Groups try to stop controversial Sawtooths cell tower as Idaho officials move it ahead
As multiple conservation groups petition for a last-ditch effort to stop the construction of a controversial cell tower in Idaho’s Sawtooth Valley, state officials said they’re moving forward with plans to install the 195-foot structure, which is meant to expand cellular network coverage for emergency first responders.
On Oct. 27, the Idaho Conservation League, Sawtooth Society, and Sawtooth Interpretive and Historical Association filed requests with the Idaho Board of Land Commissioners for a contested case hearing on the cell tower, which would be built on state land southeast of Stanley. The conservation groups asked to be included in the Land Board’s Nov. 17 meeting.
Sharla Arledge, spokeswoman for the Idaho Department of Lands, told the Statesman that those requests were still “under legal review” on Wednesday.
The Idaho Department of Lands has provided a lease to AT&T, which intends to use a site 75 feet by 50 feet for 20 years.
“IDL is awaiting signature as well as required documentation (construction drawings),” Arledge said in an email. “Once we receive it and it is reviewed to verify accuracy, the lease will be executed by the state.”
Neither Arledge nor AT&T was able to provide a timeline for when the lease might be finalized or when construction could begin on the tower.
“A timeline for construction of the site will be determined when the lease is finalized and permitting process is complete,” AT&T officials said in an emailed statement.
The cell tower has been a hotly contested topic in the area since January, when conservation groups, residents and even Stanley Mayor Steve Botti raised concerns about the tower creating an eyesore in a popular outdoor recreation area. Among the critics of the tower was CusterTel, a local utility that has an existing 100-foot tower on the same parcel.
CusterTel has proposed multiple times that AT&T co-locate on its tower, which the company has declined. AT&T has said the existing tower would not meet the needs of its proposed tower, which is being built as part of FirstNet, a nationwide first responders network prompted by interagency communication challenges in the aftermath of terror attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
The Idaho Department of Lands said it went through its required process for land leases. Unlike the U.S. Forest Service, the Department of Lands does not have to conduct environmental reviews, as state-owned endowment lands are meant to “secure the maximum long-term financial return” to Idaho’s public schools, per the state Constitution.
The agency last heard public comments related to the proposed cell tower lease at the Land Board’s July 21 meeting. The board, which includes Gov. Brad Little, Secretary of State Lawerence Denney and Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, did not take any specific action on the lease during that meeting. The conservation groups are asking the Land Board to take action or provide direction to the Department of Lands.
“Absent such Land Board direction, it appears that IDL staff have not sought to engage with CusterTel or the applicant about alternative possible arrangements, and instead are moving forward to finalize the lease as proposed by the applicant,” wrote Jonathan Oppenheimer, the Idaho Conservation League’s external communications director, in the request for a contested case hearing.
Other stakeholders, including the Sawtooth Society and Sawtooth Interpretive and Historical Association, told the Statesman that they never heard from the Department of Lands in response to their letters of opposition to the cell tower. Stewart Wilder, president of the Sawtooth Interpretive and Historical Association board of directors, said he did receive a response from AT&T in regards to attaching lights to the 195-cell tower. The utility company said it would not do so unless future regulations require it.
The Idaho Conservation League hinted at potential legal action should the lease move forward as planned.
“ICL seeks to ensure that the Land Board is fully informed about potential impacts of the proposed lease and alternatives, and to avoid possible litigation that may result if the proposed IDL lease is approved in its current form,” the group said.
This story was originally published November 5, 2020 at 1:09 PM.
