Opinion ID: 388147
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Secondary Impacts

Text: 36 The Landowners assert that the EIS failed to take into account secondary impacts created by the power line construction. These costs include loss of agricultural land and decreased production. We reject this argument. First we note that these costs are essentially primary costs associated directly with the erection of the towers. Without regard to whether the costs are primary or secondary, 3 however, the effect of transmission line construction on agricultural land is considered throughout the EIS. For instance, the EIS states that the land occupied by towers, substations, and access roads will be unavailable for other uses during the life of the facility; limitations will be placed on land under transmission lines and adjacent to transmission facilities including loss of land for timber and agricultural production, and that cultivation of most crops can be carried out within a few feet of towers in agricultural fields and land taken out of production is limited to the area occupied by the tower itself. 37 Further, the statement lists the effect the lines might have upon agricultural uses of the land: interference with the present pattern of cultivation; increased potential for equipment damage; reduction in crop yield around the towers; interference with irrigation systems; possible loss of life from contact of the irrigation pipes with the lines when the pipes are raised too high; interference with aerial spraying; and other short-term effects such as loss of production during construction. Thus we cannot agree that the EIS failed to consider adequately the costs created by the loss of agricultural land along Route D-1. 38