Idaho Mountain Express: Galena cell tower decision appealed

TALK BACK: Now you can add YOUR comments about this article.

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

Galena cell tower decision appealed

Idaho Tower Co. seeks to have denial reversed

By JASON KAUFFMAN
Express Staff Writer

The controversy surrounding a local company's bid to construct a 90-foot, self-supporting cellular tower on a high ridge near the headwaters of the Big Wood River looks to be far from over.

Earlier this week, representatives with Ketchum-based Idaho Tower Co. appealed a decision made in July by Sawtooth National Forest Supervisor Jane Kollmeyer to deny the proposed "stealth" tower on Galena Summit, northwest of Ketchum. The appeal was filed with the U.S. Forest Service Region 4 office in Ogden, Utah.

Proponents of the facility have consistently claimed the cellular tower would add a significant measure of safety for the traveling public in the rural area surrounding Galena Summit, which marks the divide between the Big Wood and Salmon river drainages.

Citing the "substantial impairment" the project would produce on the scenic ridgetop, Kollmeyer announced earlier this year that she had chosen the "No Action" alternative described in an environmental assessment that considered potential impacts of the tower on lands in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area. That meant the facility could not be built.

But in the lengthy appeal submitted by Idaho Tower Co. this week, backers of the tower claim Kollmeyer had already determined to deny the application before the environmental analysis began. They further claim that many of the objections to the controversial application were on grounds that "they do not want cell coverage to potentially interfere with their idea of how one should enjoy the SNRA."

The Idaho Tower Co. appeal states that Kollmeyer failed to obtain and consider information relating to the public's need for cellular service in the Galena area. Rather than direct her staff to investigate the purported safety benefits of having cellular service in the rural area, the appeal claims Kollmeyer had them focus on issues related to the dangers of using cellular phones while driving and whether doing so can lead to increased automobile accidents.

"The energy the Forest Service put into trying to gather negative safety information lies in sharp contrast to effort utilized to gather first-hand safety information," the appeal states.

The appeal also claims Sawtooth National Forest officials failed to follow federal guidelines in processing the application, citing a congressional mandate that federal lands should be made available for telecommunications services equipment.

The company conducted a balloon test as part of the application process to determine the visibility of the cellular tower from state Highway 75, which passes just southwest of the proposed project site.

From the highway on the south side of the summit closer to Ketchum, the balloon wasn't visible while set at a height of 90-feet at the site. However, simulated photos of the tower at different distances along the Highway 75 travel corridor indicated the tower would be visible from several points north of Galena Summit.

Representatives of Idaho Tower Co., which is owned by Wood River Valley residents Jennifer and John Campbell, selected a camouflaged cellular tower designed to appear as a pine tree, so it would best blend into the surrounding forest. However, at a height of 90 feet, the tower would clear the surrounding trees by about 40 feet, Forest Service information indicated.

The single tower was designed to provide space for up to four cellular carriers. One of the other alternatives considered but ultimately rejected in the EA called for two 70-foot towers to space out the cellular carriers at a less noticeable height.

The site where the tower and accompanying 968-square-foot equipment building and fenced enclosure was proposed for construction is accessed by a rough dirt road off Highway 75 on the northeast side of Galena Summit. The proposed facility would have been placed near the old microwave reflector site northeast of the Galena parking area.

In arriving at her decision, Kollmeyer had to consider the attractive qualities that draw thousands of visitors to the SNRA each year, a Sawtooth National Forest news release stated in July. The law that established the 756,000-acre recreation area identifies the area's scenic resources as a key value that must be preserved.

"Scenic resources on the Sawtooth National Recreation Area must be protected," Kollmeyer said.

print version

Leave a Comment

There are 9 comments

The comments below are from the readers of mtexpress.com and in no way represent the views of Express Publishing Inc.

Ken – Iron Creek - Stanley, ID

11/03/08 - 12:18

I hear that some, including a well know actor, don't want a cell phone tower because that is not how the SNRA should be enjoyed. Hmm.... this is the same fellow that is now in a controversy over his sprawling home in the Wood River Valley that occupies land where I used to cross country ski. I was recently going over Galena Pass when I had TWO warning lights come on for flat tires. I had driven through an area that apparently had screws. The Mt. Village Service Station in Stanley closed weeks before. I turned around and drove toward Ketchum praying I'd make it within cell phone range before one or both tires went flat. It was night with no moon and the temperature was dropping fast. The elitists should realize that perpetuating their illusion that the SNRA is not in the 21st century could cost lives. Recently a young man was lost after climbing Grand Mogul. If he had cell phone availability maybe he would not have perished. To the person saying that cell phone availability does not save lives needs to wake up. When we are stranded in the SNRA we may not be found. Ever. We don't live in a highly populated area where help will come upon us. I get very tired of people telling me how I should live or 'enjoy' my own home. They don't live here. Put the cell tower up. We that live here need it.

wtf

10/02/08 - 19:16

The notion that we need that tower up there for the purpose of saving lives is rediculous!
Cell phone distraction causes 2,600 deaths and 330,000 injuries in the United States every year, according to the journal's publisher, the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
A new study confirms that the reaction time of cell phone users slows dramatically, increasing the risk of accidents and tying up traffic in general, and when young adults use cell phones while driving, they're as bad as sleepy septuagenarians.
"If you put a 20-year-old driver behind the wheel with a cell phone, their reaction times are the same as a 70-year-old driver who is not using a cell phone," said University of Utah psychology professor David Strayer. "It's like instantly aging a large number of drivers."
Drivers talking on cell phones were 18 percent slower to react to brake lights, the new study found. In a minor bright note, they also kept a 12 percent greater following distance. But they also took 17 percent longer to regain the speed they lost when they braked.
"Once drivers on cell phones hit the brakes, it takes them longer to get back into the normal flow of traffic," Strayer said. "The net result is they are impeding the overall flow of traffic."
Strayer and his colleagues have been down this road before. In 2001, they found that even hands-free cell phone use distracted drivers. In 2003 they revealed a reason: Drivers look but don't see, because they're distracted by the conversation. The scientists also found previously that chatty motorists are less adept than drunken drivers with blood alcohol levels exceeding 0.08.

Read the last line again...

Laughing – Central Idaho

10/01/08 - 16:02

Gotta laugh at you flatlander transplants - gotta have your cake and eat it too. Are you the same folks that write in and oppose any logging or mining? Are you the same folks that believe the drivel put out that letting fires burn is good? (Except in your back yard of course.) Are the cell tower proponents also the ones that are wanting wolves and grizzlies in our forests? Anti ranchers? Somehow I think you are.

Hang up and drive!

Reply to Laughing

Not laughing

10/01/08 - 20:18

What about the fellow who died while driving over Galena with his wife? He was doing nothing wrong, no gabbing on the phone or texting. He had a medical emergency and no one could a thing for him but high-tail it to Smiley Creek's nearest phone. That is the reason I am not opposed to the tower, if it would make the difference between life and death. If it could help someone in need I am all for it.
By the way, have you read your own post? You can name-call, insult and assume all you want but it won't change my mind.

Reply to Laughing

Pat – ketchum Id

10/01/08 - 21:32

Heaven forbid you or someone you love ever need emergency service over Galena Summit, with an attitude like that I hope Karma gets you.

Daniel – Ketchum

10/01/08 - 10:28

For more information about Idaho Tower Company's proposed stealth tower on Galena Summit, please visit galenastealthtower.com

Lisa Granden – Bellevue

10/01/08 - 10:09

I agree. It is selfish and ignorant to deny the need for a cell tower to cover the Stanley area. It is public land for everyone to enjoy, not just for the out of town snobs who think it will ruin their view. Get this through your head- It's not YOUR view. It's public land, everyone enjoys it. There is a state highway going over Galena, does that ruin your view? Should we take that out as well so you can enjoy some dead trees and mountains? But then you would have to get out of your car, so I guess that wouldn't work. A cell tower will save lives, possibly mine or yours. If you don't want your phone ringing while hiking don't take it. Go somewhere off the highway and you won't even see the tower. This is a ridiculous ordeal that is wasting time and money. If you don't like it go somewhere else.

WALTER JOYCE

10/01/08 - 04:00

Excellent comments--ideas written by Mr Banholzer

JBanholzer – Hailey

09/30/08 - 19:29

In support of the Galena Cell Tower

I can certainly understand how the Forest Service would not want to give permission for a cell tower very easily; but now we taxpayers are paying for two factions of the government to fight it out. Reminds me of something that happened recently in Hailey. Also reminds me of when George Carlin said that he was going to buy a humidifier and a dehumidifier for his basement and plug them both in, to see who wins.

A friend from back east, told me there was an American Legion in his neighborhood that wanted to install a cell tower on their property. Many naysayers came out of the woodwork and maybe it is not a good idea to have cell towers in close proximity to elementary schools until we know more, but anyhow, once he resubmitted his proposal to include an American flag atop his tower, most of the naysayers flip flopped and begin supporting his wrapped in our flag tower.

Some readers probably remember that I have made some statements in the past in strong support of the lifesaving Galena Cell Tower. I still stand by those statements and now since Homeland Security has resuscitated this important issue; will try to repost my earlier towering thoughts here:
www.mtexpress.com
www.idahostatesman.com
www.magicvalley.com