Stevens County approves four MET towers with pilot safety and notification conditions

The Stevens County Board of Commissioners voted to approve four interim-use permits for meteorological (MET) towers at its meeting, adding conditions aimed at improving tower visibility and requiring applicants to notify local aerial applicators before towers are erected.

The planning department told the board the Stevens County Planning Commission voted 6-0 on May 5 to recommend approval with findings and conditions. A planning staff member summarized the key visibility requirement: “if approved by MnDOT, the owner/operator shall install the first spherical marker red on the outer guide wires at a height of no lower than 25 feet above the ground and every 25 feet thereafter shall have alternating color markers white and red installed. The tower shall have high visibility yellow reflective sleeves from the base of each guy wire up to the first spherical marker. The top of the tower shall be equipped with a daytime strobe light.”

Why it matters: MET towers use guy wires that can be difficult for low-flying agricultural pilots to see. Local aerial applicators urged stricter marking and local notification so pilots can avoid newly installed towers, and raised questions about liability and whether land-use conditions (such as keeping the tower footprint free of crops) are enforceable.

Public comments and safety concerns Charity Carlson, of Carlson Ag Aviation, urged the county to prioritize pilot safety and said she preferred freestanding towers to guy-wire towers. She told the board she had reviewed MnDOT guidance and an email from a MnDOT representative, and asked that tower operators be required to call local pilots when towers go up. “I do still suggest that we do the… yellow sleeve and then the white and orange balls up to the top 15 the 15 feet from the anchor point on the top,” Carlson said, and offered an email from MnDOT support as part of her remarks.

Agricultural pilot Ryan Lublin, a 20-year ag pilot and state association board member, questioned the need for multiple MET towers and recommended remote sensing as an alternative. He also urged the county to require insurance and expressed personal concerns about potential liability, citing his career earnings and aircraft value as reasons the county should consider additional protections. “My salary…is around 150,000. You’re talking $33,000,000 there is what my widow will be asking for, plus the cost of the airplane, which puts me at 3 and a half million,” Lublin said.

Planning staff and applicant responses A planning staff member said the planning commission and staff had incorporated several visibility measures into the recommended conditions and confirmed they had contacted Charity Carlson after the hearing to verify the language. The staff member also said MnDOT’s aeronautics guidance limits the number and type of spherical markers because of wind and ice loading; while applicants proposed additional visibility devices such as cable sleeves and diverters, the planner said they could not require more than three marker balls because adding more could create unsafe ice loading.

Representatives for the applicants (Tenaska and Cordelio) told the board that MnDOT-required elements were included in the package, that the county was listed as an additional insured on the applicants’ certificate of insurance, and that cable sleeves and other diverters were already in the drawings. An applicant representative also confirmed the project team could contact local pilot numbers provided by the county.

Board action and conditions After discussion, a commissioner moved to approve the interim-use (conditional use) permits for the four MET towers with the planning commission’s recommended findings and conditions, and to add a condition requiring the applicants to notify local aerial applicators before installing towers. The motion was seconded and passed by voice vote; the board announced “All in favor…Aye. All those opposed…Motion carries.”

Separately, the board approved allowing a bond or letter of credit in lieu of a cash escrow for decommissioning obligations for the tower applicants. County staff had said the auditor preferred a bond/letter of credit as the simpler administrative option; a motion to allow a bond for decommissioning was made, seconded and carried by voice vote.

What was not decided or remains dependent on MnDOT Several conditions in the county approval are contingent on MnDOT approval. The county included a daytime strobe light “if approved by MnDOT,” and planning staff said MnDOT retains authority over night- and daytime-lighting and the color/number of marker balls. The board did not adopt a universal requirement preventing agricultural planting within the tower footprint; staff and board members noted such a restriction is effectively a contract/lease negotiation between tower operators and landowners and would be enforceable through the interim-use permit and lease language if the landowner agreed.

Next steps The permits and conditions approved by the board will be sent to MnDOT as appropriate for review on lighting/marking permissions. Applicants must satisfy the county’s conditions (including the notification requirement and decommissioning security in the form approved) before final permit implementation.