The difficulty of approving new lookout rentals

[justpeachy]

A little over a year ago I hiked up to the Red Mountain lookout, which is right outside the boundary of the Indian Heaven Wilderness. Today I was pondering what the heck was up with that place since I know the plan for years has been to add it to the rental program. What's the holdup?

I poked around online and found this January 16 article from The Columbian: http://www.columbian.com/news/2014/jan/ ... ess-limbo/

The article mentions Red Mountain but focuses on the Gotchen Creek Guard Station, which is in the same situation. "Before the Forest Service can charge a rental fee at Gotchen, the matter must come before the Pacific Northwest Recreation Resources Advisory Committee." But guess what? "There is no Pacific Northwest Recreation RAC. All positions are vacant, according the website for the Forest Service’s regional office. Tom Knappenberger, public affairs officer for the Pacific Northwest region of the Forest Service, said the Recreation Resource Advisory Committee has not met since October of 2010."

There are four options: "1) new legislation changing the committee requirement; 2) the governors waiving the RAC requirement; 3) the advisory committee slots are all filled and approved, and 4) the status quo." But I'm sure that with the glacially-slow pace of government, Gotchen Creek and Red Mountain won't be on the rental program at any point in the near future. I'm a big fan of lookout rentals, so this is pretty discouraging news.

[kepPNW]

Wow, we were just up there yesterday, and wondered more than a few times whether it might be available for rent. The views were simply spectacular!

https://www.google.com/maps/views/view/ ... 03&fovy=75

Too bad it's so bungled up in bureaucracy.

[retired jerry]

catch 22

[Aimless]

The fact that governors would be required to waive the current RAC requirements means this is not wholly internal to the FS, but state governments and state laws/regulations/formal agreements are involved. This sort of mess is the downside of having state governments with so much autonomy from one another and from the feds. Luckily, we do gain other important advantages from this cockeyed arrangement.

[sgyoung]

It's especially frustrating that there are applicants for nearly all of the spots for Pacific Northwest Recreation RAC, but they are apparently not being moved forward. The reasoning stated in the Columbian article wasn't entirely sensible to me.

Biro said she has an applicant for every spot except tourism, but would be more comfortable with additional nominations to put forward in case there is a glitch in the background check.

It seems preferable to submit an applicant for further consideration and risk a failed background check than to sit around for years hoping for a backup applicant. I just don't get the cost/benefit analysis here at all (am I misreading the article, because that quote makes less sense the more I think about it?)

[Guy]

Bloated bureaucracy at its best....

[drm]

I think this is the key line from the article:

said she needs a slate of 11 applicants and 11 alternates to submit to the agency’s Washington, D.C., office to begin the clearance process including background checks.

It's not unusual for committees to operate at less than full staffing, but she can't submit the new names without a full roster AND alternates for them. And then those background checks. Can't have anybody with terrorist (or drug I suppose, almost as bad, right?) backgrounds deciding things of such import.