Gateway West Transmission Line Final EIS

Appendix K

Agricultural Economic Impact Analysis, South Central and 

Southeastern Idaho
Agricultural Economic Impact Analysis

South Central and Southeastern Idaho

Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Prepared by

Schneider Consulting Services

340 Snowmoody Way

Ontario, Oregon 97914

April 2012
Agricultural Economic Impact Analysis Schneider Consulting Services

Gateway West Project – Segment 7 Page i

Table of Contents

Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1

Study Area and Affected Crops...................................................................................................... 1

Data ................................................................................................................................................. 1

Types of Costs................................................................................................................................. 2

One-time Costs............................................................................................................................ 2

Annual Costs............................................................................................................................... 3

Sprinkler Irrigation...................................................................................................................... 8

Land Other than Tower Footprint and Roadways Removed from Production......................... 10

Soil Compaction........................................................................................................................ 10

Dryland Pasture......................................................................................................................... 11

Roadways.................................................................................................................................. 11

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) ..................................................................................... 12

Insurance ................................................................................................................................... 12

Soil Erosion............................................................................................................................... 12

Intangibles................................................................................................................................. 12

Summary....................................................................................................................................... 13

Appendix....................................................................................................................................... 14

References..................................................................................................................................... 14

List of Tables

Table 1: One-Time Costs Incurred Per Disturbed/Impacted Acre during Construction Process 3

Table 2: Annual Costs per Tower ............................................................................................... 7

Table 3: Duplication of Operations............................................................................................. 8

Table 4: Price and Yields Used in Analysis................................................................................ 8

List of Figures

Figure 1: Tower Placed in the Middle of a Field.......................................................................... 4

Figure 2: Tower Placed Along the Edge of a Field...................................................................... 4
Agricultural Economic Impact Analysis Schneider Consulting Services

Gateway West Project – Segment 7 Page 1

Agricultural Economic Impact Analysis

South Central and Southeastern Idaho

Gateway West Transmission Line Project

INTRODUCTION

The following Agricultural Economic Impact Analysis evaluates the economic impacts that the 

Gateway West Transmission Line Project (hereafter the Project) would have on agricultural 

producers in Cassia and Power Counties. If approved, Segment 7 of the Gateway West 

Transmission Line Proposed Route would cross productive agricultural lands in these counties. 

Also, portions of Segment 5 would cross agricultural lands in Power County. Cassia and Power 

Counties are cooperating agencies in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) analysis of the 

Project being conducted by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). A task force consisting of 

local farmers was set up in both counties to assist with the analysis. Based on task forces’ 

review of the Draft EIS, the Counties requested that an independent agricultural specialist 

complete an assessment of the effects of the Project on agricultural producers within their 

jurisdictions. The BLM proposed that Gary Schneider of Schneider Consulting Services conduct 

this analysis and the Counties agreed. Mr. Schneider met with task force members to discuss 

agricultural practices in the area on November 28 and 29, 2011, and on March 21, 2012, and 

compiled other information on costs associated with a range of possible impacts. Results of the 

analysis are presented below. 

STUDY AREA AND AFFECTED CROPS 

The study area for this assessment includes agricultural lands in Cassia and Power Counties 

crossed by the Project. A broad diversity of both irrigated and dry land crops are well 

represented in the study area. Due to time and space constraints, this report had to narrow down 

the range of crops analyzed. Since almost all irrigated producers rotate their crops for various 

reasons, the County task force members and report author agreed upon a 3-year rotation of 

potatoes, sugar beets, and winter wheat as the basis for analysis in the irrigated area. Safflower 

and hard white spring wheat were selected as the crops to analyze for the dry land area.

DATA

This report utilizes the latest available University of Idaho Extension Service crop budget 

publications for baseline economic information. The potatoes, sugar beets, and irrigated wheat 

budgets are for South Central Idaho (Magic Valley), and the safflower (canola)1 and hard white 

wheat dry land budgets are for Eastern Idaho. The Magic Valley budgets were published and 

released for 2011. The dry land budgets for 2011 have not been published; therefore, dry land 

budgets were updated by hand from 2009 by using the same percentage changes that were used 

 1 The University of Idaho has not released a crop budget for safflower. Therefore, the canola budget was followed since 

production practices and yields are similar, although prices can differ markedly (Meadows 2011). There is a fairly narrow range 

among all of the dry land crops in terms of gross and/or net incomes per acre; thus, substituting other crops on an individual basis 

is acceptable.
Agricultural Economic Impact Analysis Schneider Consulting Services

Gateway West Project – Segment 7 Page 2

in the published irrigated reports (Patterson, P. et al. 2011; Patterson, P. 2009). Cost estimates 

were also provided by farmers in the region when none were available from other sources, 

particularly on the labor and equipment required for maneuvering around towers.

TYPES OF COSTS

Expenses include both operating and ownership costs. Operating costs include those incurred in 

the production process during the course of the crop year including tillage, planting, spraying, 

fertilizing, and harvesting. Ownership costs are those that are fixed and occur regardless of 

production. These would include items such as depreciation, insurance, land charge, water 

assessment, general overhead, and a management fee of approximately 5 percent of gross 

returns.

Costs to the landowners if the proposed transmission line is constructed will include both onetime costs that will occur during the construction period and annual costs that will continue 

indefinitely after the construction is completed. 

One-time Costs

The one-time costs will vary for each crop depending on the time of year that the construction

process begins and the operating costs have been incurred up to that point. Table 1 depicts the 

accumulated costs incurred during the entire production cycle on a monthly basis for a range of 

crops and then provides an example of the total costs per disturbed/impacted acre. Acres 

disturbed would include tower sites every quarter mile (1.5 acres ea.), staging areas every 20-30 

miles (20 acres ea.), helicopter fly yards every 5 miles (10-15 acres ea.), and access roads. The 

total cost to the landowner would include the operating costs incurred up to the commencement

of construction plus the annual ownership costs and the forfeiture of profit; thus, the total cost to 

the landowner will depend on the month construction commences and the crop being grown. 

Table 1 utilizes March as an example. Ownership and lost profit estimates are included from 

Table 2, which is explained below.
Agricultural Economic Impact Analysis Schneider Consulting Services

Gateway West Project – Segment 7 Page 3

Table 1: One-Time Costs Incurred Per Disturbed/Impacted Acre during Construction 

Process

Month

Monthly Accrued Operating Expenses ($ dollars)

Potatoes Sugar Beets Wheat Safflower White Wheat

September 292 33 92 8 8

October 570 37 141 9 9

November 577 41 143 10 10

December 584 45 145 11 11

January 591 49 148 12 15

February 598 53 151 13 16

March 758 261 222 14 17

April 967 547 295 122 29

May 1501 569 364 123 102

June 1557 622 380 124 103

July 1805 644 388 125 104

August 1861 681 458 138 26

September 2469 700 -- 186 --

October 2566 866 -- -- --

March Example

Accrued Expenses 758 261 222 14 17

Ownership 1270 709 353 70 60

Lost Profit (-108) 123 (-33) (-6) 20

Total: $1,920 $1,093 $542 $78 $97

Annual Costs

Annual costs will continue indefinitely after construction is completed. Annual costs presented 

will be the additional costs the landowner will incur due to the possible placement of towers 

within the field. Additional costs will result from both not producing a crop within the tower 

footprint and the extra cost of traversing around the tower for specific field operations. Figure 1 

depicts the land removed from production for a tower placed in the middle of the field and 

Figure 2 depicts the land removed from production for a tower placed in the field along the edge. 

Calculations were made on a per acre basis and then converted to a cost per tower for each tower 

site. The footprint of the middle tower is 0.193 acres and the field edge tower is 0.165 acres.
Agricultural Economic Impact Analysis Schneider Consulting Services

Gateway West Project – Segment 7 Page 4

Figure 1: Tower Placed in the Middle of a Field

Vacant

Vacant

70’

50’

120’ 

40’

40’

40’

Area where no crop planted: 70 feet by 120 feet = 8,400 square feet or 0.193 acres

Includes tower footprint (50 x 40 feet), plus 40 feet on each end and 10 feet on each side to 

allow for safe maneuvering of equipment around the tower. 

Tower
Agricultural Economic Impact Analysis Schneider Consulting Services

Gateway West Project – Segment 7 Page 5

Figure 2: Tower Placed Along the Edge of a Field

Edge of

Field

Vacant

Vacant

Tower

60’

50’

120’

40’

40’

40’

Area where no crop planted: 60 feet by 120 feet = 7,200 square feet or 0.165 acre.

Includes tower footprint (50 x 40 feet), plus 40 feet on each end and 10 feet on the 

field-adjacent side to allow for safe maneuvering of equipment around the tower. 
Agricultural Economic Impact Analysis Schneider Consulting Services

Gateway West Project – Segment 7 Page 6

Planting potatoes and sugar beets around a tower is very difficult due to the large equipment size,

the need to lift the equipment out of the ground after stopping at the tower, and the inability to 

turn some of the equipment while it is still in the ground. After lifting the equipment out of the 

ground, the vehicle must back up, go around the tower, and then maneuver back into position on 

the other end to resume the operation (in this discussion “end” refers to the incoming direction 

where the equipment comes to a stop and the other “end” refers to where the operation resumes). 

A 40 foot allowance was made on both ends to allow for ample maneuvering and a 10 foot 

allowance was made for each side to allow for safe traversing of the equipment around the tower

(two 10-foot allowances for a tower in the middle of the field and one 10-foot allowance for a 

tower placed along the edge of the field). Due to the use of wide planters, it is difficult to get 

close to the side of the tower: Therefore, the actual distance will vary from 5 to 20 feet 

depending on the distance from the tower required by the planter. Spraying and fertilizing 

operations will allow for traversing around the middle tower circumference without stopping. On 

crops other than potatoes and sugar beets, the equipment can traverse around the middle tower 

circumference for all field operations, which allows for a complete and more efficient coverage.

Table 2 displays the annual costs incurred for each tower location including the tower footprint 

area (no crop planted) and the area around the tower (overlap) that requires a duplication of 

operations due to the extra time (labor and equipment) and materials for maneuvering around the 

tower for each operation during the course of the production cycle. Discussions with local 

farmers indicate that compaction caused by this additional maneuvering plus the overlap of the

fertilizer and chemical application would result in an estimated 20 percent crop loss (Fehringer 

2011; Macdonald 2011; Hydro Solutions 2007) which would be from reduced yield and/or 

quality (test weight, density etc.). 
Agricultural Economic Impact Analysis Schneider Consulting Services

Gateway West Project – Segment 7 Page 7

Table 2: Annual Costs per Tower

Irrigated

Potatoes Sugar Beets Wheat

Weighted 

Average

Tower Footprint

Middle 

(0.193 ac)

Edge 

(0.165 ac)

Ownership Costs 1270 709 353 777/acre 142 121

Lost Profit (-108) 123 (-33) (-6)/acre (-1) (-1)

Duplication of Operations (see Table 3) $839 $195

Weed Control labor 1.5 hrs @ $16 = $24 x 3 = $72

(3 times/yr) equip 1.5 hrs @ $10 = $15 x 3 = $45

chemical @ $5 = $5 x 3 = $15

Total =$132 132 132

Total Annual Cost Per Tower $1,112 $447

Dry Land

Middle Edge

Safflower White 

Wheat Safflower White Wheat Safflower White Wheat

Ownership Costs 70 60 11 10 10 8

Lost Profit (-6) 20 (-1) 3 (-1) 3

Duplication of Operations (see Table 3) 133 91 30 22

Weed Control (Same as Irrigated) 132 132 132 132

Total Annual Cost Per Tower $275 $236 $171 $165

Table 3 displays the annual costs per tower for the duplication of operations caused by the need 

to go around the tower to get full coverage that also results in some overlap, depending on the 

equipment width. Although there would be no overlap on potatoes and sugar beets for the 

planting, tillage, and harvest operations, an estimated cost was included for these operations to 

account for the additional time to maneuver all of the large equipment used in these operations,

including trucks for harvesting plus idle time at the storage shed (Stoker 2011; Patterson, R. 

2011). The information shown in Table 3 was inserted into Table 2 to include in the annual costs.

The crop loss for the edge towers is significantly less than for the middle of the field towers,

because the middle tower includes one complete encircling of the tower that is not possible on 

the field edge. Table 4 includes the price and yields used in the analysis.
Agricultural Economic Impact Analysis Schneider Consulting Services

Gateway West Project – Segment 7 Page 8

 

Table 3: Duplication of Operations

Annual Cost Per Tower in Middle of Field

Irrigated Dryland

Potatoes Sugar Beets Wheat

Weighted 

Average Safflower

White 

Wheat

Planting 15 15 6 12 7 4

Fertilizer 334 115 72 174 30 8

Chemical 128 48 44 73 24 20

Tillage 65 30 4 33 2 2

Harvest 45 34 9 29 6 4

Crop Loss 942 422 189 518 64 53

Totals $1,529 $664 $324 $839 $133 $91

Annual Cost Per Tower on Field Edge

Irrigated Dryland

Potatoes Sugar Beets Wheat

Weighted 

Average Safflower

White 

Wheat

Planting 15 15 4 11 3 2

Fertilizer 92 33 20 48 7 6

Chemical 13 6 5 8 3 2

Tillage 65 30 3 33 2 2

Harvest 45 34 5 28 7 3

Crop Loss 122 55 25 67 8 7

Totals $314 $173 $62 $195 $30 $22

Table 4: Price and Yields Used in Analysis

Irrigated Dry Land

Potatoes

Sugar 

Beets Wheat Safflower1/

White 

Wheat Pasture

Price $7.75 cwt2/ $50 ton $5.90 bu2/ $0.25 lb2/ $7.00 bu2/ $20 AUM2/

Yield 475 33 125 1,000 30 0.5

1/ Meadows 2011

2/ Cwt: hundred weight (100 pounds); bu: bushels; lb: pound; AUM: Animal Unit Month 

Sprinkler Irrigation

The placement of towers in an irrigated field will cause problems that would have to be 

addressed and tolerated indefinitely. Where pivots are used they would be unable to traverse the 

entire circle and, consequently, adjustments would have to be made in the irrigation system to 

accommodate the tower. The adjustment would vary considerably based on the location of the 

tower in relation to the pivot center. One option would be to retrofit the existing pivot with an 

extra set of wheel assembly on each pivot tower, plus replace the existing tires with taller ones to 

increase the pivot’s efficiency in reversing its direction if the schedule requires the pivot to 

return to its starting point. Local experience indicates that this would require an investment of 

about $28,000 (Leslie, L; West, T.), which would result in an annual cost of $20 per pivot acre 
Agricultural Economic Impact Analysis Schneider Consulting Services

Gateway West Project – Segment 7 Page 9

per year for depreciation and interest on the investment. A pie shaped wedge will result from the 

tower obstruction that will either not be irrigated at a cost of $921 per acre for ownership costs, 

lost profit and weed control with no crop being produced, or, depending on the size of the wedge, 

either hand lines, a solid set or a wheel line could be utilized to cover the area in the wedge. This 

would require an additional investment in irrigation equipment and possibly a mainline. Solid 

sets require an investment of about $2,200 per acre (Butler 2011), which would cost about $200 

per acre per year within the wedge area for depreciation, interest on the added investment, and 

labor for setting out and retrieving the lines. Moving hand lines daily would require 

considerably less investment but more labor than a solid set system. If enough acreage existed in 

the wedge, a wheel line could possibly be feasible. A full length wheel line costs about $13,000 

(Butler 2011) with shorter ones costing less according to their length, which would add about 

$60 per acre per year within the wedge area for depreciation and interest on the added

investment. Also, additional costs for labor and vehicles would be incurred, which would vary 

depending on the size of the wedge.

Extra labor and vehicle expense for disconnecting and reconnecting existing wheel line systems 

would be required to maneuver around tower structures during the entire irrigation period. 

Based on an informal grower survey (Task Force 2012) it is estimated that the additional labor 

and vehicle expense for moving wheel lines around a tower obstruction on the edge of the field

would result in an additional $1,300 cost per tower per year for the wheel line system. If the 

tower is located anywhere in the middle of the field or on the edge where the mainline supplies 

the wheel line, it becomes impractical and too cumbersome to move the wheel line from one side 

of the tower to the other. This would require the addition of another wheel line to cover the 

remainder of the field, or the remainder of the field would not be irrigated, depending on the 

acreage involved.

Another option would be to install a corner arm to the existing pivot that would be utilized to 

traverse around the tower. This would minimize the acreage that could not be irrigated with the 

pivot. The corner arm would be limited to those situations where the power line tower is located 

within 280 feet (Lindsay Manufacturing) of the outer edge of the pivot. This would require an 

investment of about $50,000 (Jensen 2012), which would result in about $30 per pivot acre per 

year for depreciation and interest on the added investment. 

Adding a half pivot may be considered by some landowners. This would result in two half 

pivots being used instead of one full pivot. This would require an investment of $80,000 to 

$100,000 for the pivot, plus ancillary items that would add about $50 to $65 per pivot acre per 

year for depreciation and interest on the added investment. Increased repairs would add another 

$5 to $10 per pivot acre per year, approximately.

Articulated pivots could be utilized to traverse around obstructions in the pivot area. This system 

requires a considerable investment and would increase the time required to complete the 

irrigation cycle, which could pose a significant problem in providing timely water to the potato 

crop during hot weather every third year in the rotation and thus may not be feasible. 

Delivering water to potatoes would be the most crucial phase in the crop rotation due to their 

sensitivity to moisture stress during certain periods of the growth cycle. Increasing the water 

delivery interval between irrigations can be detrimental depending on the duration of the 

increased interval, particularly if a pivot must reverse directions to return to its starting point

(Kruckeberg 2012). There would be a potential risk of moisture stress where the reverse pivot 
Agricultural Economic Impact Analysis Schneider Consulting Services

Gateway West Project – Segment 7 Page 10

traverses in excess of 80 percent of the entire circle, with the potential stress increasing as the 

pivot area coverage increases. 

Considerable research has been done by the University of Idaho related to potato production with 

limited water supply (King et al. 2004). Several scenarios were studied, and the one that most 

closely approximates a scenario where a reverse pivot traverses 98 percent of the circle resulted 

in a 4 percent reduction in yield of Russet Burbank potatoes. Interpolating the data would 

indicate that crops with pivots traversing between 80 and 98 percent would suffer between a 1 

and 4 percent yield reduction. This would result in a potato crop value loss of about $12 to $50 

per pivot acre per year based on a three year rotation. There was considerable variance among 

varieties, so operators would need to study closely which varieties might work best for them if 

there are concerns about adequate water deliveries.

It would be too cumbersome to include specific economic data in this report for each of the 

countless scenarios that could exist regarding irrigating around power line towers including the 

location of the tower in the field, the size of the wedge area, available labor, type of crop(s), soil 

type, type of existing irrigation system, potato varieties, producer management techniques, etc. 

Each individual operation would have to be considered on its own merits and a corresponding 

water delivery system designed by a qualified irrigation specialist in the most efficient manner to 

accommodate the situation created by the tower obstruction.

Land Other than Tower Footprint and Roadways Removed from Production

Land outside the tower footprint or roadway areas may be removed from production with the 

installation of a power line. An example would be land that could be unreachable for irrigation 

within a center pivot system due to tower interference. Added annual costs per acre on irrigated 

ground for this situation would include:

Ownership costs $777

Lost profit (-6)

Weed control 1502

Total per acre annual cost $921

Soil Compaction

In addition to the annual cost per tower, a per acre cost on potatoes may be incurred on potatoes 

for substituting ground spraying near power lines where aerial spraying may be limited. A survey 

of five aerial applicators indicated that a buffer zone of up to 100 feet on each side of a power 

line is adequate for pilot safety (Parker 2011; Hubler 2011; Driscoll 2011; Shamblin 2011; 

Bybee 2011). This means that up to a 200-foot-wide strip for towers located in the middle of a 

field and a 100-foot-wide strip for those located on the field edge would have to be ground 

sprayed, where feasible.

Research at the University of Idaho Parma Research Station (Thornton 2011) showed a yield 

reduction of 11.4 hundred weight (cwt) of potatoes per acre from soil compaction as a result of 

ground spraying four times per season.

 2 Labor and equipment costs are the same for weed control whether the area is the tower footprint or a full acre. The increase in 

cost of spraying a full acre ($150 versus $132) is from the extra chemical required, estimated at $18.00.
Agricultural Economic Impact Analysis Schneider Consulting Services

Gateway West Project – Segment 7 Page 11

Additional Cost Estimate Due to Compaction

 11.4 cwt x $7.75 = $88.35 loss per acre

 4 fungicide applications required at a cost of $113

 $88.35 + $113 = $201.35 additional cost of ground spraying plus yield reduction

On a 3-year rotation, the annual cost of ground spraying potatoes would be 1/3 of $201.35, or 

$67.12 per acre sprayed. This amount would be an added annual per acre cost associated with 

only the additional acreage required to be ground sprayed within the 100 to 200 foot power line 

corridor. 

Dryland Pasture

Reliable economic information pertaining to dry land pasture is scarce. Various sources for 

animal unit month (AUM) rates vary from $1.35 to $35.00. The County Task Force members 

and report author agreed upon a $20/AUM and 0.5/acre/AUM. Nearby pasture is often difficult 

to secure, which would often necessitate replacing lost feed with hay. Land disturbed with the 

construction of a tower would remove pasture from production for two years, one for 

construction and one for re-establishing a forage crop. 

One-Time Cost Estimate

Pasture yield of 0.5 AUM per acre

One cow consumes 900 lbs of feed per month

One acre produces 450 lbs of forage

Replacement hay @ $120 per ton = $27 to replace feed lost from one acre.

2 years lost production = $54/acre (2 x $27)

Re-vegetation cost @ $75/ acre

Ownership costs would be less than the dry land farming budget, but were not determined for 

this report.

Annual Costs

Annual costs would at least include ownership costs, $27/acre for lost feed and $150 per acre

weed control. Roadway maintenance, erosion control and drainage costs could be very 

significant on pastureland because of the steeper and rougher terrain that exists in those areas. 

These would have to be addressed on an individual basis.

Roadways

Where permanent access roadways are needed, annual maintenance may be required. Every one 

half mile of roadway that is 16.5 feet wide will equal one acre. Per acre costs are estimated as 

follows (from Table 2):
Agricultural Economic Impact Analysis Schneider Consulting Services

Gateway West Project – Segment 7 Page 12

 Irrigated Dry land (average of safflower

 and wheat)

Ownership Costs 777 65

Lost Profit (-6) 7

Weed Control 150 150

 Total $921 $222

Grading and other maintenance costs may occur. Not all roads needed for tower construction 

would be permanent. Generally, permanent access roads would not be needed in flat agricultural 

land because the utility company would be able to quickly reestablish access across the field to 

reach a tower in the event repairs are needed.

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)

CRP programs on affected acres will require special attention. Every situation will require 

individual scrutiny. Possible costs could include all rental payments plus interest, all cost share 

payments plus interest, CRP-Signing Incentive Payment (SIP) plus interest, Practice Incentive 

Payment (PIP) plus interest, CP23 Wetland Restoration, one time WRI payment, plus interest 

and liquidated damages, if applicable, according to paragraph 577 of 2-CPR. The total impact 

could be substantial and each contract would be handled on an individual basis (Yokom 2011; 

USDA 2010-2011).

Insurance

One comment surfaced during the Gateway West Draft EIS public comment period stating that 

farm insurance premiums would increase with the installation of a power line on their property. 

Three insurance agencies were contacted and none had ever heard of that happening. Power 

company representatives also reported that they had never heard of such an event occurring 

(Carpenter 2011; Dalton 2011; Kimball 2011; Ybarguen 2011).

Soil Erosion

The placement of towers and the construction of access roadways on farmland could create an 

erosion hazard that would necessitate an investment in various types of erosion control structures 

to minimize damage. Re-vegetation may also be required. This will vary greatly depending on 

the terrain and type of vegetation on the site and will need to be handled on an individual basis.

Intangibles

There are many potential scenarios that could occur regarding the possible impact on the various 

crops produced in the area, but calculating the actual damages is problematic due to the variance 

in nature and frequency of the occurrence. Most of these situations involve some type of either a 

plant disease, such as late blight on potatoes, stripe rust on wheat, or an insect outbreak, and can 

be very destructive. The placement of a tower in a field will affect aerial applications which may 

be necessary to combat various problems such as presented in the soil compaction section. 

Ground spraying would be considered in lieu of aerial spraying but may not be possible on short 

notice due to the field being too wet, particularly under wheel line systems. Tillage such as 

disking specific isolated areas of an infected crop may be considered in some extreme situations. 
Agricultural Economic Impact Analysis Schneider Consulting Services

Gateway West Project – Segment 7 Page 13

These types of occurrences will vary within the project area and would have to be handled 

individually (Povey 2011; Gehring 2011; Mathews 2011; Meadows 2011).

SUMMARY

Construction of power lines in agricultural areas causes a tremendous amount of disruption to 

producers on whose property the lines are constructed. The tangent single-circuit 500 k-V lattice 

steel towers proposed for this project pose particular problems due to the 41 ft x 46 ft base. This 

creates a lot of inconvenience and loss of efficiency, particularly by requiring maneuvering 

around the towers for the large row crop equipment common in the study area. Towers located in 

the field interior are much more disruptive, and thus more costly, than those on the field edge.

This report presents an analysis of the agricultural economic impact that would be created by the 

installation of a high voltage power line in Segment 7 of the Project. Both one- time and 

recurring annual costs were included in the analysis to reflect the total economic long- term 

consequences resulting from the construction of such a line. This analysis is general in nature. 

Individuals may present differing information but should have the proper records to substantiate 

their claim. The addition of another power line to the existing matrix would compound the 

problems landowners already face. This would particularly be true with aerial spraying, which

would be very significant in some cases. Also, irrigation systems will have to be modified on an 

individual basis to accommodate additional field obstructions. If installed, great care should be 

taken to place the towers to minimize these negative impacts as much as possible.

The costs and returns associated with this analysis were estimated in December, 2011. It should 

be noted that costs and returns are constantly changing and their future levels cannot be 

accurately predicted. Consequently any economic considerations made in the future that refer to 

the economic data in this report should be carefully scrutinized and then adjusted accordingly 

using the proper indexes published by the National Agricultural Statistics Service to reflect 

changes that occur during the intervening period.

In assessing the total economic impact on a specific property, all of the following components 

need to be included:

1. One-time costs per disturbed/impacted acre, including roadways and the actual 

transmission line construction area. These costs would include ownership, operating and 

lost profit as detailed in Table 1.

2. Annual costs including the ownership, lost profit and weed control in the tower footprint 

area plus the duplication of operations for the extra costs of farming around the tower(s). 

These are listed in Tables 2 and 3 on a per tower basis.

3. Annual per acre costs including ownership, lost profit and weed control on roadways and 

other areas such as the wedge created in center pivots.

4. Soil compaction costs for spraying and yield loss on a per acre basis in the area requiring 

ground spraying only within the power line corridor.

5. All costs associated with the disruption of CRP programs where applicable.

6. The costs of reorganizing irrigation systems including the added investment and extra 

labor. These would be on a per pivot acre basis and possibly per wedge acre where the 

wedge would continue to be irrigated with an additional system.
Agricultural Economic Impact Analysis Schneider Consulting Services

Gateway West Project – Segment 7 Page 14

7. Soil erosion and various intangibles may occur on a sporadic basis and each situation 

would have to be handled individually.

APPENDIX

Overlap example: Making one entire trip around the circumference of the tower with a 60-foot 

fertilizer spreader calculates to 0.59 of an acre actually applied, while maintaining a 10-foot 

buffer strip around the tower base. The crop budget for irrigated wheat calls for a fertilizer cost 

of $123/acre; multiplying $123 by 0.59 of an acre results in an approximate $72 per tower 

overlap cost for fertilizer, as shown in Table 3. This process is repeated for all of the operations 

performed on that particular crop, and then they are added together to arrive at the total 

duplication cost per tower. The amount of land duplicated for each crop is dependent on the 

width of the equipment utilization in each operation. This same process is followed for each crop 

and each type of tower location.

REFERENCES

Hydro Solutions. 2007. Billings Mt. MATL Farming Cost Review (Final) Montana DEQ 

Contract # 5PB06-811950 7-12-07

King, B.A., J.C. Stark, and S.L. Love. 2004. Potato Production with Limited Water Supply CIS 

1122. October. Available online at: http://info.ag.uidaho.edu/catalog/online.html 

Lindsay Manufacturing Co. Zimmatic MAXfield Custom Corner System Selection Guide.

Lindsay, NE

Patterson, P. 2009. Costs and Returns Estimate. Eastern Idaho: Lower Rainfall Dry land. Spring 

Canola and Hard White Spring Wheat. Available online at: 

http://www.cals.uidaho.edu/aers/

Patterson, P., H. Hines, and C. Gray. 2011. Costs and Returns Estimate. South Central Idaho: 

Magic Valley. Russet Burbank Potatoes (Fumigated and On-Farm Storage); Sugar beets; 

Soft White Winter Wheat. Available online at: http://www.cals.uidaho.edu/aers/

Power and Cassia County Task Force Meeting. March 21, 2012.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2010-2011. Handbook 2-CRP. Amendments 1 and 2 

(Rev 5) 7-28-10 and 1-24-11. Pages 16-51 and 16-64. Information also available at 

county FSA offices.

Personal Communications

Butler, Fred. 2011. Agri-Lines Irrigation Inc., Parma, Idaho, November 11.

Bybee, Stan. 2011. Nyssa Air Service, Nyssa, Oregon, October 24.

Carpenter, Kerri. 2011. The Insurance Group, Ontario, Oregon, December 6.

Dalton, Julia L. 2011. State Farm Insurance, Ontario, Oregon, December 6.

Driscoll, Jeff. 2011. Jeff Driscoll Aviation, Aberdeen, Idaho, October 24.

Fehringer, Neil. 2011. Certified Professional Agronomist, Billings Montana, November 28.
Agricultural Economic Impact Analysis Schneider Consulting Services

Gateway West Project – Segment 7 Page 15

Gehring, Gary. 2011. Power County, Farmer, November 28–30.

Hubler, Bruce. 2011. Valley Air Service, Caldwell, Idaho, October 24.

Jensen, Dallas. 2012. Agri Lines Irrigation Inc., Parma, Idaho, March 19.

Kimball, Kim. 2011. Country Financial, Ontario, Oregon, December 6.

Kruckeberg, J.P. 2012. Stukenholtz Laboratory Inc. Twin Falls, Idaho, February 8. 

Leslie, Lee. Butte Irrigation, Paul, Idaho, Submitted Price Quote.

Linderman, Jonah. Valmont Northwest Inc., Hermiston, Oregon, November 30.

Macdonald, Brent. 2011. President, Brent Macdonald Inc., Floweree, Montana, November 3.

Mathews, Kyle. 2011. Power County, Farmer, November 29.

Meadows, Bill. 2011. Owner, Mountain States Oilseeds, American Falls, Idaho, November 28–

30.

Parker, George. 2011. Crop Jet Aviation, Gooding Idaho, October 24.

Patterson, Russell. 2011. Cassia County, Farmer, November 28–29.

Povey, Wade. 2011. Power County, Farmer, November 28–30.

Shamblin, Tim. 2011. Aero Applications, Burley, Idaho, October 24.

Stoker, Brent. 2011. Cassia County, Farmer, November 28–29.

Thornton, Mike. 2011. University of Idaho, Parma Research Station, November.

West, Tires. 2011. Burley, Idaho, Submitted Price Quote, November.

Ybarguen, Mike. 2011. Idaho Power, Boise, Idaho, November 15.

Yokom, Lori. 2011. USDA FSA Ontario, Oregon, Personal contact, May 17.