Jennifer Campbell is a co-owner of Idaho Tower Company.
By JENNIFER CAMPBELL
Idaho Tower Co. understands that its tower proposal is an emotional issue for both the people who oppose any tower on Galena and those who support the tower for public safety reasons.
Please know that ITC is not proposing to locate the tower in a historically pristine area of the SNRA. ITC's proposed location at Galena has been used as a communications site for over 30 years. ITC's camouflage design and site placement minimize the visual impact to such a degree that most casual observers will not even notice the new facility. ITC urges anyone who doubts the camouflage design to review photographs on its Web site of its award-winning stealth tower in the Teton Forest at www.galenastealthtower.com
ITC is also not seeking to fill the SNRA with towers, nor provide coverage to the SNRA wilderness. ITC's objective is to assist carriers in providing adequate wireless coverage along a portion of Idaho's most traveled state highway, as well as provide basic service to residential communities within the SNRA. ITC's plan has always been a two-site solution: Galena and a hilltop outside Stanley. The Forest Service has a long-standing history of providing for other commercial purposes on its lands, such as timber, grazing, mining, hydro-electric, etc. ITC believes providing wireless services is a worthy objective, especially in rural environments where reliable communication services can play a critical role in getting help.
ITC objects to the Forest Service's recent proposed amendment to increase the VQO (visual quality objective) classification at its proposed site location because it is using a flawed analysis in determining the visual sensitivity level of the proposed site location. The Forest Service is attempting to treat an inventoried forest road, built and maintained for communication purposes, as only a skier-made skin track. Applying the more rigorous visual rating for a skin track on the communication service road is driving the proposed amendment. That is, due to the fact that some skiers now use the communication service road to more easily access the backcountry, the Forest Service wants to increase the VQO rating. This will prohibit the installation of wireless infrastructure for both cell carrier and public safety radio equipment. This result is inappropriate—especially since the SNRA forest plan explicitly provides that the Forest Service should grant approval for telecommunication facilities.
ITC sympathizes with those who are philosophically opposed to cell towers and cell service within the SNRA. In a perfect world, perhaps the SNRA could remain technology-free. However, residents within the SNRA and people driving along Highway 75, many of whom are visitors, also believe they have the right to use cell phones to call for help if they need it. There are federal laws in place to support these peoples' rights and the rights of carriers to provide this service. The Forest Service has already made the decision to support cell service within its forest Pplan. Indeed, the Forest Service acknowledges that opportunities afforded to emergency services as a result of cell phones and wireless services are "invaluable". It is not a question, then, of should there be cell service in the SNRA, but how should this service be incorporated within the SNRA. ITC believes its stealth design solution is a better alternative to Homeland Security's 120-foot tower alternative, as well as carriers' building multiple, taller towers along the Sawtooth Valley floor.
ITC believes its proposal protects the scenic values of the SNRA while supporting other management objectives for recreation, preservation of resources and public safety. ITC hopes thoughtful, sensible resolution can be made of this issue.
