[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: 
[email protected].
    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