered 

more people than would be acceptable by visitors per results of the social science survey. In July 

2017, an average of 83 PAOT were counted on the beach, with a maximum observed of 200 

PAOT (NPS 2017c).

Limiting Attributes— The limiting attribute at this site is social and is related to the number of 

people that can be accommodated on the beach before visitors start to feel crowded. On most 

summer days when the lot is not over parked, use at the beach itself is at acceptable levels, and 

the number of users do not exceed the limits for lifeguards. While visitors prefer to see an 

average of 109 people on this beach and at 303 people the conditions would be so unacceptable 

that they would no longer visit this area. Visitors think that the beach should be managed to 238 

PAOT (Park Studies Laboratory 2011). While there are nesting loons near the beach that are 

sensitive to visitor use levels, the lifeguards in this location manage the visitors such that this 

does not present a significant issue. 
Appendix A: Indicators, Thresholds, and Visitor Capacity

172

Relevant Indicators

− VAOT at Key Destinations

− Encounters on Medium-Use and Low-Use Trails

Visitor Capacity

All Action Alternatives. The capacity for this area has been identified at 300 PAOT, 

consistent with visitor preferences for acceptable conditions on the beach. Per 

management decisions in the alternatives, parking at Echo Lake will be limited to the 

endorsed spaces in the lot to protect natural resources and mitigate safety concerns 

along the roadway. This lot will accommodate 99 vehicles at one time and 297 PAOT to 

this area. If current use patterns continue this should create conditions on the beach that 

are below the displacement rate all of the time and within visitors’ preferred 

management range most of the time. 

Acadia Mountain and Echo Lake Ledges.

Review of Existing Direction and Knowledge— This site serves as the trailhead to Acadia 

Mountain and other popular trails in this area of the park. Most visitors to this area have visited

the park before (79%) and intend to visit again (76%) (Park Studies Laboratory 2011). Visitors 

spend an average of 164 minutes in this area of the park (Park Studies Laboratory 2011). This 

site is serviced by Island Explorer transit service. 

Major issues in this area relate to the number of cars that are parked along roadsides to access 

this site. This leads to visitor-created trails that lead to official trailheads and resource impacts 

directly along the roadside. The visitor-created trails are found along the shoreline as swimmers 

seek out less crowded, more secluded places to swim. The hiking trail to Acadia Mountain is 

much widened and braided. These are the major trail-related resource impacts that are found at 

the site. This lot was designed to protect the quality of the experience along the trails, but the 

overparking also leads to crowding on the trails in this area during the busiest days of the year. 

Crowding was noted as the third-most sited issue detracting from quality experiences in visitor 

surveys (Park Studies Laboratory 2011). Visitors state that finding a parking place was the 

biggest issue facing this site followed by too many people on the trails (Park Studies Laboratory 

2011). 

This parking lot can accommodate 27 vehicles at one time leading to 81 PAOT. During peak 

times there are up to 62 vehicles parked along the roadside contributing an additional 186 

PAOT. Maximum observed use (based on parking lot counts) at this site is 267 PAOT. This is 

consistent with trail counts, which have documented an average of 85 hikers an hour through 

the two major trail junctions in this area. 

Limiting Attribute(s)— The limiting attribute in this area is the number of people that can be 

accommodated along the trails while maintaining desired conditions for this type of activity and 

the desired conditions of the trails. Informal monitoring of current use levels by park staff 

indicate that the current number of people on trails in this area is within acceptable levels most 

of the time, but that on days where overparking is at its worst, the trails become crowded. The 

Acadia Mountain Trail is one of several that have an excessive amount of widening and braiding 

because of the numbers of hikers and their behaviors (not staying on the trail), or visitors 

creating new trails along the lake in an effort to disperse from the main trail. While increasing 
Identifying and Implementing Visitor Capacity

173

the resiliency and sustainability of these trails may increase the number of people that could be 

accommodated, this would likely result in approaching or crossing thresholds for encounters on 

this and other nearby trails. 

Therefore, a slight reduction in numbers of people at this site from current conditions should be 

considered. Additional parking could be arranged (see alternative C), provided that the 

additional parking does not exceed current observed conditions.

Relevant Indicators

− VAOT at Key Destinations

− Encounters on Medium-Use and Low-Use Trails

Visitor Capacity Determination

Alternatives B and D. Parking at this site will be limited to the endorsed spaces in the 

lot. This lot will accommodate 27 vehicles at one time and 80 PAOT to this site from 

private vehicles.

Alternative C. Parking at this site will be limited to the endorsed spaces in the lots. These 

lots will accommodate 63 vehicles at one time and 190 PAOT to this site from private 

vehicles.

Eagle Lake.

Review of Existing Knowledge and Direction— Eagle Lake parking lot is located along route 

233 and provides access to the carriage road system. As this lot is located close to the town of 

Bar Harbor, it is a popular site for visitors to transition from the roadway system to the carriage 

road system. Currently the lot can accommodate 23 vehicles at one time that contribute 69 

PAOT to this site. During busy summer days, up to 66 vehicles have been observed parked along 

roadsides. This contributes 198 PAOT to this site. Total maximum observed use at this site is 267 

PAOT.

Limiting Attributes— Current use at Eagle Lake is at an acceptable level from a visitor 

experience perspective. The number of vehicles parked here are not contributing visitors to the 

trails or carriage road system in such a way that thresholds are being approached related to 

experiential indicators. However, in this location resource damage is a concern related to 

overparking along roadsides. This roadside parking also raises safety concerns as this roadway 

sees steady traffic and there are no paths or sidewalks to move visitors safely from their cars to 

the trailhead.

Relevant Indicators

− VAOT at Key Destinations

− Encounters on Medium-Use and Low-Use Trails

− Number of Island Explorer Leave Behinds
Appendix A: Indicators, Thresholds, and Visitor Capacity

174

Visitor Capacity 

Alternatives B & D. Alternatives B and D will manage Eagle Lake to its currently designed 

capacity to mitigate resource and safety concerns. The visitor capacity of this site is determined 

to be 69 PAOT. 

Alternative C. All alternatives will manage Eagle Lake to its currently designed capacity to 

mitigate resource and safety concerns. The visitor capacity of this site is determined to be 69 

PAOT. 

Schoodic Point.

Review of Existing Direction and Knowledge— Schoodic Point is the most popular visitor 

destination on the Schoodic District with 88% of all visitors to the district visiting this 

destination (Manning 2002). Per the general management plan, parking is only allowed in 

designated lots. This is the site that based on both staff and visitor observations is the place most 

often to become crowded (Manning 2002). Current parking lot infrastructure was designed to 

achieve desired conditions for visitor densities on Schoodic Point. This lot can accommodate up 

to 31 vehicles at one time contributing 93 PAOT to this site. A 2002 study reported that at peak 

seasons and times of day an average of 70 PAOT were observed at Schoodic Point. Park staff 

have observed that over time more groups are coming in larger vehicles (up to 15-passenger) 

that are increasing relative numbers of people at the site compared to the number of parking 

spaces. Additionally, transit service has been added to this location. On busy summer days, 

transit service delivers an estimated 166 visitors per day to this site over the 14 trips to Schoodic 

Point. It is estimated that about 10 people at a time are on Schoodic Point via Island Explorer.

Limiting Attributes— Visitor studies indicate that Schoodic Point can accommodate 100 

people per view (or 110 PAOT) before the visitor experience at this site is compromised and 

visitors begin to displace from this site (Manning et al. 2002).

Relevant Indicators

− People per Viewscape

− VAOT at Key Destinations

− Number of Island Explorer Leave Behinds

Visitor Capacity 

All Action Alternatives. Parking at this site will be limited to the endorsed spaces in the 

lot. This lot will accommodate 31 vehicles at one time and 93 PAOT to this site. This site 

will accommodate up to 17 PAOT arriving via transit or trail. Therefore, the visitor 

capacity of this site is determined to be 110 PAOT. 
Other Locations

175

OTHER LOCATIONS

Table A-5. Visitor Capacity Determinations

Location Current Use Level Visitor Capacity 

Determination

Rationale

Frazer Point 42 PAOT (average) 90 PAOT Visitor survey results (Manning 2001) indicate 

that at this level NPS managers should take 

action to correction an unacceptable condition.

Sieur de Monts 274 PAOT 190 PAOT The desired condition for the area is a quiet, 

intimate environment. Changes in 

infrastructure to support more use would 

detract from this desired condition. Therefore, 

this determination is consistent with managing 

to the current infrastructure capacity to protect 

the quality of the social environment as a part 

of the Range of Experiences FRV. 
Appendix A: Indicators, Thresholds, and Visitor Capacity

176

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
177

APPENDIX B: ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY TABLE

Issues Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C

(Preferred)

Alternative D

Application of the 

Reservation System

All parking would continue to be available to visitors on a

first-come, first-served basis. Parking related congestion 

would be managed on a case-by-case basis.

Parking related congestion would be managed by 

establishing a parking reservation system for vehicles at five 

of the primary attractions and trailheads along Park Loop 

Road—Cadillac Mountain, Jordan Pond House, Thunder 

Hole, Sand Beach, and Sieur de Monts. During initial 

implementation of the plan, all other parking lots would 

continue to be managed on a first-come, first-served basis.

Parking reservations for these five areas would be valid for a 

specified time period and vehicles would be required to exit 

the parking lot prior to the expiration of their permitted 

time period thereby managing length of stay.

Parking-related traffic congestion on Park Loop Road would 

be managed through establishing a timed-entry vehicle 

reservation system for the Ocean Drive corridor (between 

the Sand Beach Entrance Station and the Fabbri picnic 

area/Monument), Cadillac Summit Road, and the Jordan 

Pond House North Lot. During initial implementation of the 

plan, all other parking lots would continue to be managed 

on a first-come, first-served basis.

The timed-entry system would provide reservation holders 

with a specific time window during which their vehicle 

would be permitted to enter the corridor or parking lot. 

Once inside the corridor or parking lot, there would be no 

limits on length of stay. 

The overall volume and timing of vehicles on Park Loop 

Road would be managed through consolidating entrance 

points and implementing a timed-entry reservation system 

for access onto the Park Loop Road. Most of Park Loop 

Road would be converted to one-way traffic in a 

counterclockwise rotation. This is opposite the direction of 

existing one-way sections.

Once visitors entered the park loop road during their 

assigned timed entry window, they would be able to travel 

freely anywhere on Park Loop Road and all parking would 

be available on a first-come, first-served basis. There would 

be no limits on length of stay.

Right Lane Parking Right lane parking along Park Loop Road would be retained. All parking in the right-hand lane of Park Loop Road would 

be eliminated to improve traffic flow and allow passing of 

bicycles and slow-moving vehicles. 

Right lane parking along Park Loop Road would be retained 

in the near term but eventually phased out as other options 

and parking become available.

Right lane parking along Park Loop Road would be 

eliminated except for a short northbound section of the 

road near Sand Beach where a portion of the right lane 

would be demarcated as parallel parking spaces.

Eagle Lake The existing parking lot and restroom on the north side of 

SR 233 at Eagle Lake would remain a first-come, first-served 

parking lot.

The existing parking lot and restroom on the north side of 

SR 233 at Eagle Lake would remain a first-come, first-served 

parking lot with the addition of an automated gate to 

restrict access when the lot is full. This gate may be 

modified or replaced to validate reservations if this lot is

added to the reservation system.

The existing parking lot and restroom on the north side of 

SR 233 at Eagle Lake would be removed. These facilities 

would be relocated to the south (off the highway) at 

Liscomb Pit, an approximately 2-acre area currently used as 

a maintenance storage yard.

The existing parking lot and restroom on the north side of 

SR 233 at Eagle Lake would be removed. These facilities 

would be relocated to the south (off the highway) along an 

abandoned section of SR 233 (old route 233).

Hulls Cove No changes would be made to the existing function or 

footprint of Hulls Cove.

Hulls Cove Visitor would continue to serve as the primary 

contact and orientation point for visitors to Acadia National 

Park. The site would be redeveloped with a substantial 

expansion of parking capacity and a new and enlarged 

visitor center. The existing visitor center building would 

either be repurposed or removed and the area revegetated. 

Same as alternative B. The existing visitor center at Hulls Cove would be 

demolished and the area restored to natural conditions. A 

small visitor contact station would be rebuilt closer to an 

expanded Hulls Cove parking lot.

Acadia Gateway Center The Acadia Gateway Center would be developed as 

described in the Acadia Gateway Center environmental 

assessment (MDOT and FTA 2006) (see also chapter 1). 

Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A. No substantial changes would be made to the planned 

physical development footprint of the Acadia Gateway 

Center facility as described in the Acadia Gateway Center 

environmental assessment (MDOT and FTA 2006) (see also 

chapter 1, “Relationship to Other Plans”). However, under 

this alternative the Acadia Gateway Center would serve as 

the park’s primary visitor center.

Thompson Island No changes would be made to the existing function or 

footprint of the Thompson Island Information Center.

The visitor services at the Thompson Island Information 

Center (on the west side of SR 3) would be removed and 

the structures repurposed. Visitor information services 

would be relocated to the Acadia Gateway Center. The 

picnic area and restrooms on the east side of the highway 

would be maintained for visitor use.

Same as alternative B except all the information center 

infrastructure on the west side of SR3 would be demolished 

and the area restored to natural conditions. 

Same as alternative B.
178

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
179

APPENDIX C: MISSION, GOALS, AND PRESERVATION STANDARDS FOR 

HISTORIC MOTOR ROAD SYSTEM

In addition to the management guidance presented in the general management plan, the park 

has identified a mission statement for the historic motor road system to articulate the goals and 

preservation standards expected for the resource: 

 The historic motor road system at Acadia National Park is a cultural resource. 

Operations and maintenance shall preserve its rustic character and significant 

characteristics and features, while considering potential adverse effects on natural 

resources and make all reasonable efforts to avoid or mitigate these effects whenever 

possible and practicable.

 Visitors using the historic motor road system should have an experience consistent with 

the goals of the park. This experience may contrast with the experience of traveling on a 

typical public road or public highway and may differ from the initial expectations of the 

visitor.

 Before any modifications are made to the historic motor road system, changes should be 

carefully evaluated for their impact on the historical integrity of the significant 

characteristics and features. In carrying out individual actions or routine maintenance, 

the overall or cumulative effect of each change will be evaluated to ensure that the 

historical integrity is not diminished.

 During motor road construction projects, impacts on the park and its visitors will be 

reduced as quickly as possible. Major projects should consider potential environmental, 

social, and economic impacts, and include a construction sequencing strategy that 

minimizes road congestion and delays. Whenever possible, the motor roads will remain 

open during construction projects.

 The following goals are intended to maintain the significant characteristics and features 

of Acadia’s historic motor road system while protecting Acadia’s natural resources and 

high-quality visitor experiences:

 Preserve the historic vertical and horizontal alignment and cross-sections that are unique 

to each motor road segment as a testament to its designers and dates of construction.

 Preserve the natural features associated with the construction of the motor roads such as 

roadside rock outcrops and rock cuts.

 Preserve the historic vistas and associated paved pullouts and parking areas.

 Preserve the diversity of vegetation adjacent to the road corridors.

 Preserve the rustic character of built features designed in the rustic design style (stonefaced bridges and causeways; vegetated shoulders and ditches; stone embankments, 

retaining walls, guardwalls, culvert headwalls, drop-inlets, waterways, medians, curbs; 

asphalt walkways).

 Preserve historic features designed by the Bureau of Public Roads (concrete and brick 

drop-inlets, concrete curbs).

 Manage visitor parking that is consistent with the carrying capacity of the historic motor 

road system. This will include management of informal pullouts, right lane parking, and 
Appendix C: Mission, Goals, and Preservation Standards for

Historic Motor Road System

180

the use of parking management stones. Historic features should not be modified solely to 

accommodate larger automobiles, recreational vehicles, or buses.

 Minimize use of standard regulatory signs and pavement striping.

 Protect perennial and intermittent streams that intersect the road corridor.

 Preserve habitats that use the road corridor.

 Preserve the historic character of the historic motor road system for future generations.
181

APPENDIX D: BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 

AND MITIGATION MEASURES

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

To ensure protection of the park’s fundamental resources and values, the following best 

management practices would be implemented under all action alternatives. These best 

management practices are grounded in NPS Management Policies 2006, and they are intended to 

provide a practical approach to everyday management of Acadia National Park’s transportation 

system. These best practices are different from the mitigation measures described in the next 

section of this appendix, which are intended to avoid or minimize potential adverse impacts 

from implementing the management actions proposed in this plan.

General

 Minimize expansion of impervious surfaces in the park. Pervious pavement would be 

used where practical and abandoned roads or parking lots would be rehabilitated to 

restore natural conditions.

 Incorporate the principles of sustainability in the design, construction, and operation of 

all facets of the NPS transportation system. 

 Ensure that all new facilities maximize protection of the park’s fundamental resources 

and values and are scaled to achieve the desired visitor capacity of the site.

Natural Resources

Scenery.

 Design, site, and construct developments to avoid or minimize visual intrusion.

 Strategically place signs within the road corridor based on established design guidelines. 

Where signs are necessary, locate them to minimize visual intrusion.

 Design new traffic and parking control structures to minimize visual intrusion to the 

maximum extent possible.

 Maintain selected vistas and other remarkable views through vegetation pruning to allow 

visitors to experience the intended scenic design of the historic road system without 

disrupting the integrity of the natural ecosystem.

 Manage appropriate visitor and administrative uses to minimize impacts on scenic 

qualities.

 Place proposed utility lines underground in existing and/or new corridors to minimize 

visual intrusion, except where such placement would cause significant damage to natural 

or cultural resources.

Ecological Communities, Functions and Species.

 Monitor human use areas (e.g., road corridor, trails, turnouts) for signs of native 

vegetation disturbance and manage visitor use to minimize or avoid vegetation 
Appendix D: Best Management Practices

and Mitigation Measures

182

disturbance and the spread of nonnative species (e.g., through public education, erosion 

control, and barriers to control potential impacts on plants).

 Monitor populations and distribution of various wildlife “indicator” species to assess for 

possible effects from visitor use and triggers for adaptive management actions.

 Restore native species, ecological function, and habitat values to disturbed areas where

possible.

 Develop and implement revegetation plans for disturbed areas, which would specify 

native seed/plant source and mixes, soil preparation, etc.

 Implement best practices to ensure construction equipment and machinery construction 

areas are free of nonnative plant and aquatic invasive species.

 Develop cooperative integrated pest management vegetation management practices with 

state and local agencies for road corridors transecting or adjacent to NPS lands.

 Conduct pre- and post-project plant monitoring in the project area to ensure successful 

revegetation, manage invasive exotic plants, and determine maintenance needs in 

establishing vegetation.

Aquatic Resources.

 Periodically monitor chemical, physical, and biological properties of water bodies and 

waterways in Acadia National Park (including coastal waters, Eagle Lake, Echo Lake, 

Jordan Pond, and smaller bodies) to ensure water quality remains in excellent condition.

 Implement best practices to reduce pollution, erosion, sedimentation, and compaction 

and to control surface runoff from parking areas, roads, and other ground-disturbing 

activities.

 Avoid or minimize salt use in winter to protect adjacent waters.

 Delineate and avoid work in wetlands, and apply protection measures before any ground 

disturbance (e.g., construction). Wetlands would be delineated by qualified NPS staff or 

certified wetland specialists and clearly marked before construction work begins. 

 Perform construction activities in a careful manner to prevent damage by equipment, 

erosion, siltation, etc.

 Restore stream connectivity and natural hydrological flows and ensure that stream and 

wetland crossings and culverts are designed for the natural movement of fish and aquatic 

wildlife. 

 Design and build infrastructure to address increased storm intensities and flows related 

to a rapidly changing climate.

 Ensure protection of drinking water quality in Eagle Lake, and Bubble, Jordan, Lower 

Hadlock, and Long Ponds in compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974.

Natural Soundscapes and Acoustic Resources.

 Follow all applicable guidance and policy regarding natural soundscapes and acoustic 

resources, including Director’s Order 47: Soundscape Preservation and Noise 

Management and NPS Management Policies 2006.

 Maximize noise-free intervals and limit the intensity and duration of noise intrusions.
Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Guidelines

183

 Purchase and encourage use of quiet fleet and transit vehicles when possible.

Night Sky.

 Minimize lighting and use only dark-sky friendly light fixtures and practices in all aspects 

of the park transportation system and infrastructure including along roadways and in 

parking lots.

Cultural Resources

 Consider modifications to historic roads and infrastructure that maintain historic 

integrity but also mitigate the effects of anticipated increases in intensity and frequency 

of precipitation storm events.

Quality of the Visitor Experience

 Periodically conduct visitor surveys and collect and analyze data to determine visitor 

satisfaction with park programs, services, and facilities.

 Conduct community outreach and education about the park and provide collaborative 

and consistent messaging regarding appropriate visitor uses and means of access.

 Continue appropriate and strategic signage and wayfinding where needed.

 Implement a visitor use management and monitoring program using indicators and 

thresholds to effectively manage visitor use and related impacts.

 Encourage park staff to limit administrative use of vehicles within the transportation 

system as much as possible through carpooling and other means.

 Ensure that the facilities, programs, and services of the National Park Service and its 

partners are accessible to and usable by all people, including those who are disabled. 

This policy is based on the commitment to provide access to the widest cross-section of 

the public and to ensure compliance with the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 (42 

United States Code [USC] 4151 et seq.) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 USC 701 

et seq.).

MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING GUIDELINES

Under all of the alternatives evaluated in this draft plan/EIS, the following mitigation measures 

would be applied to avoid and minimize potential adverse impacts on Acadia National Park's 

fundamental resources and values.

General Construction Measures

 Locate staging and stockpiling areas in previously disturbed sites, away from visitor use 

areas to the extent possible, to minimize the amount of ground disturbance. All staging 

and stockpiling areas would be returned to preconstruction conditions and/or 

revegetated following construction. Parking areas for construction vehicles would be 

limited to these staging areas, existing roads, and identified previously disturbed areas.

 Identify and fence construction zones with construction fencing, silt fencing, or some 

similar material prior to any construction activity. The fencing would define the 

construction zone and confine activity to the minimum area required for construction. 
Appendix D: Best Management Practices

and Mitigation Measures

184

All protection measures would be clearly stated in the construction specifications and 

workers would be instructed to avoid conducting activities, including materials staging 

and storage, beyond the construction zone as defined by construction zone fencing.

 Place nonvegetation construction debris in refuse containers at least daily, and dispose 

of refuse at least weekly. No refuse burying or burning would be allowed inside the park.

 Design, build, and landscape all new structures with defensible space around the 

structures in case of wildfires.

 Comply with applicable federal and state regulations on the storage, handling, and 

disposal of all hazardous materials and waste. Provisions would be made for storage, 

containment, and disposal of hazardous materials used on-site. To minimize possible 

petrochemical leaks of construction equipment, all equipment would be monitored 

frequently to identify and repair any leaks and would be staged in designated areas 

suitable to contain leaked materials. Trained personnel would clean up and dispose of 

any leak or spill from construction equipment such as hydraulic fluid, oil, or fuel. Fueling 

and fuel storage areas would be permitted only at approved locations and comply with 

park refueling guidelines.

 Develop and implement a comprehensive spill prevention and pollution control 

program that complies with federal and state regulations and addresses all aspects of spill 

prevention, notification, emergency spill response strategies for spills occurring on land 

and water, reporting requirements, monitoring requirements, personnel responsibilities, 

response equipment type and location, and drills and training requirements.

 Limit all construction activities in Acadia National Park to the period from 30 minutes 

after sunrise to 30 minutes prior to sunset. 

Sustainable Development

 Design development projects (e.g., parking lots, infrastructure, utilities, roads) or 

rehabilitation projects (e.g., road and parking lot rehabilitation, utility upgrades) to blend 

with the natural and historic surroundings. Projects would reduce, minimize, or 

eliminate air and water point and nonpoint source pollution. Projects would be 

sustainable whenever practicable by recycling and reusing materials, minimizing 

materials, minimizing energy consumption during the project, and minimizing energy 

consumption throughout the lifespan of the project.

Climate Change

Climate change has the potential to adversely affect future conditions at Acadia National Park, 

including natural and cultural resources, visitor experience, and the transportation system, 

particularly low-elevation road corridors. As global and regional climate change continues, a 

management approach that enhances the protection and resilience of climate-sensitive 

resources, assets, and values is increasingly important. All of the action alternatives would 

incorporate the strategy outlined in this section, which incorporates the growing understanding

of climate change influences and the effectiveness of management to contend with these 

influences.

Climate change science is a rapidly advancing field, with sophisticated models being refined and 

new information being collected and released. The full extent of climate change impacts on 

resource conditions is not fully understood, and therefore, park managers and policy makers 
Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Guidelines

185

have not determined the most effective response mechanisms for minimizing impacts and 

adapting to change. As a result, the following management strategies do not provide definitive 

solutions or directions; instead, they provide science-based and scholarship-based management 

principles to consider when implementing the Acadia transportation plan.

Acadia National Park would use the following management approach to address climate change 

throughout implementation of this transportation management plan. Many of these specific 

management strategies are adopted from the publication, Some Guidelines for Helping Natural 

Resources Adapt to Climate Change (Baron et al. 2008). Further elaboration and adaption of these 

strategies is anticipated as implementation of the plan proceeds.

 Identify key natural and cultural resources, facilities, and processes that are at risk from 

climate change. Establish baseline conditions for these resources, identify their 

thresholds, and monitor for change. Increase reliance on adaptive management to 

minimize risks. 

 Apply best management practices to climate change to improve the resilience of 

ecosystem features and processes, cultural resources, and facilities.

 Use best management practices to reduce human-caused stresses (e.g., park 

infrastructure and visitor-related disturbances) that hinder the ability of species or 

ecosystems to withstand climatic events.

 Manage park transportation facilities and infrastructure (e.g., structures, trails, roads) in 

a way that prepares for and adapts to the effects of climate change.

 Manage transportation infrastructure (e.g., structures, trails, roads) in a manner 

consistent with NPS policy regarding climate change. Prepare for and adapt 

transportation infrastructure to climate change. Carefully evaluate storm-damaged 

infrastructure and the risk of further damage. If there is an unacceptable risk of 

continued damage, the damaged infrastructure would likely not be replaced unless 

extenuating circumstances were present.

The 2017 Coastal Hazards and Climate Change Asset Vulnerability Assessment identifies park 

assets threatened by sea level rise and inundation. That document and associated GIS databases 

list park assets identified in Acadia’s Facilities Management Software System with minimal, low, 

moderate, and high vulnerability to climate change impacts. For the most part, the park’s motor 

vehicle transportation systems are well shielded from negative impacts, but some parts of Park 

Loop Road and Schoodic Loop Road are at sufficiently low elevations that they could 

experience erosion or storm-related damage (including areas on Schoodic Point (Arey Cove) 

Road and along the Schoodic Loop Road, as well as several locations on Ocean Drive and at 

Sand Beach on Mount Desert Island). This transportation plan does not propose any new 

facilities or infrastructure in the threatened areas. Nevertheless, climate change impacts could
Appendix D: Best Management Practices

and Mitigation Measures

186

necessitate adaptive changes to the transportation corridor plan in the future. The National Park 

Service would evaluate any future proposed facility investments prior to project approval using 

the best scientific information and climate modeling available and the climate change strategies 

described above to ensure the long-term sustainability of these investments. The National Park 

Service may conclude that such financial investments would be unwise and that other options 

should be considered or, potentially, that the project should not be pursued or implemented.

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

 Employ temporary or seasonal use restrictions or area closures for all visitor uses, 

including pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles, to protect sensitive wildlife habitat and 

sensitive wildlife behavior or life stages.

 Implement standard construction measures to avoid or minimize wildlife impacts 

including:

− scheduling construction during seasons that are least disruptive to wildlife behavior

− evaluating habitat for species likely to occur prior to construction activities, and 

taking steps to minimize impacts on those species determined to be especially 

vulnerable

− monitoring for adverse impacts on wildlife or wildlife habitat

− installing and maintaining temporary fences or other barriers to protect sensitive 

resources adjacent to construction sites (as defined by wildlife-friendly fence 

specifications)

− maintaining routes of escape for animals that might fall into excavated pits and 

trenches and covering post holes and other narrow cavities or crevices

− minimizing the potential for “taking” a nest or egg of a migratory bird species by (1) 

avoiding any activity that would destroy a nest or egg, or (2) conducting a survey for 

any nests in the project area prior to construction activities to avoid loss or 

disturbance of nests

 Perform mitigation actions during normal park operations as well as before, during, and 

after construction to minimize immediate and long-term impacts on wildlife and wildlife 

habitat. These actions would vary depending on the type of project and its location. 

Many of the measures listed for vegetation would also benefit wildlife by preserving 

habitat.

 Limit the effects of light and noise on adjacent habitat through control of sources during 

construction activities.

 Develop and implement restoration and/or monitoring plans, as warranted. Plans should 

include methods for implementation, performance standards, monitoring criteria, and 

adaptive management techniques.

Federally Listed Wildlife Species

 The northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) is present in Acadia National Park

and is federally listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.

Appropriate conservation measures such as avoidance of critical habitat and seasonal 

restrictions on activities would be implemented in consultation with the US Fish and 
Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Guidelines

187

Wildlife Service. For example all trees over 4-inch diameter at breast height (DBH) 

would be cut at a time that avoids bat maternity periods.

 Site and design of facilities and actions would be applied to avoid adverse effects on rare, 

threatened, and endangered species. If avoidance is infeasible, adverse effects on rare, 

threatened, and endangered species would be minimized and compensated, as 

appropriate, and in consultation with the appropriate resource agencies.

 Inform construction workers and supervisors of the potential for special status species in 

the work vicinity. Contract provisions would require the cessation of construction 

activities if a special status species were discovered in the project area until park staff 

could reevaluate the project. This would allow modification of the contract for any 

measures determined necessary to protect the discovery.

Vegetation

 Fence or clearly mark and enforce disturbance zones and construction and staging areas 

to prevent impacts on vegetation outside the approved construction limits.

 Minimize construction effects on vegetation and ensure that no vegetation would be 

damaged or removed without prior approval via the project documents or by staff.

 Cut woody materials would be chipped and spread no more than 2-inches thick in 

adjacent natural areas to avoid smothering regenerating plants or would be stored and 

managed to avoid moving nonnative invasive pests such as wood-boring insects or 

European red fire ants.

 Areas where vegetation has been disturbed by transportation activities would be

inspected and invasive nonnative plants would be managed for three growing seasons 

following restoration.

 Provide construction workers and supervisors with tree pruning guidelines to minimize 

damage to trees during project implementation.

 To the extent possible, salvage and preserve existing native vegetation for use in 

revegetating disturbed areas. Existing trees would be preserved to the extent possible.

 All off-site fill (e.g., dirt, gravel) would be required to be weed-free prior to being 

transported to the park.

 Implement measures to ensure that construction equipment and machinery entering the 

park are free of nonnative invasive species. All construction equipment that has the 

potential to leave the road would be pressure washed before entering the park.

 Develop a project revegetation plan that addresses, among other things, the use of native 

genetically appropriate species, plant salvage potential, and nonnative 

vegetation/noxious weed management. Disturbed areas would be replanted with native 

vegetation. Revegetation efforts would include imitating the natural spacing, abundance, 

and diversity of native plant species. Natural groupings of vegetation, rocks, or other 

natural features would be used for screening, as appropriate. Local native species would 

be used; no irrigation would be needed except during plant establishment.
Appendix D: Best Management Practices

and Mitigation Measures

188

Wetlands and Floodplains

 Avoid transportation-related activities in wetlands and floodplains whenever possible.

 Use the most up-to-date data on the extent of floodplains and wetlands, precipitation, 

and stormwater flows to anticipate and plan for climate-related changes in hydrology.

 Delineate all wetland boundaries and install protective fencing along adjacent wetlands 

to prevent accidental disturbance. 

 Perform construction activities in a careful manner to prevent damage caused by 

equipment, erosion, siltation, etc.

 As appropriate, protect wetland resources by

− avoiding wetlands during construction, using properly sized and installed bridge 

crossings or retaining walls wherever possible

− exercising increased caution to protect wetland resources from damage caused by 

construction equipment, erosion, siltation, and other activities with the potential to 

affect wetlands

− taking measures to keep construction materials from escaping work areas, especially 

near streams or natural drainages

− using elevated pathways over wetland sections where it is not feasible to avoid the 

wetland from trail construction

Soils

 Minimize soil erosion by limiting the time soil is left exposed and by applying other 

erosion control measures such as erosion matting, silt fencing, and sedimentation basins 

in construction areas to reduce soil erosion, surface scouring, and discharge to water 

bodies. Once work is completed, disturbed areas would be revegetated with native plants 

in a timely manner.

 Separate all soil stockpiles based on soil type. Topsoil materials would be stockpiled in a 

predetermined designated area away from excavations and future work sites without 

intermixing with subsoils. Stockpiles would then be graded and shaped to allow 

unimpeded surface water drainage. Stockpiles would be temporarily seeded and 

periodically treated to prevent wind from scattering topsoil and to prevent the 

introduction of nonnative plants.

 Respread topsoil as near the original location as possible and supplement with 

scarification, mulching, seeding, and/or planting with species native to the immediate 

area. Conserving topsoil would minimize vegetation impacts and potential compaction 

and erosion of bare soils. The use of conserved topsoil would preserve microorganisms 

and seeds of native plants.

 Follow existing contours to the degree possible for constructed elements. Locally 

excavated material would be used at fill locations.

 As appropriate, reuse excavated soil in the project area and store excess soil only in 

approved areas. Topsoil would be removed and returned to the same area once 

construction activities are completed. Live vegetation less than 3 feet in height and limbs 

less than 2 inches in diameter may be incorporated as topsoil in the stockpiles. Care 
Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Guidelines

189

would be taken to ensure that topsoil and fill material are not mixed and are stockpiled 

in separate areas (i.e., topsoil to the right of the trench and fill to the left).

 In an effort to avoid introduction of nonnative plant species, use only weed-free 

materials for erosion control. Any proposed materials would be reviewed on a case-bycase basis; allowable materials for erosion control would be weed-free purchased and 

materials that are identified as unlikely to draw wildlife to construction sites or roadsides 

such that wood excelsior fibers may be preferred over straw-filled waddles. This 

selection may be determined based on location, quantity, and duration of material use.

 Obtain any fill materials from a park-approved source, approved by the park biologist. 

Borrow and aggregate materials from sources outside the park would be inspected to 

avoid importation of nonnative plants.

 When construction is ended prior to a winter season, protect all disturbed areas and soil 

stockpiles from snowmelt impacts by using erosion control best management practices 

for subsoil and soil conservation practices for topsoil.

Air Quality

 Implement a dust abatement program. Standard dust abatement measures may include 

the following elements: water spraying or otherwise stabilizing soils, covering haul 

trucks, employing speed limits on unpaved roads, minimizing vegetation clearing, and 

revegetating after construction.

 Reduce or eliminate idling of construction and private vehicles. Signs at entrance 

stations and messages in park materials would be used to encourage visitors to not idle 

their vehicles while waiting in parking areas or queue lines.

 Ensure that all construction equipment complies with Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) emission standards in effect at the time of manufacture.

Historic Structures, Sites, and Cultural Landscapes

 Design all new construction within or adjacent to historic sites, districts, and cultural 

landscapes to be compatible in terms of architectural elements, scale, massing, materials, 

and other character-defining features. 

 New construction would be carried out in accordance with The Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the 

Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. 

 To minimize the visual and auditory intrusions on cultural resources from new 

development screening or other sensitive design measures would be used that are 

compatible with historic resources and cultural landscapes. 

 Adverse impacts on cultural resources would be avoided to the extent possible in 

accordance with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology 

and Historic Preservation.

 If adverse impacts (under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act) cannot 

be avoided, appropriate mitigation measures would be developed in consultation with all 

interested parties.
Appendix D: Best Management Practices

and Mitigation Measures

190

Archeological Resources

 Routinely monitor known archeological sites to assess and document the effects of 

natural processes and human activities on the resources. Archeological resources would 

be left undisturbed and preserved in a stable condition to prevent degradation and loss 

of research values unless intervention could be justified based on compelling research, 

interpretation, site protection, or park development needs. Recovered archeological 

materials and associated records would be treated in accordance with 36 CFR Part 79, 

NPS Management Policies 2006, and the NPS Museum Handbook. All identified sites 

would be entered in the Archeological Sites Management Information System (ASMIS)

and previous records would be updated. 

 As appropriate, conduct archeological surveys or monitoring prior to any ground 

disturbance. During construction, significant archeological resources would be avoided 

to the greatest extent possible. If such resources could not be avoided, an appropriate 

mitigation strategy (e.g., the excavation, recordation, and mapping of cultural remains 

prior to disturbance) would be developed in consultation with the Maine SHPO and, as 

necessary, associated American Indian tribes. The mitigation strategy would ensure that 

important archeological data is recovered and documented.

 If, during construction, previously unknown archeological resources are discovered, all 

work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted until the resources could 

be identified and documented. If the resources could not be preserved in situ, an 

appropriate mitigation strategy would be developed in consultation with the Maine 

SHPO and, as necessary, associated American Indian tribes. Archeological sites would be 

fenced and/or appropriately marked by a NPS-approved archeologist. All project 

personnel would be briefed to stay out of areas with sensitive archeological resources.

 Adverse impacts on cultural resources would be avoided to the extent possible in 

accordance with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology 

and Historic Preservation.

 If adverse impacts (under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act) cannot 

be avoided, appropriate mitigation measures would be developed in consultation with all 

interested parties.

Visual Resources

 Fence off and consolidate construction areas and equipment to visually screen 

construction activity and materials if possible.

 Site and design trails to route people away from sensitive natural and cultural resources 

while allowing access to important viewsheds. Vegetation screening would be used 

where appropriate.
Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Guidelines

191

Quality of the Visitor Experience

 Implement measures to reduce adverse effects of construction on visitor experience. 

Measures may include, but are not limited to, noise abatement, visual screening, and 

directional signs so that visitors are able to avoid construction activities.

 Conduct construction work to avoid peak visitor use times (i.e., weekends, holidays) to 

the extent practicable to minimize inconveniences to visitors.

 Make information public regarding implementation of projects in public areas.

Health and Safety

 Implement measures to reduce adverse effects of construction on safety. 

 Develop an emergency notification plan that complies with park, federal, and state 

requirements and allows contractors to properly notify park, federal, and/or state 

personnel in the event of an emergency during construction activities. This plan would 

address notification requirements related to fire, personnel, and/or visitor injury, 

releases of spilled material, evacuation processes, etc. The emergency notification plan 

would be submitted to the park for review/approval prior to commencement of 

construction activities.

 As necessary, institute temporary closures of park transportation corridors to 

pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles when construction activities are ongoing.
Appendix D: Best Management Practices

and Mitigation Measures

192

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
193

APPENDIX E: SELECTED REFERENCES, GLOSSARY, AND ACRONYMS 

AND ABBREVIATIONS

SELECTED REFERENCES

Anderson, Manning, and Valliere

2009 “Indicators and Standards of Quality across space and time.” In Parks and People: 

Managing Outdoor Recreation at Acadia National Park. 

Bermello Ajamil & Partners, Inc. and Desman Associates

2014 “Town of Bar Harbor Backyard Parking Study, Phase 1 and 2 Findings -

Summary.” Prepared for the Town of Bar Harbor Parking Committee. January 7, 

2014.

Brown, Margaret Coffin

2006 Pathmakers, Cultural Landscape Report for the Historic Hiking Trail System of 

Mount Desert Island. Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, Boston, MA.

Cullinane, Thomas, C. and L. Koontz

2017 “2016 National Park Visitor Spending Effects: Economic Contributions to Local 

Communities, States, and the Nation.” Natural Resource Report 

NPS/NRSS/EQD/NRR—2017/1421. National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO.

2016 “2015 National Park Visitor Spending Effects: Economic Contributions to Local 

Communities, States, and the Nation.” Natural Resource Report 

NPS/NRSS/EQD/NRR—2016/1200. National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO.

DPA

2016 “Maine Office of Tourism Visitor Tracking Research: 2015 Calendar Year Annual 

Report, Regional Insights: Downeast & Acadia.” 

http://visitmaine.com/assets/downloads/2015_Regional_Report_Downeast.pdf. 

April 2016.

Foulds, Elliot

2006 Cultural Landscapes Inventory, Blackwoods Campground, Acadia National Park. 

Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, Boston, MA.
Appendix E: Selected References, Glossary, and Acronyms and Abbreviations

194

Foulds, Elliot and Jeffrey Killion

2015 Vista Management Plan for the Historic Motor Road System, Acadia National 

Park, Bar Harbor, Maine. Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, Boston, 

MA.

Gabe, Todd, Dominic Gayton, Patrick Robinson, James McConnon, and Sean Larkin

2017 “Economic Impact of Cruise Ship Passengers Visiting Bar Harbor (Maine) in 

2016.” University of Maine, School of Economics Staff Paper 629.

Hallo, J. and R. Manning

2009 Transportation and Recreation: A case study of visitors driving for pleasure at 

Acadia National Park. Journal of Transport Geography, 17, 491-499.

2009 Analysis of Social Carrying Capacity of a National Park Scenic Road. 

International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 4, 75-94.

Headwaters Economics

2017 “Demographics Report.” Data from the American Community Survey, 2011–2015 

Five-year Survey, various tables, as reported in Economic Profile System.

https://headwaterseconomics.org/tools/economic-profile-system/. Accessed 

February 9, 2017.

Holly, F.

2009 Incentives and disincentives for day visitors to park and ride public 

transportation at Acadia National Park. Master Thesis. Clemson University. 

Jacobi, C.

2004 Monitoring and Management of Social Trails and Visitor Use on Little Moose 

Island, Acadia National Park: 1996–2002. ANP Natural Resource Report 2004-01.

Killion, Jeffrey and H. Elliot Foulds

2007 Cultural Landscape Report for the Historic Motor Road System, Acadia National 

Park. Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, Boston, MA.
Selected References

195

Kiser, B., S. Lawson, and R. Itami

2008 Assessing the reliability of computer simulation for modeling low use visitor 

landscapes. In R. Gimblett, H. Skov-Peterson, & A. Muhar, Monitoring, 

Simulation, and Management of Visitor Landscapes. Tucson, AZ: The University 

of Arizona Press.

Koontz, Lynne

2016 (National Park Service economist, Fort Collins, CO). Personal communication. 

December 6, 2016.

Lawson, S.

2006 Computer simulation as a tool for planning and management of visitor use in 

protected natural areas. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(6), 600-617.

Lawson, S., R. Chamberlin, J. Choi, B. Swanson, B. Kiser, C. Monz, L. Gamble

2011 Modeling the effects of shuttle service on transportation system performance and 

visitor experience quality in Rocky Mountain National Park. Transportation 

Research Record, No. 2244, 97-106.

Lawson, S., R. Itami, R. Gimblett, and R. Manning

2006 Benefits and challenges of computer simulation modeling of backcountry 

recreation use in the Desolation Lake Area of the John Muir Wilderness. Journal 

of Leisure Research, 38(2), 187-207.

Lawson, S. and B. Kiser

2014 Arapahoe-Roosevelt National Forest Transportation System Alternatives Study, 

Technical Memo 4.1, Need Identification by Site. Prepared for US Department of 

Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Central Federal Lands and US 

Forest Service, Submitted by RSG.

Lawson, S. and B. Kiser

2013a Transportation & Visitor Use Data Collection, Analysis, & Modeling: Mount 

Rainier National Park. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NRTR—

2013/10, NPS D-105/117351 & PMIS 88348.
Appendix E: Selected References, Glossary, and Acronyms and Abbreviations

196

Lawson, S. and B. Kiser

2013b Visitor Survey Report to Support Development of Visitor Facilities Zone 

Indicators & Standards: Mount Rainier National Park. Natural Resource 

Technical Report NPS/NRTR—2013/01, NPS D-105/117351 & PMIS 88348.

Lawson, S., P. Newman, J. Choi, D. Pettebone, and B. Meldrum

2009 The numbers game: Integrated transportation and user capacity research in 

Yosemite National Park. Transportation Research Record, No. 2119, 83-91.

Lawson, S., P. Newman, and C. Monz

n.d. (in press). A systems-based approach to address unintended consequences of 

demand-driven transportation planning in national parks and public lands. 

Journal of Sustainable Transportation.

Maine Center for Workforce Research and Information

2016 “Unemployment and Labor Force.” Data derived from the Local Area 

Unemployment Statistics program. http://www.maine.gov/labor/cwri/laus.html. 

Accessed December 15, 2016.

Maine Office of Policy and Management

2017 “Maine Taxable Retail Sales.” http://www.maine.gov/economist/state/retail.html. 

Accessed March 2017.

2016 “Maine Demographic Projections.” 

http://www.maine.gov/economist/state/projections.html. Accessed December 

2016.

Maine Revenue Services

2017 “Office of Tax Policy Research: Statistics for Taxable Sales.” 

http://www.maine.gov/revenue/research/sales/homepage.html. Accessed March 

2017.

Manni, M., M. Littlejohn, and S. Hollenhorst

2010 Acadia National Park Visitor Study: Summer 2009. Report 221. University of 

Idaho, Parks Studies Unit. 
Selected References

197

Manning, R.

2009 “Parks & People: Managing Outdoor Recreation at Acadia National Park.”

Lebanon, NH: University Press of New England.

2007 “Parks and Carrying Capacity: Commons Without Tragedy.” Washington DC: 

Island Press.

Manning, R., M. Budruk, W. Valliere, and J. Hallo

2005 Research to Support Visitor Management at Muir Woods National Monument 

and Muir Beach: Study Completion Report. Burlington: University of Vermont, 

Park Studies Lab.

Manning, R., J. Hallo, W. Valliere, and L. Anderson

2008 Simulation modeling of vehicle use on Acadia National Park’s Ocean Drive: 

Study Completion Report. University of Vermont Park Studies Laboratory. 

Manning, R., S. Lawson, W. Valliere, J. Bacon, and D. Laven

2002 “Schoodic Peninsula Acadia National Park Visitor Study 2000–2001.” University 

of Vermont Park Studies Laboratory. 

Manning, R., S. Lawson, P. Newman, J. Hallo, and C. Monz

2014 Sustainable transportation in the national parks: From Acadia to Zion. White 

River Junction, VT: University Press of New England.

Manning, R., J. Morrissey, and S. Lawson

2005 What's Behind the Numbers? Qualitative Insights into Normative Research in 

Outdoor Recreation. Leisure Sciences, 27, 205-224.

Manning, R., W. Valliere, L. Anderson, R. McCown, P. Pettengill, S. Lawson, . . . et al.

2011 Defining, Measuring, Monitoring, and Managing the Sustainability of Parks for 

Outdoor Recreation. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 29(3), 24-37.
Appendix E: Selected References, Glossary, and Acronyms and Abbreviations

198

Monz, C., J. Marion, K. Goonan, R. Manning, J. Wimpey, and C. Carr

2010 Assessment and Monitoring of Recreation Impacts and Resource Conditions on 

Mountain Summits: Examples From the Northern Forest, USA. Mountain 

Research and Development 30(4), 332-343.

National Park Service (NPS)

2017a “Visitor Spending Effects – Economic Contributions of National Park Visitor 

Spending,” interactive website. 

https://www.nps.gov/subjects/socialscience/vse.htm.

2017b “Vehicle Traffic and Visitor Use of the Cadillac Mountain Summit Road 2016,”

on file at Acadia National Park.

2016 Acadia National Park Public Use Counting and Reporting Procedures.

2014 “A Partial Census of Hiking Trail Use, 2013,” on file at Acadia National Park. 

2014.

2012 Cultural Landscape Inventory, Acadia National Park, Inventory Unit: Thunder 

Hole.

2009 Cultural Landscape Inventory, Acadia National Park, Inventory Unit: Jordan 

Pond House.

2009 Cultural Landscape Inventory, Acadia National Park, Inventory Unit: Sieur de 

Monts.

2007 Cultural Landscape Inventory, Acadia National Park, Inventory Unit: Cadillac 

Mountain Summit.

2004 Cultural Landscape Inventory, Acadia National Park, Inventory Unit: Schoodic 

Peninsula.

Pettengill, P., R. Manning, L. Anderson, W. Valliere, and N. Reigner

2012 Measuring and managing the quality of transportation at Acadia National Park. 

Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 30(1), 68-84.

Reigner, N., A. Belensz, and S. Lawson

2016 “Cadillac Mountain Transportation and Visitor Use Model: Final Report.” White 

River Junction: RSG.

Resource Systems Group

2015 “Acadia National Park Socioeconomic Monitoring Pilot Implementation.” 

Natural Resource Report NPS/ACAD/NRR—2016/1323. National Park Service, 

Fort Collins, CO.
Selected References

199

Signature Travel

2017 “8-Nights Classic Fall Foliage from $2,619.” 

http://web3.signaturetravelnetwork.com/SigNet/index.cfm/LandOffer?&agency

_id=1132&offer_id=1245956&utp=consumer&type=consumer&userid=0&cid=

0&CFID=42372962&CFTOKEN=33181412. August 7, 2017.

Tours4Fun

2017 “6-Day New England Fall Foliage Tour: Ogunquit, York Beach, Plymouth, 

Newport & Acadia National Park.” http://www.tours4fun.com/bostonplymouth-newport-mount-washington-new-england-fall-foliage-6-daytour.html. Accessed August 7, 2017.

University of Maine Library

2016 “Government Publications: Maine Census.” 

http://libguides.library.umaine.edu/c.php?g=149681&p=1043072. Accessed 

December 2016.

US Census Bureau

2017 “OnTheMap.” MDI geography via “Draw Polygon (Freehand)” tool. 

https://onthemap.ces.census.gov/. Accessed February 26, 2017.

2016 “American Community Survey, 2011–2015 Five-year Survey, Table DP04: 

Selected Housing Characteristics.” Accessed December 2016.

2006 Cole, D., and T. Hall. “Trailheads in Oregon and Washington: Do They Differ 

From Most Wilderness Visitors?” Moscow: University of Idaho.

White, D. D.

2007 An interpretive study of Yosemite National Park visitors’ perspectives toward 

alternative transportation in Yosemite Valley. Environmental Management, 39, 

50–62.
Appendix E: Selected References, Glossary, and Acronyms and Abbreviations

200

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
201

GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Adaptive management: A process that allows the development of a plan when some degree of 

biological and socioeconomic uncertainty exists. It requires a continual learning process, a 

reiterative evaluation of goals and approaches, and redirection based on increased information 

and changing public expectations.

Affected environment: Existing biological, physical, social, and economic conditions of an area 

that are subject to change, both directly and indirectly, as a result of a proposed human action. 

Alternatives: Sets of management elements that represent a range of options for how, or 

whether to proceed with a proposed project. An environmental impact statement analyzes the 

potential environmental and social impacts of the range of alternatives presented.

Archeological resources: Historic and prehistoric deposits, sites, features, structure ruins, and 

anything of a cultural nature found within, or removed from, an archeological site. 

Area of potential effect: The geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may 

directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties, if such 

properties exist. The area of potential effect is influenced by the scale and nature of the 

undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking. 

Best Management Practices: Effective, feasible (including technological, economic, and 

institutional considerations) conservation practices and land- and water-management measures 

that avoid or minimize adverse impacts to natural and cultural resources. BMPs may include 

schedules for activities, prohibitions, maintenance guidelines, and other management practices. 

CEQ Regulations: The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) was established by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (see NEPA) and given the responsibility for developing 

federal environmental policy and overseeing the implementation of NEPA by federal agencies.

Commercial Use Authorization: A permit that authorizes suitable commercial services to park 

area visitors in limited circumstances.

Concession Contract: A concession contract is defined in 36 CFR Part 51 as a binding written 

agreement between NPS and a concessioner to provide specified visitor services within a park 

area.

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 general types of cultural landscapes, 

not mutually exclusive: historic sites, historic designed landscapes, historic vernacular 

landscapes, and ethnographic landscapes. 

Cumulative impact: An impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact 

of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions.
Appendix E: Selected References, Glossary, and Acronyms and Abbreviations

202

Desired condition: Statements of aspiration that describe resource conditions, visitor 

experiences and opportunities, and facilities and services that an agency strives to achieve and 

maintain in a particular area.

Environmental consequences: This section of an environmental assessment describes the 

impacts a proposed action would have on resources. Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts, 

both beneficial and adverse, are analyzed. The context, duration, and intensity of impacts are 

defined and quantified as much as possible.

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): A public document required under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that identifies and analyzes activities that might affect the 

human and natural environment. 

Environmentally Preferable Alternative: The environmentally preferable alternative is the 

alternative within the range of alternatives presented in a Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) that best promotes the goals of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

In general, this is the alternative that causes the least damage to the environment and best 

protects natural and cultural resources. In practice, one alternative may be more preferable for 

some environmental resources while another alternative may be preferable for other resources. 

(The NEPA Handbook).

Facilities: Buildings and the associated supporting infrastructure such as roads, trails, and 

utilities. 

Historic building: For the purposes of the National Register of Historic Places, a building can 

be a house, barn, church, hotel, or similar construction, created principally to shelter human 

activity. “Building” may also refer to a historically and functionally related unit, such as a 

courthouse and jail or a house and barn.

Historic district: A historic district is an area which possesses a significant concentration, 

linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically 

by plan or physical development. To be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, a 

district must be significant, as well as being an identifiable entity. It must be important for 

historical, architectural, archeological, engineering, or cultural values. 

Historic property: A historic property is any prehistoric or historic building, site, district, 

structure, or object that is included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of 

Historic Places. Types of historic properties can include archeological sites, historic cultural 

landscapes, and traditional cultural properties. 

Historic site: A historic site is the location of significant event which can be prehistoric or 

historic in nature. It can represent activities or buildings (standing, ruined, or vanished). It is the 

location itself which is of historical interest in a historic site, and it possesses cultural or 

archeological value regardless of the value of any structures that currently exist on the location. 

Examples of sites include shipwrecks, battlefields, campsites, natural features, and rock shelters.

Historic structure: For the purposes of the National Register of Historic Places, the term 

“structure” is used to distinguish from buildings those functional constructions made usually for 

purposes other than creating human shelter. Examples of structures include bridges, gazebos, 

and highways. 
Glossary and Acronyms

203

Indicator: Indicators are specific resource or experiential attributes that can be measured to 

track changes in conditions so that progress toward achieving and maintaining desired 

conditions can be assessed. 

Management zone: A geographical area for which management directions or prescriptions 

have been developed to determine what can and cannot occur in terms of resource 

management, visitor use, access, facilities or development, and park operations. 

Mitigation: Activities that will avoid, reduce the severity of, or eliminate an adverse 

environmental impact.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): The federal act that requires the development of 

an environmental impact statement for federal actions that might have substantial 

environmental, social, or other impacts.

National Historic Landmarks (NHL): Are nationally significant historic places designated by 

the Secretary of the Interior because they possess exceptional value or quality in illustrating or 

interpreting the heritage of the United States. 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA): In 1966, Congress established a program for the 

preservation of additional historic properties through the country. The NHPA requires federal 

agencies to evaluate the impact of all federally funded or permitted projects on historic 

properties through the section 106 process. 

National Park Service Organic Act: In 1916, the National Park Service Organic Act established 

the National Park Service in order to “promote and regulate use of parks” and defined the 

purpose of the national parks as “to conserve the scenery and natural and historic objects and 

wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in a manner and by such means as 

will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” This law provides overall 

guidance for the management of the park. 

National Parks and Recreation Act: The 1978 law that establishes national parks, monuments, 

recreation areas and other recreation lands under the jurisdiction of the Department of the 

Interior. This law continues to be amended as new lands are acquired or boundaries of existing 

lands are changed. 

National Register of Historic Places: As a result of the NHPA of 1966, the National Park 

Service’s National Register of Historic Places is part of a national program to coordinate and 

support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect historic and archeological 

resources.

No-Action Alternative: The alternative in a plan that proposes to continue current 

management direction. “No action” means the proposed activity would not take place, and the 

resulting environmental effects from taking no action would be compared with the effects of 

permitting the proposed activity or an alternative activity to go forward. 

National Park Service Management Policies: A policy is a guiding principle or procedure that 

sets the framework and provides direction for management decisions. National Park Service

policies are guided by and consistent with the US Constitution, public laws, executive 

proclamations and orders, and regulations and directives from higher authorities. Policies 

translate these sources of guidance into cohesive directions. Policy direction may be general or 
Appendix E: Selected References, Glossary, and Acronyms and Abbreviations

204

specific. It may prescribe the process by which decisions are made, how an action is to be 

accomplished, or the results to be achieved. The primary source of National Park Service policy 

is the publication Management Policies 2001. The policies contained therein are applicable 

servicewide. They reflect National Park Service management philosophy. Director’s Orders 

supplement and may amend management policies. Unwritten or informal “policy” and people’s 

various understandings of National Park Service traditional practices are never relied on as 

official policy. 

Planning: A dynamic, interdisciplinary, process for developing short- and long-term goals for 

visitor experience, resource conditions and facility placement. 

Preferred Alternative: The preferred alternative is the alternative within the range of 

alternatives presented in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that the agency believes 

would best fulfill the purpose and need of the proposed action. While the preferred alternative 

is a different concept from the environmentally preferable alternative, they may also be one and 

the same for some EISs. (The NEPA Handbook).

Pristine: Unaltered, unpolluted by humans. 

Programmatic plan: Programmatic plans establish broad management direction for the park. 

The 1987 General Management Plan is a programmatic plan with a purpose to set a “clearly 

defined direction for resource preservation and visitor use” and provide general directions and 

policies to guide planning and management in the park. The Visitor Use Management Plan is 

also a programmatic plan that guides future visitor use management decisions for the park. 

Programmatic plans are required to undergo NEPA review.

Public comment process: The public comment process is a formalized process required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in which the National Park Service must publish a 

Notice Of Availability in the Federal Register which provides public notice that a Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and associated information, including scoping 

comments and supporting documentation, is available for public review and input pursuant to 

the Freedom Of Information Act. In addition, the National Park Service must conduct formal 

public hearings on the Draft EIS when required by statute or the Council on Environmental 

Quality NEPA Regulations. 

Public scoping process: Scoping is a formalized process used by the National Park Service to 

gather the public’s and other agencies’ ideas and concerns on a proposed action or project. A 

Notice Of Intent (NOI) is published in the Federal Register announcing the agency’s intent to 

prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and a request for written public/other agency 

scoping comments to further define the goals and data needs for the project. In addition, 

although not required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) nor the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA Regulations, public scoping meetings may be held and 

integrated with any other early planning meetings relating to the proposed project.

Record of Decision: The public document describing the decision made on selecting the 

“preferred alternative” in an environmental impact statement. See “environmental impact 

statement.” 

Site hardening: Any development that creates an impervious ground surface. Usually used as a 

way to direct visitor use and reduce impacts to resources. 
Glossary and Acronyms

205

Scoping: See “Public Scoping Process”

Soundscape: The component of the acoustic environment that can be perceived and 

comprehended by humans. 

Superintendent’s Compendium: Under the authority of 16 USC Section 3, and Title 36 Code of 

Federal Regulations, Chapter 1, Parts 1-7; the Compendium of Superintendent’s Orders was 

established for DEWA. Each park superintendent has discretionary authority to regulate or limit 

certain uses, and/or require permits for specific activities within the boundaries of a national 

park. 

Threshold: Minimally acceptable conditions associated with each indicator.

Timed-Entry Reservation System: A system to reserve a permit for entry to an area or 

experience at a designated time of day.

Traditional cultural resource: Any site, structure, object, landscape, or natural resource 

feature assigned traditional, legendary, religious, subsistence, or other significance in the 

cultural system of a group traditionally associated with it. 

Traditional cultural property: Traditional cultural resource that is eligible for or listed in the 

National Register of Historic Places as a historic property.

Treatment: Work carried out to achieve a historic preservation goal. The four primary 

treatments are preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction (as stated in the 

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

Trigger: A point that reflects a condition of concern for an indicator that is enough to prompt a 

management response to ensure that desired conditions continue to be maintained before the 

threshold is crossed.

User: Visitors and employees in the park. 

Visitor capacity: A component of visitor use management. The maximum amounts and types of 

visitor use that an area can accommodate while achieving and maintaining desired resource 

conditions and visitor experiences consistent with the purposes for which the area was 

established.

Visitor-created trails: A visitor-created trail is an informal, nondesignated trail between two 

locations. Visitor-created trails often result in trampling and stresses to sensitive vegetation 

types. 

Visitor experience: The perceptions, feelings, and reactions a park visitor has in relationship 

with the surrounding environment. 

Visitor use: Refers to the types of recreation activities visitors participate in, numbers of people 

in an area, their behavior, the timing of use, and distribution of use within a given area. 

Visitor use levels: Refers to the quantity or amount of use a specific area receives, or the 

amount of parkwide visitation on a daily, monthly or annual basis.
Appendix E: Selected References, Glossary, and Acronyms and Abbreviations

206

Wetland: Wetlands are defined by the US Army Corps of Engineers (CFR, Section 328.3[b], 

1986) as those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency 

and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a 

prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. 
207

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

dB Decibel

dBA Decibel (on the “A-weighted” scale)

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EPA US Environmental Protection Agency

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement

GIS Geographic Information System(s)

GMP General Management Plan

IVUMC Interagency Visitor Use Management Council

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NPS National Park Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

PAOT People at One Time

PEPC Planning, Environment, and Public Comment

RV Recreational Vehicle

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service

VAOT Vehicles at One Time
Appendix E: Selected References, Glossary, and Acronyms and Abbreviations

208

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
As the nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for 

most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering sound use 

of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; 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 by 

encouraging stewardship and 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 U.S. administration.

NPS/ACAD/123/143914 MAY 2018 

Printed on recycled paper
Acadia National Park

National Park Service • U.S. Department of the Interior