Cell Phone Tower To Be Built Near Boundary Waters

The sunrise over the Boundary Waters will soon have a companion on the horizon- the blinking light of a cell phone tower. Construction of the tower was effectively approved in August as the Minnesota Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal by environmental advocates to block its construction, ending a long legal struggle over the wilderness area's skyline.
 

A sunrise on Pipestone Bay

A tower over the wilderness

The tower site lies on a high ridge in Ely, just outside the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. From atop the ridge, the top of the tower will reach 600 feet above the waters of Pipestone Bay, making it visible from ten nearby lakes. Because of federal aviation rules, such a tall tower requires blinking lights attached, to warn planes.
 
The BWCAW, established in 1964, covers over a million acres and contains more than 1,000 lakes, with hundreds of miles of streams and rivers. It lies in the heart of the Superior National Forest, on the border with Canada. It is the most heavily visited wilderness area in the country, attracting visitors with what the Minnesota legislature calls its “surpassing scenic beauty and solitude, free from substantially all commercial activities and artificial development.”
 
AT&T officials say that the tower is vital for public safety, improving emergency phone service for campers and canoers in the wilderness, as well as to under-served local residents. They say that a tall tower on the ridge is necessary for the needed coverage given the hilly topography of the region. In addition, court findings state that the ten lakes from which the tower would be visible constitute less than one percent of the BWCAW’s 1,175 lakes.

"We believe the limited impact of the tower is greatly outweighed by the benefits -- including health and safety benefits -- of the improved service it will provide residents and visitors," AT&T spokesman Marty Richter said.
 
Opponents such as Friends of the Boundary Waters counter that the tower will spoil the scenic value of the Boundary Waters, and that a shorter tower could provide adequate services while preserving the area's skyline.

"We understand the need and would like the tower builders to examine alternative methods to providing service without affecting the BWCAW.", said the environmental organization.

According to District Court findings a pair of unlit 199 foot tall towers could provide more coverage than a single, lit, 450 foot tower, and the increased coverage between a single short tower.
 
Analysis by AT&T, cited in the findings, found that while the taller tower could be profitable within 38 months, the shorter one would take 63 months to cover costs- three months longer than the company's guidelines for the project.

A long legal battle

Certain campers enjoy cell phone coverage

The Lake County Board approved the tower in February 2010, in hopes of improving the wilderness's cell phone coverage. The decision of the County Board was made without analysis to the view impacts, and on the basis of statements by AT&T-later found to be false- that the taller tower would deliver 16 times the coverage.
 
In June of 2010, Friends of the Boundary Waters filed a lawsuit, heard by Hennepin County District Judge Philip Bush, who ruled on the side of the activists, limiting the tower's height to 199 feet and forbidding it from bearing lights. The rationale for that ruling was that a taller tower would violate the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act, which allows citizens to sue for legal action to protect natural resources, including scenic areas. Judge Bush ruled that the area's scenic value would be deteriorated and that a taller tower would pose a risk to birds.

That decision was overturned, however, in June of 2012, when the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled in favor of AT&T. While the appeals court did not dispute any of the facts of the the District Court decision, it did reframe them. Citing precedent from Schaller v. Blue Earth County the court judged the case based on five factors:

"(1) The quality and severity of any adverse effects of the proposed action on the natural resources affected; (2) Whether the natural resources affected are rare, unique, endangered, or have historical significance; (3) Whether the proposed action will have long-term adverse effects on natural resources, including whether the affected resources are easily replaceable (for example, by replanting trees or restocking fish); (4) Whether the proposed action will have significant consequential effects on other natural resources (for example, whether wildlife will be lost if its habitat is impaired or destroyed); and (5) Whether the affected natural resources are significantly increasing or decreasing in number, considering the direct and consequential impact of the proposed action."
 
With these criteria, the appeals court faulted the district court for not addressing the first criteria. It further found fault with the district court's conclusions on the third, fourth, and fifth factors. On the third, regarding permanence, the court noted that removing the tower would remove the damage to the view, and thus the damage was not permanent. Regarding the fourth, effects on wildlife, the court concluded that the number and species of the birds that would be killed by the tower was unknown. Finally, regarding the fifth, the court said that scenic Boundary Water views “are limited and finite resources” that “are not increasing and unless protected they will decrease over time,” but faulted the district court for failing to weight whether this was "significant".


The Boundary Waters contains over 1,000 lakes


The appeals court ruled that while the second factor, the rareness of the resources affected, was compelling, it alone was not enough to bar the tower's construction, and the 450 foot tower's impacts were therefore insufficient to have "a materially adverse effect on the environment". 
 
Commenting on the decision, environmental advocate and former Friends of the Boundary Waters director Ron Meador said, "By narrowing its review to this single aspect, the appeals court spared itself the trouble of considering such pesky questions as whether one or two shorter towers wouldn’t serve AT&T and its customers just as well as a 450-footer, without any impact on the BWCA."
 
Although Friends of the Boundary Waters appealed the case to the Minnesota Supreme Court, their request for a hearing was denied, allowing the June 2012 decision to stand.

"We're glad the matter is resolved," said Alex Carey, head of corporate communications for AT&T in Minnesota. "We have believed all along that the larger tower will provide an overall improvements for the residents and visitors of the Boundary Waters."

Friends of the Boundary Waters director Paul Danicic disagrees. "The Supreme Court's decision not to review this case is a disappointment and loss for all of Minnesota's protected natural resources," he said. "This tower is contrary to Minnesota's values of environmental stewardship."

The environmental organization says that they are examining options for next steps.

Image Sources: Capture Minnesota, 123RF, and Quiet Journey,