[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 191 (Monday, October 4, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53661-53665]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-25721]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Rural Utilities Service
Record of Decision: Lincoln-Pipestone Rural Water; Existing
System North/Lyon County Phase and Northeast Phase Expansion;
Environmental Impact Statement
AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
ACTION: Record of decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) has concluded an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) it prepared for the Lincoln-Pipestone Rural
Water (LPRW), Existing System North/Lyon County (ESN/LC) Phase and
Northeast Phase Expansion proposal in southwest Minnesota and is
announcing its decision in this Record of Decision (ROD). RUS' decision
is to approve LPRW's application for financial assistance to construct
the Northeast Phase Expansion proposal. This approval is predicated on
LPRW's acceptance of a set of conditions and completion of mitigation
measures developed as part of and outlined in RUS' preferred
alternative. Prior to loan/grant approval, LPRW must be in compliance
with all conditions of the water appropriation permits issued by the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). Upon loan/grant
approval and prior to the release of any funds, LPRW must prepare and
complete a Water Resource Management Plan (WRMP) to RUS' satisfaction.
The purpose of the EIS was to evaluate the potential environmental
impacts of a multiple-phase construction proposal where RUS has and
proposes to provide financial assistance for the development and
expansion of a public rural water system. The applicant for this
proposal is a public body named LPRW and whose main offices are located
in Lake Benton, Minnesota. Specific project activities are and have
included the development of groundwater sources and production well
fields and the construction of water treatment facilities and water
distribution networks. The counties in Minnesota affected by this
proposal include Yellow Medicine, Lincoln, and Lyon Counties and Deuel
County in South Dakota.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
[[Page 53662]]
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4231 et seq.) and RUS regulations (7 CFR part 1794),
RUS prepared an EIS concerning these actions. Some of the issues
evaluated in the EIS date back to a previous agency decision to fund
one of the phases of a multi-phase system expansion project initiated
by LPRW in 1991, known as the ESN/LC Phase project. In that phase, LPRW
developed, among other system improvements, a water source--the Burr
Well Field--and constructed a water treatment facility. These
facilities were designed to provide potable water to the northern
portion of LPRW's service area. The Burr Well Field is located in
southwestern Yellow Medicine County and is adjacent to the South
Dakota--Minnesota state line. The two water-bearing formations utilized
at this well field--the so-called Burr Unit of the Prairie Coteau
aquifer (Burr Unit) and the deeper Altamont aquifer--underlie portions
of both South Dakota and Minnesota. The Altamont appears to be
hydraulically isolated from the Burr Unit.
During construction of the Burr Well Field (initiated on April 19,
1993) and subsequent to its operation, public and regulatory concerns
were raised and continue to be raised regarding the potential
environmental effects of groundwater appropriations from the Burr Unit.
Because of geologic and hydrologic factors, groundwater from the Burr
Unit discharges onto the land surface in both South Dakota and
Minnesota. These surface discharges occur as springs or seeps and
create in some areas unique wetland features called patterned
calcareous fens (fens). In addition, it has been concluded that one of
the lakes in the area, Lake Cochrane, also receives a portion of its
water budget from groundwater contributions of the Burr Unit.
Fens in the study area are characterized by a partially mineralized
peat mass through which a groundwater discharge occurs throughout the
peat mass. This peat mass is referred to as a fen dome and in most
areas the domes are elevated 5-10 feet above the ground surface. Fens
are listed as ``Outstanding Resource Value Waters'' in Minnesota's
Rules 7050 and are protected under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation
Act of 1991 (Minn. Stat. 103G).
In processing LPRW's application for the ESN/LC phase proposal, the
Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) prepared an Environmental Assessment
(EA) on the proposal and published a Finding of No Significant Impact
on February 7, 1992. Because of concerns raised regarding the Burr Well
Field, the EA was amended or supplemented by an agency newly created by
a 1993 USDA reorganization, the Rural Development Administration (RDA).
RDA published a public notice announcing the availability of the
supplemental EA in local newspapers on October 14, 1994. Upon review of
the comments received on this document, a decision was made to prepare
an EIS. During the time this decision was being made USDA again
reorganized its programs and the RDA Water and Waste programs were
combined with the utility programs of the Rural Electrification
Administration into a new agency--the Rural Utilities Service.
RUS announced its intent to prepare an EIS and hold public scoping
meetings in a Notice of Intent, published in the Federal Register on
June 8, 1995, and in public notices in local newspapers. Public
meetings were held on July 18, 1995, in Canby, Minnesota, and July 19,
1995, in Brookings, South Dakota, for the purpose of describing the
project and soliciting the public's comments about the issues to be
considered in the EIS.
While RUS decided to prepare an EIS on the outstanding concerns
related to the FmHA's previous decision (March 24, 1992) to fund the
ESN/LC phase proposal it had on file an application from LPRW to
complete the last phase of the original system expansion project--the
Northeast Phase Expansion. Because the Burr Well Field was originally
designed and built to serve as a source of water for not only the
Northeast Phase Expansion but two previous construction phases--the
ESN/LC Phase and the Yellow Medicine Phase--and other areas within the
northern portions of LPRW's service area, it was determined that,
because the activities of these construction phases were so completely
interrelated and interdependent, separating the phases into separate
environmental impact analyses would not be in compliance with the
intent of NEPA. Therefore, it was decided to include the environmental
impact analyses for the Northeast Phase Expansion proposal into the EIS
proposed for the ESN/LC phase project. The basis for this decision, is
stated in the Council on Environmental Quality's Procedures for
Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the NEPA, 40 CFR 1502.4(a),
Major Federal Actions Requiring the Preparation of Environmental Impact
Statements, * * * ``Proposals or parts of proposals which are related
to each other closely enough to be, in effect, a single course of
action shall be evaluated in a single impact statement.''
The more in-depth environmental impact analyses and discussion of
alternatives presented in the EIS, particularly as they related to the
Burr Well Field, were performed subsequent to a previous decision to
fund LPRW's ESN/LC Phase proposal. This situation presented RUS with a
procedural dilemma as to the ultimate purpose of the analyses to be
presented in the EIS. The dilemma is that NEPA, as a procedural law,
requires consideration of the potential environmental impacts of a
proposed action before a decision is made. Even though decisions have
already been made and significant public funds have been committed for
the development and construction of the ESN/LC Phase project, RUS
decided, based on information and evidence presented, that the intent
of NEPA would be advanced by taking a ``harder'' look at the
outstanding issues from the 1992 FmHA EA and the 1994 RDA supplemented
EA. Given this reality, the primary decision facing RUS at this time is
whether or not to fund the Northeast Phase Expansion.
After considering public comments received in the scoping meetings,
RUS determined the significant issues that were evaluated in the EIS.
This included the range of alternatives, as required by NEPA, which
could meet the purpose and need of the proposed action--that is, to
provide a safe, reliable source of potable water to citizens within the
northern portion of LPRW's service area. The primary issues evaluated
in the EIS, therefore, included the outstanding concerns from the
earlier 1992 EA, i.e., the environmental effects on the area's fens and
Lake Cochrane (herein referred to as surface water resources (includes
resources in both South Dakota and Minnesota)) from groundwater
appropriations at the Burr Well Field, and the potential environment
impacts from construction of the Northeast Phase Expansion proposal.
On February 23, 1998, the RUS announced the availability of the
Draft EIS (DEIS) in the Federal Register (63 FR 8901) and local
newspapers. The DEIS was sent to interested parties and made available
for public review at a number of locations throughout the area in both
Minnesota and South Dakota and was available over the Internet at RUS'
website (http://www.usda.gov/rus/water/ees/eis.htm). Subsequent to a
60-day public review period, RUS sponsored a public meeting to solicit
additional comments from the public. The public meeting was announced
in the Federal Register (63 FR 3461) on June 24, 1998, and local
newspapers. The meeting was held on July 30, 1998, in Canby, Minnesota.
In total, RUS received comments from 26 Federal and State agencies,
[[Page 53663]]
Congressional representatives, public bodies, individuals, and
environmental interest and industry groups. The number of comments
added up to 79 pages. After reviewing, considering, and responding
individually and collectively to these comments, RUS announced the
availability of the Final EIS (FEIS) on May 27, 1999, in the Federal
Register (64 FR 28796) and in the same newspapers and website used
throughout the EIS process.
A summary of the public's comments received on the FEIS is included
in the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Commenter Affiliation pages
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minnesota Department of Natural State Environmental \1\ 6
Resources. Regulatory Agency.
Minnesota Pollution Control State Environmental 2
Agency. Regulatory Agency.
South Dakota Department of State Environmental 2
Environment and Natural Regulatory Agency.
Resources.
--------------------------------------
Subtotal State Agencies...... 3....................... 10
U.S. Environmental Protection Federal Environmental \1\ 2
Agency, Region 8. Regulatory Agency.
--------------------------------------
Subtotal Federal Agencies.... 1....................... 2
East Dakota Water Development Public Body............. 3
District.
--------------------------------------
Subtotal Public Bodies....... 1....................... 3
South Dakota Resource Coalition Environmental Interest 7
(includes comments submitted but Group.
not received during DEIS).
Minnesota Center for Environmental Interest 3
Environmental Advocacy. Group.
--------------------------------------
Subtotal Environmental 2....................... 10
Interest Groups.
Jim Thompson..................... Citizen................. \1\ 4
Lyle Tobin, Representative of Citizen................. 2
Lake Cochrane Improvement
Association.
Shirley Holt..................... Citizen................. 2
Clayton Holt..................... Citizen................. 4
--------------------------------------
Subtotal Private Citizens.... 4....................... 12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ With attachments.
In summary, most comments were generally supportive of RUS's
preferred alternative and its inclusion of a Contingency Plan into the
proposed WRMP, however, some commenters objected to RUS's method of
responding to public comments, that is, to respond to comments directly
without revising the text of the DEIS. Some commenters asserted
opposition to RUS's conclusions and others requested RUS prepare a
supplemental EIS to address issues they felt had not been dealt with
adequately, such as the need to supplement a Lake Cochrane water budget
study previously developed by the South Dakota Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (SDDENR).
Comments received on the FEIS can be summarized in general
categories. These categories included concerns related to:
A conflict of interest for RUS to prepare the EIS;
The use of engineering design, operational, and monitoring
data collected by LPRW's engineering consulting firm;
The use of limited or incomplete data sets in drawing
conclusions and that actions taken as a result of these conclusions
will not ``minimize or eliminate'' damage to the area's surface water
features;
LPRW's relationship and water supply contract with Marshal
Municipal Utilities in that this relationship circumvented RUS
regulations with regard to the City of Marshall's eligibility to
participate in RUS loan and grant programs; and
RUS's retraction of the DEIS's requirement for LPRW to
develop an agreement with the SDDENR to formalize monitoring protocols
and procedures in order to protect South Dakota interests and natural
resources.
As required by NEPA, project alternatives to meet the purpose and
need of the proposed action (including previous phases were considered;
the reasonable alternatives considered are summarized in the following
table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northeast phase Burr Well field
Alternative expansion status status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Status (as of time of LPRW submitted LPRW is authorized
DEIS). application to under their
RUS to fund current Water
construction of Appropriation
the Northeast Permit to
Phase Expansion. appropriate
groundwater at
the rate of 750
gpm/400 Mgpy.
LPRW submitted an
application to
the MDNR to
increase
groundwater
appropriations
1,500 gpm/800
Mgpy.
Proposed Action................. Fund the Northeast Increase
Phase Expansion. groundwater
appropriations at
the Burr Well
Field to 1,500
gpm/800 Mgpy.
Alternative 1................... Fund the Northeast Discontinue use of
Phase Expansion. Burr Well Field.
Alternative 2................... Fund the Northeast Discontinue use of
Phase Expansion. Burr Well Field.
Supplement water
needs from other
sources: Adjacent
Rural Water
Systems, Lewis
and Clark System,
Altamont Aquifer,
Canby Aquifer,
Other Aquifers.
[[Page 53664]]
Alternative 3................... Fund the Northeast Maintain current
Phase Expansion. appropriations at
Burr Well Field.
Alternative 4................... Fund the Northeast Maintain current
Phase Expansion. or reduce
appropriations at
Burr Well Field.
Fund and construct
new well field
and Water
Treatment Plant
in the Wood Lake
area.
Alternative 5................... Do not fund the Maintain current
Northeast Phase appropriations at
Expansion; Burr Well Field.
Finance Point-of-
Use systems in
Northeast Phase
Expansion area.
Alternative 6--No Action Do Not Fund the Maintain current
Alternative. Northeast Phase appropriations at
Expansion.. Burr Well Field.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The factors RUS used to evaluate the environmental, economic, and
technologic feasibilities of the alternatives evaluated in the EIS are
outlined in the DEIS. These analyses were not fundamentally changed in
response to comments on the DEIS and, subsequent to the public comments
on the FEIS, continue to be considered applicable and reasonable at the
present time.
Based on the monitoring data collected to date and factoring in the
inherent scientific uncertainties of drawing conclusions on limited
data, RUS still maintains that the proposed action poses unreasonable
environmental risks to surface water features in both South Dakota and
Minnesota and that under drought conditions it is likely that
significant adverse environmental impacts could occur to these same
resources. At the same time, however, RUS still concludes that during
and where groundwater appropriations from the Burr Unit were limited to
the range between 400-525 gpm (with corresponding annual
appropriations) the data appears to indicate that no observable or
significant adverse environmental impacts have occurred.
RUS, as previously stated in the DEIS and FEIS, fully acknowledges
that the data record that has been compiled to the present has occurred
during a sustained period of above normal precipitation and that until
more data has been collected the ability to accurately predict the
direct, indirect, and cumulative ecological responses to the area's
surface water features from Burr Well Field appropriations is limited.
It is reasonably certain and foreseeable, however, that the magnitude
and relative importance of impacts to surface water features that could
occur under specific conditions can be predicted, i.e., sustained
pumping of the Burr Unit will reduce the potentiometric surface in the
Burr Unit reducing groundwater flow to hydraulically connected
resources thus potentially adversely affecting the ecological integrity
of affected resources. While this situation is relatively clear,
determining the appropriate rate of groundwater appropriations and each
affected resources' response to this pumping while taking into account
the inherent natural variation in environmental factors can only be
established within a reasonable level of certainty through long-term
monitoring. The outcome of any monitoring will be to allow
environmental regulatory officials to adapt to on-going conditions and
set appropriation rates as conditions warrant.
Given these conclusions and from the alternatives considered, RUS
has developed a preferred alternative that it believes to be the most
environmentally preferable alternative and helps support the overall
goal of providing citizens with a safe, reliable source of potable
water in an area that has historically had water supply and quality
problems. RUS believes that this goal can be accomplished and at the
same time minimize or avoid significant adverse environmental impacts
while providing for the ecological sustainability of the area's surface
water features.
The preferred alternative outlined in the FEIS continues to be RUS'
preference and forms the basis for its decision. The preferred
alternative is as follows:
Finance the Northeast Phase Expansion.
Continue to maintain the Burr Well Field as one of LPRW's
primary water sources. To minimize reductions in the potentiometric
surface, RUS supports limiting pumping rates from wells developed in
the Burr Unit aquifer to 400-525 gpm with a corresponding annual
appropriation rate.
At some future date, supplement existing wells at the Burr
Well Field with a new well field in an area south-southeast or north-
northeast of the current Burr Well Field or where sufficient aquifer
materials can be found. This new well field could utilize both the Burr
Unit and Altamont aquifers in a configuration similar to that at the
Burr Well Field or any other configuration determined by the MDNR as
appropriate. Raw water from this well field could be transported to the
Burr Water Treatment Plant for treatment and distribution to LPRW
customers.
RUS recommends that the MDNR consider integrating the
proposed Water Resource Management Plan (WRMP) into the Burr Well
Field's Water Appropriation Permit.
The WRMP listed in the last bullet is the mitigation measure RUS
will establish as a condition of approving LPRW's application for the
Northeast Phase Expansion proposal. The basic premise behind the need
to develop a WRMP is that the Burr Unit is hydraulically connected to
the area's surface water features and that under certain conditions and
at a yet-to-be-determined rate groundwater appropriations from the Burr
Well Field have the potential to adversely impact these resources.
The goal of the WRMP is to establish a mechanism for evaluating on
an on-going, real-time basis responses to surface water resources in
both South Dakota and Minnesota from groundwater appropriations at the
Burr Well Field and to formalize through impact thresholds established
by State regulatory officials an acceptable environmental risk and
reasonable margin of safety to each State's natural resources. One of
the purposes of the WRMP will be to incorporate and integrate into the
Burr Well Field's operations and permit conditions an ``adaptive
environmental management plan'' whereby regulatory officials can
continually assess ecologic responses in surface water features and can
make appropriate modifications to groundwater withdrawals in the Burr
Well Field's permit.
One of the public's criticisms to the FEIS was RUS' removal of a
requirement that LPRW develop an agreement with the SDDENR to formalize
monitoring procedures and protocols that would evaluate the effects of
groundwater
[[Page 53665]]
withdrawals at the Burr Well Field on South Dakota resources.
Notwithstanding a Minnesota and South Dakota written commitment to work
together on Burr Well Field permitting issues and a continuing belief
that the MDNR's permitting procedures contain the appropriate
statutory, regulatory, and administrative processes to officially
incorporate South Dakota officials (and citizens') concerns at the Burr
Well Field, RUS fully intends to encourage and invite SDDENR's full
participation in the development of the WRMP.
As stated in the FEIS, the WRMP should formalize all procedures,
protocols, and methodologies to monitor in a comprehensive fashion
groundwater appropriations at the Burr Well Field and its effects on
the surface water resources hydraulically connected to the Burr Unit in
both South Dakota and Minnesota. As a minimum, the following components
shall be included in the WRMP:
Contingency Plan--the plan should incorporate impact
thresholds established by MDNR, SDDENR's input, and outline what
procedures LPRW will take in the event water appropriations from the
Burr Unit are restricted.
Well Field Operation and Management Plan--this plan should
be designed to minimize reductions in the potentiometric surface in the
Burr Unit during any specified time periods.
Supplemental Well Field Exploration Plan--based on
previous geologic exploration efforts, this plan should outline future
exploration efforts and development activities, including schedules,
for a supplemental well field.
Monitoring Plan--formalize monitoring well locations;
establish standard methodologies or procedures for data management,
i.e., collection, documentation, and information sharing.
Assuming LPRW continues to pursue its request for financial
assistance for the Northeast Phase Expansion and RUS has funds
available for and approves the proposal, RUS will formally invite the
following participants to contribute to and assist in the development
of the WRMP:
Lincoln-Pipestone Rural Water
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural
Resources
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Region 8
(while Minnesota is in USEPA Region 5, Region 8, in accordance with
their Cooperating Agency Agreement with RUS, has agreed to serve in the
lead role for this project).
RUS will support, within the context and time frames of its loan
approval process, the planning and development of the WRMP by
coordinating meetings between the above participants. As stated
previously, RUS shall not release project funding until LPRW
successfully completes the WRMP to RUS's satisfaction. RUS will
evaluate the technical sufficiency and acceptance of the WRMP primarily
through consultations with hydrogeologists at the USEPA, Region 8 and
the other regulatory officials. The mechanism for this consultation
with USEPA will be provided for through RUS's Cooperating Agency
Agreement with USEPA. RUS will further condition the release of funds
for the Northeast Phase Expansion area subject to LPRW being able to
obtain the appropriate Water Appropriation Permit(s) from the MDNR.
Through the WRMP, RUS hopes to foster a cooperative working
environment among all stakeholders to the proposal. The overall goal of
RUS' decision is to promote the wise use and sustainability of natural
resources, avoiding irreversibility in the ecological integrity of
those resources, and provide the area's citizens with a safe, reliable
source of potable water. Even though the EIS is a decision document,
not a scientific research report, RUS believes it has evaluated current
and relevant data and is confident that given a cooperative attitude
among stakeholders, significant adverse impacts to the environment can
be minimized or avoided through mitigation and adopting an adaptive
environmental management approach in monitoring groundwater
appropriations at the Burr Well Field.
Dated: September 16, 1999.
Wally Beyer,
Administrator, Rural Utilities Service.
[FR Doc. 99-25721 Filed 10-1-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-15-P
