Dolly Copp Campground Rehabilitation Project Environmental

Transcription

White Mountain National Forest
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest Service
Eastern
Region
Dolly Copp
Campground
Rehabilitation Project
Environmental Assessment
Town of Martin’s Location
Coos County, NH
Androscoggin Ranger District
April 2010
For Information Contact: Thomas Moore
White Mountain National Forest
300 Glen Road
Gorham NH 03581
Telephone (603) 466-2713 X226
FAX (603) 466-2856
Cover: Youthful Campers. Back of photo reads “July 1939 — Around campfire at Dolly Copp
camp site on a very, very cold night.”
Historical photos are courtesy of the Forest History Society and of Jon Chew, whose Dolly Copp
web site is listed in the Literature Cited appendix.
Figure 1. Postcard photo of Dolly Copp Campground.
This document is available in large print.
Contact the
Phone 603 466-2713
TTY 603 466-2856
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and
activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs,
sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.)
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202)
720-2600 (voice and TDD).
To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W,
Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202)
720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Printed on Recycled Paper
Dolly Copp Campground Rehabilitation Project — Environmental Assessment
Contents
Chapter 1 — Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action............................... 5
1.1 Introduction.................................................................................................... 5
1.2 Project Location and Background................................................................ 5
1.3 Proposed Action............................................................................................. 6
1.4 Purpose of and Need for Action.................................................................. 7
1.5 Scope of this Environmental Assessment and Public Involvement...... 10
1.6 Decision to be Made..................................................................................... 11
Chapter 2 — Issues and Alternatives Including the Proposed Action.............. 12
2.1 Issue Central to the Decision Being Made................................................ 12
2.2 Alternatives................................................................................................... 13
Chapter 3 — Environmental Consequences......................................................... 17
3.1 Effects on the Physical, Biological, and Social Environments............... 21
Chapter 4 — List of Preparers................................................................................. 26
Appendix A — Literature Cited............................................................................. 27
Appendix B — Response to 30-Day Public Comment Report........................... 31
3
White Mountain National Forest — Androscoggin Ranger District
Vicinity Map
Map 1. (left) Project Area
Vicinity.
Map 2. (below) Dolly Copp
Campground Vicinity.
Berlin
Maine
Gorham
Dolly Copp
Campground
0
4
4.5
Martins
Location
9
18 Miles
Chapter 1 — Purpose of and Need for
the Proposed Action
1.1 Introduction
One of the largest campgrounds in the National Forest System — and one
of the most popular on the White Mountain National Forest — Dolly Copp
Campground has long been a special place for many visitors and Forest Service
staff alike. The campground has been the setting for countless foundational
outdoor experiences and the backdrop for generations of fond memories for
families and friends.
However, major infrastructure components are falling into significant disrepair;
especially the water and road systems and the existing toilet buildings (only
one of which is universally accessible). Additionally, there is a question whether
Dolly Copp is providing a variety of amenities that are expected and appreciated by today’s campers but that still align with the traditional character of the
campground.
This Environmental Assessment describes our proposal to address this situation.
It explains what we propose to do, why we propose to do it, what alternatives
we considered, and the effects of each alternative on the social, physical, and
biological environment.
1.2 Project Location and Background
The Dolly Copp Campground Rehabilitation Project is located on the
Androscoggin Ranger District of the White Mountain National Forest (WMNF).
The project is located within Coos County, in the unincorporated Township of
Martin’s Location, approximately five miles south of Gorham, New Hampshire
on New Hampshire Route 16 (See Map 1).
Figure 2. Large fireplace ca. 1915.
Xeno Fontaine of the CCC stands
at left. At right is Ranger Horace C.
Currier (1879-1943) for whom Currier
Mountain in the Dartmouth Range
was named.
5
Figure 3. Dolly Copp Campground development,
1915–2000.
The history of the project area, summarized here, is
described in greater detail in Chew (2004) and Jordan
(2004). The main campground road was granted to
Daniel Pinkham for the building of a road from Jackson
to Randolph in 1824, and this road was a state highway
until the 1950s. The area was first settled by EuroAmerican farmers, including the Copp family, in the
1830s, and acquired by the US Forest Service in 1915.
Camping subsequently began on the east side of the
Peabody River, at the current Dolly Copp picnic area. As
the national trend for auto-camping spread during the
late 1910s and early 1920s, camping gradually expanded
across the river to the present campground, taking
advantage of the abandoned fields and pastures of the
Copp, Culhane, and Barnes farms. Much of the campground’s infrastructure (toilets, running water, waste
disposal, and a swimming pool) was developed during
the 1930s by the Civilian Conservation Corps, including
the construction of the large log visitor’s center/administration building. The campground continued to expand
throughout the twentieth century with additional campground loops and infrastructure, particularly in the 1960s when the gatehouse
and lavatory buildings with electricity and flush toilets were first installed.
The size, shape, and character of the campground have evolved over time as
public demand for services and social and economic influences changed. The
site has always catered to a variety of camping styles, including tent, trailer, and
later, larger Recreational Vehicles (RVs). At one time a swimming pool with lifeguard was available, and until recently a totem pole stood alongside one loop.
The site is now a mix of open, grassy areas and hardwood and softwood stands.
The Peabody River flows along the east side of the site parallel to the main interior road, and Culhane Brook divides the campground roughly into northern
and southern sections. The western side of the main road offers wooded, wellscreened sites very suitable for tenting. The eastern side is more open and level
and is a natural location for larger trailers and RVs and a place where multiple
adjacent sites may be occupied by families and friends. A detailed description of
the campground facilities is provided in the Existing Condition section below.
1.3 Proposed Action
This project proposes comprehensive rehabilitation of Dolly Copp Campground.
The project would:
• Reconstruct failing water and wastewater systems.
• Reconstruct and realign the paved road system including the replacement
of one bridge, multiple culverts, and the widening of some areas to accommodate safe navigation of larger recreational and emergency vehicles.
6
• Install pedestal service hookups within at least three campground loops
and realign and widen certain sections of these roads to allow for vehicle
maneuverability.
• Install one sanitary dump station; repair and upgrade nine toilet buildings
and convert three toilet buildings to add shower facilities.
• Repair and improve certain campsites and minor constructed features such
as water pedestals and kiosks.
• Construct five to ten campsites to accommodate District volunteers.
• Address deferred maintenance at the seasonal quarters building.
• Realign the gatehouse entry area to ease congestion and improve visitor
access and traffic flow.
A more detailed description of the proposed action is available in Chapter 2.
1.4 Purpose of and Need for Action
The purpose of the action is to provide high-quality developed camping opportunities in a scenic and historic location.
The need for action is driven by the poor and failing condition of the water and
wastewater systems, toilet buildings, and roads; the lack of services many visitors find desirable; and the opportunity to provide amenities to support and
improve overall District operations.
Existing Condition
Dolly Copp Campground provides a variety of camping experiences and is
popular with a wide range of users. It accommodates areas of high development while still offering rustic camping opportunities. The depth of history
embodied in this landscape, both as a Forest Service managed recreation site
and a predating community of White Mountain farm families, has shaped the
distinguishing character of the campground and is integral to its current condition. These historic values have resulted in a sense of continuity, attachment,
and lore that have defined the existing campground, and which continue to be
a highly-valued part of the recreation experience unique to Dolly Copp.
There are 177 sites covering about 100 acres laid out in both open field and
wooded settings. One hundred and twenty-one sites are within the main artery,
and three eastern loops can accommodate RVs. Larger Class A motor-homes
and fifth-wheel trailers have some difficulty with tight turns in these loops.
Fifty-six sites are of a design or in locations that make them more typically used
for tent camping. At full capacity, the campground can hold as many as 1,400
visitors. A concessionaire currently manages the campground under a special
use permit. Reservations are accepted for 100 of the sites; the rest are available
on a first-come, first-served basis.
Dolly Copp has 3.5 miles of paved access and interior roads. The road system has
areas that have poor drainage, crumbling pavement, and is rough and heaved
in some camping loops. Cold patching is required on a yearly basis. The existing alignment of the overall road system and camping spurs in certain loops
can pose maneuvering difficulties for RVs of various types and sizes. Larger
7
emergency vehicles cope with the same challenges. One bridge crossing Culhane
Brook does not support larger modern RVs or commercial service vehicles and
there are numerous culverts in need of replacement. Many campsites have lost
gravel due to erosion over time leaving an uneven surface incapable of draining water properly.
The campground has a pressurized water system with three drilled wells and
a 22,000 gallon storage tank. The majority of this large, complex water system
was originally installed in the early 1960s. Numerous repairs, replacements, and
upgrades of the system have been made as pumps, water and electrical lines,
valves, fixtures, or other components have failed. This system has required
repairs at an increasing rate taking much time, effort, and money to meet the
demand of campers during busy periods of visitation. Potable water is available
at 37 pedestal water faucets located throughout the campground. There are 12
restrooms with flush toilets and electric lighting. The aging restroom buildings are furnished with outdated plumbing and sink and toilet fixtures; only
one restroom meets universal accessibility standards. No public campsites are
equipped with utility hookups.
There are six host sites located throughout the campground with water and
electric hookups. There is an entrance station, an administrative service area
with a large garage, and a small house used for seasonal employee quarters. The
graveled administrative area in front of the garage drains water poorly during
spring snowmelt, causing water to run into the building.
Interpretive programs are offered inside the CCC-era log cabin visitor center
or outside at an amphitheater; and a nature trail is available. The Copp homestead site has interpretive panels discussing the history of the site. The log
cabin, entrance station, garage, and seasonal house all have electrical service.
The garage and seasonal house are served by the water system. There are pay
telephones near the entrance to the campground, and firewood and ice are
available for purchase from the concessionaire.
The Daniel Webster-Scout and Great Gulf Link Trailheads are located within
the campground. A small parking lot accommodates ten vehicles for the visitor
center and access to the Great Gulf Link Trailhead. There are no parking spaces
associated with the Daniel Webster-Scout Trailhead. Both trails receive low to
moderate use. During the winter months the main road, Brook Loop, and End
Loop serve as part of the Hayes Copp Ski Trail system.
Because there is no sanitary dump station in close proximity to the campground,
sanitation issues occasionally occur when visitors evacuate black and grey water
directly onto the ground within or in the vicinity of the campground. Some
campers have gone to such lengths as to fill and haul one bucket of waste water
at a time from RVs to dump into the campground toilets. The closest commercial
facility with this service is more than five miles from Dolly Copp.
The Androscoggin Ranger District receives numerous inquiries each year from
potential volunteers outside of commuting distance asking if campsites with
utility hookups are provided. Many of these potential volunteers end up going
elsewhere as the District is currently unable to provide these services.
8
The seasonal house has four very small bunk rooms, limited common space
for eating and gathering, and annual problems with rodent infestations that
prevents use of some rooms.
Management Direction and Desired Condition
Management direction for developed campgrounds is found in the Forest Service
Manual (FSM), Forest Service Handbook (FSH), and the Land and Resources
Management Plan for the White Mountain National Forest (Forest Plan) and
supporting documents.
The Forest Service describes recreation settings on National Forest lands according to the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), which considers physical,
social, and managerial settings to describe the range of opportunities available
to visitors for different kinds of recreation experiences. Settings are grouped
into five classes: Primitive, Semi-Primitive Non-motorized, Semi-Primitive
Motorized, Roaded Natural, and Rural (Forest Plan, p 1-10, and Map 1-11;
FEIS, p. 3-307 and Appendix H). The lands within the project area fall into
Management Area (MA) 2.1, General Forest Management. The ROS goal for
MA 2.1 is to offer a full mix of ROS objectives. The lands in and around Dolly
Copp Campground are identified as Rural ROS class.
Agency-wide policy on site development found at FSM 2330.3 — Publicly
Managed Recreation Opportunities discusses level of site modification as related
to ROS class. The Rural ROS class allows for heavily modified sites, including:
facilities designed strictly for comfort and convenience of users, extensive use of
artificial surfacing of road and trails, obvious traffic control devices, and formal
or structured interpretive services. Luxury services are not appropriate within
the Rural ROS class. The FSM also provides direction for provision of services
such as electric hookups and dump stations.
The Forest Plan provides locally determined recreation goals and objectives, as
well as standards and guidelines that shape management of developed campgrounds on the White Mountain National Forest. Pertinent direction includes
the goal of providing a variety of quality campground opportunities where
the natural forest setting is an important part of the visitor experience while
ensuring balanced protection of social and natural resources. Standards and
guidelines seek to maintain a range of developed recreation opportunities by
ensuring that construction, reconstruction, or rehabilitation projects are evaluated in terms of their effects on both the individual site and on Forest-wide
development levels. Toward that end, the Forest Plan directed determination
of appropriate development levels for campgrounds and certain other sites.
To meet that direction, Forest recreation staff completed a draft document dated
March, 2007, to describe the existing and desired levels of development for each
of the 20 campgrounds on the Forest. Though not finalized pending certain
edits and acceptance by the Forest Supervisor, the document does provide a
framework to examine appropriate development changes within Dolly Copp.
Under this draft document, the current development level of Dolly Copp
Campground is “High”, and all but three of the 13 amenities used to describe
the most highly-developed sites (road design, showers, and pedestal service
hookups) are present.
9
Finally, the WMNF completed the Recreation Facility Analysis (RFA) in June,
2008. RFA required an examination of all recreation facilities on the Forest and
outlined a 5-year program of work to implement site-specific recommendations
to address deferred maintenance and improve recreation opportunities. As part
of that national effort, repairs and changes very similar to the proposed action
described herein were described for the facilities at Dolly Copp Campground.
The process also included a formal public involvement effort.
In combination with the existing condition of the campground, these documents
were collectively used by District recreation managers and the District Ranger
to develop the project goals, proposed action, and design criteria. These are
described in detail in Chapter 2.
1.5 Scope of this Environmental Assessment and Public
Involvement
Analysis was conducted by the District Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) to determine the scope of the environmental assessment and to identify issues or
concerns related to the proposed actions.
Opportunities for public input concerning improvements to the Dolly Copp
Campground have included:
•
The Recreation Facility Analysis 5-year program of work dated March, 2008,
described the proposed action; as part of the RFA process, a formal public
comment period occurred between April 7 and May 16, 2008. The 5-year
program of work was finalized by the Regional Forester on June 10, 2008.
No comments specific to the Dolly Copp Campground were received during
the Recreation Facility Analysis.
• Public notification of the site-specific environmental analysis began when
the project was announced in the White Mountain National Forest Quarterly
Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) dated 1/1/2008. The project has
remained on the SOPA through the present.
• A 30-Day Comment Package that described the purpose and need and the
proposed action, and invited public input to help identify issues and concerns, was mailed to 210 interested and affected organizations, agencies,
private companies, and individuals. The letters were mailed on March 9,
2008 and formal comments were received until April 20, 2008.
• The 30-Day Comment Package was posted on the White Mountain National
Forest website on March 9, 2008.
•
Issues and concerns were also solicited through legal notices published in
the New Hampshire Union Leader and the Lewiston Daily Sun newspapers.
Internal meetings of the Dolly Copp Campground IDT occurred on May 11,
August 4, October 7, and October 11, 2009; and on January 26, 2010.
As part of these meetings, the ID Team reviewed and analyzed public comments
to identify issues, concerns, and suggestions for consideration in project design
and development. Specific information on these meetings is available as part
of the project record.
10
The scope of this environmental assessment focuses around a conceptual proposal to repair infrastructure and add amenities to the Dolly Copp Campground.
Site-specific decisions on the final locations, shapes, and styles of any repairs or
additions stemming from any decision to implement such a conceptual action
would be made by the District Ranger in concert with recreation managers and
a professional technical design team within the scope of the final decision.
1.6 Decision to be Made
The Androscoggin District Ranger, as the Responsible Official, must decide:
•
Whether to select an alternative that comprehensively rehabilitates the Dolly
Copp Campground both by addressing deferred maintenance and adding
certain additional amenities
• Whether the alternative selected would result in significant environmental
impacts to the quality of the human environment and whether preparation
of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) is warranted
• Whether the decision and alternatives considered meet all applicable federal,
state and local laws and policies, including consistency with the Forest
Service Manual and WMNF Forest Plan.
Figure 4. Dolly Copp Forest Camp
and Imp Face, 1920s.
11
Chapter 2 — Issues and Alternatives Including
the Proposed Action
This section of the environmental analysis identifies and discusses the central
issue that was raised both internally and externally during the scoping process,
and it provides a detailed description of the proposed action and the alternative
that was developed to address the central issue. The effects analysis in Chapter
3 examines how each element of the alternatives relates to this central issue.
Other effects of each alternative on social, physical, and biological resources of
the analysis area are also described in Chapter 3. More detailed specialist reports
are contained in the project record.
2.1 Issue Central to the Decision Being Made
Forest Service managers have long been aware of the strong generational connection with Dolly Copp and the importance of continuity with tradition and
a certain developmental level and type of use that contributes to a particular
character of the area. This awareness led the District Ranger to identify development level and the character of the campground as a preliminary issue for
consideration by the IDT at the project’s initiation. This awareness also shaped
the development of the proposed action and the design criteria that were provided to the design team.
Though the majority of individuals who responded to the 30-Day Public
Comment Package supported the proposed action entirely, the IDT analysis of
comments confirmed that for some visitors a natural tension existed between
improving the campground and simply repairing the campground. This is
perhaps best exemplified by the following comment:
Part of me feels like: “Dolly Copp is special let’s leave it alone…” But I
don’t want to sound like I’m against change. I just hope it is done carefully
and respectfully, and won’t change the character of the campground….
While most respondents were supportive of general repairs to the water and
wastewater systems, some respondents felt that just by the fact of adding electricity and improving the roads the character of the campground their experience of
the area would change. Other respondents expressed the idea that road repairs
and additional amenities would increase use of the area by larger RVs and that
itself would change the character of the campground. Still others suggested
that electric service pedestals would reduce the noise of portable generators
currently being used by some campers, but feared that use of air conditioners,
TVs, stereos, and other items would otherwise increase noise and change the
character of the experience within the campground.
These concerns were distilled into the central issue:
Adding electric service pedestals within several campground loops will
change the character and the recreation experience available at Dolly Copp
Campground.
Other suggestions or concerns not central to the decision being made were, and
will continue to be, considered during development of the design details for the
proposed action. Please see Appendix B for our responses to these comments.
12
2.2 Alternatives
Alternative 1: No Action
This alternative proposes no comprehensive repairs or improvements to the
Dolly Copp Campground at this time. However, ongoing maintenance of the
existing facilities at this site would continue, and a piecemeal approach to repairs
of water and wastewater systems and buildings would occur over time.
Alternative 2: Proposed Action
Consistent with Forest Plan direction, the Recreation Facility Analysis Final
Program of Work, and the draft WMNF Campground Development Levels
document, the proposed action is designed to:
• Provide for the health and safety of visitors and employees.
• Protect natural resources.
▫▫
Accommodate visitor expectations by offering modern waste management facilities.
▫▫
Design improvements to maximize energy conservation and environmental sustainability.
• Maintain the traditional character of the campground and protect cultural
resources.
• Eliminate deferred maintenance and improve financial sustainability.
• Provide for an appropriate range of development levels and camping experiences within the campground.
▫▫
Accommodate changing demographics and trends by providing services
desirable for modern RV camping.
▫▫
Maintain opportunities for lower-development camping experiences
for tent campers.
• Within the constraints of the items listed above, increase occupancy by providing improved services for all campers.
▫▫
Meet visitor expectations for high-quality restroom, shower, and campsite conditions.
▫▫
Construct new facilities to meet universal accessibility standards.
• Improve transportation system to accommodate modern vehicle sizes.
• Maximize operational efficiency and simplicity over the long-term.
The proposed action is to:
• Reconstruct failing water and wastewater systems.
• Realign and reconstruct degraded paved road system, including:
• Replace one bridge and multiple culverts to better accommodate modern
vehicle weights and sizes and improve stream function.
• Widen some areas to accommodate safe navigation of larger recreational
and emergency vehicles.
13
• Install pedestal service hookups for electricity and water within at least two
campground loops on the eastern side of the campground, but not within
the interior of Hayes field. Widen certain sections of these loop roads to
allow for vehicle maneuverability.
• Install one sanitary dump station.
• Repair and upgrade nine toilet buildings and convert three remaining toilet
buildings to add shower facilities.
• Repair and improve certain campsites and minor constructed features such
as water pedestals and kiosks.
• Construct five to ten campsites with hookups to accommodate District
volunteers.
• Address deferred maintenance and improve living conditions at the seasonal
quarters building.
• Realign the gatehouse entry area to ease congestion and improve visitor
access and traffic flow.
• Re-grade the area in front of the shop administration building to enable
water to drain away from the facility.
To further clarify the proposal, the following design criteria were provided to
the team crafting the conceptual design documents:
• Retain the basic layout of the campground. Addition/removal of loops or
general redesign of the existing layout is not viewed as necessary at this time.
▫▫
Some adjustment of camping loop alignments or re-organization of sites
within the loops may be appropriate.
• Retain mix of open, grass fields and wooded areas. Retain a number of
water-side and walk-in sites.
• Retain log “visitor center” building and protect Copp homestead site.
• Retain site style and density within High Woods, Brook Loop, and Spruce
Woods. The majority of sites should retain their current size, though some
smaller sites may be appropriate for expansion.
• Consider possible locations for volunteer sites that could include the vicinity
of the seasonal quarters, behind the garage/administrative site with access
from FR 72, or in the vicinity of the nature trail east of the main entrance
road.
• Consider what number of toilet and proposed shower facilities best serve
the campground, especially given the changed condition of added service
pedestals in certain loops. Consideration of alternative waste treatment
systems may be appropriate.
• Locate the dump station near the entry/administrative service area
(desirable).
• Install a fence or improved natural screening between main entry road and
the administrative service area (desirable).
• Renovate or relocate nature trail and include historical interpretation of the
Dolly Copp historical site.
14
• Consider potential for limited parking to serve the Daniel Webster-Scout
Trailhead, possibly on the east side of the main road.
Alternative 3: Modified Proposal
This alternative was designed to respond to the central issue. It is the same as
the proposed action with one exception: it would not include installation of
utility service pedestals.
Figure 5. Dolly Copp Campground Site Map.
15
Figure 6. “Dolly Copp Forest
Camp” — 1930s entrance
sign.
Figure 7. Dolly Copp campers; Imp Face in
background. Photo from The New Hampshire
Troubadour, August 1949.
16
Chapter 3 — Environmental Consequences
Campground Development Level and Character
This section of the environmental assessment analyzes how the central issue
identified in Chapter 2 is affected by each element of the alternatives. A description of how other resource areas are affected by each alternative follows.
The central issue identified by the IDT based on internal and public comment is:
Adding electric service pedestals within several campground loops will
change the character and the recreation experience available at Dolly Copp
Campground.
To focus the analysis around this issue, the general format of the March, 2007,
draft Campground Development Levels document was used. This document,
which was based on other management direction from the Forest Service
Manual and the Forest Plan, identified criteria with which to rate campgrounds
into High, Moderate, or Rustic development levels. Consequently, it provides a
tool to display how proposed changes under each alternative would affect the
development level and consequently the overall character of the campground.
Because none of the proposed activities would result in a change in the ROS class
of the area, that criterion from the Campground Development Level document
was not used in this project-level analysis.
The rating criteria and corresponding development levels used for this analysis
are displayed in Table 3-1.
The analysis area for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects related to development level and character is the Dolly Copp Campground. This area was selected
because the effects are related to the condition and character of the campground
itself and do not extend into any other area or developed recreation site. The
timeframe for the analysis is the period of actual project implementation and
five years immediately following implementation. This timeframe was selected
because the period of change in condition and character would be most evident
to visitors during and following implementation, and any change in use patterns
as a result of the project would be expected to be established within five years.
Alternative 1
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 1 on the development level of Dolly
Copp Campground
With selection of this alternative, the development level of Dolly Copp
Campground would remain High. Areas of high development which accommodate larger RVs would continue to coexist with less-developed, secluded tent
sites. The road, water, and wastewater systems would be patched or repaired
on an ongoing basis as they continue to age and fail. Restroom facilities would
remain outdated and not universally accessible. The alignment of roads and
camping spurs would make it difficult for RVs or vehicles towing trailers to
navigate safely. Services such as a dump station, showers, or hookups would
not be available and visitors seeking these amenities would choose alternative
camping locations. Volunteer sites with hookups would remain unavailable.
17
Table 3-1. Rating Criteria and Corresponding Development Levels.
Development Level
Rating Criteria
High
Moderate
Rustic
Landscape
Natural appearing
designed and modified
landscape
Natural appearing designed landscape
Natural appearing
Miles to Primary Road
0–0.4 miles
05.–1.9 miles
2.0 + miles
Access Road Surface/
Interior Road Surface
Asphalt
Asphalt
Gravel
Road Design
Greater than or equal
to 50% of Access and
Interior Roads meet the
minimum road design
required for a full-size
recreational vehicle (RV)
to operate.
25 – 50% of access and
interior roads meet the
minimum road design
required for a full-size
recreational vehicle (RV)
to operate.
0% of access and interior
roads meet the minimum
road design required for
a full-size recreational
vehicle (RV) to operate.
Total Sites (Campsites)
50 + Campsites
21–49 Campsites
1–20 Campsites
Percent of RV
Campsites
50% or Greater/ Accept
RVs
1–49% Accept RVs
0% Accept RVs
Showers
Yes — Showers available No — Showers not
available
No — Showers not
available
Water System
Pressurized
Hand Pump
Hand Pump
Toilet System
Flush
Vault
Vault
Host (Within
Campground)
Host(s) on site —
Multiple possible
Host(s) on site
No Host on site
Programs
Programs on site
None available on site
None Available on site
Electric
Acceptable and available
for public use
Acceptable for
administrative us only
Not acceptable
Hookups
Acceptable and available Acceptable for
for public use — per FSM administrative use only
direction
(includes Hosts)
Not acceptable
Selection of this alternative would not fulfill the stated purpose of and need for
action. It would address concerns that the proposed action would result in a
change in the character of the campground.
Alternative 2
Copp Campground
Because the proposed action seeks to replace existing systems and add services
to a limited area that can better accommodate existing RV use in a manner
consistent with direction in the Forest Service Manual and the Forest Plan, the
effects of the actions at Dolly Copp are considered a modification rather than an
increase in the overall development level. As shown in Table 3-2, the addition of
showers and pedestal hookups constitutes moving two criteria from Moderate/
Rustic to High levels. However, when looked at within the context of the total
18
campground rating, the development level remains at the upper level of the
development spectrum.
The reconstruction of the water and wastewater systems would entail replacing
existing infrastructure that is currently rated High on the development scale.
The bulk of these system components are subsurface or otherwise not readily
apparent to visitors and would remain so following implementation. Restroom
buildings would be built to meet accessibility standards, with a character compatible with architectural styles typical of New England national forests. The
installation of showers in up to three of the 12 restroom buildings would be
incorporated into the structures so as not to create a substantial difference in
design from other facilities and would afford campers this opportunity in the
campground rather than having to travel elsewhere. Table 3-2 shows a change
from Moderate/Rustic to High development level when showers are present,
but the total rating of High for the campground as a whole does not change.
Table 3-2. Comparison of Alternatives.
Rating Criteria
Landscape
Existing
Development Level
Proposed Action
Development Level
Alternative 3
Development Level
High
High
High
Miles to Primary Road
High
High
High
Access Road Surface /
Interior Road Surface
High
High
High
Moderate
High
High
Total Sites (Campsites)
High
High
High
Percent of RV Campsites
High
High
High
Moderate
High
High
Road Design
Showers
Water System
High
High
High
Toilet System
High
High
High
Host (Within Campground)
High
High
High
Interpretive Programs
High
High
High
Electric
Hookups
Total Rating
High
High
High
Moderate
High
Moderate
High
High
High
The paved road system is currently rated High and would remain so following implementation of this alternative. Reconstruction of the road system will
provide smoother surface conditions and improve drainage features in all sections of the campground. Replacing the bridge over Culhane Brook would
ensure that vehicles, including service and emergency vehicles, would have
access to the length of the campground over the long term; the presence or
absence of bridges does not affect the development level of the campground. The
road design of the campground is currently rated Moderate, because while 121
sites can accommodate RVs, sections that are popularly used — especially along
the main artery road, in Big Meadow and in Hayes Field — do not have adequate
widths and turning radii to safely accommodate these vehicles. Realignment
and widening in areas such as these would allow for these vehicles to navigate safely in areas where they currently travel and camp. Roads in loops that
19
adequately accommodate RV use on the eastern side of the campground would
not require realignment. Likewise, roads in loops that do not currently accommodate RV use on the western side of the campground will remain essentially
the same. Any realignment would involve widening to accommodate two-way
traffic, softening some corners, modification of some intersections, and adjustment of some loops and camping spurs to improve the ease of navigation and
the safety of turning and backing vehicles. The physical location of roads on
the ground does not have an effect on development level and is not considered
in the campground development level rating. However, providing adequate
access to more than 50 percent of the campground to larger RVs would change
this criterion from Moderate to High.
The installation of water and electrical pedestal hookups would be a change
from Moderate to High development level for this criterion. All service lines
would be run underground, and the pedestals would be designed to minimize
visual effects by choice of material, height, and location in the campsites. Use
of service pedestals is expected to reduce the noise of generators, which are
commonly used by many visitors. It is expected that the number of RVs using
the campground would not change appreciably, as these vehicles currently use
the campground in sizeable numbers. However, they are likely to concentrate in
areas with hookups. Areas of the campground not identified for hookups will
not be affected by installation.
The addition of dump station service in the vicinity of the entrance station
would eliminate the environmental and health concern of illegal dumping of
waste in or adjacent to the campground, which has occurred at Dolly Copp
over the years. The presence or absence of dump stations was not considered
in the campground development level rating criteria; however, the construction of this facility would obviously be considered an additional development
within the campground. The dump station would be located far enough away
from public campsites to avoid any visual or odor impacts to those areas from
use of this facility.
Construction of campsites for District volunteers and refurbishing of the seasonal
quarters would have little effect on the development level of the campground.
The campsites would be of similar type to those within the public areas of the
campground, and the seasonal quarters building would be of similar shape and
size following reconstruction.
Closing sections of the campground during construction would have an effect
on campsite availability and would create noise, dust, and visual impacts to
visitor experiences; however, the activity itself would not affect the development level of the campground.
In summary, repairs of existing systems would not change the development level
of the campground. Installation of showers and public utility hookups represent
an increase in individual development level criteria; however, because of the
highly-modified, highly-developed character of Dolly Copp Campground, the
overall development rating would not change. Because the campground would
continue to offer a variety of camping experiences, use patterns are likely to
remain similar to the current condition in terms of the mix of tents, trailers,
and larger RVs; however, it is likely that improved services and condition of
20
facilities would increase overall occupancy within the capacity of the campground. Selection of this alternative would not affect any other campground,
so the effect on Forest-wide development levels would be the same as the direct
and indirect effects described herein.
Alternative 3
Copp Campground
This alternative was developed in response to the central issue identified by
the ID Team.
Reconstruction of the water/waste water systems, toilet buildings, and roads,
and installation of showers and dump station services, would have the same
effect on development level as in Alternative 2.
Because the installation of water and electrical hookups would not occur,
campers desiring electrical power would continue to use generators or would
choose a state or private campground for their stay.
This alternative meets the purpose of and need for action in the area more than
Alternative 1, but not as fully as the Proposed Action, Alternative 2. Installation
of showers and public utility hookups represent an increase in individual development level criteria; however, as with Alternative 2, there would be no change
in the development level rating for the campground as a whole.
Cumulative Effects of Alternatives 2 and 3 on the
development level of Dolly Copp Campground
Past, present, and future projects include: ongoing campground maintenance;
Settler’s stewardship project and removal of hazard trees (completed in 2009);
installation of interpretive panels at the Copp Homestead site in 2007; ongoing
Visitor Center maintenance and past projects repairing the roof, chimney, and
steps; and creation of a campground manager’s site in an administrative area.
In the context of the development rating criteria, these projects had no effect on
the development level of Dolly Copp; therefore, the cumulative effects of either
Alternative 2 or 3 would be the same as the direct and indirect effects.
3.1 Effects on the Physical, Biological, and Social
Environments
As part of the interdisciplinary analysis for this project, specialists developed
reports describing the existing condition and evaluating the potential for effects
for their resource. These detailed specialist reports are found in the project
record. No issues were identified by the ID Team related to these resources, and
no concerns were identified by the public. This section of the environmental
assessment summarizes the effects to physical, biological, and social resources
based on specialist reports.
21
Cultural Resources
Known historic properties include an historic building, two archaeological sites,
and one feature potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places. Potential eligibility of the archaeological sites is based on their ability to
contribute information important to the study of history under the themes of
European settlement and agriculture, and early recreation and tourism. The log
visitor center is potentially eligible based on its distinctive character.
Under Alternative 1, no direct or indirect effects would occur. Under Alternatives
2 and 3, known archaeological sites and the log visitor center would be avoided
and protected.
All recorded sites can be avoided by project activities; hence no direct or indirect
effects from the project activity are anticipated. Since there are no direct or indirect effects from the project, there would be no cumulative effects. Consequently,
Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Report (CRRR) Number 09-2-1 with a determination of “No Effect” was submitted to the New Hampshire State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO), who concurred with the determination by letter
dated September 11, 2009. Additional project activities that result from the final
design that were not included in the original submission to the SHPO will be
submitted as an addendum to CRRR 09-2-1, and SHPO concurrence will be
obtained prior to project implementation.
Federally Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species
(TES), and Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS)
A Biological Evaluation (BE) for Federally Threatened, Endangered, and
Proposed Species and Regional Forester Sensitive Species was completed on
July 30, 2009, for the Proposed Action and its alternatives (BE, Project Planning
Record). The process used and the sources examined to determine potential
occurrence of TES or RFSS presence are listed in the BE. During Forest Plan revision, best available science was used to evaluate TES/RFSS species and species
viability. Based on a review of all available information, it was the Forest Service
Biologist’s and Botanist’s determination that potential habitat may occur within
the project area for six Regional Forester Sensitive Species:
• Eastern small-footed myotis (Myotis leibii) — Regional Forester Sensitive
Species
• Northern bog lemming (Synaptomys borealis sphagnicola) — Regional Forester
Sensitive Species
• Brown’s Ameletus Mayfly (Ameletus browni) — Regional Forester Sensitive
Species
• Third Ameletus Mayfly (Ameletus tertius) — Regional Forester Sensitive
Species
• Bailey’s sedge (Carex baileyi) — Regional Forester Sensitive Species
• Autumn coralroot (Corallorhiza odontorhiza) — Regional Forester Sensitive
Species
The BE details effects to these species. Under both action alternatives, eastern
small-footed myotis could be displaced if they are roosting in buildings being
22
altered or replaced, or in trees being cut during campground re-construction.
Displaced individuals would likely move to alternate roost sites in surrounding
forested habitat. The likelihood of tree removal affecting an individual eastern
small-footed myotis is low because the literature indicates that this species
prefers to roost in rocky outcrops or buildings. The maintenance of the existing roads, trails, and openings in and adjacent the project area would continue
to provide potential foraging habitat for bats. There is a slight potential for both
action alternatives to displace northern bog lemming, although the potential for
presence of this species in the project area is low. The duration of disturbance
would be short and the amount of riparian habitat that might be impacted would
be minimal. Therefore, the potential for the proposed action to displace individual northern bog lemmings is low. Rehabilitation in the campground should
not reduce the amount or quality of existing suitable habitat. There may be some
minimal direct effects during campground re-construction to Brown’s and third
ameletus mayfly habitat from sedimentation into streams. Implementation of
best management practices and Forest-wide standards and guidelines should
minimize impacts to these species. The potential for presence of Bailey’s sedge
and Autumn coralroot is low; botanical surveys did not locate any of these
species in the project area. Rehabilitation efforts in the campground would likely
occur during the snow-free season when Bailey’s sedge and Autumn coralroot
may be above ground. Therefore this project could impact individuals if they
are present, but is not likely to eliminate a population. In the long term, habitat
suitability would be maintained for both plant species, so long-term persistence
of the species should not be affected.
Non-Native Invasive Species (NNIS)
The analysis area for this resource is Dolly Copp Campground. Two NNIS
infestations were mapped in the campground in 2005 (2005 unpublished report).
Berberis thunbergii (Japanese Barberry) — Japanese barberry was located but has
since been eradicated in the campground and is no longer present. Elaeagnus
umbellata (Autumn Olive) will be eliminated in the campground prior to any
rehabilitation work occurring in the project area.
Under Alternative 1, there would be no effects to NNIS because existing conditions would not change in the campground. Under Alternatives 2 or 3, the
overall risk rating assigned for the Dolly Copp Campground Rehabilitation
Project is “Low”. Post project monitoring of the area disturbed by this project
should be implemented to detect colonization of the site by NNIS.
There is a risk of introducing NNIS from past, present, and future activities.
Post project monitoring, as well as incorporating Forest Plan standards and
guidelines, reduces this potential for cumulative effects from action alternatives.
Recreation
The analysis area for this resource is Dolly Copp Campground. Effects on the
campground itself are described in the analysis of the central issue above. Other
recreation uses of the site include hiking on the Great Gulf Link and Daniel
Webster-Scout Trails, cross-country skiing on the Hayes Copp Ski Trail, and
informal off-season use for strolling and dog-walking.
23
Access to the hiking trailheads may be affected during project implementation.
Likewise, informal uses during the off-season may be affected by implementation activities that would be scheduled to avoid the peak-use camping season.
No effects are anticipated to the ski trail, nor are any long-term effects anticipated for any recreation use because the campground will remain in essentially
the same layout following selection of any alternative.
Soil Resources
The analysis area for this resource is Dolly Copp Campground and the analysis
focuses on soil productivity.
Under Alternative 1, impacts to soil productivity would not extend beyond
those that occur in nature.
Under Alternatives 2 and 3, soils disturbance would occur during implementation of each element of the project. Soils permanently compacted under roads or
other features would lose productivity, and soils reclaimed by relocation would
regain productivity over time. The effects of Alternative 3 would be less than
Alternative 2 because fewer activities would occur.
Water Resources
The analysis area for water resources includes the watersheds of first and second
order streams draining into the Upper Peabody River Watershed, and portions
of the project area draining directly into the Peabody River. The analysis focuses
on water quantity, quality, and stream stability.
Summary of water quantity and stream stability effects
The addition of pedestal hookups for water and up to three shower facilities in
Alternative 2 would increase water use to some extent. Because of factors limiting this use, the withdrawal is not expected to have a significant effect on the
availability of water for humans and ecosystems. Reconstruction of water and
wastewater systems may reduce use by an unknown amount by preventing pipe
leakage. Culvert replacements and infrastructure relocation will improve the
stability of streams by enabling them to accommodate high flows. Alternative
3 would result in a smaller increase in water use, since no pedestal hookups
are proposed. All other effects of this alternative are identical to Alternative 2.
A cumulative effect on water quantity would not be expected under either action
alternative, and stream stability would be expected to improve due to improved
culverts and reducing campsite encroachment on riparian areas.
Summary of water quality effects
Under Alternative 2, existing threats to water quality would be mitigated by
improvement of failing water and wastewater systems and provision of a dump
station. Reconstruction and maintenance of roads, campsites, and other constructed features may result in a short-term, localized increase in sedimentation
due to ground disturbance, but best management practices would minimize the
amount of sediment reaching streams. These activities would be expected to
reduce sedimentation into streams in the long term. The water hookups in the
proposed action could potentially have an indirect effect on water quality due
24
to the generation of additional wastewater, but this would be mitigated by the
proposed dump station and thus have no effect on water quality. No significant,
negative effects on water quality are expected under this alternative. Alternative
3 would not have water hookups installed at campsites. Therefore, no indirect
effect from wastewater generation would be possible. All other aspects of this
alternative are the same as Alternative 2. No significant, negative effects on
water quality are expected under this alternative.
Additionally, no significant, negative cumulative effect on water quality is
expected under either alternative.
Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers
There are no designated Wild and Scenic Rivers within the Dolly Copp
Rehabilitation project area. The closest designated river is the Wildcat River
which is approximately 20 miles from the campground and flows into a different
drainage. However, the Peabody River is located along the eastern edge of the
project area and was identified in the Forest Plan as eligible for designation by
the US Congress as a Wild and Scenic River. The analysis area for this resource
is the area within ¼ mile of the normal high water mark of the Peabody River.
Because of the nature of the proposed activities, there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to free-flowing condition, potential classification, or
potential outstandingly remarkable values following implementation of any
alternative.
Wildlife Resources
The analysis area for this resource is Dolly Copp campground. Implementation
of Alternatives 2 or 3 may temporarily displace or disturb some wildlife species
during project implementation. Alternative 3 would have slightly less disturbance because electrical hook-ups would not be installed in the campground
loops. Overall, existing habitat conditions would not change in the campground
from implementation of either action alternative, and there would be no long
term effects to wildlife species or their associated habitats.
Cumulatively, overall effects from past, on-going, and future activities within
the analysis area would be minimal. Since direct and indirect effects from the
action alternatives are expected to be minimal, cumulative effects would be
very limited.
Outstanding Natural Communities
The nearest known occurrence of any of these communities is more than ten
miles from the project area; therefore, this project would not affect any outstanding natural community.
Inventoried Roadless Areas
This project does not propose any actions within any inventoried roadless area.
No issues related to inventoried roadless areas were identified by the public or
the interdisciplinary team.
25
Chapter 4 — List of Preparers
Tom Moore................................................................................................................. Team Leader
Lesley Rowse...................................................................................................... Wildlife Biologist
Travis Pellerin...............................................................................................Recreation Specialist
Sarah Jordan........................................................................................... Historical Archaeologist
Forest Supervisors Office
Other Forest Service specialists consulted during analysis
included:
David Neely ................................................................ Assistant District Ranger — Recreation
Brian Johnston..................................................Acting Assistant District Ranger — Recreation
Ken Allen ...................................................................................................... Landscape Architect
Forest Supervisor’s Office
Marianne Leberman . ......................................................................Recreation Program Leader
Sheela Johnson ............................................................................................................Hydrologist
Andy Colter . ..............................................................................................................Soil Scientist
Chris Mattrick.....................................................................................................................Botanist
J. Sylvester................................................................................................Engineering Technician
Jacob Ormes........................................................................................... Transportation Engineer
Jason Anderson.................................................................................................Facilities Engineer
Bill Dauer........................................................ Forest Engineer/Technical Services Staff Officer
Richard Dow..........................................................Technical Writer/Editor, Webmaster
Mary Brown................................................................................. Landscape Architect/Designer
Eastern Region Technical Services Team
Art Johnston...................................................................................................................... Engineer
Kurt Kretvix............................................................................................................... Team Leader
26
Appendix A — Literature Cited
Photos and diagrams courtesy of <http://www.dollycopp.com/dollycopp1.php>
and the Forest History Society. Permission granted for public domain use. For
more information and a historical review of the Dolly Copp Campground please
visit the website above.
Brocke, R. H., J. L. Belant, and K. A. Gustafson. 1993. Lynx population and
habitat survey in the White Mountain National Forest, State University of New
York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry. Not for publication. For
internal use only.
Chenger, J. 2002. Summer survey of New Hampshire woodland bats – June 27
– July 19, 2002. Bat Conservation and Management, Carlisle, PA 49pp.
Chenger, J. 2004. 2004 woodland bat survey in the White Mountain National
Forest – August 8 – 18, 2004. Bat Conservation and Management, Inc. Carlisle,
PA 38pp.
Chew, Jonathan. 2004. “The Story of Dolly Copp Campground.” Second Edition.
Published by the author. Also http://www.dollycopp.com .
DeGraaf, R. M. and M. Yamasaki. 2001. New England Wildlife: Habitat, Natural
History, and Distribution. University Press of New England, Hanover, NH.
482pp.
DeGraaf R. M. M. Yamasaki, W. B, Leak, and A. M. Lester. 2006. Technical guide
to Forest Wildlife Habitat Management in New England. University Press of
New England, Lebanon, NH 305pp.
Foss C. R. 1994. Atlas of breeding birds in New Hampshire. Audubon Society
of New Hampshire. Arcadia, an imprint of the Chalford Publishing House,
Dover, NH. 414pp.
Jordan, Sarah. 2004. “The Copp Farm. Report for the 2004 Girl Scout Field School
in Historical Archaeology.” USDA Forest Service.
Johnson, S. 2009. Dolly Copp Field Notes, September 11, 2009.
Kingman, D. B. 1986. A search for evidence of lynx (Lynx canadensis) in the
White Mountains of New Hampshire. 4pp. mimeo.
Kiser, J.D., R. R. Kiser, V. Brack, Jr., and E. R. Britzke. 2001. A survey for eastern
forest bats on Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests with emphasis on the federally endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). Environmental
Solutions and Innovations, LLC. Cincinnati, Ohio. 60pp.
Kiser, J.D., J. Beverly, and V. Brack, Jr. 2002. A survey of eastern forest bat community in the Lake Champlain Valley, with emphasis on the federally endangered
Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). Environmental Solutions and Innovations, LLC.
Cincinnati, Ohio. 47pp plus Appendices.
Krusic, R. A. 1995. Habitat use and identification of bats in the White Mountain
National Forest. M.S. Thesis, University of New Hampshire, Durham. 86pp.
Krusic, R. A., M. Yamasaki, C. D. Neefus, and P. J. Pekins. 1996. Bat habitat use
in White Mountain National Forest. J. Wildl. Manage. 60(3):625-631.
27
Litvaitis, J. A., D. Kingman, Jr., J. Lanier, and E. Orff. 1987. Status of lynx in New
Hampshire. Trans. Northeast Sect. Wildl. Soc. 44:107.
Lougee, J. 2004. Email from Leff Lougee, The Nature Conservancy, to David
Govatski (WMNF) and others summarizing results of Mascot Mine survey.
Dated 2/26/2004.
Magee, D. W. and H. E. Ahles. 1999. Flora of the Northeast. University of
Massachusetts, Amherst. 1213pp.
Marchowsky, K. 2005. WMNF Botanical Survey: Dolly Copp Campground.
Report for survey conducted by Kori Marchowsky on July 1, 2005.
Martin, C. 2008. New Hampshire peregrine falcon and bald eagle breeding
season, final results. (http://www.nhaudubon.org ) Audubon Society of NH.
National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI). 2000.
Handbook of Control and Mitigation Measures for Silvicultural Operations.
Unpublished draft Technical Bulletin. Research Triangle Park, N.C.: National
Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.
Morse, C. and S. Kahl. 2003. Measuring the Impact of Development on Maine
Surface Waters. http://www.umaine.edu/waterresearch/Publications%20To%20
Serve/Stream%20 Digest.pdf. Accessed January 14, 2005.
NatureServe: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. 2003. Version
1.8, Arlington, Virginia, USA: Association of Biodiversity Information.
Available:http//www.naturserve.org/.
New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau. 2003. Animal tracking list; including
species listed as threatened or endangered under the NH Endangered Species
Conservation Act of 1979. List maintained in cooperation with the Nongame
and Endangered Wildlife Program. Department of Resources and Economic
Development and New Hampshire Fish and Game Department. Concord, NH.
New Hampshire Fish and Game Department (NHFGD). 2006. Canada lynx
track. Report from the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department. http://
www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Newsroom/News_2006/News_2006_Q1/Lynx_tracks_
found_020106.htm
Pease. A. S. 1964. A Flora of New Hampshire. New England Botanical Club,
Cambridge, MA. 278pp.
Sasse, D. B. 1995. Summer roosting ecology of cavity-dwelling bats in the White
Mountain National Forest. M.S. Thesis, University of New Hampshire. Durham,
NH. 54pp. and Appendices.
Seymour, F. C. 1969. The flora of New England. The Charles E. Tuttle Company.
596pp.
Sperduto D. D. and B. E. Engstrom. 1995. An ecological inventory of the White
Mountain National Forest. Fourth Year Summary Report. Department of
Resources and Economic Development. Concord, NH. 346pp.
Sperduto, D.D. and W.F. Nichols. 2004. Natural Communities of New
Hampshire. Concord, NH: New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau and The
Nature Conservancy.
28
Sperduto, M. B. 1988. Use of geographic information system (GIS) to predict
potential habitat for Isotria medeoloides (Pursh) RAF. in New Hampshire and
Maine. M. S. Thesis. University of New Hampshire, Durham. 106pp.
USDA-Forest Service Handbook, Supplement R9RO 2509.18-2005-1, Section 2.2
USDA Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 82.14–Stream corridor defined.
USDA-Forest Service Handbook, Supplement R9 RO 2509.18-2005-1
USDA Forest Service. 2005a. White Mountain National Forest Land and Resource
Management Plan (LRMP). Laconia, NH.
USDA-Forest Service 2005b, Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).
Laconia, NH
USFS. 1993. White Mountain National Forest Monitoring Report. Laconia, NH
112pp.
36pp.
USFS. 1996. White Mountain National Forest. 1996 Annual Report, Ten Year
Monitoring Summary. Laconia, NH. 63pp.
36pp
45pp
USFS. 2000a. Species data collection form – Small whorled pogonia. Unpublished
report, White Mountain National Forest, Laconia, NH.
USFS. 2000b. White Mountain National Forest Monitoring Report. Laconia,
NH. 61pp.
USFS. 2005b. White Mountain National Forest Species of Viability Concern.
Evaluation of Status, Habitat Needs, and Limiting Factors. Laconia, NH. 126 pp.
USFS. 2005c. Biological Evaluation of the White Mountain National Forest Land
and Resource Management Plan Revision on Federal Endangered, Threatened,
and Proposed Species and Regional Forester Sensitive Species. Appendices –
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix G.
USFS. 2005d. Species Data Collection Form, Corallorhiza odontorhiza. White
Mountain National Forest, unpublished report.
USFS. 2006a. Regional Forester Sensitive Plants – 10/05/06. USDA Forest Service,
Region 9. Milwaukee, WI.
USFS. 2006b. Regional Forester Sensitive Animals – 10/05/06. USDA Forest
Service, Region 9. Milwaukee, WI.
United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1982.
Eastern Cougar Recovery Plan. Denver Wildlife Research Center, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
USFWS. 1983. Northern states bald eagle recovery plan. U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. 66pp plus Appendices.
29
USFWS. 1991a. Robbins’ cinquefoil (Potentilla robbinsiana) Recovery Plan, First
Update. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, MA. 21pp.
USFWS. 1991b. Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) Eastern Population Recovery
Plan–1991 Update. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, MA. 28pp.
USFWS. 1992a. Recovery Plan for the Eastern timber wolf. U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Twin Cites, MN. 73pp.
USFWS. 1992b. Small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) Recovery Plan,
First Revision. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, MA. 59pp.
USFWS. 2005. Review of the Biological Assessment for the WMNF Revised Land
and Resource Management Plan. Letter from William J. Neidermyer to Thomas
G. Wanger, dated 9/9/2005.
USFWS. 2007. Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) Draft Recovery Plan: First revision.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Fort Snelling, MN.
Yamasaki, M. personal communication, 2003. Research Biologist. Northeast
Forest Experiment Station, Durham, NH.
30
Appendix B — Response to 30-Day
Public Comment Report
We appreciate the responses and interest about the Dolly Copp Campground
Rehabilitation Project. Public comment analysis included, careful consideration
and close review of public input to our proposal, interviews, discussions with
past and present campground managers, field reviews with interested people
and resource specialists, and cultural history of the site.
A total of 34 individuals and organizations provided comments in response to
the 30-Day Public Comment Package. Fifteen respondents indicated full support
of the proposed action, four expressed opposition to the proposal, and four
were in favor of some and opposed to other aspects of the project. Several
respondents provided suggestions for consideration in the design phase of the
project, and others provided personal anecdotes about the campground. A total
of ten respondents provided no comment and only requested information on the
decision. The body of public comment was used in issue identification, which
resulted in the development of Alternative 3.
At the heart of the comments received was the tension between simply repairing the existing facilities in-kind versus attempting to offer improved facilities
and additional services not previously available to campground visitors. That
tension was captured as the central issue in the Environmental Analysis, and
was the core focus of our analysis.
Each comment received during and after the 30-day comment period was
reviewed to identify site specific issues and concerns that were related to
this project. Comments and questions relevant to this site-specific analysis were considered in detail. Each comment or group of similar comments
includes a response where appropriate. Comments that were determined by
the Interdisciplinary Team to be a significant issue led to the development of
Alternative 3.
Along with comments that are project-specific and helpful, some respondents
provided comments not relevant to this project-level analysis. The 30 Day
Comment Period document asked for specific comments about the proposed
action.
Comments are organized into three subject categories. Similar comments (issues
or concerns) are given a single response. Comments are often summarized to
narrow the discussion to the key point(s) and represent the gist of the concern.
Where possible, the commenter is quoted directly. Additional details, notes,
comment analysis, and complete letters and correspondence are located in the
Project File.
The names of persons who responded to the 30 Day Public Comment Package
for the Four Ponds Integrated Resource Project are listed here:
Jonathan Chew
Don Jasinski
William Arnold
Mrs. Lewis H. Parker
Kenneth Zerbst
Gibb Dodge
Edward J. Reichert
John T.B. Mudge
31
Ray Ellis Jr.–NE Trail Riders Assoc.
Wilma Corrigan
Martha Twombley
Charlie and Gail Corrigan
Norman Demers
Robert Craig
Jean Di Ruzzo
Richard and Shirley Levesque
Kim Steele
Ernest D. Mahlke
Emily T. Smith
Robt. and Jean Waterman
Fred Brown
Paul Schiebler
Allan M. Peterson
Rene G. Boutin
Gayle Marie Craig
Joanne N. Rugg
Bruce P. Sloat
Thomas Linell
Forest Warner Jr.
Richard Fabian
Lyn Whitson
Louis Cotter
Pauline Curry
Joanne Rugg
All correspondence is filed and available for public inspection in the Dolly
Copp Rehabilitation Project file located at the Androscoggin Ranger Station in
Gorham, New Hampshire.
Comments and responses are grouped by category as follows:
1. Significant Issues
2. Respondent suggestions
3. Comments outside the scope of the decision being made
1. Significant Issues
The interdisciplinary team identified a significant issue that was ultimately
used to develop a third alternative in response to the issues raised by the public.
Alternative 3 would implement all aspects of the proposed action with the
exception of the pedestal service hookups at individual campsites. This alternative addresses a concern that adding electric service pedestals within several
campground loops will change the character and the recreation experience available at Dolly Copp Campground. The concern statements below represent the
range of comments that exemplifies the central issue and response to the public
comment by the development of Alternative 3.
Concern Statements:
Electricity
• “…Fix the restrooms, repair the road…but do not add electric and water at
the sites…”(Steele, Linnell)
• …Electricity is a bothersome thing to consider. Please let there be no ‘street’
lights! If electricity IS on the way, how about offering it at one area (or 2)
and seeing which sites prove to be more popular? “(Johnson, Hemmings,
Curry)
• “Reconsider the impacts this project will have on the rustic and pristine
character of the campground.” “ …if implemented in its entirety will destroy
the campground that so many of us have come to enjoy and love…Widening
32
the roads and entrances to the spurs on the easterly side of the campground
…and installing electricity will ultimately change the character…(Craig)”
• “…No, this type of service is provided by the private sector and has no place
on the NF. Next will be requests for sewer hookups, followed by internet/
phone service followed by TV cable. Will it ever end? As soon as electric
power is provided there will be noise from the air conditioning units, and
increased sound equipment. ((Sloat)”
Changing the Character of the Campground
• “Transformation of a once tranquil and one of a kind campground into
nothing more than another modern day tacky RV park! (Craig)”
•
“…Please don’t let DC become just another RV –park with paper lanterns
and pink flamingos…(Gordon)”
• “…Dismayed to hear of planned improvements…We believe in keeping the
rustic character…(Craig)”
•
“One of the premier camping areas in NH. …keep it isolated as possible
help keep it that way (Parker) “
•
“Very concerned about decision to rehabilitate DCC. Greatly against
turning what is already a beautiful campground into another RV park. DC
is special…and its primitive state provides that…(Craig)”
• “…opening up of roads and campsites to increase the use of the camp by
huge RV’s would be disastrous…” “Maintain the character of the campground” (Schiebler)
• “…Roads need to be maintained and reconstructed to accommodate administrative vehicles. Self contained motor homes and the like need not be
accommodated as they detract from the quality of a camping experience…
(Sloat)”
• “Alternative 1 No action is not acceptable.”…“Much of Alternative 2.2
Proposed Action is also not acceptable and not in keeping with my understanding of a National Forest Campground….(Sloat)”
• “…Having campground hosts with their satellites dishes, golf carts have
seriously detracted from the ambience of this special place…”(Levesque,
Gordon)
• Please preserve this treasure. Please don’t take away from families who seek
getaways (Steele).
Road Widening
• “Opening up of roads and campsites to increase the use of the camp by huge
RV’s would be disastrous ”(Brown)
• “Fix the restrooms, repair the road…but do not widen the roads. Do not
add electric and water at the sites (Steele).
• “Reconsider the impacts this project will have on the rustic and pristine
character of the campground.” “ …if implemented in it’s entirety will destroy
the campground that so many of us have come to enjoy and love…Widening
the roads and entrances to the spurs on the easterly side of the campground
33
…and installing electricity will ultimately in the transformation of a once
tranquil and one of a kind campground into nothing more than another
modern day tacky RV park!”(Sloat)
Response: The existing 2 way and 1 way road widths and access turns do
not meet required specifications for modern vehicles. In several cases one way
roads are approximately 2-4 feet narrower than required making it difficult for
operators to safely negotiate the roads, turning into the campsite, or turning
from the main road to the spur roads. Public safety is our primary concern and
enabling improved visibility by employing modern road standards is a necessary improvement to the campground. Site reviews indicate that the additional
2-4 foot widths should not change the overall character and qualities and alter
it in such a way that it would impact the character of the campground from the
current condition.
2. Respondent Suggestions
Many respondents offered project suggestions. In response to the statements
commenter suggestions were forwarded to the project design team for further
consideration. Some suggestions such as the use of green technology, eco toilet
systems, vegetative screening, underground electrical lines, ADA standards and
others were included in the development of Alternatives 2 and 3. The statements
below describe the range of comments that were received and a response to
comment is provided where appropriate. Other comments are noted.
Commenter Suggestion
• “Consider the installation of a fence or improved natural screening between
the main entry road and the administrative service area…(Chew)”
• Consider potential for limited parking at the Daniel Webster Scout trailhead
possibly on the east side of the main road”(Chew).
Response: This suggestion is included in Alternatives 2 and 3
• “Enlarge the site already on the existing trailer loop and limit those to trailers only”
Response: The project is designed to improve and rehabilitate the existing campground. We do not have plans to enlarge the campground based on Forest Plan
direction and guidance by the national Recreation Facility Analysis process and
the draft Campground Development Levels document described in the EA.
• “…Build a play area for visiting children to be able to play games such as
bat mitten, croquet (Corrigan)”
Response: This suggestion was forwarded to the design team for further consideration. The existing sites and open areas are large enough to accommodate
these types of games for individual use.
34
• “Provide handicap accessibility to some if not all, of the toilet, shower,
and other public facilities in accordance with the latest ADA regulations
(Jasinski).”
Response: The American Disability Act ensures access to public facilities. This
project will include ADA standards and improvements to provide access.
• “…Install all electrical and waterlines underground (Twombley)”
Response: This design component is included in Alternative 2.
• “…Camping at Dolly Copp since I was in the womb in 1945, one of the biggest
changes was the EVENT of flush toilets, opposed by many who wanted to
keep intact the character of their favorite campground…(Johnson)”
• “Please use this opportunity to use Clivus toilets. Require complete recycling
take place, provide education and bins in the campground” (Twombley)
• “Install pay showers so that water use and heat costs are covered by users,
and reduce water use where possible (Twombley)”
• “Provide educational kiosks regarding all green issues throughout the camp.
Install lighting that directs downward to preserve the night sky (Twombley)”
• “Acquire grants to provide solar power for water hearting and other utilities
(Twombley).”
• “Suggest a play area for games, develop interpretation programs, area for
small pets (Corrigan).”
Toilet and Shower Facilities Suggestion
• “It seemed that choice camp sites with the best views were selected for toilet
locations. If/When shower facilities are added, I encourage you to leave the
present sites intact and add onto washrooms at existing locations, where
running water is already installed. I also suggest eco toilets (Push flush
handle up for liquid & sown for solids. (Actually, outhouses WERE the
ultimate eco toilet, eh? The only improvement would have been regularly
sprinkling in some lime.” (Waterman, Smith)
• Folks who shower WILL be paying (as they do at Pinkham Notch) to run
the on-demand water heater, right? “ (Waterman, Smith)
Response: Comments have been forwarded to the project design team. The fee
structure for shower use has not been determined at this time.
35
3. Comments outside the Scope of the Decision Being
Made
The 30 Day Comment Period document asked for specific comments about
the proposed action. Unrelated comments, rhetorical questions, and requests
for information at a Forest-wide scale are not responded to in this document.
Respondents who have Forest-level questions or concerns should contact the
Forest separately with those concerns. All other concerns and suggestions were
addressed through minor modifications of the Proposed Action or have been
passed to the technical design team for development of project design features
to be included in the final design package, or are addressed by the Forest Plan
and its Final Environmental Impact Statement.
The following comments were considered to be outside of the scope of the
project and decision being made.
Suggestion
• “ATV trail going to State ATV Park in Jericho?…(Boutin)”
Response: Outside the scope of the proposed action.
RV Loop at Barnes Field
• Make an RV loop out of Barnes Field. Limit this to one area. Cost effective.
Long run will be less of a nuisance than trying to blend two different breeds
of campers throughout the entire campground. Hookups great at BF because
year-round. Could possibly increase winter use as well “ (Steele, Craig,
Linnell.)
Response: Barnes Field is not part of the proposal to rehabilitate the Dolly
Copp Campground. Barnes Field provides an area for large group campers
who require a camping area devoted to this need.
Campground Fees–Concern Statement
• “…with the proposed improvements we hope the camping fees will not
keep us away…” (Di Ruzzo, Ellis)
Response: Campground user fee rates and rate determination are items that lie
outside the scope of the decision being made. The proposal does not include
fee adjustments or increases.
Concern Statements
Private Sector Management and Campground Fees Statements
• “…I believe that Dolly Copp as well as other campgrounds on the National
Forest should remain somewhat primitive. The private sector should be and
are in the business of catering to the needs of campers, and camping vehicles
by providing playgrounds, swimming pools, a variety of electrical hookups,
camp store, Laundromat and even food services facilities etc….(Sloat)”
• “…Camping purists unite! Save DCC. The first nail in the coffin was the
move to concession management. The second nail will be the DCR project!...”
… Why not let folks go to commercial campgrounds for that? Is Dolly Copp
losing money? Does it really have to compete with the unnatural surroundings of drive-through, artificially lighted places?..(Gordon)”
36
• … the campground is equipped with toilet facilities. Again this is a private
sector responsibility. A gray water dump station may be a good idea…
(Sloat).”
• ”It should be manned by NF personnel. Give mgt. back to the Rangers…
(Fabian)”
Response: Comments about private sector or concessionaire management of
the campground are considered to be outside of the scope for the decision
being made. Several years ago, the Forest Service made a decision to offer
campgrounds for private management in part to reduce the management costs
required to operate recreation facilities and reduce overhead costs.
Based on the current management by private concessionaire fees are determined
based on fair market values and competitive rates with area campgrounds and
services provided.
The primary purpose of the proposed action is to rehabilitate the aging infrastructure and make improvements as described in the EA.
Swimming Pool Suggestion
• “Are you planning a swimming pool? If so, why not put it at the location of
the old swimming hole at the end of what’s now Hayes Drive? It could be
fed by Culhane Brook, as it was in ‘the past (Johnson)”
Response: There are no plans to develop a swimming pool. Opportunities
exist for swimming and water recreation activities at nearby swimming holes.
Diverting Cullhane Brook is not an acceptable resource management strategy. Anticipated significant environmental effects would prohibit this from
occurring.
37

Dolly Copp Campground Rehabilitation Project Environmental

Transcription

Similar documents

DISCOVER Michigan`s Beauty

Sandbanks Provincial Park maps

dawson county rockhaven campground

Campground Layout Map

Campground Layout Map

Happy campers - Portland Magazine

Holiday Pines Campground

Fun Food Fantasy!

the full list of Canada`s best national parks

2016 Bashville Site Map