Rather, the process in 2004 was short-circuited, and the letter is just asking Inyo to complete the process.
Please look at the letter.
I did look at the letter. Please point me where I go off the mark.
1. Solar toilets of Long Peak design (and the associated concept of using private contractors and llamas to remove solid waste) were not part of the original EA. The alternative 1 of the EA proposes toilets maintained by park rangers three times a week and solid waste removed by helicopter.
2. Therefore, choosing to build solar toilets of Long Peak design is not an allowed outcome under the federal law.
3. They can't reasonably file a FONSI because there is in fact an environmental impact due to the use of WAG bags.
4. Drafting an EIS is an enormously expensive undertaking that can easily cost the national forest office over a million dollars.
5. And completing that process would make absolutely no effect on the presence or absence of toilets on the mountain (except for the obvious problem that the forest would have a lot less money in in its budget to build them.)
