Eliot,C. W.II (1899-1993) Printed professional does, Inal. Boundaries Disputes STATE PARK AND FOREST SURVEY THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STATE PARKS 904 Union Trust Building Washington, D.C. I. How did the State park or forest movement originate in your State? II. How are State parks and forests administered? a. Under State agencies? b. Give names of efficers and titles of holding bodies; or names of organizations other than official bodies holding such areas? C. Is any change in present methods under consideration? III. Have your State parks and forests been acquired - a. By bond issues, and what is your opinion of this method? b. By direct annual legislative appropriation? C. By gifts of land or money? d. By condemnation, and what is your experience with this method? e. By transfer of other State lands, such as school sections, tracts reverted for non-payment of taxes, abandoned canal rights of way and reservoirs? Have such possibilities been investi- gated to the fullest extent? f. Have opportunities beon exercised for securing transfer of Federal lands for State parks? IV. Data is desired as to income from all sources: a. Is it retained for parkiuses? b. Are revenues from other State services, such as game licenses, used to acquire parks? C. Is admission charged to parks and what is public reaction to such a method? V. Unless contained in current reports, data as to cost of administration is desired. VI. Where such information may not be available in current reports, or have been given otherwise to the Field Secretary, data is desired as to use of State parks and forests as to: a. Camping and regulations therefor. b. Use of areas by group camps, and methods of financing, building and regulating such camps. C. Transportation to and within parks and forests. d. Facilities for public use and comfort, existing and prospective, hotels, commissaries, restaurants, shelters, etc. e. Concessions permitted, percentage of revenues retained; whether turned into park funds or back to state treasury. f. Policing, by park forces, or other agencies. VI. (Continued) g. Regulations for order and safety, and supervision of social problems. h. Length of season? 1. Number of visitors in all classes, -in summer, in winter? 2. What is experience as to winter use and future plans? i. Hospital, medical and nursing service. j. Trails for walkers and campers, trail markers, shelters; canoe routes and camps, packhorse routes and supplies. k. Educational and scientific uses, for nature study, forestry instruc- tion, summer schools, etc. 1. Experience as to function of State parks in promoting increased appre- ciation of nature, reasonable treatment of natural attractions, and influence on visitors. VII. Give names of State parks or forests acquired since last report supplied to Field Secretary and state if they were purchased or given, with maps showing location and area and data as to cost? VIII. Indicate projects pending for further State parks or forests? IX. If such information is not contained in current reports, please give plan as to extension of State park and forest system, and reasons therefor. X. If State parks or forests have not yet been established, is any survey being made or planned for such a system? XI. What is your experience as to gifts of land, money, labor or supplies, in maintaining State parks and forests? a. Can this resource be further developed? XII. What general considerations govern your choice of land for State parks and forests? a. Is any survey, state-wide or by districts, not being made for future park development? b. Is there coordination in such studies with municipal and country park or national park and forest developments? Copies of laws or digests where copies are unobtainable, with amendments to date, bearing on the establishment and development of State parks and forests would be appreciated. Also on such related subjects as game protection, conservation, wild flower protection, reservation of mining and timber rights, clearing of titles, adjustment of tax losses to townships affected, retention of revenues and other financial provisions. QUESTIONS FROM SHEAFE SATTERTHWAITE FOR THE TRUSTEES OF RESERVATIONS What is a reservation? And if there is an element of its being some- thing saved, from what is it being saved? Reservedon? reserved? held rach What are trustees? And when connected with property, that is build- inga and lands, how do they fulfill their duties? Why is "trust" involved? What is their work? Has the nature of their mission changed through the years? gh2 and capital natocerium. Why is such a group private in organization but public in purpose? What are the advantages and dieadvantages of being partly public and partly private? What problems are entailed in the excoution of a public cause when that oauso-is being undortaken by a private body? In its early history the Trustees, although private, wore a servant of government through the coastal towns' surrey, the Provinootown lands settlement, and the Metropolitan Park district founding A In what ways may the Trustees be continuing that role today? needest uses Deft Consurate sandoc Survey weeclie Do the Trustees rely upon gift (and henge ohanoe?) to procure their day Certent reservations or do they through surveys and studies solect sites for degral. acquisition and then go about finding the funds necessary for their purchase? When it is said that "the advantages of an organization like this lie in freedom from politics /and the/ ability to aot quickly", what would be examples of these qualities in the history of the Trustees? What standards do the Trustees uphold? Is there any ultimate goal to the Trustees' work? Is there an accumption that the next seventy-five years will follow a pattern of development similar to that of the first seventy-five? Is an increasing amount of time being spent saving that which is already saved? How much assurance is there that a reservation will always be a reservation? What attracts people to reservations? Why was "public" removed from the name of the organization? In what ways may the Trustees be democratic, aristocratic, oligarchio, or selfish? Does the influence of the Trustees extend beyond its properties and if so, in what ways? Is the Trustees' relationships to the National Trust of an honorary or substantive nature? Can property be disconnected from the environment around it; the history and politics of a locale, the economic, social, and cultural miliou? - 2 - What reality is there to saving a "piece" of something, or are the Trustees' pieces complete? Where have the Trustees failed? What opportunities have been lost? What have they not done that they should have done? Have the Trustoes traditionally viewed their work in disparate ways (for instance, maybe one group being for & more passivo and another for & more active policy)? What internal conflicts have the Trustees experienced? What kind of conflicts can such a group expect to experience, either internally or externally? Who are the Trustees' enemies and friends? What lossons have the Trustees learned? What does their seventy- five year experience have to offer other groups and movements in an era when natural beauty is much discussed? What connections are there between places of natural beauty and places of historic interest? Is there any conflict between man-made things and natural things? Or rather, do the Trustees attempt to inouloate a union between man and nature? What relation do the Trustees maintain with governmental bodies and with private groups also engaged in fields of interest similar to their own? Ho. large is the problem of vandalism? What are the oriticisms levelled at the Trustees? Is there any telling criticism? What is the Trustees' conception of the Massachusetts landscape? If the Trustees profess a purpose related to preserving places of historic interest, why have their holdings been largely confined to houses and not to factories, bridges, significant engineering works, and other non-domestic structures? If the Trustees profess a purpose related to preserving places of natural beauty, why have their holdings been confined to parcels of land and not to entire watersheds, valleys, or ochesive landscapes? Can really effective preservation work be accomplished in critical or controversial locations without the power of eminent domain? Can the concept of preservation include the adapting of places to new uses rather than traditional uses? Is one kind of property more important than another? HENRY M. CHANNING, SECRETARY 18 TREMONT STREET BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS March 21, 1928. Charles W. Eliot, 2nd, Esq., 25 Reservoir Street, Cambridge, Mass. Dear Sir: Herewith a page from a recent Boston Evening Trans- cript which may interest you. This article, written by Mr. Bernard Peterson, details what has already been accom- plished in this Commonwealth by our body among others toward providing open and recreational spaces to meet the needs of our increasing city population. The map reproduced is the Open Spaces map which was included in our 1926 report. You undoubtedly sense the need for coordinated ef- fort, and the importance of the time element, particularly in the acquisition of waterfront, also in the location of roads and trails required to render present and future open spaces available to the large centers. You will remember that the Committee recently ap- pointed by Governor Fuller, to work out this problem is headed by Mr. Charles S. Bird, Jr , one of our members. It has been doing intelligent and effective work and plans are developing rapidly. The Committee has asked for our suggestions and recom- mendations along the lines of open spaces, development of forestry, economical and recreational, town and city parks of all kinds, sanctuaries for animals, bird and plant life, his- toric sites, and camp grounds and beaches. We are assured that any suggestions you may be good enough to send to your Secretary will have prompt and serious consideration by the Governor's Committee. Sincerely yours, HMC:Q Sécretary. Enclosure. CHARLES W. ELIOT. 2ND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT CITY PLANNING CONSULTANT 9 PARK STREET BOSTON MEMBER AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS TELEPHONE HAYMARKET 5864 June 17, 1927. Mr. Charles S. Bird, Jr., 50 Congress Street, Boston, Massachusetts. Dear Mr. Bird: In reply to your inquiry of the 16th, I am personally sending you the information you have requested. The following names appear on Mr. Elist's list entitled. Members of the Committee on Open Spaces." Cards announcing the meeting on June 20th have been sent to the above, and replies of acceptance or regret have been received as noted respectively by "yes" or "no". MERBE'S OF THE COIMITTEE ON OPEN SPACES Robert V. Beal, 185 Devonshire St., Boston, Mass. Yes Charles S. Bird, Jr. 50 Congress St., Boston, Mass. Charles Blood, Barristers hell, Pemberton Sn., Boston, Mass. Frank A. Bourne, 177 State Street, Boston, Mass. Arthur I. Clark, 3 JOY Street, Boston, Mass. Yes Arthur C. Comey, 23 Erewster St., Cambridge, ass. No Mrs. S. Crosby, 300 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, less. Mrs. Myron Davis, 193 Maple Street, Malden, RESS. No P. Eaton, Owin Fires, Sheffield, ass. No 0. Eliot; 2nd., 9 Park Street, boston, KESS. Yes Lawrence i. Fletcher, 50 Congress Street, Boston, class. No Dr. Alexander Forbes, Harland St. Milton, Mass. Yes oger Greeley, 9 Lark Street, Boston, Mass. Hope to Nathaniel I. Kidder, 53 State Street, coston, less. loring J. 111 Levonshire Street. Boston, Mass. No President wm. A. eilson, Smith College Northampton, Mass. Hope to Winthrop Packard, 66 Newbury Street, Boston, Mass. No Mrs. inona Pinkham, 3 Joy Street, Boston, lass. No Harris a. Leynolds, 4 Joy Street, Boston, lass. Yes Mrs. jilly S. Tobey, 300 Usssachusetts Avenue, Boston, less. Yes Loring Underw od, 45 Bromfield Street, boston, ESS. Mr. Eliot's minutes of a meeting of the Committee on (pen Spaces held at 4 .M. at the Town call, 4 Joy Street, Boston, (Date not entered), contain the following: A OF HENRY M. CHANNING, SECRETARY 18 TREMONT STREET BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS March 21, 1928. Charles 1. Eliot, 2nd, Esq., , 25 Reservoir Street, Cambridge, Mass. Dear Sir: Herewith a page from a recent Boston Evening Trans- cript which may interest you. This article, written by Mr. Bernard Peterson, details what has already been accom- plished in this Commonwealth by our body among others toward providing open and recreational spaces to meet the needs of our increasing city population. The map reproduced is the Open Spaces map which was included in our 1926 report. You undoubtedly sense the need for coordinated ef- fort, and the importance of the time element, particularly in the acquisition of waterfront, also in the location of roads and trails required to render present and future open spaces available to the large centers. You will remember that the Committee recently ap- pointed by Governor Fuller, to work out this problem is headed by Mr. Charles S. Bird, Jr., , one of our members. It has been doing intelligent and effective work and plans are developing rapidly. The Committee has asked for our suggestions and recom- mendations along the lines of open spaces, development of forestry, economical and recreational, town and city parks of all Finds, sanctuaries for animals, bird and plant life, his- toric sites, and camp grounds and beaches. We are assured that any suggestions you may be good enough to send to your Secretary will have prompt and serious consideration by the Governor's Committee. Sincerely yours, Maryla Chamis HMC:Q Sécretary. Enclosure. 31/ 20copies areheing The Committee 0f the Needs and Uses of Open Spaces has prepared a Kap which I am forward IN to you, showing all the existing public open spaces of Massachusetts. This is the first step toward a. study lookin forward to a State Plan. Some months ago the Committee recommended to the Governor that a Commission be appointed from representatives of different organizations interested in some phase of Open Space work to make a report to him that would lead EDUCCTION Though it is comparatively easy to secure public areas by gifts in different locations, the problem of securing needed areas on a broad scheme of development is a much larger problem. It is my belief that if the problem were attacked with the backing of such a Commission as recommended that by gradually developin a. broader public realization of the need for open spaces that it could and should be solved. Ye believe the map above referred to will prove useful to organizations affiliated with this Committee. We are con- vinced that there are many areas now privately owned which could be secured for public reservations as time goes on if the pruposes of the corporation of The Trustees of Public Reser- vations was more generally realized. Briefly stated, thin is as follows: "This Board was created in order to provide a ready and absolutely trustworthy instrument by means of which persons who may desire to effect the perma- nent preservation of any interestin or lovely spot in Massachusetts can accomplish their purpose without difficulty or delay from legal causes. If Any suggestions that you may have as to the work of our Committee I should be very glad to receive. for have newpage Champlawn Society by SAE 1931 with added material by cur 2rd for his draft SAE Book In the spring of 1880 my brother, Charles Eliot, who was then a sophomore in Harvard College, had A good idea. Hav-> ing good ideas and working them out in practice became a habit of his, with results that have contributed to the welfare and happiness of thousands of his fellow-countrymen. This time he invented what we now call a "Field Expedition" of College Stu- dents. Kany young men are doing such things nowadays but fifty years ago it was a novelty. Charles invited to his room in Grays Hall a well chosen group of ten or a dozen classmates and fellow students and proposed to then to club together and undertake to put into practice during the summer vacation some of the things they had been studying in class-room and laboratory. Why not select some particular region and put in the summer studying its geological formations, its flora and fauna, its birds and fishes, its trees and shrubs? There would be a happy combination of work and play; sea and land; tramping, sailing and reading. It hap- pened that my father and mother, President and Mrs. Eliot, were planning to spend the summer in Europe, and so we boys ( my brother was twenty and I seventeen) had at our disposal the equipment which had been used by the family for several summers. This con sisted of eight wall tents with the necessary furnishings, and a sloop yacht, the Sunshine, forty-three feet over all and with accommodations for four in the cabin and two in the forecastle. We boys had been accustoned to handling this boat and to the ways of camp life - in those days also something of a novelty. From eight summers we had camped out, often on Calf Island in upper Y. M. no. an -lined the W.W Vaushan's 2 Frenchmans Bay, and we had cruised the New England coast from-New London to Grand Kanan. Charles' proposal was enthusiastically received and the *Champlain Society" was organized. The members, with the excep- tion of two entering freshmen, were all Harvard undergraduates more or less interested in what was then called "Natural History," The choice of a region for our study was not difficult. Mt. Desert Island offered a detached field of about the right size and of ex- coptional interest alike from historic, scenic and scientific points of view. It was a splendic playground and was just coming into fame as a summer resort so that the problems of transporta- tion and supplies were not insoluble. Moreover, the camp equip- ment was in storage at the head of Frenchmans Bay. The Gunshine sailed from Boston on June 29th, 180, with Charles Eliot in command, four members of the Society, mostly land- lubbers, in the cabin, and Orrin Donnell, seaman, and William Breyant, steward, in the forecastle. They had been in the yacht the preceding summer and knew our ways. William was a cheery French Canadian hailing from Cape Breton. The last I knew of him he was mate of a vessel out of Arichat. Orrin was a boy from Waukeag Neck up Frenchmans Bay. In age he was between by brother and myself. Be lived aboard the yacht when William came ashore to be camp cook. Orrin Donnell has been associated with our family ever since, more than fifty years, He mar. ried a daughter of John Gilley, settled on the place, has been a selectman of Mt. Desert and a good citizen and loyal friend. Charles did not know just where he would pitch the 3 Camp but expected to find a suitable and central place somewhere between Otter Creek and Seawall Point. So, after picking up the camp equipment at a house on Waukeag Neck he cruised along that shore and up into Somes Sound and anchored in what we now call Wasgatt's Cove on the eastern shore. There, above the gravel bank was a bit of open meadow with a good spring at the back and just to the north the brook which is the outlet of Hadlock Pond fell with a little waterfall into the Cove. Mr. Asa Smalledge, who lived in the nearest house, not only was willing to let the cappers occupy the field but also agreed to supply the camp with milk, eggs and chickens. So on July 5th, the Camp, known as Camp Pemetic, was pitched, the parlor tent in the centre facing the cliff of Dog Mountain, the five sleep- ing tents on either side and the kitchen and pantry tents at the back near the spring. The Campers came for different periods some for all summer, some for a month or more. There were no trails or paths in those days, so exploration of the interior meant a lot of hard scrambling; but the yacht code frequent ex-- cursions into all the coves and corners of the island coast. Stores, meat and supplies had to be purchased at Southwest Bar- bor and one also had to go there to find a doctor, a telegraph office and a steamboat connection. The summer produced a geolog- ical survey and map of the island, lists of the birds and fishes, the trees, flowers and marine invertebrates, and a meteorological record kept at five points on the island. The Champlain Society's Camp was probably the first appearance of summer visitors on the shores between the Sound and Schooner Read. A number of these pioneers, most of whom attained 4 in after years to positions of influence in their orm communi- ties, remained attached to Mt. Desert. Edward L. Rand contin- ued to come hither for many summers. From the original lists made by Rand and his associates was expanded the well known "Flora of Lt. Desert" and Rand was our pioneer trail and map maker. His love of the island is commenorated on a tablet on the Jordans Pond-Seal Harbor Trail. Barry L. Rand has long been a cottager at Southwest Harbor. George and William Dunbar in- terested their father, Professor Charles F. Dunbar, and he later bought the northern end of Bear Island and built the house which is now the summer home of his grandchildren. William c. Lane was a regular summer visitor, betaking himself in later years chiefly to Islesford. OR Charles Elio's, when our parents returned from Europe, told his father that if he wented to find a place for a permanent summer home he had better look along the shore between Somes Sound and Seal Harbor. That advice was taken. President and Mrs. Eliot went to Northeast Harbor in October, 1880, got a horse and buggy at Deacon Kimball's and drove along the rough shore road, getting out from time to time to survey possible sites. The result of that visit was the choice and purchase of the ridge running from the sea a mile inland to the referred to anceotial." top of the Asticou Hill and the building of the house which, with the house built that same winter (1880-81) by Bishop Doane near the present Kimball house and the lodge built on the Asticou Road by Mr. J. H. Curtis, now a part of the house of Mr. R. H. Rohbins, were the first cottages in the region of Northeast Harbor. At that time Northeast Harbor was a very different 5 place from the busy, modern town of today. Everything was prim- itive. There was no steamboat connection, no telephone, no electric light. Water came from individual vells. Household. ers, including summer residents, cut and stored their own sup- plies of wood and ice. You drove to Bar Harbor to mail your letter, to send a telegram or to get a doctor or a prescription. You sailed or rowed to Southwest Harbor for meat and groceries save for what could be bought from an itinerant butcher who drove a cart along the road after he had killed a lamb or pig. Trans- portation about the island was mostly by water, in row boats and dories and small sailing craft. There were only a few roads and they were rough, steep and narror. The "twenty-two mile drive" from Bar Harbor out by the Eagle Lake Road and round by the Sound, Seal Harbor and Otter Creek, was an all day excursion. There were only a few houses along that route and no village center. At the head of Northeast Harbor lived two families, the Savages and the Roberts. [The Roberts' house has disappear- ed. The Savage house is now the cottage across the road east of the Asticou Inn. On the east side of the harbor Captain g. C. shallucd's Smith lived in a dwelling which is now part of Urs. F. W. Pea- body's house and on the vest side of the harbor lived the Frazier faxily / Where is now the village street of Northeast Harbor there was not a house, just a narrow ribbon road running through the thick woods and leading to Deacon Kimball's house and to the store which stood on the beach of the little cove at the entrance of the harbor. This store still had a trade with the coasters and fishermen who came in for shelter. I have seen 6 fleets of fifty or sixty sail lying in Northeast Harbor. From the corner at Kimball's the almost untravelled road ran as far as Mr. Corson's house - opposite what is now the golf course. Along this road were the homes of Snalledges, Gilpatrics, Fen- nellys, Whitmores and Manchesters. Mrs. Gilpatric kept the Post Office in the house still standing at the head of Gilpat- ric's Cove and Mr. Corson drove twice a week to Somesville to fetch and carry the mail. // One lived on friendly and neighborly terms with these good people, as, Nan glad to say, I continue to do. The family (I Me JAPri P. stayed at the Everyi Kemballs for several outcome and the futura Mrs Eliot recalls that: Fath with THE Sett 21.57 out MEAN X. "One summer day in 1882 ( the grought the camp at Postions) an elegant horse and causage drove in to the collage where the Hophmam were staying (next the old sehang in nouthland Hantor - and \ hed in a closet. my aister seolie Raw who was coming and was all anticipation Sam came in and asked "where's Lancy or ~ no answer - and started To explain to mother that he had an enrand To do in Bar Harlor (a whole day's drive for the 1 was ourn the closet I that was when he was in college and round hip ) and wanted permission to take me. By that time I was eleven? Casey Collins were through the 1887 hit after 1883 the Elist long report Their vacations at the "Oncestial" unstead of in Camp. It is to be noted that quoted to the Comments on the paper A Challenge certain designated to the Hancock County Trustees of fifty strips bordering the ve Public Reservations presented to which fursish water to that body by Mr. Charles W. Eliot, and the lot or the Cooksay 2nd, August 1950 we their situated. (n Kay 1. 1950 the vote of BO was except presented to the Hangodk County Trustees of Public Reservations a paper entitled On June THE BOUNDARIES OF ACADIA NATIONAL PARK" fifty foot strips A Challenge to the Hancook County Trustees of Public Reservations. Asting the the and June The 1peper seemed so timely. in view of the relative inactivity in recent years with respect to the growth and development of Acadia National Park that a committee was appointed to consider it and to make recommendations to the Trustees on the various points which in the dead) described the Tarn Little Meadow, and 14 to the Secord of Holdlare Having been appointed a member of the committee and being perhaps more familiar with the Trustees and its affairs so far 8# they a relaterseith park than are the other two members, I am taking the liberty of reviewing Mr. Eliot's paper and offering some comments upon it. These comments, together with some which I shall make on Mr. Paine's letter of November 17, 1950, to Mr. Edwin R. Smith, Chairman of the Special Committee on Policy of the Haneook County Trustees of Public Reservation mayo serve as a guide to the committee in formulating its recommenda tions Bar The paper is divided into four parts, A, B, C. and D. My o omments wills deal with each of the parts, with possibly a further break- down beginning with the paragraph in the middle of page 3. A.. Land: Which the Trustees May Still Own because of interests Mr. Eliot lists six items of land which he says the Trustees may still own. Before disoussing these items. with respect to their present ownership status, it is pertinent to insert a bit of historical data in the form of extracts from the records of the Trustees and to follow with what occurred as a result: the Barr Lake, On August 20, 1929 the following vote was see later 35. Voted That all the lands now standing in the name of the Reservations, except a strip of land one hundred and fifty feet (In depth) bordering the various lakes and their tributaries furnishing water to the various towns except also a lot containing approximately five aores on Banr Hill and a lot where the Champlain Monument is on the Cooksey Drive be transferred to the United States of America to formea part of Acadia National Park, at such time as the said United States of America may accept the same etc. C It is to be noted that the quoted vote authorized the of all land held teet except certain designated parcels, specifically the one hundred fifty foot strips bordering the various lakes and ponds and their tributaries which furnish Island villages, aliot Hill and the lot on the Cooksay Drive onowhich then situated. No. as such, does LIG 1# the Record of Holdings. On exended to except the the Government. wayed the the land On June 22, 1931 the Trustees one hundred fifty foot strips around the ponds to the Government Acting within the authority of the votes 1929 and June 22, 1931, the Trus tees, by deed dated July 22y 1931 (Deed #61, Government Deed-Recerds-) bonveyed of cland the Government. Six of these one strips around the ponds and the Trustees Record of Holdings as follows: 53, 68. The in the doed desertbed the Tarn or Little Meadow, the Recordior Holdings. Lot 41, passed The the deed of July 22, 1931 is as follows: of Holdings "Eighth: Also all real estate and interests Trustees realostate owned by said Corporation or to Mr. lookstanding in the name of said Corporation on the records of the Hancock County Maine Registry of Deeds situated in said Town 108, Bar Harbory and also situated in that part of said Town of Mount Desert lying East of owned Somes Sound, excepted the lot where the mentioned Champlain Monument is on the Cooksey Drive." shore of Long Pend. The clause may well be termed a catch-all, and because a number of things happened. First, the Government acquired all rights and interests in lands represented in Record of Holding numbers 37a, 49, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 96, 111, 112. Second, the Government acquired lots 108 and 109 in the Record of Holdings. Third, an exchange of lands took place between Mr. Rockefeller and the Trustees by which he received Lot No. 30, Champlain Monument Site, and Lot No. 31, the Barr Hill Lot, and the Trustees received Lot No. 81, land at Eoho Lake, which Mr. Rocksfeller purchased for exchanging The latter lot was later conveyed to the Government, by vote of the Trustees, by deed number 35, Government Deed Records. As a further part of the exchang e Mr. Rockefeller deeded to the Trustees a small lot at Seawall known as the Robert E. Newman Lot. This lot does not appear in the Record of Holdings and the title is still in the Trustees. As a still further part of the exchange, Mr. Rockefeller moved the Champlain Monument to its present site on Ioy Hill and deeded the lot on which it stands to the Town of Mount Desert. 2 D I the six items iin 1545 Mr = Eliot's paper: Trushess ownership. the obore let at Soawall which for have (1) The so hondis of Bubble Pond under belause "Eighth! in Bood No 1 tem such, does not appear in the Record of Holdings. It is my B. for Topini on that these 30 sores were excepted from Lot 8A or Lot 18, or both, when they were con- veyed to the Government. I base my opinion on (1) the very involved landstrans fare in that-area is which occurred during the ownership of Charles H. Lewis, Weston, The Mount Desert and Eastern Shore Land Company and others ,Atsality tent the Government now has title to all land at the south end of Bubble Pond except for a few small lots which the Mount Desert and Eastern Shore Land Company sold for octtage lots, and owners or heirs have vanished. I do not think (2) The title to the lot on the top of Youngs Mountain, a one-fourth undi vided interest in Lot 44, Peters Plan, passed to the Government under clause "Eighth", Deed 41, and is Lot Noshes 112, trustees Record of Holdings. (2) Sheep Island state by work into According ly, all lands and interests in lands held by the Trustees east of Somes Sound have been inveyed to the Government or to Mr. Rockefetter or (3) Bald 1s by (3) All. lots enumerated, namely, 98, 101, 105cs100 no) 107, 113, 118 are still in Trustees ownership andcare to the bast of Longa Pold to Also owned which byu the trusteeks im the area butinot men tioned by Eliot iss it measing the (4) Lot 119 is on the west shore of Long Fondie I am not sure about 117. I am inclined to think (4) that it is to the west of the pond but does not touch the shore (See 5 below Also owned by the Trustees on the west shore of the pond but not menti oned by Mr Eliot are lots 120 and 121. (5) The hugewarbar on. We's to rp) Mounta inn is made up: of lots 95, 97, € 116, 116, 18, 125 and 126 (6) I detect a typing error. Mr. Eliot enumerates 4. lots 101 and 108 on the east side of Seal Cove Pond. The lots are there but the numbers should Thi bind 100 and 102 neither the propriety #1 except Lx a most informal only the *ather general veta among be tie do with #0 far istentions of these land ha be not approaches on the subject. C (e) (a) use (a) are all is Rooksfeller' owner D. The Sub-marninal Westiof Somes.Sound R. &horeaIt is in this area where the park acquired some 5,000 aores of land during the years 1935 to 1940 that the Trustees could do some very effective work A aqquiring additional land to smooth out the exterior boundaries and aqquire a number of inholdings. Money would need to be raised by subscription or otherwise to buy the land and payafon legal services incidental to perfecting titles. The government of the absence of authorizing legislation, Buy landifor:the park. inode of potentially high tex all suitable such should svelleb E. Norumbega (Brown) Mountain would be taken into she This mountain is still in the Kimball family ownership. Efforts in the past to reach an agreement failed. -Time may effect a meeting of the minds. a of their Brown Houstain breat. If kize park should it would get that strip. F. West of Somes Sound Mount Dado: (a) The north slope of Acadia Mountain is, so far ownership and as is economically feasible, in park ownership. The remainder is largely quarry sites, active at times inactive at others The tax-exempt Brook and agencies must be careful in land-taking not to owned by remove revenue producing lands from taxation. others oured by Only the most compelling reasons can justify that action. In this case no compelling reasons The are present. which ,150t suggests should be (b) Canada Hollow is partially in government and adminis- partially in private ownership. The bulk of the detached ent outlying privately owned portion is destined for park owner to protest ship, and will, when conveyed, leave a relatively small acreage between the Southwest Harbor Road and tabe bottom of the Hollow outstanding ownership (a) the south ridge of Beech Mountain is in Trustees so ownership. See reference under paragraph 3, page (d) The north spur of Western Mountain is in park ledgee ownership. pribile (a) The southeast slope of Western Mountain is partly doze in government and partly in Trustees ownership. do See reference in paragraphs 4 and 5, page 3. roving patrol by ponwil boat, top landing The park 10ks the boat to undertake a that years to Golla. X was for (a) Dhere is a paroel of about 27 aeres on the found it desirable to northeast slope of Champlain Mountain still in private ownership. Continued efforts to acquire it for the park have been unavailing. Hope still remains that it can. eventually be had. (b) The south tip of Dorr (Flying Squadron) Mountain, except for a parcel of 40 acres is in park owner- ship. The 40 acres outstanding will in due course d o m o into the park. 5 (o) (d) and (a) are all in Mr. Rockefeller's owner- totas and Ship. Their ultimate disposition is not known. H. ShoresCand Isbands: has made gathering take samer- the principal anti and Mr. Eliot lists eight shore locations which he thinks should be added to the park. Items (a) Fernald Point; (b) the head of Somes iSound, and (d) Seal Cove and along the brook to Seal Gove Pend whileond .doubt desirable for park ownership are for the present and probably for some time in the future not to be seriously considered for acquisition: They are lands of potentia high Due, all are suitable sident lopment and Fas sudh should remain available for that use. would one or all to be taken into the park. Item (o), the strip othe Sargen Drive and the Sound Birth judge belongs to the Kimbable tasta parti of their Brown Mountain tract. If the park should get the amounts in it would get that with Item (e) Seal Marbor Beach, was conveyed the Town of Mount Desert by Mr. Rockefeller some years ago. is secure in town ownership and should remain there. ownad. ever oz deed, Items (f) Bracy Cove shingle, (g) the shore between Hunter Brook and Ingraham Point and (h) Bennett Cove at Wonderland are all owned by Rockefeller. The di sposition of these parcels, Wilke others owned by him, is matter for conjecture only may The islands or portions of islands which Mr. Eliot suggests should be added to the park are, from my point of view as an adminis- trative official, not to be considered. They would institute detached and outlying fragments, difficult to administer and next to impossible to protect from fire, vandalism and misuse. the As long as the islands or portions thereof are in private ownership and the public is permitted free and unhindered use of them NO complaints are raised by the using public if they find picnio refuse, tin loans and bottles cluttering the landscape, the rocks and ledges fire blackened and hacked and branches out for fire wood. But let a public agency. Gome into ownership and a cry is not onde why isn't something done to clean up those places and to stop people misusing them?". To do that, were they in park ownership, would require a roving patrol by power boat, and the use of a small skiff for landing. The park has neither the personnel nor the boat equipment to undertak such patrol, nor is there x1 fike bihood that we Town gist et years to come. It was for these other reasons that the Brus toos ;found it desirable to give its lands to the government for a national park. 6 ( J. Makes and Pends Good progress has been made towards gathering into park owner- ship the watersheds of the principal lakes and sponds All land at the south end of Bubble Pond readily possible of acquisition has been acquired (see paragraph 1, page 3), within a few months the remaining outstanding paroels at the north end of Eagle Lake will be conveyed to the government, monilable for to P+C The private land to the north of Aunt Betty Pond does not touch the pond edge. The government owns a narrow strip between the private thand and the pond, to place it wholly within park boundaries could used as the mealens around RU noule be fermulated should the adjacent land is a special matter and one which will take a long time to adjust. A good part of the land bordering the pond will probably always remain in private ownership. The south end of Echo Lake is in park ownership except for two small parcels. One is the site occupied by the Appalachian Mountain Club Camp and the other is destined to become park owned. Should the A.M.C. ever abandon its camp the land will by virtue of a clause in the deed, come into park ownership. At Long Pond there are a few parcels in ownership other than park or the Trustees. Some will be acquired for the park The others may or may not be depend 1 ng wholly upon circumstances. The west-shere of Seal Cove Pond is land having taxable value too great to be taken into park ownership. The same is true in part of the west shore of Hodgden Pond. to EGG Billio outhip to K. The McFarland - Youngs Mountains Area be impressions is Japue 1934, The 1947 fire destroyed the wilderness character of theter area from Lake Wood to the Bagle Lake Road. It is now a high hazard area for fire. There is n fair possibility that much of it will come into park ownership to connect with the park's Lake Wood tract. If that happens, the acquisition will inevitably be bounded on the east from: the Eagle Lake Road to near Hulls Cove by the Breakneak Road, on Barr St The Fresh Meadow and Stony Brook Heath are remote in time so far as coming into park ownership are concerned. Their character is such that they care likely to remain undisturbed in major part and serve the Lune tion as wilderness areas fully as well as though they were park owned was after of the National he Road through government as and of Pond Note shows west of Somes Sound north =thehOld Seal but which have except the carriage reads, been the park (1) Parkeland, outlined in green (2) Trustees land, outlined in blue (3.) available-for in January purchase or donatienptda redic for a primary ***** which Y well know, and possibly for a secondary ******. I have restricted the map to the showings indicated because I feel thatijuatefirst blush, those are the ones in which the Trustees should become interested. This area could be used as the nuoleus around and upon which an expanded program could be formulated should the Trustees care to undertake road pregram shire park, by the of Secretary, I will now pass from Eliot's "Challenge" leaving last paragraph thereof for later consideration, to Mr. Painci# letter to Mr. Edwin R. Smith, dated November 17, 1950, and select from it certain salient points upon which to comment. terminated. The second and third paragraphs, pages 1 and 2, of Mr. Paine's letter repeat flam sumplification the last paragraph Elist's Comment thereon will follow as a noonplusion, to commentary. his earriage road had he mentied to of Yountai The second paragraph on page 2 raises the question of the relationship between Mr Rockefeller and the Trustees, and suggests that it.is a subject appropriate for the committee to explore. I am willing to record the knowledge I possess of Mr. Rookefeller's relationship to the Trustees prior to and during the time he was a member and my impressions of his relationship after severance of membership in January 1924. (I have not been able to fix the date when he became a member but have been about 1917 If that be exploration, so shall iti maded park Rooksfeller's first contact with the Trustees was probably in the summer of 1914. He had then begun the building of his carriage road, system on Barr Hill and wanted to extend it across Jordan Stream to the north of Mitchell Hill and thence southward to connect with another seation already construated on the west side of the little pond. Finding his oressing of the stream blooked by Hand owned by the Trustees he noiced them for permission to arross and construct his road over it to his own land and the permission was granted. Later, after the establish- ment of the Sieur de Monts National Monument, he gained permission from the Secretary of the Interior to donstruct another section of carriage road from Mitchell Hill westward to connect with the Town Road at where the Brown Mountain Gate Lodge now stands From small purchase. that the Trustoes had to depend upon contributions money frien friends with which lands. The organization had DO otler sources of revenue. An to wast Mr. Rockefeller's future relationship beginnings grew, through government acquissence, the horse-road system as it now exists construction of he Bubble Pond Motor Road, the rebuilding of the Ocean Drive, the construction of the Otter Point Road and the Stanley Brook Road, all of which were financed by Mr. Rockefeller but which have since, except the carriage roads, been incorporated into the park road systembe question #$ the of the paragraph Challeage the the Trustees handJanuary 1924. This he was prompted to do for a primary reason which I well know, and possibly for a secondary reason. trusteea mainbain its massage the The primary that month MR. road building program was heavily attacked by group of Mount Desert Island summer residents led by Senator George Wharton Pennsylvania, himself a summer resident at Northeast The attack threatened at inception to torpedo the entire road building program in an able and well organized defense, led by the Trustees, successfully withstood it at a public hearing held in the Office of the Secretary, Department of the Interior, in March 1984 Rookefeller, knowing that he, not the park nor the Trustees, was the principal target of opposition, felt that bothroo and the Trustoes would be pilec ed in x butter light he were note a membering Accordingly, his membership was terminated. sequire other properties for like area or excess Trusties secondary reason for his termination of membership, and is straight guesswork. In the summers of 1920 Hooksfeller' 8 interest in extending his carriage road system had reached a point where he wanted to carry it around the west side of Parkman (Little Brown) Mountain and the north end of Sargent Mountain, around Eagle Lake and down the west side of Jordan Pond. He also had in mind to extend it from the south end. of Eagle Lake to Bubble Pond, along its west side and around the south: end of Pemetic Mountain. That route involved the crossing of parks land and private land offered, His first step towards carrying out his plan was to gain hold the consent of the government and the Trustees to orosa their lands, This was given. The next step was to acquire the private land he needed to carry out the project. It was at this point that the guess- work I have mentioned enters. The land acquisition activities of the Trustees had materially lessened. My guess is that Mr. Rockefeller OF preferred to carry out his acquisition single handed rather than through the Trusteen. His financial position enabled him to do soloone therefore, in effect, took over the acquisition program which the Trustees had there- tofore carried out. Mr. Rockefeller's acquisition program ultimately resulted in land purchases amounting in acreage to more than twice that which the Trustees had acquired. respect to smell paroels of land for park unnership which dannet be Rookefeller's program practically brought the Trusteen motivity: land acquisition to a halt, Since then the Trustees hate acquired dandrobly occasionally and then by donation rathere than byy purchases. be remembered. that the Trustees had to depend upon contributions of money from members or friends with which to purchase lands. The organization had no other sources of revenue. Isma. As to what Mr. Rockefeller's future relationship with the Trustees mayabe or what he thinks (Trustees ought to be doing A.baze. necknowledge. He alone can answer those questions. on an extensive scale han ended for years have satisfied true... Only infrequest peotal @@@@@ will he purchase timed for to tha and the only besaNow the question as to the future of the Trustees. in the last paragraph of his "Challenge" and Mr. Paine in hetsecond third and fifth paragraphs of his letter both raise. that questi quiring the out the part boundarise and inheldings lies out friends, the trus the Trustees: of its organization to manage the Black House. Whether or not it should extend its activities beyond the Island, is, from my point of view, an open question. I must point out that should the Trustees decide to become active beyond the Island they must be careful that whatever they do the end result must justify the action. By the terms of its charter its holdings are tax exempt and the management of its properties must be such as to offset in recreational inspirational or other intangible values the loss in dollar value of tax revenue. Otherwise its position becomes untenable and open to attack, political or other. The corporation is charitable incasture, cAs such I do not believe it cane in profit making the extent of using profits. to maintain its properties, to acquire other properties for like uses or to distribute excess profits tougher charitable works. I do not envision the Tanstees as beecming a great money making institution. I point out these to be overlooked in any expansion of activity which majaber general at The Trustees should, I believe, revive its interest as an acquiring and holding agency for lands destined for ultimate park Eliet points out, and I agree, that there are still lands desi rable for inclusion in the park, I foresee the time when offers will be made to donate small parcels for the purpose and, when offered, the acceptance should be immediate To accomplish this there should be an agency, tax exempt, which can accept the donation and hold title until the formalities required for tender to the government have been completed. This was the primary function of the Trustees in its earlys it should be revived. the # detashed unbiancé to The real obstacle to be overcome is that of funds the PN the legal work to prepare the land titles for government acceptance, Donations for that purpose are not easy to come by, and unless the Trustees have reasonable asaurance that the funds can be obtained donations of land should not be accepted, And & for a committee and LAS reaction of the other I have true with respect to small parcels of land which are essential or desirable for park ownership but which cannot be acquired by donation. Money must be had with which to purchase, not great suns, probably, but yet it must be had. Here, too, unless the Trustees can raise modest sums for land purchases.it is idle for them to again become active in this field. Bar February 27, 1981 10 What I have just said in the foregoing paragraphs has been said because of a conviction that Mr. Rockefeller's purchase program, on an extensive soale at least, has ended. Experiences over the last few years have satisfied me that this is true. Only in infrequent and special cases will he purchase land for donation to the park, and then only because some particular phase or feature of the given situation commands his interest. Because bf this and because of absence of authority at law to purchase land with government funds, our only hope of acquiring relatively small acreage needed out the and to extinguish some inholdings our friends, the Trustees, or others yet to be found. There is the Trustees, or subsidiary group from within the or fuxiliary group sponsored by them can be really helpful. This group would be called the Acadia Natural History Association. The objectives of such an Association are foster, promote and bring to public notice the inspirational, educational and soientific aspects and activities of the park through the preparation and sule of pamphlets, brochures, bulletins, etc on those features. Small profits, enough to finance those aotivities once they are gotten under way can be realized. If the Trustees should evince interest in this proposal go into it with them in more detail. the The thoughts which I have expressed cover pretty well my point of view on the future relationship of the Trustees to the park and my views on the future activities of the organization. Others may hold similar or differing views. Perhaps what I have said may lead to a $) general discussion of the matter. The concluding paragraphs of Mr. Paine's letter appeal to me as a prelude to a valediotory which I devoutly hope he won't deliver. Since his association with the Trustees as member and chairman of the Black House Committee, and now as President of the group he has endeared himself to us all. We need his gracious presence as presiding officer and his wise counsel as our chief executive. I believe that the circum- stance of his sojourning for the summer at a little distance from the Island is distinctly in his favor as President. We of the Island live too closely to it and its problems. He can view us, it and them with the calmness of detached observer and reach his conclusions unbiased by local pressures or points of view. sincerely hope he has no serious thought of relinquishing the chair. My commentary is closed. It is much longer than I had any idea it would be but. there was much ground to cover. I await a call for a committee meeting and the reaction of the other members to what I have presented for consideration. Bar Harber aa February 27 1951 :C.W.Eliot, 2Nd BOTHIARIES OF ACADIA NATIONAL 25/00 A Challenge to the Hancock County Trustees of Public Reservations Thereing 11 By Charles W. Eliot, 2ne Placed August 1950 A visit early this summer to what in our family is called "God's Country", gave me & chance to review the wonderful work of those who created the Acsels National Park. Because I am a member of the Hancock County Trustees of Public Reservations and made a report on "the Future of His. Desert Island in 1928 for the Bar Harbor Village improvement Association, I was especially inter- ested to compare the proposals and purposes of the Founders of the Trustees and of my previous study with the accommitsments towards those objectives. Since 1928 extreordinary progress has been mede in the extension of the park bounderies to include the primary features of the "Beautiful Island of Mt. basert". In these extensions, the chief factors have been the Trustees of Public Reservations, the untiring personal efforts of Mr. George 3. Dorr right up to his desth, the great generosity of Mr. John D. Rockerfeller, Jr. and the Federal project for purchase of Sub-Marginal Lands. A. The Trustees still hold large treets which presunably are destined for eventual inclusion in the Park. As I understand the situation from Mr. incley, the Park Superintencent, some funds and work are needed to clear the titles to some of these tracts. A comparison of my man -- prepared in 1928 with the help of Mr. Dorr and Mr. Lynem, and checking with the Record of Holdings published in 1939, the Trustoes may still own -- 1. Some 30 acres at the south end of Subble Pond, one 2. The top of Youngs Mountain both east of Somes Sound; and 3. Lots 98, 101, 105, 106, 107, 113, 118 (in the Record of Holdings) including Beech Mountain and the east shore and south end of Long Pone. 4. Lots 117 and 119 on the opposite or west abore of Long Pone on the northeast slope of Mansell Mountain. 5. A huge area on Western Mountain including the tops of Bernard and Mansell and a wide connection to deel Love I Pond. 2 6. Two properties - lots 101 and 102 on the cost sico of Seal Cove Pone. This 11st is probably inaccurate and incomplete, but the data in the map one descriptions included in the Record of Holdings of 1939 is inconsistent and eoes not correspond with the Topographic Map of Acedia National Parte (1942). It's sedition to these properties 14 is not at all clear as to what happened in the exchange of the Trustees property at the Champlain sonu- ment for the new site on the main Highway on Day Mountain. Perhaps the Trustees can be helpful as agent OF go- between for transfer to the Park of other properties. I have in mind particularly: B. The Bar Derbor Village Improvement Association which still owns 1. Pawn Pond and the northeast shore of Lake Mood: and hee some interest in 2. Sheep Porcupine Islane, and perhaps also in 3. Bale Poroupine Island; as vell as other properties, which might be most appropriately consolidated under Park Management. 4. The Approach to the Park from Bar Harbor should be a major concern of the Village Improvement Association. This is the valley vest of Strawberry and Great Meedow Hills (see pp 14-16 my report on "Future of Mt. Desert Island 1928), and the immediate need is for public ownership of the vest slope of those hills and the strip between the cemetery and Cromwell Brook. C. Mr. John D. Rockerfeller, Jr. is believed to own several properties which aejoin or are closely related to the park, including:- 1. A large tract between the Park Line and Road including Brower Mountain and Half Moon Pono 2. Two lots on the South Side of Ragle Lake Road 3) at the Lake are b) a triangle opposite Break Neck Road 3. Lane north of Aunt Betty's Pond 4. s strip along the old Hunters Brook Road and is quarry or gravel pit lot neerby, 5. pay Mountain and the portion of the Cooksey Estate between Way Mountain and the Ocean front. 6. A lot between the Parts and Wilewood Farm on the Jorson Pone Rose, 3. 7. Resifold 2211, Jordon Streem, Harbor Grook Day the Riego between Long Fond and Harbor Brook, and 8. Wonderland - between Seavell and Ship Serbor. D. Under the Sub-Marginal Laur Purchase Program of the early days of the lieu Deal, large areas of march one woodland were ac- quired by the Federal Government in Southwest Earbor and Tremont. These lands vere incorporated in the Park. The boundaries are quite illogical -- because the holdings pur- chased happened to fall this way and that, and because the "project" was never commeted. A number of holes should be filled, and the boungaries rounded out to include the whole of the natural topographical units involved -- as for example 1. the rest of the March vest of Mt. Gelbos and China Hill, 2. the rest of those two hills, 3. the rest of the Sig death, westware to line between Base Harbor Head and Adoms Budge, and 4. the rest of the Marshall Brook trainage to a line along Freemen Ridge. A review of the maps shows that the major objective of the Trustees - to safeguary the Mountain Range - has almost been realized. The big missing link in the chain in Morunbogs (Brown) Mountain and the watershee to protect lover Hadlock Fond. Loren Kimball, who owned much of that area, was one of the original incorporators of the Trustees. Someone must try again to bring that mountain into the Park. West of Somes Sound, a) the north slopes of Acadis, b) Canado Hollow between St. Sauveur and Beech Hill, c) the south ridge of Beech Mountain, a) a north spur of Western and e) a piece on the southeast slope of the same mountain seem to be still in private ownership. East of Somes Sound, besides the mass of Norumbega Mountain, hill and mountain pieces of interest for future inclusion in the park, include: a) the northeast slope of Champiain above the Schooner Boad Road, b) the south tip of Flying Squadron, c) Day Mountain and A) Redfield Hill as noted in connection with Mr. Rockerfeller's properties, and e) whatever portions of Eliot (Asticon Hill) are not safeguarded by inclusion in Asticon Terraces. Along the Shores much more property has been turned over to the Park than was ever contemplated by the original founders or the Trustees, but souse of the pieces they proposed are still out or their status is not clear. The most important items for further consideration seem to mo to be -- in order: E. More of Female's Point - where the Jesuite sottles. 7. 5. The heart of Sason Count - a gateway C. Between the Sargent Drive and the Sound. d. the aboves of Seal Cove and along the brook to the Food. a. Soul Marbor Beach. f. Eracy Cove - shingle. B. Between Huntere Spook and Ingraham Polat. h. Bennet Cove at MonderLand. Concerning the Islanda I voule 111re to renew the recommen dations of my 1928 Report, thet a) the outside half of Jakers Island and the Ball Room Floor, 5) the Forcupines, and perhaps c) the Health and Sunkers Head on Grout Cranberry, () Beer +sland (if it is ever abandoned as a Lighthouse) anould be added to the Fark. The Lettes and Ponds of the Islane were of special interest to the Trustees from the beginning -- to safeguard vater supplies as well EXIT scenery. Private properties still touch on Subble Pone south end, on Eagle Lake north end, a corner on Aunt Betty's Pone, and as already noted all around Lower Bodlock Pond. West of the Sound, similar pieces are missing from the Paric at the south ones of Echo Lake and Great Pone and the whole vest benico of Seal Cove Pond and Bodgeon Pond. In my 1928 Report, at the suggestion of Mr. Less, I pro- posed that a large area in the north part of the Island, including McFarland and Yournes Mountains, the Health and the Meadow, should be set asice as a Villegress Area. The Great Fire svept through much of this territory and I have not had an opportunity to as- certein whether that disester persanently destroyed the vilderness character or Whether the proponal should still stand. In any event the east alopes of the two countains, Paradise Hill and the area over to Lekte Wood from Breakneck Brook should be part of the perk. on the accompanying map I have attempted to show the properties referred to in this statement. The errors and insccur- acics are due to lack of consistent data and the 3000 miles between my drafting table and the areas in question. there is much the Trustees of Public Recorrations can still do for the project, so voll started and already so far advanced. I hope this summary may help to arouse interest and financial support to carry on the work. September 7, 1950 Mr. Charles W. Eliot, 2nd. 720 South San Rafuel Ave. Pasadona, California Dear Mr. Eliot: I take pleasure in writing to inform you of the interest which was expressed at our annual meeting on August 22, 1950 in your summary entitled "A Challenge to the Hancock County Trustees of Public Reservations". This summary and accompanying map which was explained by President Paine during the meeting and inspected by those present at the conclusion of the meeting was very enlightening to the Trustees. You will be interested in the resolution that was unsnimously adopted and recorded in the records of this meeting which follows: "Resolved that the Bancock County Trustees of Public Reservations, assembled in annual meeting, express their deep gratitude to Mr. Charles W. Eliot, 2nd, for his admirable report on their past accomplishment and possible future procedure; and that they also convey assurances to Mr. Eliot that his friendly challenge to the Trustees will receive the careful consideration which it deserves." It is President Paine's plan to appoint a committee to carefully study this matter with the Executive Committee of the Trustees. We regret your imability to attend the meeting, but appreciate your continued interest in our objectives. Sincerely yours, Gerard L. Austin, Secretary HANCOCK COUNTY TRUSTEES OF PUBLIC RESERVATIONS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE BLACK HOUSE COMMITTEE TRUSTEES OF Ernest T. Paine, President Woodlawn, in Ellsworth, Maine Ernest T. Paine, Chairman Gerard L. Austin, Secretary Richard W. Hale, Jr., Vice-Chairman Bequest of GEORGE NIXON BLACK Mrs. Jacques Cornelis Albert H. Cunningham, Treasurer Mrs. Philip R.. .Lovell Philip R. Lovell, First Vice-President Mrs. John C. Spring John Whitcomb, Second Vice-President BLACK HOUSE COMMITTEE Miss Adeline Wing Hon. John A. Peters OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN Professor Augustin Derby Donald Stuart Col. H. B. Hayden Charles K. Savage Passpect Haston mane Sentemoes 18, 1950 Near mr. smith ; I am writing to ask if you will become chairman of I special committee of the Trustees. Briefly, the function of this committee would be to consider and knot on the policy of the Trustees with regard to the acquisition of more holdings of land in Hancok County. The question his come up partly because of the activity of Mr. Charles is. Vist, 2ML who his written a "Challenge to the Trustee, of Public Resuration, " in which he virtually asks us what we the young to do. 3 left I why of this document at in. Cumminghum's office al my with a co ty of mr. Viot's hamphlet (1928) called "The Future of Mount Desert Island" and a 3 October 26,1350 B. L.Hacley, Bar Harbor, Main e Mr. Charles K. Davage: Northeast Harbor, Maine Gentlemen: OS : As you no doubt have been advised by Professor E. I. Payne the following consittee has been appointed to consider the challenge contained in the enclosed memorandum of Charles W. Eliot, 2nd. addressed to the Lancock County Trustees of Public Reservations: Committee, Benjamin I.. Hadley, C arles K. Savage and Edwin R. Smith. Professor Payne asked me to serve as chairman and I agreed if such an arrangement was first cleared with you and found to be agreeable. I have talked with Professor Payne concerning many of the points contained in the Eliot monorandum and suggested that a copy be forwarded to MP. Rockefoller. Professor Payne is now exploring the background of the Bancook County Trustees of Public Reservations activities in relation to thos e of Mr. dockefoller in connection with the development of Acadia National Park. the idea is that if this committee is to make recommendations concerning the various points contained in Mr. Ellot's VC emorandum we should coordinate Copy CHARLES W. ELIOT Planning Consultant 720 S. San Rafael Ave Pasadena 2, Calif. Community Development Sycamore 9-3966 City and Regional Planning Oct. 28, 1950. Dear Mr. Paine, Your letter of Oct. 15 to my Father- Samuel A. Eliot- arrived just after his death, and the family have referred it to me. I doubt if Father knew very much more about the history of relations between Mr. Rockefeller and the Trustees than I know, so I hope my answer to your question will partially substitute for what you might have learned from him. I think Mr. Rockefell interest in the Trustees and in the later Park was first aroused by an appeal from my Grandfather- President Eliot- in connection with the fight over admitting automobiles to the Island. Mr. Rockefeller was much concerned over the increased danger to his children- kidnapping- which the presence of automobiles would involve. That fight at the State Capitol was just part of the continuous scrap to preserve the tax- immunity status of the trustee's holdings. It was thus, as I recall it, that Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. Dorr became interested in each other and the future of the Island. From the very beginning of his summers at Mt. Desert, Mr. Rockefeller has been an enthusiastic road-builder. He bought land near Barr Hill for the purpose of extending his carriage roads and soon came to the boundaries of properties held by the Trustees. Mr. Dorr and my Grandfather worked out arrangements for Mr.Rockefeller to extend his roads still further. I think it was in that connection, that the Reservation at the top of Barr Hill was turned over to Mr. Rockefeller. Later, of course, Mr. Rockefeller bought lands at considerable distance from his home base for more road building, and contributed both lands and automobile roads - the Mountain Road - to the Park. In much of this activity Mr. Dorr acted almost as Mr. Rockefeller's agent, with, of c ourse, the very active participation of Mr. Lynam. There were times when Mr. Dorr just didn't know whether property was part of the Park, Trustees, Wild Gardens, Mr. Rockefeller's, Mr. Dorr's, or in Mr. Dorr's name pending some other disposition.) As to this phase of Mr.Rockefeller's relations with the Trustees; I would think that Hadley and Smith- as successors of Dorr and Lynam, respectively- would know or could dig out the most information. HANCOCK COUNTY TRUSTEES OF PUBLIC RESERVATIONS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE TRUSTEES OF BLACK HOUSE COMMITTEE Ernest T. Paine, President Gerard L. Austin, Secretary WoodLawn, in Ellsworth, Maine Ernest T. Paine, Chairman Richard W. Hale, Jr., Vice-Chairman Albert H. Cunningham, Treasurer Bequest of GEORGE NIXON BLACK Mrs. Jacques Cornelis Philip R. Lovell, First Vice-President Mrs. Philip R. Lovell John Whitcomb, Second Vice-President BLACK HOUSE COMMITTEE Mrs. John C. Spring Miss Adeline Wing Hon. John A. Peters OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN Professor Augustin Derby Donald Stuart 1090 Avon Road Col. H.B. Hayden Schenectady 8, N.Y. Charles K. Savage November 17, 1950. Mr. Edwin R. Smith c/o Smith and Fenton Bar Harbor, Maine. Copy Dear Mr. Smith: I am writing to explain in some detail the assignment which you kindly consented to accept in becoming Chairman of the Special Committee on Policy of the Hancock County Trustees of Public Reservations. It is well known that most of the holdings on Mount Desert Island which were acquired by the Trustees in the earlier days of their activity have been transferred to the Government and are included in Acadia National Park. Some properties are in question, - no one knows who holds title to them; but this is a matter which you are investigating for the Trustees in a different capacity from that of your work as Chairman of the Special Committee. It might be thought that when all the properties still held by the Trustees (apart from the Colonel Black Mansion and its grounds in Ellsworth) have been transferred to the Park, which is presumably their destination, the Trustees will no longer have any reason for existence except in connection with the Black Estate. Will this really be the case? That, essentially, is the problem on which the Prustees would like you to report to its Executive Committee, if possible by the summer of 1951. This is not a new problem. Dr. Eliot spoke of it in his excellent historical account of the Trustees, and Mr. Morris referred to it in a letter when he was President. Both believed that the question "Should the Trustees continue to be active even though Acadia National Park is now a reality?" ought to be answered in the affirmative. That is, the Trustees (in the words of their Charter) should continue to "acquire by devise, gift, or purchase, and to own, arrange, hold, maintain, and improve for free public use, lands in Hancock County, Maine, which by reason of scenic beauty, historical interest, sanitary advantages or for other reasons may be available for the purpose." As a fact, however, the Trustees have not for some years shown signs of life in this connection. They have maintained their corporate existence. They have held annual meetings. They have taken good care of the Black House. But from quite a long time past until the summer of 1950 they have been dormant in respect of the purpose for which the organization was originally founded. Then last August two circumstances developed which roused them from this slumber. HANCOCK COUNTY TRUSTEES OF PUBLIC RESERVATIONS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE TRUSTEES OF BLACK HOUSE COMMITTEE Ernest T. Paine, President Gerard L. Austin, Secretary Woodlawn, in Ellsworth, Maine Ernest T. Paine, Chairman Richard W. Hale, Jr., Vice-Chairman Albert H. Cunningham, Treasurer Bequest of GEORGE NIXON BLACK Mrs. Jacques Cornelis Philip R. Lovell, First Vice-President Mrs. Philip R. Lovell John Whitcomb, Second Vice-President BLACK HOUSE COMMITTEE Mrs. John C. Spring Miss Adeline Wing Hon. John A. Peters OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN Professor Augustin Derby Donald Stuart 1090 Avon Road Col. H. B. Hayden Schenectady 8, N. Y. Charles K. Savage Mr. Edwin R.Smith-- page 2-- Nov. 17, 1950. First, the Bar Harbor Village Improvement Association offered to give the Trustees Sheep Porcupine Island in Frenchman's Bay. After due consideration the offer was accepted. A little later Mr. Charles W. Eliot, 2nd, came forward with his "challenge to the Hancock County Trustees of Public Reservations" about which a few explanatory state- ments should here be made. Like his father and grandfather before him, Mr. Eliot has been vitally interested in the proper development of Mount Desert Island. In 1928 he published his report on the future of the Island, and now in 1950 he has supplemented this admirable study by a careful survey of the existing situation with reference to accomplish- ment, that is, the question how much of the original plan has been carried out. Are the scenic values of the Island sufficiently protected? Should Acadia National Park be extended in certain areas, and should the Trustees, particularly, try to bring this about? TO those questions Mr. Eliot gives specific answers covering the Island and its environs, and illuminating the whole subject by a colored map which, supplemented by the text of his "Challenge", gives a clear picture of things as they are and as Mr. Iliot thinks they ought to be. The map indicates and differentiates by a suitable legend, the areas included in the Park, those possibly still owned by the Trustees, those presumably held by Mr. Rockefeller, and certain others, among them various tracts which Mr. Eliot believes should be acquired by the Trustees to go along with those which they have already given to the Government. The mention of Mr.Rockefeller's holdings brings up the question of relations between Mr. Rockefeller and the Trustees, and this is one of the subjects which I should think it appropriate for your Committee to explore. So far as I can learn, Mr. Rockefeller has never been a member of the Trustees, - certainly he has not been a member in recent years. From our point of view that is greatly to be regretted since his aims and our own with regard to Mount Desert Island have been so much alike. I am sure that all the Trustees would be delighted if he would accept membership even though he might not find it possible to attend our meetings. Be that as it may, it would be of great interest and importance if we could learn what Mr. Rockefeller thinks the Trustees ought to be doing and if he would give us the benefit of his counsel and suggestions about our future procedure. Another question of policy arises out of the fact that Mount Desert Island does not constitute by any means the whole of Hancock County. I should think it appropriate for your Committee to consider the question whether we ought to extend our activities beyond the Island, HANCOCK COUNTY TRUSTEES OF PUBLIC RESERVATIONS EXECUTIVE COMMITTLE BLACK HOUSE COMMITTEE TRUSTEES OF Ernest T. Paine, President Woodlawn, in Ellsworth, Maine Ernest T. Paine, Chairman Gerard L. Austin, Secretary Richard W. Hale, Jr., Vice-Chairman Albert H. Cunningham, Treasurer Bequest of GEORGE NIXON BLACK Mrs. Jacques Cornelis Mrs. Philip R. Lovell Philip R. Lovell, First Vice-President Mrs. John C. Spring John Whitcomb, Second Vice-President BLACK HOUSE COMMITTEE Miss Adeline Wing Hon. John A. Peters OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN Professor Augustin Derby Donald Stuart Col. H. B. Hayden 1090 Avon Road Charles K. Savage Schenectady 8, ,N.Y. Mr. Edwin R. Smith-- page 3-- Nov. 17, 1950. patterning our efforts after those made so successfully by the Ma ssachusetts Trustees of Public Reservations; or whether in view of the local opposition that is frequently encountered when land appears likely to be withdrawn from taxation, your Committee is of opinion that no program of expansion beyond the Island, if indeed there, should be undertaken at the present time or in the foreseeable future. Before closing it will be well for me to say a word about my own position, or perhaps predicament, as President of the Trustees. When Mr. Stebbins resigned a year ago last August he pressed me urgently in his aimiable and irresistible way to accept nomination to the Presidency although I felt that someone more closely identified with the Island than I had been should be chosen. The time was short, and in the absence of other candidates, I agreed to serve if elected. I felt then, and still feel, that I accepted an interim appointment, and I shall be only too glad to withdraw when the right successor can be found, preferably, as I think, a permanent resident of the Island, but also someone who will bring with him an intimate knowledge of the region somewhat matching, shall we say, the knowledge that Mr. Dorr had, or that which Mr. Rockefeller has, or the Eliots, or others who might be named. In love of the Island, of course, I would not yield to anyone. my The foregoing paragraph is pertinent because all concerned should be aware that approach to the Presidency was through the Black House rather than by way of the Island. Mr. Stebbins argued that the Trustees are now concerned with little except the Black House, and that because of my close connection therewith as Chairman of the Black House Committee, I was the logical candidate for the Presidency. I am prone to believe that the Trustees still have, or ought to have, a wider field of effort, and that their President should be chosen with reference to the wider interest; but, as has been explained, I con- sented to serve for a time while these matters were being adjusted. Your Committee ought to know these facts, and so, I think, should all who may see this letter or a copy of it; especially Mr. Rockefeller, should you acquaint him with our problem. I hope very much that you will do so. You have already been in touch with him, I understand, concerning acquisitions for the Park. HANCOCK COUNTY TRUSTEES OF PUBLIC RESERVATIONS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE BLACK HOUSE COMMITTEE TRUSTEES OF Ernest T. Paine, President Woodlawn, in Ellsworth, Maine Ernest T. Paine, Chairman Gerard L. Austin, Secretary Richard W. Hale, Jr., Vice-Chairman Albert H. Cunningham, Treasurer Bequest of GEORGE NIXON BLACK Mrs. Jacques Cornelis Mrs. Philip R. Lovell Philip R. Lovell, First Vice-President Mrs. John C. Spring John Whitcomb, Second Vice-President BLACK HOUSE COMMITTEE Miss Adeline Wing Hon. John A. Peters OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN Professor Augustin Derby Donald Stuart Col. H. B. Hayden 1090 Avon Road Charles K. Savage Schenectady 8, N. Y. Mr. Edwin R. Smith-- page 4-- Nov. 17, 1950. Finally, may I express my thanks to you, and to Mr. Hadley and Mr. Savage as well, for your willingness to serve on the Special Committee? You will all be making an important contribution to the work of the Trustees, - an organization of which, on the basis of merit and real accomplishment, we can be justly proud. Sincerely, E.T. Paine E. T. Paine. 2-8390 1090 Aron Road, Schenectady 8, n.y. me Payne November 17,1950. R, mr. Edwin R. Smith, 40 Smith and Fenton, Bar Harbor, maine. Dear mr. Smith : I am writing to explain in some detail the as- signment which you kindly consented to accept in becoming Chairman of the Special Committee on Policy of the Hancock County Trustees of Public Reservations, It is well known that most of the holdings on mount Desert Island which were acquired by the Trustees in the Earlier days of their activity have been transferred to the Government and are included in Acadia national Park. Some moberties are in question, - no one knows who holds title to them; but this is a matter which you are investigating for the Trustees in a different capacity from that of your work as Chairman of the Shecial committee. It might be thought. that when all the -2- properties still held by the Trustees (apart from the Colonel Black mansion and its grounds in Ws worth) have been transferred to the Park which is presumably their destination, the Trustees will no longer have any reason for existence Except in connection with the Black Estate, will this really be the case ? That, Essentially, is the problem on which the Trustees would like you to rehoat to its Executive committee if possible by the summer of 1951. This is not a me problem. Dr. Eliot shoke of it in his Excellent historical account of the Trustees, and m morris referred to it in a letter when he was President. Both believed that the question 11 " should the Trustees continue to be active Even though Acadia national Park is now a reality 2 onight to be answer in the affirmative. That is, the Trustees (in the words of th Charter ) should continue to "acquire by devise gift, a hand and to own, arrange, hold, maintain and improve for fr public use, lands in Hancock County, maine, which by r scomic Preside hictorical interest sanitaru advantages n other reasons may be available for the purpose." As a fact, however, the Trustees have not for some years shown signs of life in this connection. They have maintained their corporate existence, They have held annual meetings, They have taken good care of the Black House But from quite a long time past until the summer of 1950 they have been dormant in reshect of the purpose for which the organization was originally founded. Then last August two circumstances developed which housed them from this slumber. First, the Bar Harbon village Im/novement Association offered to give the Trustees Sheep Porcuhine Island in Frenchman's Bay, After due consideration the offer was accepted. A little later mr. Charles W. Eliot, 2nd came forward with his " challenge to the Hancock County Trustees of Public Reservations" about which a few explanatory statements should here be made. Like his father and grandfather before him Mr. Eliot has been vitally interested in the mother development of mount Desent Island. In 1928 he published his report on the future of the Island, and -4- now in 1950 he has supplemented this admirable study by is careful survey of the existing situation with reference to accomplishment, that is, the question how much of the original plan has been carried out. Are the scenic values of the Island sufficiently protected Should Acadia national Park be extended in certain areas and should the Trustees, particularly, try to bring this about 2 To these questions Mr. Eliot gives specific answers covering the Island and its environs, and illuminating the whole subject by a colored mah which supplemented by the text of his "Challenge", gives a clear cough picture of things as they are and as mr. Eliot thinks they ought to be The map indicates and differentiates by a suitable legend, the areas included in the Park those possibly still owned by the Trustees , those presumably held by mr. Rockefeller, and certain others among them various hacts which m. Eliot believes should be acquired by the Trustees to go along with those which they have already given to the Government. The mention of m Rockefeller's holdings brings up the -5- question of relations between m. Rockefeller and the Trustees , and this is one of the subjects which I should think it appropriate for your Committee to explore. So far as I can learn mr, Rockefeller has never been a member of the Trustees, - certainly he has not been a member in recent years. From our point of view that is greatly to be regretted since his aims and our own with regard to mount Desent Island have been So much alike I am sure that all the Trustees would be delighted if he would accept membership even though he might not find it possible to attend our meetings. BE that as it may, it would be of great interest and importance if we could learn what Mr. Rockefeller thinks the Trustees ought to be doing and if he would give us the benefit of his counsil and suggestions about our future procedure. Another question of policy arises out of the fact that mount Desert I sland does not constitute by any means the whole of Hancock county. I should think it appropriate for you committee to consider the question who then we ought to extend activities becond the Island hattermin'a GUA efforts after three -6- made so successfully by the massachusetts Trustees of Public Reservations, or whether in view of the local ophosition that is frequently Encountered when land appears likely to be withdrawn from taxation, your Committee is of opinion that no program of exhansion beyond the Island, if indeet there, should he undertaken at the present time or in the foresigable future. Before closing it will be well for me to say a word about my own where position , 0 perhaps medicament, as President of the Trustees. when Mr. stebbins resigned a year ago last August he pressed me urgently in his aimiable and irresistible way to accept nomination to the Presidency although I felt that someone more closely identified with the Island than I had been should he chosen. The time was short, and in the absence of other candidates I agreed to serve if elected. I felt then, and still feel that I accepted an interim appointment and I shall be only too glad to withdraw when the right successa can be found, preferably, as I think a permanent resident of the Isl and but also someone who will bring with his matering -7- an intimate knowledge of the region some what matching shall we say, svori the knowledge that Mr. Don had , n that which m. Rochefellor has, love or the Elists, of others who might he named. In love of the Island, of course, I would not yield to anyone. The foregoing paragraph is pertinent because all concerned should he aware that my approach to the Presidency was through the Black House nather than by way of the Island. mr. Steffins argued that the Trustees are now concerned with little except the Black House , and that because of my close connection there with as Chairman of the Black House Committee, I was the logical candidate for the Presidency. I am mone to believe that the Trustees still have or ought to have a wider field of Effort, and that their President should be chosen with reference to the wider interest; but, as has been Explained, I consented to serve for a time while these matters were being adjusted. your Committee ought to know these facts, and so, I think should all who may SEE this letter a a copy of it; Especially m. Pockefeller, should you acquaint him with our -8. problem. I hope very much that you will ds so. you have already been in touch with him, l I understand concerning acquisitions for the Park. Finally may I extress my thanks to you and to ms. Hadley and Mr. Savage as well, for your willin guess to serve on the Special Committee you will all be making an important con. tribution to the work of the Trustees, ,-an organization of which, on the basis of merit and real accomplishment, we. can be justly proud. Sincerely E.T. Paine T nov. 20,1950 Copy Dear Mr. Eliot : I enclose copy of a letter which has gone forward to Mr. Smith in connection with his work as Chairman of the Special Com. on Policy. This will show what we have been doing 4 ) will keep you informed as matters proced though I imagine that will be nather slowly as truching any large results. I should like to Extress my sympathy in your recent benovemen L, thou, I will not presume to say more than that. I feel also that I ought to apologize for writing to your father at a time when he was her haps very ill Lop course I knew that he was none for well last summer, but I should have in quired carefully about his health before sending a letter. The cas ual inquiries which I made led me to think that he was much immoved. It remains to thank you for your note of Oct. 28th The specific information given will he a help ; also your advice to 90 to m. Rockefeller direct. I think we shall do just that, Sincerely, E.T.P, - Ben Hadley. Comments on the paper "A Challenge to the Hancock County Trustees of Public Reservations" presented to that body by Mr. Charles W. Eliot, 2nd, August 1950 2/27/51. In August 1950 Mr. Charles W. Eliot, 2nd, presented to the Hancock County Trustees of Public Reservations a paper entitled "THE BOUNDARIES OF ACADIA NATIONAL PARK" A Challenge to the Hancock County Trustees of Public Reservations. The paper seemed so timely, in view of the relative inactivity of the body in recent years with respect to the growth and development of Acadia National Park that a committee was appointed to consider it and to make recommendations to the Trustees on the various points which it raised. Having been appointed a member of the committee and being perhaps more familiar with the Trustees and its affairs so far as they relate to the park than are the other two members, I am taking the liberty of reviewing Mr. Eliot's paper and offering some comments upon it. These comments, together with some which I shall make on Mr. Paine's letter of November 17, 1950, to Mr. Edwin R. Smith, Chairman of the Special Committee on Policy of the Hancock County Trustees of Public Reservations, may serve as a guide to the committee in formulating its recommendations. The paper is divided into four parts, A, B, C and D. My comments will deal with each of the parts, with possibly a further break- down beginning with the paragraph in the middle of page 3. A. Land Which the Trustees May Still Own Mr. Eliot lists six items of land which he says the Trustees may still own. Before discussing these items with respect to their present ownership status, it is pertinent to insert & bit of historical data in the form of extracts from the records of the Trustees and to follow with what occurred as a result: On August 20, 1929, the following vote was passed: Voted: That all the lands now standing in the name of the Reservations, except a strip of land one hundred and fifty feet (In depth) bordering the various lakes and their tributaries furnishing water to the various towns except also a lot containing approximately five acres on Barr Hill and a lot where the Champlain Monument is on the Cooksey Drive be transferred to the United States of America to form a part of Acadia National Park, at such time as the said United States of America may accept the same -- etc. It is to be noted that the quoted vote authorized the conveyance to the Government of all land held by the Trustees except certain designated parcels, specifically the one hundred fifty foot strips bordering the various lakes and ponds and their tributaries which furnish water to Island villages, a lot on Barr Hill and the lot on the Cooksey Drive on which the Champlain Monument was then situated. On May 1, 1930 the vote of August 20, 1929 was amended to except the Black Estate from the authority to convey land to the Government. On June 22, 1931 the Trustees voted to convey the one hundred fifty foot strips around the ponds to the Government. Acting within the authority of the votes of August 20, 1929 and June 22, 1931, the Trustees, by deed dated July 22, 1931 (Deed #41, Government Deed Records) conveyed seven parcels of land to the Government. Six of these parcels described the one hundred fifty foot strips around the ponds and are numbered in the Trustees Record of Holdings as follows: 53, 68. The seventh parcel (sixth in the deed) described the Tarn or Little Meadow, and is numbered 14 in the Record of Holdings. The eighth and concluding clause in the deed of July 22, 1931 is as follows: "Eighth: Also all real estate and interests in real estate owned by said Corporation or standing in the name of said Corporation on the records of the Hancock County Maine Registry of Deeds situated in said Town of Bar Harbor, and also situated in that part of said Town of Mount Desert lying East of Somes Sound, excepted the lot where the Champlain Monument is on the Cooksey Drive." The clause may well be termed a catch-all, and because of it a number of things happened. First, the Government acquired all rights and interests in lands represented in Record of Holdings numbers 37a, 49, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 96, 111, 112. Second, the Government acquired lots 108 and 109 in the Record of Holdings. Third, an exchange of lands took place between Mr. Rockefeller and the Trustees by which he received Lot No. 30, Champlain Monument Site, and Lot No. 31, the Barr Hill Lot, and the Trustees received Lot No. 81, land at Echo Lake, which Mr. Rockefeller purchased for exchanging. The latter lot was later conveyed to the Government, by vote of the Trustees, by deed number 35, Government Deed Records. As a further part of the exchang e Mr. Rockefeller deeded to the Trustees a small lot at Seawall known as the Robert E. Newman Lot. This lot does not appear in the Record of Holdings and the title is still in the Trustees. As a still further part of the exchange, Mr. Rockefeller moved the Champlain Monument to its present site on Icy Hill and deeded the lot on which it stands to the Town of Mount Desert. 2 I will now discuss the six items in "A" of Mr. Eliot's paper: (1) The 30 acres at the south end of Bubble Pond went to the Government under clause "Eighth" in Deed No. 41. This item, as such, does not appear in the Record of Holdings. It is my opinion that these 30 acres were excepted from Lot 8A or Lot 18, or both, when they were con- veyed to the Government. I base my opinion on the very involved land transfers in that area which occurred during the ownership of Charles H. Lewis, Weston, The Mount Desert and Eastern Shore Land Company and others. At all events, the Government now has title to all land at the south end of Bubble Pond except for a few small lots which the Mount Desert and Eastern Shore Land Company sold for cottage lots, and whose owners or heirs have vanished. (2) The title to the lot on the top of Youngs Mountain, a one-fourth undivided interest in Lot 44, Peters Plan, passed to the Government under clause "Eighth", Deed 41, and is Lot No. 112, Trustees Record of Holdings. Accordingly, all lands and interests in lands held by the Trustees east of Somes Sound have been conveyed to the Government or to Mr. Rockefeller. (3) All lots enumerated, namely, 98, 101, 105, 106, 107, 113, 118 are still in Trustees ownership and are to the east of Long Pond. Also owned by the Trustees in the same area but not mentioned by Mr. Eliot is lot 124. (4) Lot 119 is on the west shore of Long Pond. I am not sure about 117. I am inclined to think that it is to the west of the pond but does not touch the shore (See 5 below). Also owned by the Trustees on the west shore of the pond but not mentioned by Mr. Eliot are lots 120 and 121. (5) The huge area on Western Mountain is made up of lots 95, 97, 99, 114, 115, 116, 117, 125 and 126. (6) I detect a typing error. Mr. Eliot enumerates lots 101 and 102 on the east side of Seal Cove Pond. The lots are there but the numbers should be 100 and 102. 3 One .other lot, 122, at Seawall is still in Trustees ownership, Likewise the Robert Newman lot at Seawall which I have already mentioned. The foregoing statement, to the best of my knowledge, accounts for and truly represents all lands now owned by the Trustees. B. Land for Which the Trustees Might Act as Agent or Go-Between for Transfer to the Park (1) Fawn Pond and the northeast shore of Lakewood is owned by the Bar Harbor Village Improvement Association. It was a gift to the Association in memory of Mr. Charles T. How, one of the early summer visitors to Bar Harbor. Mr. How acquired many parcels of land in both Bar Harbor and Mount Desert. Many were sold to families who later built cottages upon them; many more not suitable for build- ing upon are now in the park. I do not think it wise for the Trustees to initiate action looking to the conveyance of Fawn Pond to the Park. I think it should remain in V.I.A. ownership as a memorial to Mr. How until such time as the Association wishes to voluntarily relinquish ownership. (2) Sheep Porcupine Island has lately come into V.I.A. ownership. There it should remain until an oppor- tunity presents itself to convey it to others who will use it for residential or other desirable use. (3) Bald (Round) Porcupine Island is owned by Mrs. Edward Browning. It is directly opposite her summer home on Vanderbilt Point and was acquired so that no disfiguring use could be made of it which would constitute an eyesore in the view from her summer home. As long as it remains in the Browning family ownership, that is the best possible ownership. (4) The plan for an approach to the park from Bar Harbor through the valley of Cromwell Harbor - Kebo Brook is at present on the shelf. The 1947 fire and other factors have been responsible for the suspension of this plan for an approach to the park from the village, but it may be revived later. C. Mr. Rockefeller's Land This is a matter which neither the park, the Trustees nor the V.I.A. can with propriety discuss except in a most informal way and then only in the rather general vein of asking among themselves "what is he going to do with it?". He has never, so far as I know, revealed his intentions respecting the disposition of these lands, and I would suggest that he be not approached on the subject. 4 (c) (d) and (e) are all in Mr. Rockefeller's owner- ship. Their ultimate disposition is not known. H. Shores and Islands Mr. Eliot lists eight shore locations which he thinks should be added to the park. Items (a) Fernald Point; (b) the head of Somes Sound, and (d) Seal Cove and along the brook to Seal Cove Pond, while no doubt desirable for park ownership are for the present and probably for some time in the future not to be seriously considered for acquisition. They are lands of potentially high tax value; all are suitable for residential development and as such should remain available for that use. Only the most compelling reasons would justify one or all to be taken into the park. Item (c), the strip between the Sargent Drive and the Sound I judge belongs to the Kimballs as a part of their Brown Mountain tract. If the park should get the mountain it would get that strip. Item (e) Seal Harbor Beach, was conveyed to the Town of Mount Desert by Mr. Rockefeller some years ago. It is secure in town ownership and should remain there. Items (f) Bracy Cove - shingle, (g) the shore between Hunter Brook and Ingraham Point and (h) Bennett Cove at Wonderland are all owned by Mr. Rockefeller. The disposition of these parcels, like others owned by him, is a matter for conjecture only. The islands or portions of islands which Mr. Eliot suggests should be added to the park are, from my point of view as an adminis- trative official, not to be considered. They would constitute detached and outlying fragments, difficult to administer and next to impossible to protect from fire, vandalism and misuse. As long as the islands or portions thereof are in private ownership and the public is permitted free and unhindered use of them no complaints are raised by the using public if they find picnic refuse, tin cans and bottles cluttering the landscape, the rocks and ledges fire blackened and trees hacked and branches cut for fire wood. But let a public agency come into ownership and a cry is at once raised "why isn't something done to clean up those places and to stop people from misusing them?". To do that, were they in park ownership, would require a roving patrol by power boat, and the use of a small skiff for landing. The park has neither the personnel nor the boat equipment to undertake such a patrol, nor is there any likelihood that we can get it for years to come. It was for these and similar other reasons that the Trustees found it desirable to give its lands to the government for a national park. 6 J. Lakes and Ponds Good progress has been made towards gathering into park owner- ship the watersheds of the principal lakes and ponds. All land at the south end of Bubble Pond readily possible of acquisition has been acquired (see paragraph 1, page 3); within a few months the remaining outstanding parcels at the north end of Eagle Lake will be conveyed to the government. The private land to the north of Aunt Betty Pond does not touch the pond edge. The government owns a narrow strip between the private land and the pond, so as to place it wholly within park boundaries. Lower Hadlock Pond and its adjacent land is a special matter and one which will take a long time to adjust. A good part of the land bordering the pond will probably always remain in private ownership. The south end of Echo Lake is in park ownership except for two small parcels. One is the site occupied by the Appalachian Mountain Club Camp and the other is destined to become park owned. Should the A.M.C. ever abandon its camp the land will by virtue of 8. clause in the deed, come into park ownership. At Long Pond there are a few parcels in ownership other than park or the Trustees. Some will be acquired for the park. The others may or may not be dependi i ng wholly upon circumstances The west shore of Seal Cove Pond is land having taxable value too great to be taken into park ownership. The same is true in part of the west shore of Hodgdon Pond. K. The McFarland - Youngs Mountains Area The 1947 fire destroyed the wilderness character of that area from Lake Wood to the Eagle Lake Road. It is now a high hazard area for fire. There is a fair possibility that much of it will come into park ownership to connect with the park's Lake Wood tract. If that happens, the acquisition will inevitably be bounded on the east from the Eagle Lake Road to near Hulls Cove by the Breakneck Road. The Fresh Meadow and Stony Brook Heath are remote in time so far as coming into park ownership are concerned. Their character is such that they are likely to remain undisturbed in major part and serve the function as wilderness areas fully as well as though they were park owned. 7 L. Map A map is appended to this commentary which shows in the area west of Somes Sound and north of the Old Seal Cove Road: (1) Park land, outlined in green (2) Trustees land, outlined in blue (3) Private land, presumably available for purchase or donation, in red I have restricted the map to the showings indicated because I feel that, at first blush, those are the ones in which the Trustees should become interested. This area could be used as the nucleus around and upon which an expanded program could be formulated should the Trustees care to undertake it. I will now pass from Mr. Eliot's "Challenge", leaving the last paragraph thereof for later consideration, to Mr. Paine's letter to Mr. Edwin R. Smith, dated November 17, 1950, and select from it certain salient points upon which to comment. The second and third paragraphs, pages 1 and 2, of Mr. Paine's letter repeat in amplification the last paragraph in Mr. Eliot's "Challenge". Comment thereon will follow as a conclusion to this commentary. The second paragraph on page 2 raises the question of the relationship between Mr. Rockefeller and the Trustees, and suggests that it is a subject appropriate for the committee to explore. I am willing to record the knowledge I possess of Mr. Rockefeller's relationship to the Trustees prior to and during the time he was a member and my impressions of his relationship after severance of membership in January 1924. (I have not been able to fix the date when he became a member but I guess it to have been about 1917.) If that be exploration, so shall it be done. Mr. Rockefeller's first contact with the Trustees was probably in the summer of 1914. He had then begun the building of his carriage road system on Barr Hill and wanted to extend it across Jordan Stream to the north of Mitchell Hill and thence southward to connect with another section already constructed on the west side of the little pond. Finding his crossing of the stream blocked by land owned by the Trustees he asked them for permission to cross and construct his road over it to his own land and the permission was granted. Later, after the establish- ment of the Sieur de Monts National Monument, he gained permission from the Secretary of the Interior to construct another section of carriage road from Mitchell Hill westward to connect with the Town Road at where the Brown Mountain Gate Lodge now stands. From these relatively small 8 beginnings grew, through government acquiesence, the horse road system as it now exists and the construction of the Bubble Pond Motor Road, the rebuilding of the Ocean Drive, the construction of the Otter Point Road and the Stanley Brook Road, all of which were financed by Mr. Rockefeller but which have since, except the carriage roads, been incorporated into the park road system. Mr. Rockefeller relinquished his membership in the Trustees in January 1924. This he was prompted to do for a primary reason which I well know, and possibly for a secondary reason. The primary reason was that in that month Mr. Rockefeller's road building program was heavily attacked by a group of Mount Desert Island summer residents led by Senator George Wharton Pepper of Pennsylvania, himself a summer resident at Northeast Harbor. The attack threatened at inception to torpedo the entire road building program in the park, but an able and well organized defense, led by the Trustees, successfully withstood it at & public hearing held in the Office of the Secretary, Department of the Interior, in March 1924. Mr. Rockefeller, knowing that he, not the park nor the Trustees, was the principal target of the opposition, felt that both he and the Trustees would be placed in a better light if he were not a member. Accordingly, his membership was terminated. Now for the secondary reason for his termination of membership, and this is straight guesswork. In the summer of 1920 Mr. Rockefeller's interest in extending his carriage road system had reached a point where he wanted to carry it around the west side of Parkman (Little Brown) Mountain and the north end of Sargent Mountain, around Eagle Lake and down the west side of Jordan Pond. He also had in mind to extend it from the south end of Eagle Lake to Bubble Pond, along its west side and around the south end of Pemetic Mountain. That route involved the crossing of park land, Trustees land and private land. His first step towards carrying out his plan was to gain the consent of the government and the Trustees to cross their lands, This was given. The next step was to acquire the private land he needed to carry out the project. It was at this point that the guess- work I have mentioned enters. The land acquisition activities of the Trustees had materially lessened. My guess is that Mr. Rockefeller preferred to carry out his acquisition single handed rather than through the Trustees. His financial position enabled him to do so. He therefore, in effect, took over the acquisition program which the Trustees had there- tofore carried out. Mr. Rockefeller's acquisition program ultimately resulted in land purchases amounting in acreage to more than twice that which the Trustees had acquired. Mr. Rockefeller's program practically brought the Trustees activity in land acquisition to a halt. Since then the Trustees have acquired land only occasionally and then by donation rather than by purchase. It is to be remembered that the Trustees had to depend upon contributions of money from members or friends with which to purchase lands. The organization had no other sources of revenue. 9 As to what Mr. Rockefeller's future relationship with the Trustees may be or what he thinks Trustees ought to be doing I have no knowledge. He alone can answer those questions. Now comes the question as to the future of the Trustees. Mr. Eliot in the last paragraph of his "Challenge" and Mr. Paine in the second, third and fifth paragraphs of his letter both raise that question. The Trustees must, of course, maintain its organization to manage the Black House. Whether or not it should extend its activities beyond the Island, is, from my point of view, an open question. I must point out that should the Trustees decide to become active beyond the Island they must be careful that whatever they do the end result must justify the action. By the terms of its charter its holdings are tax exempt and the management of its properties must be such as to offset in recreational, inspirational or other intangible values the loss in dollar value of tax revenue. Otherwise its position becomes untenable and open to attack, political or other. The corporation is charitable in nature. As such I do not believe it can engage in profit making enterprises except to the extent of using its profits to maintain its properties, to acquire other properties for like uses or to distribute excess profits to other charitable works. I do not envision the Trustees as becoming a great money making institution. I point out these things as not to be overlooked in any expansion of activity which may be undertaken. The Trustees should, I believe, revive its interest as an acquiring and holding agency for lands destined for ultimate park ownership. Mr. Eliot points out, and I agree, that there are still lands desirable for inclusion in the park. I foresee the time when offers will be made to donate small parcels for the purpose and, when offered, the acceptance should be immediate. To accomplish this there should be an agency, tax exempt, which can accept the donation and hold title until the formalities required for tender to the government have been completed. This was the primary function of the Trustees in its early days and it should be revived. The real obstacle to be overcome is that of funds to pay for the legal work to prepare the land titles for government acceptance, Donations for that purpose are not easy to come by, and unless the Trustees have reasonable assurance that the funds can be obtained, donations of land should not be accepted. The same reasoning holds true with respect to small parcels of land which are essential or desirable for park ownership but which cannot be acquired by donation. Money must be had with which to purchase, not great sums, probably, but yet it must be had. Here, too, unless the Trustees can raise modest sums for land purchase, it is idle for them to again become active in this field. 10 What I have just said in the foregoing paragraphs has been said because of a conviction that Mr. Rockefeller's purchase program, on an extensive scale at least, has ended. Experiences over the last few years have satisfied me that this is true. Only in infrequent and special cases will he purchase land for donation to the park, and then only because some particular phase or feature of the given situation commands his interest. Because of this and because of absence of authority at law to purchase land with government funds, our only hope of acquiring the relatively small acreage needed to smooth out the park boundaries and to extinguish some inholdings lies with our friends, the Trustees, or others yet to be found. There is one field in which the Trustees, or a subsidiary group from within the body, or an auxiliary group sponsored by them can be really helpful. This group would be called the Acadia Natural History Association. The objectives of such an Association are to foster, promote and bring to public notice the inspirational, educational and scientific aspects and activities of the park through the preparation and sale of pamphlets, brochures, bulletins, etc., on those features. Small profits, enough to finance those activities once they are gotten under way can be realized. If the Trustees should evince interest in this proposal I shall be glad to go into it with them in more detail. The thoughts which I have expressed cover pretty well my point of view on the future relationship of the Trustees to the park and my views on the future activities of the organization. Others may hold similar or differing views. Perhaps what I have said may lead to a general discussion of the matter. The concluding paragraphs of Mr. Paine's letter appeal to me as a prelude to a valedictory which I devoutly hope he won't deliver. Since his association with the Trustees as member and chairman of the Black House Committee, and now as President of the group he has endeared himself to us all. We need his gracious presence as presiding officer and his wise counsel as our chief executive. I believe that the circum- stance of his sojourning for the summer at a little distance from the Island is distinctly in his favor as President. We of the Island live too closely to it and its problems. He can view us, it and them with the calmness of a detached observer and reach his conclusions unbiased by local pressures or points of view. I sincerely hope he has no serious thought of relinquishing the chair, My commentary is closed. It is much longer than I had any idea it would be but there was much ground to cover. I await a call for a committee meeting and the reaction of the other members to what I have presented for consideration. He Neary B. L. Hadley Bar Harbor, Maine February 27, 1951 Joint meeting of the Special Committee of Hancock County Trustees of Public Reservations on Eliot Report and Executive Committee of the Trustees held at the offices of Bar Harbor Banking and Trust Company, 10:30 A.M., June 25, 1951. The Special Committee, after discussion of the various considerations involved in its previous tentative votes, took the following final action: On motion duly made, seconded and carried, it was VOTED to recommend to the Trustees the following policy with respect to their land holdings: That the Trustees take early steps to convey to the United States of America for inclusion in Acadia National Park, all their remaining holdings on Mount Desert Island. The Special Committee by vote further recommended that the Trustees, as their géneral policy, confine future land acquisitions to parcels abutting or within the present Park boundaries or sufficiently near them to be of scenic importance when such acquisition has no substantial commercial or residential value, except that in the event an offer of donation of land is made to the Trustees, if such land meets the requirements of scenic importance and of no substantial commercial or residential value, such a donation may be accepted if accompanied by sufficient funds to guarantee adequate administration and a policing of the land so donated. Mr. Paine, President of the Trustees, was present at the meeting and approved of the votes taken by the Special Committee. A true record, Attest, filmer -th E.R.S. P.O.L. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR In reply refer to: L2219 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Acadia National Park Bar Harbor, Maine September 9, 1954 Mr. Edwin R. Smith, Attorney REC'D Bar Harbor Maine Dear Mr. Smith: This refers to your letter dated June 29 inquiring about possible methods whereby the Hancock County Trustees of Public Reservations might transfer some twenty-three parcels of land to Acadia National Park. You point out that the chains of title are extremely involved and that the considerable amount of required funds are not immediately available. The following excerpts are from a letter from the office of the Solicitor: The memorandum of July 20, 1954, from Acting Regional Director Stratton and the attachments thereto propose that condemnation proceedings in the nature of "a friendly suit to establish title" be instituted against certain properties within Acadia National Park which are held by the Hancock County Trustees of Public Reservations. As outlined in the correspondence, the lands comprising some 23 parcels constitute inholdings which the Trustees are now taking steps to donate for addition to the Park. Apparently, however, the Trustees are not in a position to continue the expenditure of funds to complete necessary title searches and the preparation of abstracts of title. It is under these circumstances that the possibility of the Government condemning the lands to establish title has been suggested. It appears, there- fore, that the objective of the proposal is to relieve the Trustees of the financial burden of obtaining abstracts of title. The institution of condemnation proceedings would not obviate the necessity for procuring title evidence. If the Trustees do not furnish such evidence, the United States would obtain it in order to name in the condemnation proceedings the proper parties thereto. If, as it appears, the objective of the proposal is to relieve the Trustees of the financial burden of obtaining abstracts of title, such an objective may be achieved pursuant to the act of June 28, 1941 (55 Stat. 303, 350; 16 U.S.C., 1952 ed., sec. 14c), which provides as follows: "Hereafter appropriations made for the National Park Service shall be available for any expenses incident to the preparation and recording of title evidence covering lands to be donated to the United States for administration by the National Park Service." The following is quoted from a letter from the Regional Director to this office: What it amounts to is that if you can finance the purchase of the necessary abstracts of title out of the appropriated funds allotted for the administration of Acadia National Park, -we legally can pur chase such abstracts since we are authorized to accept donations of land for addition to the Park and are further authorized to use appropriated funds for the preparation and recording of title evidence covering such donations. If , as Mr. Smith " mentioned in his letter to you of June 29, a very considerable expense will be involved" in completing what has been started, it may very well be that the matter will have to be dropped for the time being at least, but possibly you will want to get some more accurate figure before coming to that conclusion. I am sor ry to say that we are not in a position to furnish any additional administrative funds at this time, and funds appropriated for land acquisition cannot be used for this purpose. However, if the whole thing cannot be done, it might be found possible to carry through a few of the items. In view of the above it appears that the National Park Service is not presently in a position to render any financial assistance or to suggest a method which would solve the problems which have been encountered by the Abstracter. Your continued interest in the devel opment of Acadia National Park is appreciated. Sincerely yours, from R. rivers Frank R. Givens Superintendent c.Eliot.2 Notes on ACADIA NATIONAL PARK The Working Draft - MASTER PLAN PROPOSAL - May 1971 By Charles W. Eliot July 1971 I have read the Master Plan Proposal with great interest and some care; and have made numerous Notes, so for corrections, additions, and rearrangement of the text. I do not know whether the format and general order of subjects is "standardized" for all Master Plans for National Parks, but the genera? organization of this Acadia Report strikes me as good, - easy to read and holding attention even with the necessary repetition of some essential points. The effort to "summarize" in the first 13 pages has the diffi- culties of all such efforts with distortion of emphasis, dangers of misinterpretation and omissions. In the eleven pages on Characteristics and Factors, the brevity is particularly unfortunate, for here, it seems to me, the reader should find a full statement of the reasons for the Park's existence and of the values the Plan is drawn to protect. In general I am concerned about the handling of three aspects of the Master Plan which I would hope might have further consideration by the "Team" responsible for this Report. They are discussed in the following sections. The detailed suggestions for revisions are reviewed on a page by page basis in a later section of these Notes. 1. Purposes of the Master Plan Josh The emphasis on page 1 - and throughout the Report - is on Uses. That is doubtless a major problem, but the purposes of all our National Parks are to protect and preserve natural "wonders" and to "use" the areas for will the public enjoyment only to the extent that such use does not endanger those wonders. In the whole report, use appears to take precedence over preservation. You discuss "Capacity for Use" (p. 45) and state a goal of management as "maintenance of the quality of the park's natural resources in the face of continuing use." (underlining added) Should it not be the other way round? - that only those uses and amounts of use should be allowed which will not endanger the natural resources? If the Park Service is to be true to the oft-stated objectives, it must have the "guts" to say "No 2 admittance" or "Stay on Paths" or "Picking Flowers or Collecting Shells will be prosecuted"! (Something in that direction seems to be indicated by the Kenny article in the Boston Sunday Globe of July 4th.) On page 49 you say that "management is obliged to provide for intense use and appropriate recreation on the east side of Mt. Desert Island." Poppycock! The obligation of the Park Service is clearly stated in the original Park Service Act and I suggest the Team members get it out and read it. Then you might revise that statement on p. 49 to point out the pressure on Park officers to overlook misuse, and the special problems of the Ocean Drive. Are there not equally difficult problems of over-use or misuse on Cadillac Mountain, at Sieur de Monts Spring and other points? All the discussion of "over-use" is difficult to appraise because nowhere in the Report is there a clear statement of the "natural resources" which are threatened by over-uss. How do you measure the values of Anemone Cave or of Sand Beach in terms of natural "wonders" and kinds of human use? 2. Identification and Analysis of Significant Features If, as I would insist, the protection and preservation of the natural "wonders" of Acadia National Park is the primary objective of & Master Plan, it is absolutely essential to identify and analyze the location, extent, and significance of each *feature" of the park. Every "Master Plan" for a City, Town, Region, Park or other area, for which I have been responsible, - either as Planner. Landscape Architect or Professor (in a class project) has begun with a Survey of existing conditions and appraisal of values to be protected, enhanced, or sacrificed. For the Plan - "The Future of Mt. Desert Island" in 1928 a series of committees identified the significant geologic, botanic, and other "natural science" features on the Island, and I wish there could have been more on the scenic or "landscape" qualities, historic sites, etc. If you don't know where these features are, how are you going to include them in the "Boundary" or protect them by scenic easements, etc.? On page 41, the Report says that "the natural qualities, in fact, provide a principal criteria for an acquisition proposal"; and cites as examples, "bird rookeries, eagle and osprey nesting areas, seal ledges, forest cover, beaches, sea cliffs, coves." Good! But go on with the "qualities" - a much longer list. Maybe they are in the Appendix? I would start the list with the "bold" features and go on to more detailed and refined "qualities." First is the unique existence of the Mountains on the immediate Coast - highest headland and highest mountain on the east coast of the U.S. And it is mountains - plural - as you describe them on p. 2, - "glacier scoured" - to make the desert mountains and "lake-filled glaciated valleys". Second is the "drowned coast" which accounts for the only fjord (Somes Sound) on the east coast and the "archipelago" of scattered islands. With that basic Geology established you might go on with smaller geologic features or again stress the bolder aspects of the Botany, Ornithology or other Scientific features. 3 There is a wealth of data to start with in the Sieur de Monts Publications, Wild Gardens of Acadia Series, and in my 1928 Report. You have made a good start, pp. 20-21. Of course more is always needed, - particularly with changes such as the Bar Harbor Fire. Much more is needed, I think, on the "scenic" and landscape qualities of different areas:- the panoramic views, the enframed vistas, the view down the Sound from the proposed Gateway, abandoned pasture land, what I call "berry ledges" - (burned periodically by the Indians for berries), the Tarn on the Otter Creek - Bar Harbor Road, Fresh Meadow, the mountain ponds - "The Bowl* and Frog Pond in the saddle between Sargent and Jordan (Penobscot). Should there not also be a better description of the varieties of "woodlands" than your repeated phrase - "northern forest"? How about the man-made qualities of the landscape? - The golf fairways, the foreground fields in the view of Jordan Pond to the Bubbles, or up Long Pond from Rt. 3 at the Shingle, Sieur de Monts Spring, etc. You rightly stress the fishing villages and their "activities." I assume you will expand the Historic Resources section on pages 21-22. On page 8 you say that the "historical values were cited first in Pres. Wilson's proclamation. If history is 80 important it should not be relegated to an Appendix. The outline on p. 22 is so sketchy that it may not be fair to point out errors or omissions. May I see the draft Appendix? Meanwhile, I assume you have my father's History of Mt. Desert Island - credited to Dr. Street. The second edition brings the story down to 19 And you should have his history of the Hancock County Trustees. (I know Binneweis has.) Note that the first permanent settler - Somes - was a farmer, not a fisherman. A major historic resource is, in my opinion, the village of Somesville. Item 4 is most in need of detail and expansion - e.g. - the joint efforts of permanent and summer residents through Village Improvement Societies and Hancock County Trustees. I don't like "public will preserve established." Sounds as though it was "putlic" - i.e. governmental action instead of an extraordinary example of citizen, voluntary effort and equally extraordinary generosity - with all of the area turned over to the Federal Government in 1916 acquired by gifts - not by a few but by & great many. Once the natural science and historic values have been identified and located - not only within the Park, but in other areas which, perhaps, should be added to the Park or be subject to Easements;- the next section of the report on the Master Plan, should deal with the policies applicable to each of the areas 80 identified and located. This seems to me to be the most important section of the whole Master Plan Report. You now touch on it in the discussion of the Protective Zone" on p. 50-51 and on the Land Classification Maps. What do you think the Park Management should do about preserving views? Pretty soon the mountains will be so grown over that the distant views will be blocked and they will no longer be desert mountains? Should the Park Service reinstate the Indian practice of periodic burning? cut out selected views? sell timber cutting rights? or "Let 'en grow? Should rare plant areas be publicized or kept secret, fenced, or provided with special police 4 or ranger protection? Should nesting areas be off-limits? How control the deer population? What kinds of restrictions or easements will preserve the historic qualities of Somesville? Those are just sample questions among many. 3. The Boundary The discussion of the "Boundary Proposal", Cooperative Conservation", "Justification", and "Legislative Requirements" includes several points which deserve special comment. I have previously written to you and to Superintendent Good at such great length about the many questions involved in the Boundary Proposal that I will try to make these notes short - E. Why is a Boundary necessary or desirable? You recommend "an ultimate and administratively workable park boundary" but the only arguments in favor are offered indirectly, - 1) because the present legis- lation "has caused problems to the growing communities on Mt. Desert Island" and b) by implication the job of the Park officials would be easier. Neither of those arguments is valid - as I have said many times before. If the present authority is so bad, why do you want to retain it for "donated conservation easements"? p. 37. The only justification for defining & boundary that I can envisage would be to indicate the whole areas of topographic units or whole areas identified for their scenic, scientific, historic or cultural signifi- cance, - as a directive for major efforts to secure their acquisition - in fee or under easements. In other statements by John Good, it is indicated that there is some doubt in the minds of Park Service officials that Congress could or would appropriate funds for land acquisition without a Boundary being written into law. So far as I know, they have never asked for an appropriation under the present legislation. If a Boundary is really necessary to get acquisition funds and powers to condemn, then, as I have urged before, be sure to set the line to include all the desired area and not rely on the towns, the State or Private Trusts to do the Park's job. b. I repeat my opposition to Exchange authority as a "violation of trust if lands accepted as gifts are regarded as "surplus", and without a showing in each case that the area does not contain "park qualities." The areas previously "proposed for deletion" are isolated or projections from the main body of the Park on Mt. Desert Island. It has been argued that they are inconvenient to administer, - but now you propose the acquisition of a large number of isolated parcels - much more difficult to reach because they are "Islands." c. The "compensation" to towns for removal of properties from tax rolls is most welcome and most surprising - for every time I've suggested it I've been told it was absolutely against National Park Policy. Why limit it to "Island Towns"? From my point of view the authority should probably be contingent on consolidation of local governments - one Town 5 covering Mt. Desert and Cranberry Isles, one Town for Swans and Long Island Plantation, etc., so as to eliminate the silly duplication of government costs for facilities, equipment and overhead. I still think the Park Service should take jurisdiction and responsibility for at least the main roads used by "visitors" to the Park on Mt. Desert Island - and hope you will consider that proposal. Also - on the subject of Cooperative Conservation, I would urge authority for the Park Service to enter into agreements with Towns, State or Trusts for single management, - ranger service, fire protection, etc., of properties held by those agencies which adjoin the National Park. Page by Page Notes Page 1. a. Identify and Analyze those unique natural and other resources, and their significance -- not for the visitors today but for posterity. b. Relationship among the Park, the Towns, the State and other forces in the region. C. Resource conservation for each significant natural feature or resource - Page 2. Not just scenery but a special kind of scenery, and "history" - according to page 8 - consistency? Park Service will strive to preserve and help people to enjoy its wonders without destroying or damaging them. Page 30 Legislative "Inadequacies"? Cf. P. 43 and above. The "Summer Colony" acted with the permanent residents to prevent rebuilding the Green Mountain Hotel, to prevent lumbering, to protect water supplies, etc., by securing gifts. The national park came about largely because local interests tried to repeal the tax exemption of lands held by the Hancock County Trustees. Now the same local interests are trying to prevent the extension of the Park and asking for exchanges to put back on the tax rolls properties of equal value with those added to the Park. Page 5. "Ultimate" - why - ? see above. Under Historic - Cultural - why not add "through zoning, historic districts, easements and restrictions" Under Land Classification - not "Zoning" which means legal restriction - how about "Identify the significant natural qualities to insure their inclusion in the Park for protection and appropri- ate resource use"? Under Traffic Circulation insert after "study" and Construction and maintenance of principal roads" is recommended. Page 6. Control Snowmobiles. Why no mention of foot trails? "Recreation" requires Centers for accommodations, activities and services to visitors. Sylvies Your file Hade August 25, 1972 Mr. Charles W. Eliot, 2nd Argilla Road Ipswich, Mass. 01938 Dear Mr. Eliot: This is in reply to your letter dated August 1, 1972, addressed to Mrs. Sylvia Whitcomb, Secretary of the Hancock County Trustees of Public Reservations. You probably have heard from the Rev. Mr. McGiffert of the action taken at the Annual Meeting on August 8th, - that is that your proposed "Resolution" was discussed and referred to the Executive Committee for study and disposition. The Executive Committee met on August 21, - your "Resolution" was studied, as was of brief dated November 1, 1969 prepared by Douglas Chapman, a member of the law firm of Fenton, Griffin and Chapman of Bar Harbor. This brief, a copy of which could be obtained by application to the headquarters of the Acadia National Park, cited a number of cases similar to the situation you bring up. In each case the decision was favorable to the side endeavoring to make a constructive approach to property and land disposition. It seems indisputably well and soundly established that circumstances alter with the passage of time in many cases and that these circumstances can be and should be met intelligently and constructively. In this particular cass, the members of the Executive Committee fully understand, agree with, and commend the efforts of the National Park officials in their endervor to make at better and finer Acadia National Park for the benefit of all citizens. Further, the members of the Executive Committee unanimously agree that there is no "violation of trust." The Executive Committee therefore adheres to its action taken on September 16, 1969. The record of that meeting indicates that you were to be informed by letter of the action taken and the reasons therefor. I assure you that it is a matter of sincere regret that we are not in agreement with you in this instance. Copies to the Rev. Mr. McGiffert Very truly yours, and Acadia National Park Hq. Haskell Cleaves President of the Boar of Trustees. COMILETS HOTEL Sept. FEB 1 3,1970 Admin. Officer H 2-1) Ch.12RM Mzint. Spec. inter. $pec. Mgr. E. Dist. Mgr. w. Dist. 12405-MRL Gen. For. E. 6cm For. W. Park Ranger FEB'10 Mechanic Memorandum to: Direstor Attentions V. I Park Operation From: Asking Regional Director, Northeast Region Subject: Request for hearing on proposed land exchange - Acadia Assistant Director Hummel in his memorandum of January 15, 1970 requested verification of information provided by Mr. Charles W. Eliot on the extent and nature of his, or his family's involvement in land matters at Acadia, or in other park-related studies or problems of that area. As s result of tate request, Staff Park Ranger Bruce was detailed to Acadia to work with Superintendent Good and Chief Ranger Binnewies in assembling the desired information. A thorough search of all available sources of information on the involvement of the Kliot family in matters relating to Acadia was made and has been documented in the enclosed report. From this investigation, we have determined that: 1 Mr. Charles W. Eliot, his father Rev. Samuel A. Eliot, and grandfather Dr. Chearbees w Eliot were all members of the Haneock County Trustees of Public Reservations. Dr. Charles Eliot served as president of the organisation from its inception until his death in 1926. Ray. Sexual A. Kliot wrote a history of the HCTPR in 1939. Mr. Charles W. Kliot was author of a plan "The Future of Mount Desert Island" in 1928. 2. There is no record of any of the Eliot family having a pecuniary interest in lands included within the bounds of Acadia National Park. 2 3 Mr. Charles W. Eliot had little or no contact with park officials after completing his plan for "The Future of Mount Desert Island" until he learned of the current land exchange proposal. 4. As administrator for his grandmother's estate, Charles f. Eliot sold lot #36 to the Old Colony Trust. The north boundary of lot #36 abuta the Old Colony Trust on the north and about 100 feet of the Acadia National Park boundary in the Mitchell Hill area on the northeast. (See copy of the enclosed Mount Desert tex map.) This is the tract referred to by Mr. Kliot as the Asticou Terraces Trust. All expenses related to the operation of these trusts are paid by the Old Colony Trust, of which Mr. Miot is neither an officer or trustee. 5 The Hancock County Trustees of Public Reservations has exchanged land numerous times during its existence for the purpose of developing the park. Therefore, there is not a "breach of trust" in the park land exchange proposal. George A. Palmer Enclosures Trip report of Staff Park Ranger Bruce C History of HOTPR a Trail map showing location Eliot Estate and Asticou Gardens Brief by attorney for HCIPR on Breach of Trust CI HCTPR map showing location of Lot #16 I Portion of tax map for Mount Desert aboving Lot #66 and Eliot Estate In w cc: Supt., Acadia, w/sawo encs. co hi Mr sul It tic Mai now C.2: HCTPR Notes on ACADIA NATIONAL PARK The Working Draft - MASTER PLAN PROPOSAL - May 1971 By Charles W. Eliot July 1971 I have read the Master Plan Proposal with great interest and some care; and have made numerous Notes, - for corrections, additions, and rearrangement of the text. I do not know whether the format and general order of subjects is "standardized" for all Kaster Plans for National Parks, but the genera? organization of this Acadia Report strikes me as good, - easy to read and holding attention even with the necessary repetition of some essential points. The effort to "summarize" in the first 13 pages has the diffi- culties of all such efforts with distortion of emphasis, dangers of misinterpretation and omissions. In the eleven pages on Characteristics and Factors, the brevity is particularly unfortunate, for here, it seems to me, the reader should find a full statement of the reasons for the Park's existence and of the values the Plan is drawn to protect. In general I am concerned about the handling of three aspects of the Master Plan which I would hope might have further consideration by the "Team" responsible for this Report. They are discussed in the following sections. The detailed suggestions for revisions are reviewed on a page by page basis in a later section of these Notes. 1. Purposes of the Master Plan Just The emphasis on page 1 - and throughout the Report - is on Uses. That in is doubtless a major problem, but the purposes of all our National Parks are to protect and preserve natural "wonders" and to "use" the areas for the public enjoyment only to the extent that such use does not endanger those wonders. In the whole report, use appears to take precedence over E preservation. You discuss "Capacity for Use" (p. 45) and state a goal of management as "maintenance of the quality of the park's natural resources in the face of continuing use." (underlining added) Should it not be the other way round? - that only those uses and amounts of use should be allowed which will not endanger the natural resources? If the Park Service is to be true to the oft-stated objectives, it must have the "guts" to say "No admittance" or "Stay on Paths" or "Picking Flowers or Collecting Shells will be prosecuted"! (Something in that direction seems to be indicated by the Kenny article in the Boston Sunday Globe of July 4th.) On page 49 you say that "management is obliged to provide for intense use and appropriate recreation on the east side of Mt. Desert Island." Poppycock! The obligation of the Park Service is clearly stated in the original Park Service Act and I suggest the Team members get it out and read it. Then you might revise that statement on p. 49 to point out the pressure on Park officers to overlook misuse, and the special problems of the Ocean Drive. Are there not equally difficult problems of over-use or misuse on Cadillac Mountain, at Sieur de Monts Spring and other points? All the discussion of "over-use" is difficult to appraise because nowhere in the Report is there a clear statement of the "natural resources which are threatened by over-use. How do you measure the values of Anemone Cave or of Sand Beach in terms of natural "wonders" and kinds of human use? 2. Identification and Analysis of Significant Features If, as I would insist, the protection and preservation of the natural "wonders" of Acadia National Park is the primary objective of & Master Plan, it is absolutely essential to identify and analyze the location, extent, and significance of each *feature" of the park. Every "Master Plan" for a City, Town, Region, Park or other area, for which I have been responsible, either as Planner. Landscape Architect or Professor (in & class project) has begun with a Survey of existing conditions and appraisal of values to be protected, enhanced, or sacrificed. For the Plan - "The Future of Mt. Desert Island" in 1928 a series of committees identified the significant geologic, botanic, and other "natural science" features on the Island, and I wish there could have been more on the scenic or "landscape" qualities, historic sites, etc. If you don't know where these features are, how are you going to include them in the "Boundary" or protect them by scenic easements, etc.? On page 41, the Report says that "the natural qualities, in fact, provide a principal criteria for an acquisition proposal"; and cites as examples, "bird rookeries, eagle and osprey nesting areas, seal ledges, forest cover, beaches, ses cliffs, coves." Good! But go on with the "qualities" - a much longer list. Maybe they are in the Appendix? I would start the list with the "bold" features and go on to more detailed and refined "qualities." First is the unique existence of the Mountains on the immediate Coast - highest headland and highest mountain on the east coast of the U.S. And it is mountains - plural - as you describe them on p. 2, - "glacier scoured" - to make the desert mountains and "lake-filled glaciated valleys". Second is the *drowned coast" which accounts for the only fjord (Somes Sound) on the east coast and the "archipelago" of scattered islands. With that basic Geology established you might go on with smaller geologic features or again stress the bolder aspects of the Botany, Ornithology or other Scientific features. 3 There is a wealth of data to start with in the Sieur de Monts Publications, Wild Gardens of Acadia Series, and in my 1928 Report. You have made a good start, pp. 20-21. Of course more is always needed, - particularly with changes such as the Bar Harbor Fire. Much more is needed, I think, on the "scenic" and landscape qualities of different areas:- the panoramic views, the enframed vistas, the view down the Sound from the proposed Gateway, abandoned pasture land, what I call "berry ledges" - (burned periodically by the Indians for berries), the Tarn on the Otter Creek - Bar Harbor Road, Fresh Meadow, the mountain ponds - "The Bowl* and Frog Pond in the saddle between Sargent and Jordan (Penobscot). Should there not also be a better description of the varieties of "woodlands" than your repeated phrase - "northern forest"? How about the man-made qualities of the landscape? - The golf fairways, the foreground fields in the view of Jordan Pond to the Bubbles, or up Long Pond from Rt. 3 at the Shingle, Sieur de Monts Spring, etc. You rightly stress the fishing villages and their "activities." I assume you will expand the Historic Resources section on pages 21-22. On page 6 you say that the "historical values were cited first in Pres. Wilson's proclamation. If history is 80 important it should not be relegated to an Appendix. The outline on p. 22 is so sketchy that it may not be fair to point out errors or omissions. May I see the draft Appendix? Meanwhile, I assume you have my father's History of Mt. Desert Island - credited to Dr. Street. The second edition brings the story down to 19 And you should have his history of the Hancock County Trustees. (I know Binneweis has. Note that the first permanent settler - Somes - was a farmer, not a fisherman. A major historic resource is, in my opinion, the village of Somesville. Item 4 is most in need of detail and expansion - e.g. - the joint efforts of permanent and summer residents through Village Improvement Societies and Hancock County Trustees. I don't like "public preserve established." Sounds as though it was "public" - i.e. governmental action instead of an extraordinary example of citizen, voluntary effort and equally extraordinary generosity - with all of the area turned over to the Federal Government in 1916 acquired by gifts - not by a few but by a great many. Once the natural science and historic values have been identified and located - not only within the Park, but in other areas which, perhaps, should be added to the Park or be subject to Easements;- the next section of the report on the Master Plan, should deal with the policies applicable to each of the areas 80 identified and located. This seems to me to be the most important section of the whole Master Plan Report. You now touch on it in the discussion of the Protective Zone" on P. 50-51 and on the Land Classification Maps. What do you think the Park Management should do about preserving views? Pretty soon the mountains will be so grown over that the distant views will be blocked and they will no longer be desert mountains? Should the Park Service reinstate the Indian practice of periodic burning? cut out selected views? sell timber cutting rights? or "Let 'en grow? Should rare plant areas be publicized or kept secret, fenced, or provided with special police of 5pp. is or ranger protection? Should nesting areas be off-limits? How control the deer population? What kinds of restrictions or easements will preserve the historic qualities of Samesville? Those are just sample questions among many. 3. The Boundary The discussion of the "Boundary Proposal", Cooperative Conservation", "Justification", and "Legislative Requirements" includes several points which deserve special cement. I have previously written to you and to Superintendent Good at such great length about the many questions involved in the Boundary Proposal that I will try to `make these notes short - 8. Why is a Boundary necessary or desirable? You recommend "an ultimate and administratively workable park boundary" but the only arguments in favor are offered indirectly, - 1) because the present legis- lation "has caused problems to the growing communities on Mt. Desert Island" and b) by implication the job of the Park officials would be easier. Neither of those arguments is valid - as I have said many times before. If the present authority is 80 bad, why do you want to retain it for "donated conservation easements"? p. 37. The only justification for defining a boundary that I can envisage would be to indicate the whole areas of topographic units or whole areas identified for their scenic, scientific, historic or cultural signifi- cance, - as a directive for major efforts to secure their acquisition - in fee or under easements. In other statements by John Good, it is indicated that there is some doubt in the minds of Park Service officials that Congress could or would appropriate funds for land acquisition without a Boundary being written into law. So far as I know, they have never asked for an appropriation under the present legislation. If a Boundary is really necessary to get acquisition funds and powers to condemn, then, as I have urged before, be sure to set the line to include all the desired area and not rely on the towns, the State or Private Trusts to do the Park's job. b. I repeat my opposition to Exchange authority as a "violation of trust" if lands accepted as gifts' regarded as "surplus", and without a showing 'in each case that the area does not contain "park qualities." The areas previously "proposed for deletion" are isolated or projections from the main body of the Park on Mt. Desert Island. It has been argued that they are inconvenient to administer, - but now you propose the acquisition of a large number of isolated parcels - much more difficult to reach because they are "Islands." c. The "compensation" to towns for removal of properties from tax rolls is most welcome and most surprising - for every time I've suggested it I've been told it was absolutely against National Park Policy. Why limit it to "Island Towns"? From my point of view the authority should probably be contingent on consolidation of local governments - one Town 5 covering Ht. Desert and Cranberry Isles, ORD Town for Swans and Long Island Plantation, etc., as to eliminate the silly duplication of government costs for facilities, equipment and overhead. I still think the Park Service should take jurisdiction and responsibility for at least the main roads used by "visitors" to the Park on Mt. Desert Island - and hope you will consider that proposal. Also - on the subject of Cooperative Conservation, I would urge authority for the Park Service to enter into agreements with Towns, State or Trusts for single management, - ranger service, fire protection, etc., of properties held by those agencies which adjoin the National Park. Page by Page Notes Page 1. a. Identify and Analyze those unique natural and other resources, and their significance - not for the visitors of today but for posterity. b. Relationship among the Park, the Towns, the State and other forces in the region. C. Resource conservation for each significant natural feature or resource - Page 2. Not just seenery but a special kind of scenery, and "history" - according to page 8 - consistency? Park Service will strive to preserve and help people to enjoy its wonders without destroying or danaging them. Page 3. Legislative "Inadoquacies"? Cf. P. 43 and above. The "Summer Colony" acted with the permanent residents to prevent rebuilding the Green Mountain Hotel, to prevent lumbering, to protect water supplies, etc., by securing gifts. The national park cane about largely because local interests tried to repeal the tax exemption of lands held by the Hancock County Trustees. Now the same local interests are trying to prevent the extension of the Park and asking for exchanges to put back on the tax rolls properties of equal value with those added to the Park. Page 5. "Ultimate" - why - ? see above. Under Historic - Cultural - wky not add "through soning, historic districts, easenents, and restrictions Under Land Classifisation . not "Zoning" which means legal restriction - how about "Identify the significant natural qualities to insure their inclusion in the Park for protection and appropri- ate resource use"? Under Traffic Circulation insert after "study" and Construction and maintenance of principal reeds is recommended. Page 6. Control Snownobiles. Why no mention of foot trails? "Recreation" requires Centers for accommodations, activities and services to visitors. CHARLES W. ELIOT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PLANNING CONSULTANT 25 RESERVOIR STREET CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02138 TELEPHONE: KIRKLAND 7-3714 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GARDENS AND ESTATES CITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING PARKS AND RECREATION AREAS December 28, 1971 Mr. Glen O. Hendrix, Director Denver Service Center National Park Service 7200 W. Alameda Denver, Colorado 80226 Dear Mr. Hendrix: As a former Federal Bureaucrat (for eighteen years), I sympathize with you in your ad justment to re-organization and starting on a new job. On the other hand, I recognize a "snow job' when I see one. Your letter of 22 December does not answer any of the questions asked in my letter to Mr. Gustavson, and indicates that neither you nor he has had the time or occasion to inform yourselves on the events, actions - or inactions - and procedures involved in the preparation of the Master Plan for Acadia National Park. Your "understanding" of "the Acadia situation", as indicated in your letter, is simply incorrect. I was not "invited to meet with the master plan team. 11 The team was instructed by the Philadelphia Regional Office to come to my house to consult me, - which they did on May 24th. How you may have thought that I would want to be a "formal member" of the Master Plan Team, I just cannot imagine. The possi- bility never occurred to me. What I do want and shall continue to ask - (if I have to go "over" no matter how many heads) is the courtesy of acknowledgment and responses to the letters, memoranda, maps and recommendations which I have contributed. Will you please instruct Mr. Gustavson to answer my letter and my questions? As indicated above, you are not dealing with an "individual representing the public arena", but with a former government official who has worked with (and claimed as friends,) Park Service Directors Steve Mather, Horace Albright, Arno Cammerer, Connie Wirth, etc., on National Park Problems and Policies since 1926, - with special reports on the National Capital, 2 St. Augustine, Rocky Mountain, Grand Canyon and Acadia National Parks. If you will review the "previous corre- spondence" on Acadia, I believe you will be convinced, not only that, on the history and future of Acadia National Park, I know what I'm talking about, but also "that I will be heard." Let's work out problems and differences on the Master Plan for Acadia before instead of after Public release of the Plan and Report! Sincerely, Charles W. Eliot cc. George A. Palmer - Reg. Dir. Asst. Dir., Ed Hummel, NPS Supt. Kieth Miller, Acadia Team Members Gustavson, Binneweis and Bruce this Easents. t Restrictius CHARLES W. ELIOT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PLANNING CONSULTANT 25 RESERVOIR STREET CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02138 TELEPHONE: KIRKLAND 7-3714 GARDENS AND ESTATES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING PARKS AND RECREATION AREAS STATEMENT HEARING on Proposed MASTER PLAN for ACADIA NATIONAL PARK BOSTON, MASS. SepT 28,1976 My "qualifications" as an "expert witness" on these matters rest on: Professional training and experience as a Landscape Architect and Planning Consultant including: Master in Landscape Architecture 1923 Harvard; Fellow - American Society of Landscape Architects and American Academy of Arts and Sciences; Member and Recipient of Honorary Award of American Institute of Planners; Former member Board of Directors - National Parks Association; Consultant for National Park Service on Boundaries of Rocky Mountain National Park, and Desert View in Grand Canyon National Park; and Numerous other commissions by other public and private agencies relating to the extent, uses and design of Open Spaces. Life-long (76 years) Associations with and intimate knowledge of the Island of Mt. Desert - representing the third generation in concern and activity for the preservation of the "unique" qualities of the area. Author of Report on "The Future of Mt. Desert Island" for the Bar Harbor Improvement Society 1928, up-dated in 1950 in "Challenge" the Hancotc County Trustees of Public Reservat. oss conferences with Superintendents Hadley and Givens 1951-56; and with Mr. John D. Rockefeller, Jr. and Charles Savage for settlement of my grandfather's Boundary Proposal of 1961; collatoration with Flamming Report Estate in 1956; in 1960.64 inconnection with the abouted Bar Hacher w 1960-61 and alice 1967 acontinuous effort Pawrite conservation and citizens To sock out the all the parties concerned Fedual State, County Local officials; drafts of Master Plans and Environ mental Statements. waves involved in the "Boundary Professals and successive Charlow Cain Charles W. Eliot STATEMENT 1976 Draft Master Plan for Acadia national Park by Charles W. Eliot at Booton Hearing Sept28,1976 Because 1 have reviewed the Draft Master Plan, Environmental statement, Summary and Position Papers in numerous lengthy memoranda and notes, as well as m correspondence and meetings with Superntendent Miller and Charles Clapper of the National Park Service, I will confine my oral statement for This heaving to a few selected major issues, and request that these copies of the memoranda and correspondence to which \ just retired he incorporated as part of my testimony in the record of this he aring. These papers are in Two groups -Concerning the 1976 Reports, and B. Concerning the previous "Boundary Proposals, Proposed Exchange and Violation of Trust, and Studies and Drafts for a Master Plan 1969-1975, and listed in an appendex thereorth This second group of papers on Previous Proposals is synici cant to the present discussion of the 1976 Draft master Plan in that These papers deal with the same issues and print out the madequacies, uncompleteness, maccuracies and unconsistencies incrose earlier Plans and Reports which, unfortunately are largely repeated in The reports under reverw this evening. many of These re pested errors and deficiences in the 1976 master Plan are discussed in the group A. papers. The Major saves which require discussion and emphases are 1) national Interests vs Local \ interests, 2) Violation of Trust. 3) a Fee Perimeter To Limit the Parte, 4) a Reduced Legislature Boundary and 5) a completely re-studied and rewritten Master Plan National vs Local Interests put it frunty, this is not a Plan for Readia National Park. it so a Plan Against the National interest n favor of strictly Local concerns. The National interest. requires the inclusion within the Park Coastal areas, Islands, and Scientilic Features NOT deletion of of whole natural Units of MounTains, Valleys and Brooks, significant parts of those units for the convenience of Park administrators or for the mountenance of local tax rolls. acadia national Park was established To preserve the natural wonders of the area for future generations -and the national Park Service is supposedly committed to that objective But all through these 1976 Master Plan Reports, this Natural Interest an d Purpose is subordinated To the concern of four small Towns on mr. Desert Island for their Tax Base. Since my family so one of the tax payers in one of those Towns, 1, ,Too, am concerned about the rel atimehip of the Park and the Federal government To the Tax nates and costs of services of the Local governments. The Tax Base so only one of many factors involved but no where in This 1976 Master Plan vo there any considuation or even mention 7 any steps or procedures, - other than maintenance of the Tax Base which might preserve and help the Towns in Their Traditional role as the tasic governmental unit in new England. Oreal plan for Acadia should must include conald- eration of 1) pay mento-in leen ofTakes by the federal government (as m the till which has already passed the House and openduse in the Senate); 2) Park assumption of costs of mainTaining improving ploughing etc of all roads on which the Park abits or which are used primarily by Park visitors 3) sharing uncosts or plairsion of utilities and services which involve both the Park and the Towns; and 4) Possible savings and greater efficience by consolidation of the four mt Desert Towns into a single Town- (as was done for the Regional High School). Vioration of Trust This so-called Master Plan is also AGAINST the national Interest units advocacy of Deletions from the Park of properties given to the Hancoch County Trustees 9 Puture Passivations and for to the national Park IN TRUST for the stated purposes of those organis ations. 1 am aware that in 1972 the Solicitor of the N.P.S. Regional office and lawyers for the Rockefellers gave it as their openion that the Terms used in the deeds covering the Mitchell All property presented no legal distacle To the deletion of that tract I am the Park. I do not question the ablity of either the N.P.S or the Rockefellers to command the services of qualified lawyers, hut I suggest that these operious should he read un the light of the questions put to those lawyers by clients seeking justif- ication for proposed actions To which they were already committed Whether or not the Terms of the original set do of the Mitchell Hill or How Tract were stated as a finding Trust, subsequent actions in 1916 and 1929 by the Trustees and by the Coneress fully confirmed the lach that the Donors, the Trustees and the confress acted un the relief that those lands were held inTrust in perpeturly. Violation of Trust involves far more than legal language. Morals and ethical standards must prevail The honorand integrity of the national Park Service areat stake. Restructions $ homer Easents Until the Park Service makes and presents a full study of the areas and & atures with national significance within the present Legislative Boundary of the Park t is irresponsible - or worse- for the N.P.S. To propose delation of the mainland of Hancoch County from the Park, and to make no plans for lale au Haut, Deer lala and other islands of the Quclipelago. In Summary This 1976 Draft Master Plan, like the Master Plan Report for Acadia National Park, is inadequate, incomplete, inaccurate, inconsistent, and in violation of the requirements for such planning set forth by the National Park Service. It must be completely re-studied and extensively re-written." NATIONAL PARKS 363 III. NATIONAL PARKS 1. Acadia PUBLIC LAW 99-420-SEPT. 25, 1986 100 STAT. 955 Public Law 99-420 99th Congress An Act To establish a permanent boundary for the Acadia National Park in the State of Sept. 25, 1986 Maine, and for other purposes. [S. 720] Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, TITLE I SEC. 101. BOUNDARIES OF ACADIA NATIONAL PARK. Conservation. Public In order to protect and conserve the land and water resources of information. 16 USC 341 note. Acadia National Park in the State of Maine (hereinafter in this title referred to as "the Park"), and to facilitate the administration of the Park, the boundary depicted on the map entitled "Acadia National Park Boundary Map", numbered 123-80011, and dated May 1986 (hereinafter in this title referred to as 'the map") is hereby established as the permanent boundary for the Park. The map shall be on file and available for public inspection in the offices of the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, and it shall be made available to the Registry of Deeds for Hancock and Knox Counties, Maine. SEC. 102. LANDS WITHIN BOUNDARIES. Gifts and property. (a) The Secretary of the Interior (hereinafter in this title referred 16 USC 341 note. to as "the Secretary") is authorized to acquire lands and interests therein within the boundaries of the Park by donation, exchange (in accordance with this section), or purchase with donated or appropriated funds, except that- (1) any lands or interests therein owned by the State of Maine or any political subdivision thereof may be acquired only by donation or exchange; and (2) privately owned lands or interests therein may be acquired only with the consent of the owner thereof unless the Secretary determines that the property is being developed or proposed to be developed in a manner which is detrimental to the scenic, historical, cultural, and other values for which the Park was established. (b)(1) Not later than 6 months after the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall publish specific guidelines under which determinations shall be made under subsection (a)(2). The Secretary shall provide adequate opportunity for public comment on such guidelines. The guidelines shall provide for notice to the Secretary prior to commencement of any proposed development within the boundaries of the Park. The Secretary shall provide written notice to the owner of the property of any determination proposed to be made under subsection (a)(2) and shall provide the owner a reasonable opportunity to comment on such proposal. (2) For purposes of this section, except as provided in paragraph (3), development or proposed development of private property within 364 NATIONAL PARKS 100 STAT. 956 PUBLIC LAW 99-420-SEPT. 25, 1986 the boundaries of the Park that is significantly from, or a significant expansion of, development existing as of November 1, 1985, shall be considered by the Secretary as detrimental to the values for which the Park was established. (3) Reconstruction or expansion of a private or commercial building shall not be treated as detrimental to the Park or as an incompatible development within the meaning of this section if such reconstruction or expansion is limited to one or more of the following; (A) Reconstruction of an existing building. (B) Construction of attached or accessory structural additions, which do not exceed 25 per centum of the square footage of the principal structure. (C) Construction of reasonable support development such as roads, parking facilities, water and sewage systems, and dock facilities. Real property. (c)(1) The owners of any private property within the Park may, on the date of its acquisition by the Secretary and as a condition of such acquisition, retain for himself and his successors or assigns a right to use and occupancy for a definite term of not more than 25 years, or ending at the death of the owner, or his spouse, whichever is later. The owners shall elect the term to be reserved. The Secretary shall pay to the owner the fair market value of the property on the date of such acquisition, less the fair market value, of the right retained by the owner. (2) Any such right retained pursuant to this subsection shall be subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary may prescribe and may be terminated by the Secretary upon his determination and after reasonable notice to the owner thereof that such property is being used for any purpose which is incompatible with the administration of the Park or with the preservation of the resources therein. Such right shall terminate by operation of law upon notification to the owner by the Secretary and tendering to the owner the amount equal to the fair market value of that portion which remains unexpired. (d)(1) In exercising his authority to acquire lands by exchange pursuant to this title, the Secretary may accept title to non-Federal property located within the boundary of the Park and may convey to the grantor of such property any federally owned property under the jurisdiction of the Secretary which lies outside said boundary and depicted on the map. Properties so exchanged shall be approximately equal in value, as determined by the Secretary, except that the Secretary may accept cash from or pay cash to the grantor in such an exchange in order to equalize the value of the properties exchanged. (2) Federally owned property under jurisdiction of the Secretary referred to in paragraph (1) of this subsection which is not exchanged within 10 years after enactment of this Act, shall be conveyed to the towns in which the property is located without encumbrance and without monetary consideration, except that no town shall be eligible to receive such lands unless, within 10 years after enactment of this Act, lands within the Park boundary and owned by the town have been acquired by the Secretary. (e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, lands depicted on the map referenced in section 101 and identified as 10DBH and 11DBH known as the "Bar Harbor Sewage Treatment Plant"; 14DBH known as the "New Park Street Ballfield"; and NATIONAL PARKS 365 PUBLIC LAW 99-420-SEPT. 25, 1986 100 STAT. 957 15DBH known as the "Former Park Headquarters"; shall be conveyed by the Secretary, without monetary consideration, to the town of Bar Harbor, Maine, within 180 days following the enactment of this Act. The real property conveyed pursuant to this subsection shall be used and retained by the town for municipal and public purposes. Title to the properties conveyed pursuant to this subsection shall revert to the United States if such property or any portion thereof is conveyed by the town to another party or used for purposes other than those specified in this subsection. (f) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, land depicted on the map identified as 4DBH, located in the village of Town Hill, Maine, shall be conveyed by the Secretary without monetary consideration, to the town of Bar Harbor, Maine, as soon as practicable following the enactment of this Act, subject to such terms and conditions, including appropriate reversionary provisions, as will in the judgment of the Secretary provide for the development and use of such property by any town which SO desires as a solid waste transfer station in accordance with a plan that is satisfactory to the town and the Secretary. The Secretary shall (subject to the availability of prior appropriations) contribute toward the cost of constructing such transfer station the lesser of- (1) $350,000, or (2) 50 per centum of the cost of such construction. (g) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the Secretary is authorized to acquire by donation or exchange lands or interests therein in the area identified on the map as "Schooner Head", which is outside the boundary of the park. The Secretary is further authorized to acquire conservation easements on such lands by purchase with donated or appropriated funds if he determines after written notice to the owner and after providing a reasonable opportunity to comment on such notice, that the property is being developed or proposed to be developed in a manner which is significantly different from or a significant expansion of development existing as of November 1, 1985, as defined in subsection (b) of this section. (h)(1) The Secretary is authorized to acquire conservation Conservation. easements by purchase from a willing seller or by donation on parcels of land adjacent to the Park on Schoodic Peninsula, the islands of Hancock County, and the islands of Knox County east and south of the Penobscot Ship Channel, except such islands as lie within the town of Isle au Haut, Knox County. Parcels subject to conservation easement acquired or accepted by the Secretary under this subsection must possess one or more of the following characteristics: (A) important scenic, ecological, historic, archeological, or cultural resources; (B) shorefront property; or (C) largely undeveloped entire islands. (2) Conservation easements acquired pursuant to this subsection shall- (A) protect the respective scenic, ecological, historic, archeological, or cultural resources existing on the parcels; (B) preserve, through setback retirements or other appropriate restrictions, the open, natural, or traditional appearance of the shorefront when viewed from the water or from other public viewpoints; or (C) limit year-round and seasonal residential and commercial development to activities consistent with the preservation of the 366 NATIONAL PARKS 100 STAT. 958 PUBLIC LAW 99-420-SEPT. 25, 1986 islands' natural qualities and to traditional resource-based land use including, but not limited to, fishing, farming, silviculture, and grazing. (3) In determining whether to accept or acquire conservation easements pursuant to this subsection, the Secretary shall consider the following factors: (A) the resource protection benefits that would be provided by the conservation easement; (B) the public benefit that would be provided by the conservation easement; (C) the significance of the easement in relation to the land planning objectives of local government and regional and State agencies; (D) the economic impact of the conservation easement on local livelihoods, activities, and government revenues; and (E) the proximity of the parcel to the boundary of the Park and to other parcels on which the Secretary maintains conservation easements. (4) For purposes of this subsection, the term "conservation easement", means a less-than-fee interest in land or a conservation restriction as defined in section 476 through 479-B inclusive, as amended, of title 33 of the Maine Revised Statutes of 1964, as in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act. (5) No easement may be acquired by the Secretary under this subsection without first consulting with, and providing written notification to, the town in which the land is located and the Acadia National Park Advisory Commission established by section 103 of this title. In providing such notification, the Secretary shall indicate the manner and degree to which the easement meet the criteria provided in this subsection. (i) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the use of condemnation as a means of acquiring a clear and marketable title, free of any and all encumbrances. (j)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the Secretary shall accept an offer of the following from the Jackson Laboratory (a not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of Maine): (A) Lands depicted on the map as 55 A ABH which are held in fee by the Jackson Laboratory. (B) A conservation easement on lands depicted on the map identified as 55 ABH (the developed property known as "Highseas"). The easement shall prohibit subdivision of such land or any further significant development on such lands, except as permitted by the guidelines published under section 102(b)(1). (2) Upon receipt of the lands and easement described in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall transfer to the Jackson Laboratory the lands depicted on the map as 8 DBH and 9 DBH. Any disparity in the fair market value of the lands and easement referred to in paragraph (1) and the lands described in the preceding sentence shall be equalized as provided in section 102(d)(1). (k) For purposes of subsection (a)(2), the construction of one single family residence on Burnt Porcupine Island by the owner of the Island shall not be treated as detrimental to the scenic, historic, cultural, or other values for which the park was established if before such construction commences, the Secretary has reviewed NATIONAL PARKS 367 PUBLIC LAW 99-420-SEPT. 25, 1986 100 STAT. 959 and approved plans for the size, location and architectural design of the structure. SEC. 103. ADVISORY COMMISSION. 16 USC 341 note. (a) There is hereby established an Acadia National Park Advisory Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission"). The Commission shall be composed of 16 members appointed by the Secretary as follows: (1) 3 members at large. (2) 3 members appointed from among individuals recommended by the Governor of Maine. (3) 4 members, appointed from among individuals recommended by each of the four towns on the island of Mount Desert. (4) 3 members appointed from among individuals recommended by each of the three Hancock County mainland communities of Gouldsboro, Winter Harbor, and Trenton. (5) 3 members, appointed from among individuals recommended by each of the three island towns of Cranberry Isles, Swans Island, and Frenchboro. (b) The terms of the Commission member shall be 3 years except that, for initial appointment under each paragraph, one member shall serve for a term of one year, and one member shall serve for a term of 2 years. (c) The Commission shall elect its own chairman and adopt its own bylaws. Any vacancy on the Commission shall be filled in the same manner in which the original appointment was made. (d) Members of the Commission shall serve without compensation as such, except that the Secretary is authorized to pay the expenses reasonably incurred by the Commission in carrying out in responsibilities under this title. (e) The Secretary shall consult with the Commission on matters relating to the management and development of the Park, including but not limited to each of the following: (1) The acquisition of lands and interests in lands (including conservation easements on islands). (2) Termination of rights of use and occupancy. (f) The Commission established under this section shall terminate 20 years after the enactment of this Act. SEC. 104. BEAR ISLAND. 16 USC 341 note. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, Federal property located on Bear Island in the town of Cranberry Isle shall, with the concurrence of the agency having custody thereof, be transferred without consideration to the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary for use by him in carrying out the provisions of the title. Such Federal property shall not be developed by the Secretary in a manner which would provide for or encourage intensive visitor use. (b) The Secretary is authorized to make improvements to the Federal property on Bear Island as he deems appropriate for the protection of adjacent private property. SEC. 105. TOWN OF ISLE AU HAUT. 16 USC 341 note. The provisions of this title shall not apply to those portions of the Park lying within the Town of Isle au Haut, Maine, which lands shall continue to be governed by the provisions of Public Law 97- 16 USC 341 note. 335. 368 NATIONAL PARKS 100 STAT. 960 PUBLIC LAW 99-420-SEPT. 25, 1986 16 USC 341 note. SEC. 106. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. Effective date. (a) Effective October 1, 1986, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this title, but not to exceed $9,100,000 for acquisition of lands and interests therein. (b) For the purposes of paragraph 7(a)(3) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 as amended (16 U.S.C. 4601-9), the statutory ceiling provided in subsection (a) shall be deemed to have been enacted prior to the convening of the Ninety-fifth Congress. 16 USC 341 note. SEC. 107. PAYMENTS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. (a) Notwithstanding the limitation in subsection 3(d) of the Act of 31 USC 6904. October 20, 1976 (90 Stat. 2662) payments in the manner provided in section 3 of that Act shall be made to the appropriate units of local government having jurisdiction over lands with the boundary of the Park. Such payments shall be made only for a period of 12 years. (b) Payments received by the units of local government pursuant to this section shall be used only for fire protection, police protection, solid waste management, and road maintenance and improvement. (c) Payments pursuant to this section may be made only from funds appropriated therefor. Such payment shall be in addition to and not in place of any other funds or form of Federal assistance to which the units of local government are entitled. TITLE II SEC. 201. CAPE COD NATIONAL SEASHORE ADVISORY COMMISSION. 16 USC 459b-7. Section 8(a) of the Act of August 7, 1961 (Public Law 87-126; 75 Stat. 292) is amended by striking out "ten years" and substituting "30 years". Approved September 25, 1986. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY-S. 720: HOUSE REPORTS: No. 99-572 (Comm. on Interior and Insular Affairs). SENATE REPORTS: No. 99-198 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources). CONGRESSIONAL RECORDS: Vol. 131 (1985): Dec. 3, considered and passed Senate. Vol. 132 (1986): May 5, considered and passed House, amended. June 6, Senate concurred in House amendment with amendments. July 24, House concurred in certain Senate amendments, in another with an amendment. Sept. 11, Senate receded from its amendment.