You are here

Verizon Wireless Wants Cellphone Tower Near Grant Grove in Kings Canyon National Park

Published Date

April 6, 2009

An 80-foot cellphone tower pales in size next to giant sequoias. NPS photo by Alex Picavet.

Can you hear me now?

Verizon Wireless wants an affirmative answer to that question if you're in Sequoia and Kings Canyon national parks, and says it needs a cellphone tower possibly 80 feet tall in Kings Canyon to get it.

A short notice that ran in the Federal Register on April 1 says Verizon wants to locate the tower on Park Ridge near Grant Grove in Kings Canyon.

According to the notice, "Park Ridge is an established telecommunications site for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. Current structures on Park Ridge include: two concrete block structures containing NPS and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) communications equipment with power generators; a 20-foot fire lookout tower; two 40-foot lattice towers with NPS and USFS telecommunications equipment; and a 30-foot tower on the NPS communications building supporting a passive reflector used for land-line service operated by Verizon California."

Of course, if Verizon receives approval to locate the tower there, and does indeed install one 80 feet tall, it would dwarf all those other facilities. Beyond that, though, is the question of whether there's a need or a desire for greater cellphone coverage in the two parks?

That, of course, is an aesthetic question as much a philosophical and even practical one. Ever since the world became "wired" it seems you can't leave home and get away from the rest of the world. Should you have cellphone coverage while hiking down a trail in a national park? Should you have to endure someone else yapping away on their phone in a national park setting?

Of course, it's nice to be reachable in an emergency or for business purposes. And where there's cellphone coverage, there's also some form of wireless Internet available as well.

But is this a safety issue, a commercial one, or one to better society in general? If it's a safety issue, how did society manage to survive all these years without cellphone coverage in the parks? And how would greater cell coverage in the parks better society?

Questions aside, it's now up to the staff at the two parks to evaluate the request under the "National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Historic Preservation Act, The Telecommunications Act of 1996, and National Park Service requirements, policy and regulations. Once completed the NEPA analysis including the effects, if any, on cultural resources will be available for public review."

You can send any comments you'd like the parks to consider to: Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Park, Planning and Compliance Office, 47050 Generals Highway, Three Rivers, California 93271. Or you can email them to seki_planning@nps.gov.

Support National Parks Traveler

Your support for the National Parks Traveler comes at a time when news organizations are finding it hard, if not impossible, to stay in business. Traveler's work is vital. For nearly two decades we've provided essential coverage of national parks and protected areas. With the Trump administration’s determination to downsize the federal government, and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum’s approach to public lands focused on energy exploration, it’s clear the Traveler will have much to cover in the months and years ahead. We know of no other news organization that provides such broad coverage of national parks and protected areas on a daily basis. Your support is greatly appreciated.

 

EIN: 26-2378789

Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places

A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.

Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:

  • Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
  • Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
  • Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
  • North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
  • Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
  • Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
  • Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.

Comments

Key words: "My wife and I"

Not everyone is married, especially at my age. it's different, obviously, when you family is living there with you and you're not depending on a phone or the Internet to communicate.


Working / volunteering in Our National Parks is a job unlike many others.
I still have some great rambling letters from an old ranger friend.


I would like say, I had one the best time camping at dorst creek last nov.08 with my daughter's and one of there cousion,who is a girl also.These three grils thought they were going to DIE! without cell phone's. We get there on friday noon;went on a hike to muir grove and they were still trying to get a call out ,but to no avail the phone's did not work.YEA! it took one full day and then they stoped trying to make calls out.They had a good time without them for two more days,so much to do and see without cell phones in the BEAUTFUL MOUNTAINS.oh ya that's three teen age city girls. It was a good father /daughter trip.I would also like to say we say ranger's every where and often, that was great.


For safety, yes, for talking on the phone becuse you can't think of anything else to do? Sorry, that is your problem, young or not, cell phones are not a necessity. Going 1/2 a mile to the VC takes seconds to get there on a bike.


"If you don't want to be bothered by your cell phone, turn it off or leave it in your car. I guarantee you won't be bothered by people on cell phones. Nor is it likely you'd be bothered by car alarms, screaming kids, barking dogs, traffic noise, sirens, loud speakers, construction noise. But please stop trying to tell other people what to do and how they should live their lives." Frank C.

Respectfully, Frank, this is an open forum where people are free to express their views on the issues related to national parks. No one is trying to tell you how to live your life. That is for you to decide. However, we all have a stake in whatever affects the parks, including Sequoia Kings Canyon. You may be more directly affected by how this particular issue is resolved, but we all have an ownership interest in the park.


"Correct me if I'm wrong, but this sure sounds like telling people how to live their lives.

As for this being an open forum where people are free to express their views, I see that you've only been commenting since January, so I'll let this one go." Frank C

As I said, I disagree with your perspective. That doesn't mean that I do not respect it. Personally, I prefer that development within the parks be held to a minimum, particularly when it comes to non-essential convenience. The father who related his hike with his daughter and her friend said it best. Once beyond the reach of immediate electronic connection to the rest of the world they began to focus on the wonders and beauty of their natural surroundings. Yes, I hope that many others will have the same experience. You obviously have a different perspective. We disagree, but honest disagreement is the stuff of discussion.


Frank C:

You said:

As for this being an open forum where people are free to express their views, I
see that you've only been commenting since January, so I'll let this one go.

Where I come from, this is known as a "cheap shot."


Obviously, this post has struck more than a few nerves, and it's certainly good to see a wide array of viewpoints bubbling (exploding?) to the surface, although I'd appreciate a little restraint.

There seem to be two primary issues here:

1. Is the raising of a cellphone tower an ill-advised, and ill-needed, intrusion into a national park setting?

2. What benefits should those who live and work in a national park enjoy?

The first question, it seems, could turn into a Pandora's box, particularly when coupled with the second. I remember back in the 1980s when a wealthy Texan, impressed by the rangers at Yellowstone National Park, particularly those who live in the backcountry throughout the year, offered to buy and install satellite dishes for those backcountry ranger stations so they could have access to the outside world.

The offer was knocked down almost immediately.

Now, it's been a few years since I've been to Grant Grove, so I can't say I clearly remember the installations on Park Ridge where this proposed cell tower would go. I suppose you could say, "Well, what's one more ugly edifice amongst the rest." But where do you stop? Where do you draw the line between "there's already enough junk there, let's add one more", and "we have to stop making incursions into the park"? When Park Ridge becomes too crowded, where's the next location? If Verizon gets its tower, what about AT&T and other cellphone companies?

As for those who live and work in a national park, isn't that the choice they've made? Should society carry all its baggage everywhere it goes? Is it truly a safety issue? If so, how did we survive before the advent of cellphones? Is it a societal issue, in terms of chipping away at loneliness and keeping in touch with family? I'm not convinced. I can see it as a generational issue, as those who grew up with cellphone in hand while tapping away at their keyboards see those forms of communication as indispensable necessities.

All that said, these types of questions and issues are exactly why Sequoia officials have opened a public comment period. Take advantage of it.


Donate Popup

The National Parks Traveler keeps you informed on how politics impact national parks and protected areas.

Support Our Mission

INN Member

The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.

Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.

You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

FREE for iPhones and Android phones.