Chapter 1: Purpose and Need and Proposed Action

Transcription

1 BUTTERMILK TOILET CONSTRUCTION PROJECT White Mountain Ranger District, Inyo National Forest Inyo County, CA Chapter 1: Purpose and Need and Proposed Action Purpose and Need Over the last 20 years, there has been a steadily growing concentration of use around the Buttermilk area for dispersed camping, rock climbing, OHV use, mountain biking, hiking, fishing, cross country skiing and a variety of other recreational pursuits. As a result, there is a need to address human health and safety concerns associated with sanitation issues arising from increased visitor use in the area, particularly concentrated use around the Buttermilk Boulders, as well as provide further protection for water, vegetation and cultural resources. Proposed Action Above: Camoflaged toilet on Santa Cruz Island. The Inyo National Forest proposes to construct up to two small vault toilets adjacent to the Buttermilk area of the Bishop Creek drainage. The toilet facilities would be designed and built on site, with a minimal profile (7 ) and footprint (8 x 8 ), using rough-cut wood materials in order to blend into the surrounding environment. Each would be a single-seat unit with a gallon capacity and have a short, native surface, wheelchair-accessible footpath leading to the toilet from an existing parking area. In addition, if any unknown historic property is found during project implementation it will be necessary to halt work until the locality can be evaluated by a heritage resource specialist. To mitigate the spread of noxious weeds, existing weeds will be removed from the parking lots. Construction equipment and the clothing of the installers will be cleaned before and after construction. Above: Rustic toilet blends into its surroundings 1

2 The project area is located in the north half of Township 7 South, Range 31 East, Section 21 immediately north of National Forest System Road 7S01. One proposed toilet location (Location 2 on map) is next to a small turn-around/parking area, near the Birthday Boulders, along 7S04 just north of 7S01. A picture of location 2 is shown to the left. The other proposed toilet location (Location 1 on map, picture to the right) would be east of the Buttermilks in a pull out on the north side of 7S01 that was originally a borrow pit. A picture of location 1 is show to the right. One toilet will be installed initially in one of the locations. A second will be installed if use of the first toilet overwhelms its capacity, even when serviced at regular intervals. 2

3 Decision to be Made ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The decision to be made is whether or not to construct up to two small vault toilets in the Buttermilk area, in the vicinity of Buttermilk Rd. Public Involvement The current proposed action has been included in the Inyo National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions since June Notification of the proposed action and request for comments was published in the Inyo Register on June 16, Copies of the news article, public letters, and notes of telephone comments are included in the project file, along with a summary of public comments stating how each comment was addressed. 228 individuals or organizations commented on the proposed action during the scoping period, the majority of which (178) were form letters received from Access Fund members. There were 71 unique comments. Issues An issue, as it relates to the NEPA process, is a point of disagreement, debate, or dispute with the proposed action based on some anticipated effect. The following issues were identified during scoping. 1. A permanent facility may have a negative impact on visual quality. 2. Odor from permanent toilet facility might detract from recreation experience. 3. Cost of installation and maintenance of a permanent toilet facility is prohibitive. The Forest Service will be unable to maintain the facility and it will become a rundown, unused facility. 4. Toilet facility should be sited in a way as to be accessible for a variety of recreation users all year. One or more of the locations in the proposed action does not meet this necessity. 5. Toilet facility should be sited in a way as to be accessible for maintenance. One or more of the locations in the proposed action does not meet this necessity. 6. Toilet facility may lead to an increase in recreation and dispersed camping in the area, which will negatively impact resources. 7. Toilet facility may have unintended (positive and negative) impacts on wildlife. The Forest Service received several comments that were ultimately identified as non-issues, or issues that were NOT a point of disagreement, debate, or dispute with the proposed action based 3

4 on some anticipated effect. A list of these comments and reasons regarding their categorization as such are documented in the project file at the White Mountain Ranger Station. Tiering and Incorporation by Reference In order to eliminate repetitive discussion and documentation, this environmental assessement tiers to the analysis of the Inyo National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1988) as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USDA Forest Service 2004). The following documents prepared for this analysis are incorporated by reference: Biological Evaluation for Buttermilk Toilet and Parking Area Project (wildlife) (L. Murphy, 2013) Biological Evaluation for Sensitive Plants for Buttermilk Parking Lots, Toilets and Roadwork (S. Weis, 2010) Engineering Input to Buttermilks EA (A. Dunfee, 2011) Noxious Weed Risk Assessment (S. Weis, 2010a) Recreation Specialist Report (Crane, 2013) Section 106 Clearance for Buttermilk Toilet (C. Nicholas, 2013) Visual Analysis Report (M. Grossman, 2010) Watershed Input to Buttermilks EA (E. Noesser, 2011) 4

5 Chapter 2: Alternatives The following table provides a comparison of the alternatives: the action that each alternative takes, whether or not the alternative meets the purpose and need, and the effect on issues identified during scoping. Action Taken What action will be taken under each alternative? Purpose and Need: Does the alternative address health and sanitation issues in the Buttermilk area and also protect resource values? Issues: 1. Negative visual quality impacts Alternative 1: No Action No action would be taken. The toilet(s) would not be constructed. This action addresses comments received during scoping that stated that a permanent toilet was not necessary in the Buttermilks. No, not constructing the toilet does not address health and sanitation issues to increasing, concentrated recreation use in the area. There would continue to be water quality impacts due to human waste accumulation, and there would continue to be potential threats to sub-surface cultural resources. There would be no change to visual resource values, and there would continue to be a negative impact to the recreation experience in the Buttermilk area due to human waste visible from trails and among the bouldering and dispersed camping areas. This alternative would automatically meet visual quality objectives (VQOs) because nothing would be done to change the landscape. Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative 2 provides for the construction of up to two vault toilets in the Buttermilk area. See Proposed Action above for a description of the toilets and possible locations. Yes, the proposed action does address health and sanitation issues in the Buttermilks. Putting up to two toilets in the Buttermilks would alleviate current negative impacts to watershed resources. The toilet(s) would have a minimal effect on the visual quality of the area. Both proposed locations meet VQOs as described in the Inyo National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. The forest will, however, implement mitigation measures as described in the proposed action (native materials, muted colors and low- 5

6 2. Odor negatively impacts recreation experience 3. Cost of installation and maintenance is prohibitive 4. Accessibility of toilets for all recreation user groups 5. Accessibility of toilets in order to perform maintenance 6. Increased resource impacts as a result of increased recreation use There would be no odor issues associated with a toilet, but there may be odor issues from user created waste concentrations, such as behind certain outcroppings of boulders. There would be no costs associated with the no action alternative as no facilities would be installed. All user groups would continue to take care of business as usual in whatever location they deem suitable. There would be no need for maintenance as no facilities would be constructed. There would still be a need to collect trash and toilet paper left behind by recreation users relieving themselves. There will continue to be impacts from increasing numbers of recreation users as the popularity of the Buttermilk area grows, both for climbers and other recreation users. profile construction) in order to reduce the visual impact even further. According to the engineering specialist report, odor is generally not an issue with vault toilets if they are properly sited and regularly cleaned and maintained. No installation of toilets would occur unless the Forest Service can ensure funding for both implementation and foreseeable future maintenance. Recreation users, whether they are camping, rock climbing, operating off-highway vehicles, mountain biking, hiking, horseback riding, fishing, cross country skiing or otherwise would be able to access a toilet in either of the proposed locations. Both locations are in established parking areas, close to the main Buttermilk Road (Forest Service Road 7S01), which is how most recreation users access the area. In addition, the recreation specialist report states that more users park and camp closer to the upper Birthday Boulders parking area than the lower borrow pit parking area. Both locations are accessible for the necessary maintenance of vault toilets, including regular cleaning and periodic pumping, because they are in established parking areas. There will continue to be impacts from increasing numbers of recreation users as the popularity of the Buttermilk area grows, both for climbers and other recreation users. Installing one or 6

7 7. Wildlife impacts There would be no impact to wildlife because no permanent facility would be built. two toilets would not, by themselves, cause recreation impacts to increase measurably. Installation of one or two toilets would not have any measureable effect on local wildlife populations. There is no threatened, endangered, proposed or sensitive animal species or habitat present in the project area. Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Study The following alternatives were suggested by the public during scoping, but were ultimately eliminated from detailed study. Wag bag dispenser Public education about wag bags and proper waste disposal The wag bag dispenser and public education alternatives were eliminated because of the challenges associated with reaching dispersed recreation users in the Buttermilk area either to educate them about wag bag use and disposal or about proper backcountry waste disposal techniques. The forest is able to educate the public about wag bag use on the Mt. Whitney trail (the only area on the forest where wag bags are required) due to the contact made in the permitting process. There is no such process in place for users recreating in the Buttermilks. The forest would also still need to maintain and clean receptacles for used wag bags in the Buttermilks, so the alternative is not without cost. There may also be users who are resistant to using wag bags or who will use the wag bags and simply leave them on the ground, so in addition to toilet paper, there will also be wag bags left behind boulders and in vegetation. (Crane, 2013) Port-a-potty The forest has placed a port-a-potty in other concentrated use areas in the past as an interim solution to the need for sanitation facilities. The cost of renting and maintaining these types of facilities in the long term is even more costly than the installation and maintenance associated with a small pit toilet. (Crane, 2013) Locate the toilet near the cattleguard at the junction of Buttermilk Rd (7S01) and 7S04. The Forest Service initially considered locating the toilet near the cattleguard, but ultimately eliminated those locations due to the potential negative impacts to heritage resources. There are other already disturbed areas nearby where the toilet can be located with minimal risk of incurring serious impacts. 7

8 Prohibit dispersed camping in the area to reduce human waste contamination. Prohibiting dispersed camping will not meet the purpose and need of this analysis. Overnight users are only one source of human waste contamination in the Buttermilk area. Even if camping were prohibited on Forest Service lands, there would continue to be impacts from day users. Additionally, recreation visitors may also continue to camp (illegally) on adjacent LA Department of Water and Power lands. Prohibiting dispersed camping also not meet the intent of the Inyo s Forest Plan for the Buttermilk area, which states that the Buttermilks will be managed as a dispersed recreation area, including opportunities for camping. (Crane, 2013) Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences Effects Related to Issues Identified During Scoping The direct, indirect and cumulative effects related to issues identified during scoping are discussed below. 1. A permanent facility may have a negative impact on visual quality. Proposed Action: Visual quality on the Inyo National Forest is addressed in the Visual Analysis Report for the Buttermilk Toilet Project, compiled by a Forest Service landscape architect. The report concludes that both proposed locations meet the Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) set forth in the Inyo National Forest s Land and Resource Management Plan. The report does note that if a toilet is placed in the Birthday Boulders location, then further mediations may need to be utilized in order to minimize the visual adverse effects. Mediations would include using rustic materials to construct the toilet that would blend into the landscape and plantings or boulders to disguise the shape of the toilet (Grossman, 2010). Both toilets would be subject to these mediations. A copy of the full visual analysis report is available in the project file at the White Mountain Ranger Station. Comments were also received regarding the visual impact as viewed from private land in the Buttermilk area. As stated above, the Forest Service would construct the toilet(s) in such a way as to minimize visual impact. Painting the exterior an appropriate color for its surroundings will help the building blend into the landscape, while use of boulders and sagebrush plantings should help to camouflage the shape of the building(s) (Grossman, 2010). There would be no cumulative effect on visual quality from the two toilets together, since, due to topography, it is nearly impossible to view both toilet locations clearly at the same time. Since the Buttermilk area is managed as a dispersed recreation area with no to low improvements, it is unlikely that there would be further facilities development. No Action: With no permanent facility, visual quality will be unchanged from the present state. There may still be localized visual impacts from toilet paper and related trash that recreation users leave behind when relieving themselves behind boulders or near vegetation. 8

9 2. Odor from permanent toilet facility might detract from recreation experience. Proposed Action: Odor from backcountry toilets is generally not an issue when the toilets are properly cleaned and maintained (Dunfee, 2012). Odor is also more of an issue during the summer months, but due to the elevation, the Buttermilk area experiences higher concentrated use during the fall, winter and spring months. No Action: There would be no toilet installed, so there would be no odor from a facility to impact the recreation experience. There may be localized odor issues from recreation users relieving themselves behind boulders or near vegetation and failing to properly bury waste. 3. Cost of installation and maintenance of permanent toilet facilities is prohibitive. Proposed Action: There is currently some funding available from Forest Service partners to fund the toilet installation or maintenance. The agency will not proceed with the installation of any toilet facilities until such time as funding can be guaranteed for future maintenance. A single unit toilet that would fit the character of the Buttermilk area would cost approximately $7,500, up to $15,000 to construct two toilets. It would increase costs by $500 per unit to maintain the toilets. (Crane, 2013). No Action: There would be no toilet installed, so there would be no installation or maintenance costs. 4. Toilet facility should be sited in a way as to be accessible for a variety of recreation users all year. One or more of the locations in the proposed action does not have this characteristic. Proposed Action: A toilet in either of the proposed locations would be accessible for a variety of recreation users, year round. The proposed locations are about 0.5 miles apart, making them a relatively easy walk from either side of the Buttermilk climbing area. There is a higher concentration of recreation use on the side near the Birthday Boulders, which would make that location more accessible for rock climbers. Both locations are located in established parking areas, which are accessible via a short turn-off from the main Buttermilk Rd (Forest Service Road 7S01). According to the recreation specialist report, a toilet in the upper Birthday Boulders parking spur would more useful for the majority of rock climbers and dispersed campers who use the area, and placing toilets in both proposed locations would provide even greater access (Crane, 2013). No Action: There would be no toilet to site, so recreation users would continue to relieve themselves wherever they deem appropriate. 5. Toilet facility should be sited in a way as to be accessible for maintenance. One or more of the locations in the proposed action does not have this characteristic. Proposed Action: Both toilet locations are located in or immediately adjacent to established, hardened parking areas that are large enough for maintenance and pumping trucks. There would 9

10 not need to be any additional disturbed space created to accommodate the trucks (Crane, 2013). The Buttermilk area generally only receives several inches of snow at a time and both parking areas are south facing, so any snow should melt relatively quickly This should not impede maintenance trucks from accessing the toilets on a regular schedule (Crane, 2013). No Action: There would be no toilet(s) so no maintenance trucks would need access to the parking areas, except to park and take care of general maintenance of the area, like cleaning up trash. 6. Toilet facility may lead to an increase in recreation and dispersed camping in the area, which will negatively impact resources. Proposed Action: It is unlikely that installing one or two toilets by themselves will directly lead to a measureable increase in recreation and dispersed camping use in the area. Recreation use and dispersed camping in the Buttermilks will continue to grow regardless of the presence of a toilet facility due to its increasing popularity. The area can, however, sustain additional impacts to the resources from increasing use, particularly if the Forest Service is pro-active in its management. It is expected that people who are recreating or camping in the Buttermilk would use the toilet(s) for their intended purpose, which would help alleviate environmental impacts in the general area (Crane, 2013). Overnight users camp in both dispersed sites near the creek and in or next to the two parking areas. Placing a toilet in one or both parking lots is unlikely to increase camping in these parking spurs beyond the use that is currently occurring (Crane 2013). No Action: Recreation use and dispersed camping are likely to increase in the area even without a toilet, since the Buttermilks are becoming an international destination for rock climbing and other outdoor pursuits. This increase in recreation may cause additional environmental impacts, such as soil compaction (from parking, camping and concentrated bouldering) and water quality issues (from more day and overnight users needing a place to answer the call of nature). 7. Toilet facility may have unintended (positive and negative) impacts on wildlife. Proposed Action: There is a concern that a permanent toilet facility will disrupt the wildlife in the area or infringe upon wildlife habitat. According to the wildlife biological evaluation and assessment, the proposed action will not have any direct, indirect or cumulative impact on any threatened, endangered, proposed or sensitive wildlife species. Construction activities may temporarily affect mule deer in the area, but the presence of a bathroom would not lead toward avoidance of the area or limit mule deer movement through the area once the facility is in place. The placement of the toilet would be on already disturbed ground, which is not suitable for mule deer foraging habitat. No suitable foraging habitat will be removed as a result of toilet construction. No long term impacts to mule deer are expected as a result of toilet construction as the Buttermilk area already receives heavy recreation use (Murphy, 2013). There is also a concern that small rodents can enter the facility and drown in the toilet. According to the wildlife biological evaluation and assessment, the proposed action will not 10

11 adversely impact any populations of threatened, endangered, proposed or sensitive mice or squirrel species. There may be some mortality to non-special status mice and squirrels due to the presence of a vault toilet. The Forest Service will continue to educate the public about closing the lid of the toilet to further reduce mortality to local wildlife (Murphy, 2013). No Action: There would be no toilet(s) constructed so there would be no direct, indirect or cumulative impact to the current patterns of wildlife use in the area. Effects Related to Significance Factors The following discussion addresses the ten factors to be considered in determining the significance of a federal action as defined by the implementing regulations for the National Environmental Policy Act [40 CFR (b)]. 1. Beneficial and adverse effects Proposed Action: Soils and Hydrology: Installation of up to two toilet(s) should not directly or indirectly affect soil quality if constructed in an already disturbed area. Because these disturbed soils have low productivity, highly productive soils will not be lost. Undisturbed soils will not be directly or indirectly affected as heavy equipment will remain on disturbed surfaces during installation and maintenance. Therefore, there should not be any soil compaction or loss of productive soils as a result of this project. In the long run, the installation of a toilet will also benefit hydrological resources by mitigating any potential water quality concerns due to users defecating on the soil surface and/or near streams. (Lutrick, 2011) Wildlife: A Biological Evaluation (BE) for threatened, endangered, proposed, and sensitive wildlife species, as well as management indicator species (MIS) was prepared, and is included in the project file. No threatened, endangered, proposed or sensitive Species or their habitat were located in the proposed work areas. The proposed action will have no direct, indirect or cummulative impact on any sensitive, threatened, endangered, or proposed plant or animal species. The project is limited in scope and would not involve habitat altering activities. There may be temporary impacts to mule deer during the construction process (i.e. they may avoid the area while construction activities are ongoing), but once the toilet is in place, there would be no further direct, indirect or cummulative impacts to mule deer in the area. (Murphy, 2013) Sensitive Plants: A BE for plant species was completed and is included in the project file. The plant BE determined that there would be no direct, indirect or cummulative impacts to sensitive plants or sensitive plant habitat as a result of this project. (Weis, 2010) Noxious Weeds: The area along Buttermilk Rd and user roads used to access both toilet locations are highly vulnerable to weed invasion due to the highly disturbed soils. Cheatgrass is scattered throughout the proposed toilet locations and along trails originating from parking areas. Since the footprint of the proposed action is very limited, weed 11

12 invasion is not expected to increase or decrease as a result of toilet construction or future maintenance and use of the toilet(s). Mitigation measures to be taken are to clean the equipment used to install the toilet(s) and to clean the clothing of the installers postinstallation. (Weis, 2010a) Cultural Resources: By placing the toilet(s) in already disturbed locations (parking spurs), the impact on cultural resources will be minimal. Installing one or two permanent toilet facilities in the Buttermilk area will also dissuade recreation users from disturbing subsurface artifacts by digging holes to bury waste. Construction of the pit toilets will involve digging a hole approximately five feet in depth. If any unknown historic property is found during project implementation, it will be necessary to halt work until the locality can be evaluated by a heritage resource specialists. (Nicholas, 2013) Recreation: This project is not expected to directly result in any increase in recreational use in the area. Due to the increasing popularity of the Buttermilks for rock climbing and other recreational pursuits, recreation users will continue to use the area in increasing numbers in the future, regardless of toilet installation. The toilet(s) will, however, allow the Forest Service to manage the human waste impacts that are occuring from increasing recreation use in the area. (Crane, 2013) No Action: Soils and Hydrology: With no toilet facility, there would continue to be an effect on water resources in the area due to recreation user defecating in or near streams. (Lutrick, 2011) Wildlife: With no toilet facility, wildlife and wildlife habitat would continue in their present state. (Murphy, 2013) Sensitive Plants: With no toilet facility, there would be no impact to sensitive plants in the area. (Weis, 2010) Noxious Weeds: With no toilet facility, the propagation of noxious weeds would be similar to what one would expect for an already disturbed area. (Weis, 2010a) Cultural Resources: There would be no effect on cultural resources at the toilet location, but other artifacts just below the soil surface would continue to be at risk due to recreation users digging holes to bury waste. (Nicholas, 2013) Recreation: If no toilet is installed in the Buttermilks, recreation use, both day use and overnight use, in the Buttermilks will still continue to grow due to the increasing popularity of the area for rock climbing and other outdoor recreational pursuits. The proliferation of white flowers of toilet paper behind and around certain boulders and along the creek will continue to detract from the recreation user experience. (Crane, 2013) 2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety 12

13 Proposed Action: The proposed action will have a beneficial effect on public health and safety by mitigating any potential water quality concerns from human waste deposits contaminating the creek (Lutrick, 2011). It will also mitigate any health effects from recreating in or around secluded areas (e.g. behind climbing boulders, in streamside vegetation near popular camping areas) that people have used for depositing waste until now. No Action: With no toilet installed, there will continue to be potential water quality concerns from human waste deposits contaminating the creek. (Lutrick, 2011) 3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area Proposed Action: The proposed action is not in the proximity of any parklands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild or scenic rivers, ecologically critical areas, or historic or cultural resources. There were two additional proposed toilet locations (near the cattleguard on Forest Service Road 7S01) that were eliminated from further consideration due to proximity to cultural resources. No Action: As no action would be taken, there would be no direct, indirect or cummulative impacts to any parklands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild or scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. There may be impacts to surface or subsurface cultural resources disturbed by recreation users digging holes to bury waste. 4. The degree to which the effects on the human environment are likely to be highly controversial. Proposed Action: The impacts of installing a small vault toilet are well known to the Forest Service and other land management agencies. The Inyo National Forest has been using vault toilets in various recreation locations since 1950 and currently has 120 such toilets in service. (Dunfee, 2012) No Action: As no toilet would be installed, there would continue to be potential impacts to water quality from human waste deposition on and in the soils near the creek. It is welldocumented that human waste near or in creeks can cause water quality concerns. The Leave No Trace ethic advises people to deposit solid human waste in catholes dug 6 to 8 inches deep, at least 200 feet from water, camp and trails to minimize water quality and other hazardous human health impacts. (Leave No Trace: 5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risk Proposed Action: The proposed action is similar in type and scope to many projects completed on the Inyo National Forest. The forest currently has 120 vault toilets across various recreation locations. Forest Service staff, campground concessionaires and several local contractors are well-versed in pumping and maintaining such toilets so that waste is removed from the unit safely and disposed of properly. (Dunfee, 2012) 13

14 No Action: There would be no action taken, so management in the Buttermilk area would remain the same as it has been since the 1988 Inyo National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan was written, though recreation use has increased and will continue to increase in the area. 6. The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration Proposed Action: The proposed action does not establish a precedent for future actions, and does not represent a decision in principle about a future consideration. While the proposed action allows for construction of a second toilet in a second location at some point in the future should need require, the combined environmental implications of both toilet sites are analyzed together in this EA. No Action: No action would be taken. If the deciding officer elects the no action alternative, there would not be toilets installed in the Buttermilks now or in the future based solely on this analysis. Future conditions and patterns of recreation use in the area may trigger a new analysis of the toilet question. Some of the information used to develop this environmental assessment may be considered in the future analysis, but any reports or information would need to be updated to reflect changing conditions and an entirely new NEPA document written. 7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts Proposed Action: The effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities have been considered in this analysis. This project is limited in scope and will not contribute to cumulatively significant impacts in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities. The plant BE determined that there would be no impacts to sensitive plants or sensitive plant habitat as a result of this project. In addition, the plant BE did not identify any other past actions in the area that had adversely affected sensitive plant populations, and no foreseeable future activities that would potentially impact sensitive plant populations were identified. (Weis, 2010) The wildlife BE determined that no Threatened, Endangered, Proposed or Sensitive Species or their habitat were located in the proposed work areas. The proposed action will have no cummulative impact on any sensitive, threatened, endangered, or proposed plant or animal species. The project is limited in scope and would not involve habitat altering activities. (Murphy, 2013) No Action: 14

15 No action would be taken. Not taking action is a standalone decision and is not related to any other actions. 8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register or Historic Places, or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources Proposed Action: A Section 106 Clearance Letter has been prepared and there are no scientific, cultural, or historical resources in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project areas as the proposed areas are in already disturbed locations. The footprint of the toilets will each by 8 x8 square with a depth of up to 5 feet. All heavy construction equipment will remain on the already disturbed parking areas during installation. Future maintenance vehilces would also be limited to the disturbed parking areas. In addition to these precautions, should any previously unknown historic property be found during project implementation, it will be necessary to halt work until the locality can be evaluated by a heritage resource specialist. No Action: No toilet would be installed, so recreation users in the Buttermilk area will continue to dig small holes to bury waste, generally in undisturbed areas, away from the main recreation areas. This may adversely impact surface and subsurface archaeological artifacts that are unearthed or displaced as a result of digging. 9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 Proposed Action: Biological Evaluations (BE) were prepared for both plant and wildlife species. The plant BE concluded that no threatened, endangered, or proposed wildlife species are known or suspected to occur in the Buttermilk area. The wildlife BE concluded that no threatened, endangered, or proposed wildlife species would be no direct, indirect or cummulative impacts caused by the proposed action because there is no habitat for these species within or adjacent to the project area. (Murphy, 2013) No Action: There would be no toilet installed, so no threatened, endangered, or proposed wildlife species would be impacted, directly, indirectly or cummulatively. 10. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law, or other requirements imposed for the protection of the environment Proposed Action: The proposed action was developed in accordance with and, therefore, does not threaten to violate any Federal, State or local laws or requirements for the protection of the environment (i.e.: Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act, Clean Water Act, and the Natural Forest Management Act). The above discussion of effects and the related references in the project file document that this project will not adversely affect soils, water quality, cultural or historic resources, or threatened or endangered species. 15

16 The proposed action is also consistent with the Inyo National Forest Land and Resources Management Plan (1988) as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (2004). No Action: There would be no action taken, and doing so does not threaten a violation of Federal, State or local law or other requirements imposed for the protection of the environment as the status quo would be maintained. 16