dolly copp campground -...

Dolly CoppCampground

Rehabilitation Project

Environmental AssessmentTown of Martin’s Location

Coos County, NH

Androscoggin Ranger DistrictApril 2010

Whi

te M

ount

ain

Nat

iona

l For

est

For Information Contact: Thomas MooreAndroscoggin Ranger DistrictWhite Mountain National Forest300 Glen RoadGorham NH 03581Telephone (603) 466-2713 X226FAX (603) 466-2856

United StatesDepartment ofAgriculture

Forest Service

EasternRegion

This document is available in large print.Contact the

Androscoggin Ranger District Phone 603 466-2713TTY 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 infor-mation (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

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.

Dolly Copp Campground Rehabilitation Project — Environmental Assessment

3

ContentsChapter 1 — Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action .............................. 5

1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 51.2 Project Location and Background ............................................................... 51.3 Proposed Action ............................................................................................ 61.4 Purpose of and Need for Action ................................................................. 71.5 Scope of this Environmental Assessment and Public Involvement ..... 101.6 Decision to be Made .................................................................................... 11

Chapter 2 — Issues and Alternatives Including the Proposed Action ............. 122.1 Issue Central to the Decision Being Made ............................................... 122.2 Alternatives .................................................................................................. 13

Chapter 3 — Environmental Consequences ........................................................ 173.1 Effects on the Physical, Biological, and Social Environments .............. 21

Chapter 4 — List of Preparers ................................................................................ 26Appendix A — Literature Cited ............................................................................ 27Appendix B — Response to 30-Day Public Comment Report .......................... 31

White Mountain National Forest — Androscoggin Ranger District

4

Map 1. (left) Project Area Vicinity.

Map 2. (below) Dolly Copp Campground Vicinity.

Gorham

Berlin

MartinsLocation

Dolly CoppCampground

Maine

Vicinity Map

0 9 184.5 Miles


5

Chapter 1 — Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

1.1 IntroductionOne 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 appreci-ated 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 BackgroundThe 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.


6

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 Euro-American 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 camp-ground’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/adminis-tration building. The campground continued to expand throughout the twentieth century with additional camp-

ground 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 life-guard 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 inte-rior road, and Culhane Brook divides the campground roughly into northern and southern sections. The western side of the main road offers wooded, well-screened 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 ActionThis 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 accom-modate safe navigation of larger recreational and emergency vehicles.

Figure 3. Dolly Copp Campground development, 1915–2000.


7

• 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 ActionThe purpose of the action is to provide high-quality developed camping oppor-tunities 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 visi-tors find desirable; and the opportunity to provide amenities to support and improve overall District operations.

Existing ConditionDolly Copp Campground provides a variety of camping experiences and is popular with a wide range of users. It accommodates areas of high develop-ment 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 condi-tion. 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 exist-ing alignment of the overall road system and camping spurs in certain loops can pose maneuvering difficulties for RVs of various types and sizes. Larger


8

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 drain-ing 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 build-ings 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 home-stead 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.


9

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 ConditionManagement 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 accord-ing 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 camp-grounds 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 evalu-ated 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.


10

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 deter-mine 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 con-cerns, 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.


11

The scope of this environmental assessment focuses around a conceptual pro-posal 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 MadeThe 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.


12

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 MadeForest Service managers have long been aware of the strong generational con-nection 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 devel-opment 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 pro-vided 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 electric-ity 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.


13

2.2 AlternativesAlternative 1: No ActionThis 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 ActionConsistent 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 manage-ment facilities.

▫ Design improvements to maximize energy conservation and environ-mental 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 expe-

riences 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 pro-

viding improved services for all campers. ▫ Meet visitor expectations for high-quality restroom, shower, and camp-

site 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.


14

• 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.


15

• Consider potential for limited parking to serve the Daniel Webster-Scout Trailhead, possibly on the east side of the main road.

Alternative 3: Modified ProposalThis 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.


16

Figure 7. Dolly Copp campers; Imp Face in background. Photo from The New Hampshire Troubadour, August 1949.

Figure 6. “Dolly Copp Forest Camp” — 1930s entrance sign.


17

Chapter 3 — Environmental ConsequencesCampground Development Level and CharacterThis section of the environmental assessment analyzes how the central issue identified in Chapter 2 is affected by each element of the alternatives. A descrip-tion 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 develop-ment 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 accom-modate 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.


18

Table 3-1. Rating Criteria and Corresponding Development Levels.

Rating CriteriaDevelopment Level

High Moderate Rustic

LandscapeNatural appearing designed and modified landscape

Natural appearing de-signed landscape

Natural appearing

Miles to Primary Road 0–0.4 miles 05.–1.9 miles 2.0 + milesAccess 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 CampsitesPercent 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 PumpToilet System Flush Vault VaultHost (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

HookupsAcceptable and available for public use — per FSM direction

Acceptable for administrative use only (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


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


19

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 com-patible 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 Existing Development Level

Proposed Action Development Level

Alternative 3 Development Level

Landscape High High HighMiles to Primary Road High High HighAccess Road Surface / Interior Road Surface

High High High

Road Design Moderate High HighTotal Sites (Campsites) High High HighPercent of RV Campsites High High HighShowers Moderate High HighWater System High High HighToilet SystemHost (Within Campground)Interpretive ProgramsElectric

HighHighHighHigh

HighHighHighHigh

HighHighHighHigh

Hookups Moderate High ModerateTotal Rating High High High

The paved road system is currently rated High and would remain so follow-ing implementation of this alternative. Reconstruction of the road system will provide smoother surface conditions and improve drainage features in all sec-tions 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 navi-gate safely in areas where they currently travel and camp. Roads in loops that


20

adequately accommodate RV use on the eastern side of the campground would not require realignment. Likewise, roads in loops that do not currently accom-modate 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 adjust-ment 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 construc-tion 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 develop-ment 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


21

facilities would increase overall occupancy within the capacity of the camp-ground. 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


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 devel-opment 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 CampgroundPast, 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.


22

Cultural ResourcesKnown 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 indi-rect effects from the project, there would be no cumulative effects. Consequently, Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Report (CRRR) Number 09-2-1 with a deter-mination 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 revi-sion, 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

SpeciesThe BE details effects to these species. Under both action alternatives, eastern small-footed myotis could be displaced if they are roosting in buildings being


23

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 exist-ing 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 indi-vidual 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 con-ditions 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.

RecreationThe 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.


24

Access to the hiking trailheads may be affected during project implementation. Likewise, informal uses during the off-season may be affected by implementa-tion 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 antici-pated for any recreation use because the campground will remain in essentially the same layout following selection of any alternative.

Soil ResourcesThe 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 implementa-tion 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 ResourcesThe 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 limit-ing 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 con-structed 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


25

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 RiversThere 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, indi-rect, or cumulative effects to free-flowing condition, potential classification, or potential outstandingly remarkable values following implementation of any alternative.

Wildlife ResourcesThe 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 distur-bance 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 CommunitiesThe nearest known occurrence of any of these communities is more than ten miles from the project area; therefore, this project would not affect any outstand-ing natural community.

Inventoried Roadless AreasThis 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.


26

Chapter 4 — List of PreparersTom Moore ................................................................................................................ Team Leader

Androscoggin Ranger DistrictLesley Rowse ..................................................................................................... Wildlife Biologist

Androscoggin Ranger DistrictTravis Pellerin...............................................................................................Recreation Specialist

Androscoggin Ranger DistrictSarah Jordan .......................................................................................... Historical Archaeologist

Forest Supervisors Office

Other Forest Service specialists consulted during analysis included:David Neely ............................................................... Assistant District Ranger — Recreation

Androscoggin Ranger DistrictBrian Johnston .................................................Acting Assistant District Ranger — Recreation

Androscoggin Ranger DistrictKen Allen ..................................................................................................... Landscape Architect

Forest Supervisor’s OfficeMarianne Leberman .......................................................................Recreation Program Leader

Forest Supervisor’s OfficeSheela Johnson ...........................................................................................................Hydrologist

Forest Supervisor’s OfficeAndy Colter ...............................................................................................................Soil Scientist

Forest Supervisor’s OfficeChris Mattrick ....................................................................................................................Botanist

Forest Supervisor’s OfficeJ. Sylvester ...............................................................................................Engineering Technician

Forest Supervisor’s OfficeJacob Ormes........................................................................................... Transportation Engineer

Forest Supervisor’s OfficeJason Anderson ................................................................................................Facilities Engineer

Forest Supervisor’s OfficeBill Dauer ....................................................... Forest Engineer/Technical Services Staff Officer

Forest Supervisor’s OfficeRichard Dow .........................................................Technical Writer/Editor, Webmaster

Forest Supervisor’s OfficeMary Brown ................................................................................Landscape Architect/Designer

Eastern Region Technical Services TeamArt Johnston ..................................................................................................................... Engineer

Eastern Region Technical Services TeamKurt Kretvix............................................................................................................... Team Leader

Eastern Region Technical Services Team


27

Appendix A — Literature CitedPhotos 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 empha-sis 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 commu-nity 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.


28

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%20Serve/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.htmPease. 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.


29

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 2.2USDA Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 82.14–Stream corridor defined.USDA-Forest Service Handbook, Supplement R9 RO 2509.18-2005-1USDA 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, NHUSFS. 1993. White Mountain National Forest Monitoring Report. Laconia, NH 112pp.USFS. 1994. White Mountain National Forest Monitoring Report. Laconia, NH 36pp.USFS. 1996. White Mountain National Forest. 1996 Annual Report, Ten Year Monitoring Summary. Laconia, NH. 63pp.USFS. 1998. White Mountain National Forest Monitoring Report. Laconia, NH 36ppUSFS. 1999. White Mountain National Forest Monitoring Report. Laconia, NH 45ppUSFS. 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.


30

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.


31

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 repair-ing 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 analy-sis 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 JasinskiWilliam Arnold Mrs. Lewis H. ParkerKenneth Zerbst Gibb DodgeEdward J. Reichert John T.B. Mudge


32

Ray Ellis Jr.–NE Trail Riders Assoc. Wilma CorriganMartha Twombley Charlie and Gail CorriganNorman Demers Robert CraigJean Di Ruzzo Richard and Shirley LevesqueKim Steele Ernest D. MahlkeEmily T. Smith Robt. and Jean WatermanFred Brown Paul SchieblerAllan M. Peterson Rene G. BoutinGayle Marie Craig Joanne N. RuggBruce P. Sloat Thomas LinellForest Warner Jr. Richard FabianLyn Whitson Louis CotterPauline 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 Issues2. Respondent suggestions3. Comments outside the scope of the decision being made

1. Significant IssuesThe 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 alterna-tive addresses a concern that adding electric service pedestals within several campground loops will change the character and the recreation experience avail-able 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


33

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 camp-ground” (Schiebler)

• “…Roads need to be maintained and reconstructed to accommodate admin-istrative 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 under-standing 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


34

…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 neces-sary 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 SuggestionsMany 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 3Commenter Suggestion• “Enlarge the site already on the existing trailer loop and limit those to trail-

ers only”Response: The project is designed to improve and rehabilitate the existing camp-ground. 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.Commenter Suggestion• “…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 con-sideration. The existing sites and open areas are large enough to accommodate these types of games for individual use.


35

Commenter Suggestion• “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.Commenter Suggestion• “…Install all electrical and waterlines underground (Twombley)”Response: This design component is included in Alternative 2.Commenter Suggestion• “…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.


36

3. Comments outside the Scope of the Decision Being MadeThe 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 surround-ings of drive-through, artificially lighted places?..(Gordon)”


37

• … 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 infra-structure 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 strat-egy. Anticipated significant environmental effects would prohibit this from occurring.

dolly copp campground -...

Documents