The response rate to the BCPOA Cell Tower Survey was phenomenal – clearly this is an issue of considerable interest.

The outcome is mostly what one would expect: considerable enthusiasm for cell service, and considerable concern about impacts. The leading benefit of service was perceived as safety (though some argued in the comments that distracted drivers would likely degrade safety). The leading concern was for views. Support for towers was about 1 point lower, and concern for impacts 1 point greater, among respondents who also took the time to write a comment.

Enthusiasm for service was highest where it does not now exist (Upper and Lower Canyon) and lower where there is now coverage (Jackson Creek) and the threat of impacts is most imminent (Aspen Meadow).

Some wondered why the cell site could not be collocated with existing infrastructure, on the ridge at Bridger Bowl, for example. Unfortunately, we don’t know whether this is possible or under consideration. Many also wondered about coverage and broadband availability, and again we don’t know much. Coverage is complex, because cell signals don’t strictly require line of sight, but also can’t tolerate too much obstruction. However, it seems unlikely that the proposed tower would do much for reception in Kelly Canyon or on the SW side of Green Mountain, particularly if the design were lowered to reduce visual impact.

Two surprises:

Almost 1/3 of respondents rated themselves as “indifferent” to negative impacts of towers, which seems to be at odds with the 85% who expressed concern for views. A look at the comments suggests that some expressing indifference are assuming that intelligent siting and design would sufficiently mitigate visual and other impacts.

Similarly, feelings about the particular proposal in Aspen Meadow were very polarized, with about 1/3 expressing “strong support”. We suspect that the strong support would be tempered somewhat if we had emphasized that (a) the design, as stated in the public notice, would stand roughly 100 feet above the treetops, and (b) the covenants in Aspen Meadow forbid nonresidential development.

A sampling of comments:

I am most concerned about the creep of blight in the name of convenience. BC is an extraordinary region, we have only to look to the west of downtown Bozeman to see the benefits of zoning that puts community input and values first over expediency or commercial demands. With each small, incremental affront to the BC landscape, the bar is lowered, making the next affronts that much more possible.

Dependable cell service in Bridger Canyon will provide a real convenience and possibly cost saving to those not wanting to pay for a land line. It also provides a vital safety tool for hunters, skiers, snowmobilers, etc. as well as motor vehicle accident victims and additional communication channel for Bridger Canyon Fire. The visibility of the tower is not ideal but cell towers are a way of life in many areas and I feel the benefits outweigh the visual impact.

I believe that cell service in Bridger Canyon poses significantly more benefits than detriments; however, the placement of the cell tower is of critical concern. It needs to be placed so that it has minimal environmental impact and does not materially distract from the area’s natural beauty and unspoiled vistas.

The views of the Bridgers are not to be taken for granted. They are precious and the reason many have chosen to re-locate here. Once they are gone, they are gone forever. A tower of the proposed height is a disservice to all who live here and appreciate the wide open views and skies.

For me, it comes down to balancing preservation/conservation of canyon resources — including aesthetics — and benefits to be gained by canyon residents. Always a very difficult path to navigate!

Detailed comments – stripped of any identifying information – are in Cell Survey Details.