Increased cellular and broadband service clashes with the values and policies of the National Park Service, according to the nonprofit Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
The group cites “policies to protect natural soundscapes, pristine vistas and serenity” among reasons to curb expansion of such technology in parks.
“National parks are under no legal obligation to provide visitors with commercial cell or broadband service – in fact, just the opposite when to do so requires sacrificing park values and resources,” PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch said in a release. “In this the National Park Service’s centennial year, a conversation about the role technology should play inside nature’s cathedrals is long overdue.”
Last month, five U.S. representatives asked President Obama for a “significant” increase in federal funding for wireless telecommunications and broadband services in national parks, citing “goals of improving public safety, providing greater interpretive services and meeting the needs of the visiting public.”
More recently, on Feb. 11, Theodore Roosevelt National Park in North Dakota held an open house to gather comments on replacing a radio tower in the park's North Unit. As part of the proposal, Verizon Wireless would co-locate a telecommunications tower with the radio tower for “improved reception and data capabilities” in the service area. Project costs would be the responsibility of Verizon.
“The latest cell tower proposal in North Dakota’s Theodore Roosevelt National Park illustrates how virtually every NPS precept on design, spillover and even public notice is violated,” PEER said in a release.
The park said in its notice that “having a functional and modern telecommunication tower on this site is essential for the park to maintain safe and efficient operations.” It noted that the new radio tower would be shorter (190 feet instead of 220 feet) than the previous one and thus would not require a flashing red light, improving night sky viewing. The park also said that this plan eliminates the need for a second telecommunications tower to be built in the area.
“Given the rate of development in the Bakken (oilfield), this is a rare opportunity to share resources and reduce cell tower proliferation in the region,” Bill Whitworth, the park’s chief of resource management, said in a release.
PEER submitted an eight-page response to park Superintendent Wendy Ross.
According to the PEER, such commercial platforms built inside national parks:
* Runs afoul of NPS policies and directives to preserve natural soundscapes and vistas and to promote qualities such as solitude that enable visitors to commune with nature;
* Would extend cell coverage into designated wilderness and backcountry. NPS officials are supposed to prevent this spillover but no park has asked a provider to limit coverage; and
* Cedes management decisions about virtually every aspect (placement, design and visual impact) of facilities inside of a park to a private company.
“National park superintendents have shown little ability or inclination to protect park resources and values from the demands of telecom companies,” Mr/ Ruch said. “The 4G arrays now being installed are designed to enable music downloads, streaming videos and online games – activities that prevent rather than promote communing with nature.”
PEER previously opposed a WiFi and cellphone plan at Yellowstone National Park.
Comments
The National Parks conservation is so arbitrary and compromised that it really is a joke to even worry about cell towers destroying any pristine wilderness. The Parks are a dynamic environrment that is always changing in spite of the efforts to keep them static. The Parks are for the enjoyment American People, so let's ban all foreigners from the Parks and increase cell service.
Alfred Runte, you make a good point. I was once on the campaign staff of gentleman running for the California State Senate. He wanted to me to take him to Yosemite on a summer day. Once in the park, we started talking about the issue of public transportation and he suggested a monorail from El Portal to Yosemite Valley. He lost his race after 16 years in the State assembly, the San Joaquin Valley Congressional delegation supported the local congressman who had made a deal to support the incumbent republican, in return for quid pro quid, the congressman's son would vie for the seat in the next election (the incumbent would be termed out). Politics is a ruthless business. In any case, I do have a reservation with your basic premise, a question really, why is it preferable to build a whole new transportation infrastructure, which will be obsolete in a few years anyway, either because of population growth, technology, etc., when a recognition that the capacity of the area has been reached on peak visitation days, consequently, you may need to have to wait a few hours or have a reservation. The fact is we are already doing this in some NPS areas already.
About the acres and acres of parking lots at Old Faithful. (Nearly 100 acres of pavement and buildings)
Can anyone tell us for certain that all that hard surface is NOT having negative effects on groundwater infiltration that could cause irreverseable damage to the geysers in the basin?
No.
And here's the big catch -- we may not be able to actually see or measure any of those effects until it's too late to save the geysers.
But as with Global Warming, there are those who insist on hiding their eyes, plugging their ears, and insisting that there's no problem today, so there won't be one tomorrow.
Can anyone tell us it isn't having a positive effect? I have no desire to live my life based on not being able to prove that any action I take might have some negative effect.
From the Traveler archives:
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2014/04/human-footprint-strangling-...
"Could" And they don't have a clue about whether those effects might be positive or negative.
there are those who insist on hiding their eyes, plugging their ears, and insisting that there's no problem today, so there won't be one tomorrow.
And there are those Chicken Littles that will constantly scream the "sky is falling" especially when it will give them the power to run others' lives.