[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 35 (Monday, February 23, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8901-8905]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-4484]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Rural Utilities Service
Lincoln-Pipestone Rural Water; Existing System North/Lyon County
Phase and Northeast Phase Expansion Project
AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of availability of draft environmental impact statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Rural Utilities Service (RUS)
is issuing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the
Lincoln-Pipestone Rural Water Existing System North/Lyon County Phase
and Northeast Phase Expansion Project. The Draft EIS was prepared
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
(U.S.C. 4231 et seq.) in accordance with the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of
NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508) and Agency regulations (7 CFR 1940-G). RUS
invites comments on the Draft EIS.
The purpose of the EIS is to evaluate the potential environmental
impacts of a project proposal located in southwestern Minnesota. The
proposal to which the Agency is responding to involves providing
financial assistance for the development and expansion of a public
rural water system and a review of the environmental impacts from
previous expansion phase activities. The applicant for this proposal is
a public body named Lincoln-Pipestone Rural Water (LPRW). LPRW's main
offices are located in Lake Benton, MN. 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.
DATES: Written comments on the Draft EIS will be accepted on or before
April 24, 1998.
ADDRESSES: To send comments or for more information, contact: Mark S.
Plank, USDA, Rural Utilities Service, Engineering and Environmental
Staff, 1400 Independence Avenue, Stop 1571, Washington, DC 20250,
telephone (202) 720-1649, fax (202) 720-0820, or e-mail:
mplank@rus.usda.gov.
A copy of the Draft EIS or an Executive Summary can be obtained
over the Internet at http://www.usda.gov/rus/water/ees/environ.html.
The files are in a portable document format (pdf); in order to review
or print the document, users need to obtain a free copy of Acrobat
Reader. The Acrobat Reader can be obtained from http://www.adobe.com/
prodindex/acrobat/readstep.html.
Copies of the Draft EIS will be available for public review during
[[Page 8902]]
normal business hours at the following locations:
USDA Service Center, Rural Development, 1424 E. College Drive, Suite
500, Marshall, MN 56258; (507) 532-3234, Ext. 203.
Limited copies of the Draft EIS will be available for distribution
at this address.
Marshall Public Library, 301 W. Lyon, Marshall, MN 56258; (507) 537-
7003.
Ivanhoe Public Library, P.O. Box 54, Ivanhoe, MN 56142; (507) 694-1555.
Canby Public Library, 110 Oscar Ave. N, Canby, MN 56220; (507) 223-
5738.
Deuel County Extension Service, 419 3rd Ave. S, P.O. Box 350, Clear
Lake, SD 57226; (605) 874-2681.
Lincoln County Extension Service, 402 N. Harold, Ivanhoe, MN 56142;
(507) 694-1470.
Lyon County Extension Service, 1400 E. Lyon St., Marshall, MN 56258;
(507) 537-6702.
Yellow Medicine County Extension Service, 1000 10th Ave., Clarkfield,
MN 56223.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Some of the issues evaluated in this EIS
date back to previous decisions made in funding one of the phases of a
multi-phase system expansion project initiated by LPRW in 1991. Due to
Congressional funding cycles, Rural Utilities Service (RUS) and LPRW
have administratively pursued LPRW's requests for financial assistance
of this expansion project in discrete fundable phases. As part of the
last construction phase, known as the Existing System North/Lyon County
(ESN/LC) Phase project, a water source was developed along with the
construction of a Water Treatment Plant that was designed to provide
potable water to the northern portion of LPRW's service area. The water
source developed in this phase was the Burr Well Field. The Burr Well
Field is located close to Burr, MN, between Clear Lake, SD, and Canby,
MN, and is within \1/2\ mile of the South Dakota-Minnesota state line.
The water-bearing formations utilized at this well field underlie
portions of both South Dakota and Minnesota.
During construction of the Burr Well Field (started on April 19,
1993) and subsequent to its operations, public and regulatory concerns
were raised and continue to be raised regarding potential environmental
effects of groundwater appropriations from one of the water-bearing
formations (called the Burr Unit) utilized by the well field. The
second aquifer utilized at the Burr Well Field is called the Altamont
aquifer. The Altamont is a deeper formation that appears to be
hydraulically isolated from the Burr Unit.
Because of geologic factors and the topographic position of the
Burr Unit in relation to ground surface elevations, groundwater from
the Burr Unit discharges onto the land surface in both South Dakota and
Minnesota as springs or seeps creating unique wetland features called
patterned calcareous fens. In addition after performing geologic
investigations in the area, the South Dakota Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (SDDENR) concluded that one of the lakes in the
area, Lake Cochrane, was also receiving groundwater discharges from the
Burr Unit aquifer.
An Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared for the ESN/LC Phase
project by the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) in accordance with
its Environmental Policies and Procedures (7 CFR Part 1940-G). FmHA
published a Finding of No Significant Impact for the project on
February 7, 1992. Because of concerns raised regarding the Burr Well
Field, the EA was amended to address these concerns by an agency newly
created by a 1993 USDA reorganization, the Rural Development
Administration (RDA). RDA published a draft copy of the amended EA for
public review and comment on October 14, 1994. Upon receipt of the
public comments, it was decided to prepare an EIS. During the time this
decision was being made USDA again reorganized its programs and the RDA
programs were combined with the utility programs of the Rural
Electrification Administration to form 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.
The primary issues evaluated in the EIS included the outstanding
concerns from the earlier 1992 EA, that is, the environmental effects
on fens and Lake Cochrane (herein referred to as surface water
resources) from groundwater appropriations at the Burr Well Field, and
the potential environment impacts from the construction of the
Northeast Phase Expansion proposal. The primary objective of the
Northeast Phase Expansion proposal is to provide rural water service to
rural residents (240 rural users) who have requested service and to the
rural communities of Hazel Run and Echo, Minnesota. The proposal
includes the installation of 170 miles of 2- to 8-in pipelines, an
elevated water storage tank near Minneota, and a booster station near
Green Valley. The overall purpose of this and previous actions by LPRW
is to assist citizens in southwestern Minnesota in obtaining a
consistent, reliable and safe supply of high-quality, affordable
drinking water in an area that has difficulty in obtaining good quality
drinking water.
Because all of the decisions and funding obligations have been made
on the previous ESN/LC Phase project, the only decision facing the
Agency at this time is whether or not to provide financial assistance
to LPRW for the construction of the Northeast Phase Expansion proposal.
All decisions regarding the issuance and disposition of the Water
Appropriation Permit authorizing groundwater appropriations at the Burr
Well Field are subject to the regulatory authority of the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR), Division of Water.
After the Agency made the decision to prepare an EIS, the Agency
requested, pursuant to 40 CFR 1501.6, ``Cooperating Agencies'', that
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Region 8 in Denver,
CO, serve in the capacity of a cooperating agency. This request was
made because of USEPA's specialized expertise in groundwater issues.
USEPA agreed to the Agency's request, therefore, RUS is the lead agency
for this action and was responsible for the preparation of the EIS, and
USEPA provided technical assistance to RUS through its role as a
cooperating agency.
For purposes of this EIS, the proposed action to which the Agency
is responding to and for which all of the environmental impacts of past
and present actions were evaluated, is the application LPRW submitted
to the Agency to fund the Northeast Phase Expansion. In addition to
this application, LPRW submitted a Water Appropriation Permit
application to the MNDNR to increase groundwater appropriation rates
from the present 750 gallons per minute (gpm) and 400 million gallons
per year (Mgpy) to 1,500 gpm/800 Mgpy. Both of these actions encompass
what was termed the ``proposed action.''
The Agency evaluated six alternatives to meeting the water supply
needs of the LPRW system. The following table lists the alternatives
considered.
[[Page 8903]]
List of the Alternatives Considered
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northeast phase Burr Well Field
Alternative expansion status status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Status................ LPRW submitted LPRW is authorized
application to under their current
RUS to fund Water Appropriation
construction of Permit to
the Northeast appropriate
Phase Expansion. groundwater at the
rate of 750 gpm/400
Mgpy. LPRW submitted
an application to
the MNDNR to
increase groundwater
appropriations to
1,500 gpm/800 Mgpy.
Proposed Action............... Fund the Increase groundwater
Northeast Phase appropriations at
Expansion. the Burr Well Field
to 1,500 gpm/800
Mgpy.
Alternative 1................. Fund the Discontinue use of
Northeast Phase Burr Well Field.
Expansion.
Alternative 2................. Fund the Discontinue use of
Northeast Phase Burr Well Field.
Expansion. Supplement water
needs from other
sources: Adjacent
rural water systems,
Lewis and Clark
system, Altamont
aquifer, Canby
aquifer, other
aquifers.
Alternative 3................. Fund the Maintain current
Northeast Phase appropriations at
Expansion. Burr Well Field.
Alternative 4................. Fund the Maintain current or
Northeast Phase reduce
Expansion. 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the six alternatives considered, the Agency performed an
economic analysis on three of the alternatives determined to be
reasonable. In addition, an economic analysis was performed on Agency's
preferred alternative. The only alternatives considered to be
economically and technically viable included continuing to appropriate
groundwater from the aquifers utilized at the Burr Well Field.
Therefore, the EIS focussed its analyses on evaluating the potential
environmental effects on surface water resources from continued pumping
at the Burr Well Field.
Based on the analyses performed in the EIS concerning the
relationship of surface water resources and pumping at the Burr Well
Field, the Agency concludes the following:
As a result of detailed investigations of water chemistry, changes
in hydraulic head during production pumping and pump tests, tritium
content and age-dating of aquifer water and water being discharged at
two of the area's fens that were monitored--the Fairchild and Sioux
Nation Fens--it has been clearly demonstrated and established that a
hydraulic connection exists between the Burr Unit and the fens. In
addition, further evidence indicates that reductions in the
potentiometric surface caused by pumping the Burr Unit at the Burr Well
Field causes reciprocal responses in the hydraulic head measured in
observation wells and piezometers installed in and adjacent to selected
fens. No evidence of a similar hydraulic connection between the
Altamont aquifer and the fens was observed.
Drawing conclusions based on limited information concerning Lake
Cochrane was not as conclusive. However, based on the information that
is available, the Agency has concluded that all lines of evidence
indicate that it is likely Lake Cochrane is receiving a groundwater
contribution to its water budget from both shallow and deeper (Burr
Unit) aquifers. The information that would be necessary to quantify the
overall percentage of groundwater contribution in relation to surface
water inputs to Lake Cochrane's water budget and the percentage of the
contribution from shallow aquifers versus the Burr Unit is incomplete
and unavailable. The cost and technical difficulty of obtaining such
information for evaluating reasonably foreseeable impacts by the Agency
has been determined to be exorbitant and unreasonable.
Based on a systematic and objective evaluation of the environmental
and economic issues related to the remaining alternatives, the Agency
has concluded that the proposed action (to appropriate groundwater at
1,500 gpm/800 Mgpy from the Burr Unit at the Burr Well Field) poses an
unreasonable environmental risk to surface water resources in the area.
Because of the uncertainty and potential for long-term environmental
impacts on surface water resources in the area around the Burr Well
Field, the Agency has concluded that pumping at the proposed
appropriation rate under drought conditions is likely to cause
significant adverse environmental impacts to these resources.
Conversely, in analyzing the information available, the Agency has
concluded that through mitigation and a groundwater appropriation rate
lower than the proposed action, adverse environmental effects could be
avoided or minimized. Therefore, it could be feasible to continue using
the Burr Well Field at certain appropriation rates without causing
significant adverse environmental effects.
Attempting to establish an appropriation rate that could avoid or
minimize adverse environment effects to the fens and Lake Cochrane was
the major dilemma of the EIS. Because of limited baseline data and
period of record, the only information that can be evaluated is data
that has been collected since 1992. The entire time period since 1992
to the present has been dominated by a sustained period of relatively
high precipitation. Therefore, these climatic conditions have prevented
detailed observations of aquifer responses from pumping during a
drought cycle or what effects current pumping has had on surface water
resources. Because of this uncertainty and the reality of periodic and
cyclic drought conditions, it is prudent to manage this aquifer system
and withdrawals from it in a conservative manner.
Notwithstanding a lack of long-term data, taking into account
current data sets and through consultations with state and federal
agencies and experts in the field of hydrogeology, the Agency has
concluded the following:
1. There could be effects to Lake Cochrane from long-term pumping
from the Burr Unit at the Burr Well Field.
[[Page 8904]]
Based on data collected from the various pump tests and in consultation
with experts in the field of hydrology and geology, it is the Agency's
opinion that effects to Lake Cochrane from the continuation of pumping
from wells screened in the Burr Unit at the Burr Well Field at the rate
of 400-525 gpm would not have significant environmental impacts. That
is not to say that Lake Cochrane could not be affected, but that in the
range of 400-525 gpm it is unlikely that any effects would have
significant consequences. In addition, at these appropriation rates it
would be extremely difficult to distinguish any impacts from reduced
groundwater inputs into the lake from the biological effects of ongoing
management practices or human influences at the lake.
2. During all of the pump tests and production pumping for the last
three years at current and maximum pumping rates of 400-525 gpm (1997
appropriations from the Burr Unit equaled 274 million gallons for an
average of 521 gallons per minute), the effects from pumping at the
Burr Well Field at the fens, as represented by the Sioux Nation Fen and
measured by three piezometers installed at various depths in the fen
dome, have been minor. At no time did the hydraulic head or water table
elevations in the fens or potentiometric surface fall close to or below
the surface elevations of the peat domes. Therefore, the Agency has
concluded that as long as the hydraulic gradient remains above the
surface elevation of the fen dome and the dome itself remains under
saturated conditions it appears unlikely that appropriation rates
between the range of 400-525 gpm will adversely affect the fens.
In order to avoid or minimize any adverse environmental effects to
surface water resources, the Agency has developed mitigation measures
it believes could be protective of surface water resources and at the
same time support LPRW in its need to secure a reliable water supply
for the northern portions of its service area. The mitigation measures
listed below constitute the Agency's preferred alternative. It is
estimated that if these mitigation measures are implemented, user rates
for the overall system would increase approximately 21 percent.
Although this rate increase is higher than the proposed action, LPRW
concludes that its membership would be able to sustain this increase.
The Agency believes that implementing the preferred alternative will
help meet LPRW and its customers' long-term water supply needs, but yet
be protective of the area's surface water resources.
The Agency's preferred alternative includes:
1. Continue to maintain the Burr Well Field as a primary water
source. The Agency supports reducing or limiting ground water
appropriations at the Burr Well Field from each of the two aquifers--
the Burr Unit and Altamont aquifer--to 400-525 gpm with a corresponding
annual appropriation rate.
2. Supplement existing wells at the Burr Well Field with a new well
field in an area south-southeast of the current Burr Well Field. This
new well field could utilize both the Burr Unit and Altamont aquifers
in a configuration similar to that at the Burr Well Field. Water from
the new wells could be transported to the Burr Water Treatment Plant
for treatment and distribution to LPRW customers.
3. The Agency recommends that the appropriation rates of the
supplemental wells be similar to those permitted at the Burr Well Field
or higher in the case of the Altamont aquifer. This configuration would
give LPRW two well fields and enable it to continue utilizing the
existing treatment capacity at the Burr Water Treatment Plant to meet
the primary and secondary needs in the northern portion of its service
area. This recommendation would likely ``spread out'' the effects or
reductions in the potentiometric surface of the Burr Unit caused by
production pumping, thus potentially avoiding or minimizing any adverse
effects to surface water resources in the area.
4. The Agency recommends that MNDNR establish, as part of its
permitting requirements for LPRW, protocols and standard operating
procedures for well field operations that are designed to minimize
drawdowns in the potentiometric surface in the Burr Unit. These
protocols could include regulating pumping rates and annual withdrawals
for each well and aquifer.
5. Formalize a water resource management plan that will continue to
use existing monitoring points at fen locations and observation wells
in the Burr Unit in Minnesota and South Dakota. This monitoring plan
would enable LPRW and natural resource management agencies in both
Minnesota and South Dakota to monitor and develop a long-term strategy
for evaluating groundwater appropriations and their effects on surface
water features in the area.
The Agency will condition approval on LPRW's application for
financial assistance for the Northeast Phase Expansion and other
associated costs on successful completion of the following terms. This
approval is subject to LPRW's being able to obtain the appropriate
water appropriation permit(s) from the MNDNR.
1. Explore the development of a supplemental well field in the area
south of the Burr Well Field determined by various geologic exploration
efforts as containing aquifer materials that would be capable of
supplying municipal quantities of water. The new well field should
utilize both the Burr Unit and the Altamont aquifer providing for more
reliance on the Altamont than it does at the Burr Well Field. Raw water
from this well field should be transported to the existing Burr Water
Treatment Plant to take advantage of the facility's existing water
treatment capacity.
2. LPRW shall formalize a water resource management plan with the
MNDNR to establish monitoring procedures and protocols to evaluate the
effects of pumping the Burr Unit on surface water resources in
Minnesota. Included within this plan LPRW shall develop standard
operating procedures to manage and implement groundwater appropriations
from the Burr Unit at both the new well field and Burr Well Field to
minimize drawdown of the potentiometric surface from production
pumping.
3. LPRW shall formalize an agreement with SDDENR to establish
monitoring procedures and protocols to evaluate the effects of pumping
the Burr Unit on surface water resources in South Dakota.
Provided these conditions are met and LPRW has formalized all the
above with the appropriate regulatory authorities, the Agency is
prepared to approve LPRW's application for construction of the
Northeast Phase Expansion proposal, subject to the availability of
funding.
All direct construction related activities associated with the
funding of the Northeast Phase Expansion by themselves will have no
significant environmental impact. The environmental effects of
constructing an elevated water storage tank near Minneota, booster
stations near Minneota and Green Valley, and 170 miles of pipeline will
be minimal consisting of temporary disturbances consistent with
standard construction practices. All environmental impacts will be
mitigated as is appropriate for these individual construction
activities.
No historic or cultural resources or threatened and endangered
species will be affected by the Northeast Phase Expansion action. Less
than 2 acres of important farmland will be converted at the water
storage and booster station
[[Page 8905]]
sites. However, the majority of the land within the Northeast Phase
Expansion area has been identified as important farmland, so the
overall impact to this resource will be minimal.
For a detailed analysis of the data supporting the above
conclusions, see the Draft EIS.
Dated: February 12, 1998.
John P. Romano,
Deputy Administrator, Water and Environmental Program.
[FR Doc. 98-4484 Filed 2-20-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-15-P
