Mt. Whitney Portal Store & Hostel Forums General Mt. Whitney Portal Store Message Board more poop on the poop pack-out

I was not aware that urine production is endemic to females!
Bobbie

I was in Joshua Tree the last 3 days and saw this huge column of smoke to the north. Must have been this thread.

Ken or anyone:

If you track down that water quality data, I'd be hugely interested in seeing it.

So OK:

1) Re: Wilderness & Structures

Although I don't fully agree with Ken that it's impossible to put another outhouse into a Wilderness, it would definitely be very, very difficult. As an Alternative, you'd have to consider reducing the total number of people on the trail to meet some sort of acceptable wag bag comply/non-comply impact for, likely, water quality & aesthetics. The Wilderness Act definitely allows such things, you just have to show that it furthers wilderness values. It would depend on how valuable USFS and the public think the high numbers of people being introduced to and enjoying the wilderness via the Whitney trail is vs. reducing those numbers. (Not a great sentence, hope that makes sense...). If there's a high value in getting people out of their car ports and onto the Whitney Trail (and I think there is) then it's not impossible that you can justify a toilet or two to accommodate them and reduce their impact, rather than reduce the numbers (I would also argue that the Whitney Trail is a special case -- though a tenuous argument for an Environmental Assessment...).

2) Engineering of Backcountry toilets

I've worked with the various engineers and read the manufacturer literature of the various toilet designs since about 1973 when I was a ranger in Little Yosemite Valley. The overall idea of whatever the system is is to reduce the bulk so it can eventually be sent out. The ideal is a composter so the bulk is reduced to almost nothing. The very serious problem is, as several here have pointed out, that NONE of the existing systems (Little Yosemite, Vernal Fall, Pear Lake, Whitney Trail, Voglesang) have ever worked as designed. Almost all of them, as I've said elsewhere, end up sending out uncomposted or very wet effluent.

I was present when very competent civil engineers and manufacturers would confidently say that the proposed system would work. That's been going on for, literally, 40 years. It's not quite fair to say that to object to another "for sure" system is the same as saying it can't be done. Quite possibly it can, but after all these years, to throw more money and effort at this problem may not be the best approach. And to object to trying another unproven system, however good it looks on paper, is also not the same as denying fact or evidence. Decades of practical experience and data support this view.

Now, even if the various bulk reduction toilets don't work, that may not be critical. The goal, after all, is to reduce or eliminate the aesthetic problem (crap & toilet paper scattered hither and yon) and improve water quality. Our original system in LYV in the 70s was a standard jet-john which we emptied every two weeks or so. The effluent went into a trap with a burlap sheet over a grate. The liquids drained into a cinder/sand trap then leached into morainal debris (and then, likely, into the Merced river). After a week of draining, we'd roll up the burlap and load it onto a mule. Boy, was that fun, but it worked. LYV had probably 1,000 people per week, 3 Jet-johns and very high compliance for using them.

3) Although it's a great theoretical discussion on building a better mouse trap, because of the extreme difficulty of building one for the Whitney corridor, that discussion may be moot. There is a chance that it's just not possible because of the Wilderness Act. There's no question, though, that you'd have to show that wag bags don't adequately reduce water pollution or aesthetic impact.

However, I do not at all share the pessimism over wag bag compliance. It would be interesting to see the actual data, but 20% non-compliance as far as aesthetics and water quality may be just fine.

Ten years ago, objections to bear canisters were just as vehement. "They'll never work; why is the USFS/NPS requiring this useless experiment?" & etc. Some really angry hikers out there then. But darned if it didn't work. There was a dramatic (even stunning) reduction in bears getting backpacker's food. There was a resultant move from that food source and back to nuts and berries and the occasional fawn. And, of course, over 90% acceptance (if occasionally grudging) by backcountry users.

So, what I'm arguing here is to wait a few more years and see how this wag bag thing goes. In the 3 years since their introduction, compliance is better than I expected. Success or failure can be determined through water quality tests (if there's a good base line) and even the less reliable observations of rangers in the area affected.

g.

Thanks, Ken. I'd love to read that EIR and learn more about the history of this problem. I sense a lot of hard feelings about the failure of the previous toilet system.

I had a nice long conversation today with Glenn Nelson, owner of Phoenix Composting toilets in Montana. He impressed me as an honest person. Of course he's very knowledgeable with a long history of success at designing and installing these systems for the Forest Service and Park Service and many others. I'll summarize what I learned below and then give you some background on where I'm coming from.

The old toilet system was designed by an engineer from back east (to remain anonymous). Apparently he had a history of system failures and the results at Whitney are no surprise. Phoenix recently removed his failed system at Crater Lake, OR. They remodeled his building and put in their system that is now working fine. The old system failed for two obvious reasons. 1)inadequate solar heat 2)poor separation of liquids from solids. This is what I saw at Whitney. The result is a porta-potty without chemicals. God Bless those Rangers who worked so hard trying to maintain it.

But that's not how a functioning composting toilet works. These systems are an amazing use of modern technology in a natural environment. Neutral smell, comfortable. Effective. No TP in sight. Very high compliance rate. This is how it could be on Whitney.

Glenn Nelson was contacted about a possible installation on Whitney by a couple people a few years ago but that was it. Apparently the wag bag experiment got more attention. It's understandable after what happened with the old system. Glenn continues to assure anyone who bothers to call that his company can provide a guaranteed turn-key solution including the building. His company is GSA approved by the federal government, so contracting and procurement is streamlined. He does a lot of government business, so he's got a lot at stake with the GSA designation and other Forest Service/Park contracts if his system didn't work. Write a good performance spec and hold him to it.

Phoenix makes an Alpine building version that Glenn assured me will work well at 12,000 ft on solar heating in the peak season. He estimated 2 composters for 100 daily uses, possibly three. He's designing a system for year-round use on Mt. Rainier, which is what he considers challenging.

If you've been following this thread you might be wondering who the heck BagPeak is and why is he so passionate about this. I'm a registered civil engineer with a Masters in Structural Engineering and a licensed building contractor. I'm a government engineer with my own side business. I was a water quality regulator as a young engineer and then I did 15 years of design work on all components of large water resource projects. I now manage a design section working on about $1billion in dam projects. I'm a recognized expert on earthquake engineering of dams and have been an invited lecturer in London, Japan, and all over the U.S. I've even been on Modern Marvels. I have no stake in this outcome. There's one thing that pushed my button that motivated me to write so much on this thread.

It struck a raw nerve when I read post after post of how a composting toilet could not work on Whitney. Ask my kids and they'll tell you not to do that to me. I can't stand naysayers when I know something can be achieved.

My wife is getting frustrated with me spending so much time on this. When everyone's sick of TP blowing around the mountain, and the smell, and bags on the trail, and if people start getting sick from contaminated water, then dig out this thread and start thinking outside the bag.

Happy Trails,
BagPeak

I see the Inyo site is back up, but I can't seem to find the EIR, I may have to contact them to find the info. I'll see if I can get ahold of the water quality monitoring info, as well.

I see that Brian Spitek is the point person on all this, and I'll be sharing a campsite with him this weekend, so I may be able to address the issue in person. Always the best way.

K

Oh, and I should say for several posters' benefit: we seem to have this debate each year. Very strong feelings about this, and doesn't seem to be losing it's power.

George,
I think there is a lot more satisfaction with these systems than you imply. The forest service and park service are putting in new ones all the time for good reason. People like to use them, they work good enough, and most importantly, they protect the environment. I've been told they're probably going in at the top of Lassen at 10,000ft and also on Mt. Rainier.

Like the computer you're reading this on, the technology keeps improving. Better insulating materials are being used, solar heating systems are advancing, and the control systems are getting very sophisticated. No more burlap bags you describe from the 70's.

I'm confused why you're surprised that these systems process liquid effluent. People pee in them no matter what sign is on the door. That's not a design flaw, that's human nature. A good system separates it from the solids and processes it to a much improved product. No haz mat suits. Minor odor.

I'm also surprised that you're okay with a 20% noncompliance rate for the wag bag experiment. That adds up to over 1,000 noncompliant campers and 1,800 day hikers between June-August every year.

Oops, gotta sign off, I'm in trouble with my wife again....

Bagpeak, I definitely understand how you feel when someone tells you that something can't be done, especially when it's in an area where you have expertise. I'm the same way, though I don't have the background, nor am I willing to spend the time to be able to provide specifics, especially given the negativity expressed here to any option other than bags. I do, however, understand human nature pretty well, and think the course they're on is a no-win, given the diverse and heavy traffic on the main trail in-season.

My criticism of the forest service, which some appear offended at, was not intended to offend anyone, but I do feel that 1) removing the existing structures (instead of trying to update/upgrade/repair/renovate/redesign) was not a smart move, and indeed was maybe done too hastily or without enough consideration of the situation, and 2) it was unrealistic in this particular situation to expect a wag bag program to succeed, for several reasons already covered. People make mistakes, including apparently sacred government entities, and 'good guys' though they may be, they're human.

I only visit the Whitney area occasionally, so the issue is not a big deal to me personally. If I visited as often as many on this board, you can be sure I'd be pushing for a real solution, naysayers or not. However, I figure if they're satisfied with how it's working, and would rather just list a bunch of reasons why nothing else will work, they're the ones who have to see and smell it on a regular basis. Anyway, good luck with your endeavor, and remember you can lead a horse to water, (you know the rest).

Gary, I agree with your assessment entirely. George and Ken and others all said the same thing. Inyo FS would look foolish if they suddenly reversed course. They're even in a NY Times video piece. I jumped into this very late in the game but I hope I made my point that modern composting toilets are a viable option (I think the best option) should this experiment fail. There will also be pressure to greatly reduce the quotas and Trail Camp may be done as a camp.

Wag bags are not a science experiment, we know the water will be contaminated if this fails. This is a sociological experiment on a very private matter in a public place. I have nothing against wag bags, but they should include a paper target. However, some percentage of 14,000+ people each year will not use them for whatever reasons. Its not you or me, its the guy behind the tree. This looks like very risky public health policy. I'd love to be proved wrong and stop locking my truck too.

The effects will show up as increased nitrates, an easy indicator to monitor. Not that bad by itself, but it would mean there is also biological contamination and that's what makes people sick. If anyone's concerned, use chemical treatment or boil water from the trail.

I hope to verify that the situation is being monitored adequately and then move on. There's nothing I can find on their website to make that easy.

Ken, I found reference to an Environment Assessment on Human Waste on Mt Whitney. I think this is the doc you're referring me to, but I can't find the report on their website. Looks like they pulled it and there's nothing on how they monitor this situation either. I think I'll have to contact Brian Spitek to get any information.

OK, so I uploaded the
Environmental Assessment report. I don't want to junk up my web page with a bunch of crap, so read or copy it soon. I'll remove it in a few days.

Five pages on a topic is rare. Also, 20 posts by an individual on a single topic must be some kind of record.

As Ken said, this topic has become an annual rite. (Sigh)

Bob, Thanks very much. Amazing.

Does everyone know their proposed Alternative 1 was to

REPLACE THE TWO TOILETS.

After just 16 response letters, they switched to Alternative 5 which is what we have now.

Pretty much everything I've written shows up in this document. I feel vindicated that I did not overstate things.

Now I have to know how are they monitoring this experiment?

I put it on my server, so here's another link, unlikely to go down anytime soon

Environmental Impact Study

Thanks Bob and Fish.

Understand that an EIR requires a comprehensive review of all reasonable legal options. It doesn't mean that they are seriously considered, or are feasible. It is intended to demonstrate in writing, the breadth of options that have been considered.

Well, I think if I implied anything, it was that the people maintaining them (me and my maintenance buddies) were not happy with the ones in actual use now, not the hikers. The exception were the Whitney ones which were truly awful for everyone. The critical thing I seem to end up repeating is that, so far, they don't work as designed and that spending more money on an unproven system may not be the best approach. You've referred to several examples of ones that work, but other have pointed out their limited capacity and use levels.

I'm not at all against these systems, all I keep pointing out is show me one that actually works for hundreds of people per day in an alpine environment and then you might have a selling point.

To put one of these puppies into a remote location will cost tens of thousands of dollars (writing an Environmental Assessment -- $10,000+; hearings; material & transportation; workers; transportation of said workers). I helped design and write the EA for a 12 X 17 log ranger station. The total cost is now over $50,000 and it's not even in place yet. Then there's the ongoing maintenance costs -- probably over $10,000 per year.

I don't even really have anything against these things not working except for the work involved in keeping them going. Who puts in the TP; stirs the solids so they break down?; puts in the sawdust, if necessary, to keep the organic ratio right?; is qualified to repair them when they inevitably break something under such high use levels?; & etc. Even an ammo can system (Ostrander) needs maintenance every two days, minimum.

I'm not in the least impressed with the fact that some manager of some park got talked into one of these for the future. That's been the problem with all the rest of them. I don't want to get too cynical or cliched, but I've seen those upper level managers order these things then just assume everything's fine. The grunts make them work, or not, but the manager never hears about it again.


I'm surprised because, in spite of being told this (use levels and piss as well as temperatures] by all field staff, the engineers (including the Phoenix people) would absolutely assure us that it would work as designed. That is, we'd only have to haul out a sawdust like solid every year or so. In practice, not so. Again, I don't really care what's packed out, but because maintenance needs were much higher than assured, I'm just not into them. Clearly you're a solid engineer, lots of experience, lots of data but, not to put too fine a point on it, you're not cleaning and packing the s--t out, I am.


I'm less sure of the history here. My guess is that a 20% non-compliance is an improvement over previous years, even with the toilets in place. So while there was likely an improvement in water quality as a result of the toilets, I'm not sure how significant it was. That watershed has always been among the worst of any wilderness area. As such, there might well be no net change with wag bags which would make them the Minimum Tool, as required by the Wilderness Act.

I don't want to overdo it here. My cost estimates are really back of the envelope, but based on a fair amount of experience. Same with water quality guesses. I've worked closely with Dr. Bob Derlet of UCD who's been sampling Sierra water for 10 years now. I published a number of his and others' papers on water quality in Sierra Nature Notes, where I'm the editor.

Mostly, it's just been my experience that a high-maintenance/techno solution to a backcountry problem (whatever it is, not just toilets) is usually a mistake. We really need to try the low-tech solutions more often and put the energy into making them work. They may not, but we don't know yet.

g.

Actually, we're mislabeling this document. Its not an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). EIRs are for addressing state law CEQA (CA Env Quality Act). This project is entirely federal, which means they have to satisfy NEPA (National Env. Protection Act and Environmental Impact Statement). The two processes are very similar and many projects do a joint EIR/EIS to satisfy both.

However, this Environment Assessment (EA) document is only the first part required to satisfy NEPA. It must be followed up with either an EIS or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). An EIS is a big deal and would show up on EPA websites and the federal registry. So I'm quite sure they didn't do an EIS.

So they must have followed this EA up with a FONSI sent out to everyone who got the EA and a 30-day public review period. It should have raised a lot of questions by agencies which the FONSI had to address. Now we need to have this decision document to see how they addressed these questions:

1) How did they justify switching from their Proposed Alternative 1 (New Toilets) to Alternative 5 (Wag Bags and Prayers)?

2) How did they claim there would be "NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS"? The EA concludes there could be water quality issues, visual impacts (toilet paper and bags on the trail) and other impacts. Tough to say these aren't "significant".

3) How did they plan to mitigate the impacts described in the EA report? Its okay to have minor impacts that are addressed, but they can't just say, "We think the public will eventually be educated and accepting of this concept." That's not a plan, that's wishful thinking.

4) What is the monitoring plan? That's what I'm interested in more than anything. The EA claims they will monitor hiker compliance and water quality for state regulations. What exactly are they doing and how is it going? They need to monitor nitrates, fecal coliform, metals, and the other usual suspects of human waste contamination. They need to take samples at the right locations and right times of year and they need to track it all. I'm pretty sure this would be the bare minimum for a state project regulated by the CA Regional Water Quality Control Board (Lahontan RWQCB).

Perhaps everything is fine, and I sincerely hope it is. I'm just a little suspicious and I'd like to wrap this up. I told my wife that I set a new record on this forum, but she's not impressed.

Does anyone have a copy titled something like, "Decision Document - Findings of No Significant Impacts for Human Waste on Mt Whitney"?

Bagpeak, let us know what you find after you've talked to the
regulator/managers......

This thread was unfortunately deleted, and has since been restored.

The discussion continued in a new thread here:   Whitney Toilet discussion