[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 102 (Thursday, May 27, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28796-28798]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-13354]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 final environmental impact statement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) 
is issuing a Final 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's (CEQ), Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions 
of NEPA (40 CFR 1500--1508) and RUS's Environmental Policies and 
Procedures (7 CFR 1794). RUS invites comments on the FEIS.

DATES: Written comments on the FEIS will be accepted on or before June 
28, 1999.

ADDRESSES FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: 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 FEIS or an Executive Summary can be obtained over the 
Internet at http://www.usda.gov/rus/water/ees/environ.htm. 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 FEIS will be available for public review during 
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.
USDA Rural Development State Office, 410 AgriBank Building, 375 Jackson 
Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-1853, (612) 602-7800. Limited copies will be 
available for distribution at this address.
USDA, Rural Development, 810 10th Ave. SE, Suite 2, Watertown, SD 
57201-5256, (605) 886-8202. Limited copies will be available for 
distribution at this address.
Lincoln-Pipestone Rural Water, East Highway 14, P.O. Box 188, Lake 
Benton, MN 56149, (507) 368-4248. Limited copies 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: The purpose of the EIS is to evaluate the

[[Page 28797]]

potential environmental effects of a project proposal located in 
southwestern Minnesota. The proposal to which RUS is responding 
involves providing financial assistance for the development and 
expansion of a public rural water system. The applicant for this 
proposal is a public body named Lincoln-Pipestone Rural Water (LPRW). 
LPRW's main office is 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
    This document is a final EIS (FEIS) prepared subsequent to the 
preparation of a draft EIS (DEIS). On February 23, 1998, the RUS 
announced the availability of the DEIS in the Federal Register (63 FR 
8901) for the previously constructed LPRW, Existing System North/Lyon 
County Phase project and the Northeast Expansion Phase project 
proposal. In addition to the Federal Register, public notices were 
published in the following newspapers: Ivanhoe Times, Marshall 
Independent, Canby News, and the Lincoln County Valley Journal in 
Minnesota; and the Gary International, Clear Lake Courier, and 
Brookings Register in South Dakota. The DEIS was also 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's 
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 meeting was held on July 30, 
1998, in Canby, Minnesota. The public meeting was announced in the 
Federal Register (63 FR 3461) on June 24, 1998, and in the above 
newspapers.
    In total RUS received comments from 26 Federal and State agencies, 
Congressional representatives, public bodies, individuals, and 
environmental interest and industry groups. The number of comments 
totaled 79 pages. The following table outlines the commenters, 
commenter affiliation, and the number of pages of comments received:

                       Summary of Public Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Number of
             Commenter                     Affiliation          pages
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minnesota Department of Natural      State Environmental              17
 Resources.                           Regulatory Agency.
South Dakota Department of           State Environmental               4
 Environment and Natural Resources.   Regulatory Agency.
Minnesota Historical Society.......  State Agency..........            1
                                    ------------------------------------
    Subtotal State Agencies........  3.....................           22
U.S. Environmental Protection        Federal Environmental             3
 Agency, Region 8.                    Regulatory Agency.
U.S. Department of the Interior....  Federal Natural                   7
                                      Resource Mgmt. Agency.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha  U.S. Army.............            2
 District.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St.    U.S. Army.............            1
 Paul District.
                                    ------------------------------------
    Subtotal Federal Agencies......  4.....................           13
East Dakota Water Development        Public Body...........            9
 District (2 letters).
Lincoln-Pipestone Rural Water......  Public Body...........            7
City of Minneota, Minnesota........  Public Body...........            1
City of Hazel Run, Minnesota.......  Public Body...........            2
Marshall Municipal Utilities (2      Public Body...........            3
 letters).
Minnesota Southwest Regional         Public Body...........            3
 Development Commission.
                                    ------------------------------------
    Subtotal Public Bodies.........  6.....................           25
U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone, D-MN..  U.S. Congress.........            1
U.S. Congressman David Minge, D-MN.  U.S. Congress.........            1
State Senator Bernie Hunhoff.......  South Dakota State                1
                                      Legislature.
                                    ------------------------------------
    Subtotal Congressional.........  2.....................            2
Natural Audubon Society............  Environmental Interest            2
                                      Group.
Marshall Industries................  Industry Interest                 1
                                      Group.
                                    ------------------------------------
    Subtotal Environmental and       2.....................            3
     Industry Interest Groups.
Minnesota Corn Processor...........  Industry..............            1
Industry...........................  1.....................            1
Private Citizens...................  8.....................           13
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    RUS has determined that the comments, while extensive on a few 
issues, do not warrant a revision to the DEIS. In accordance with CEQ's 
procedures, 40 CFR Sec. 1503.4, Response to Comments, where substantive 
comments were determined to merit individual responses, RUS responded 
directly to the commenter. All other comments were considered as 
appropriate in the preparation of the FEIS. Copies of all comments 
received as part of the DEIS's public comment period and submitted at 
the July 30, 1998 public meeting are included in Appendix A of the 
FEIS.
    In general, the substantive comments received on the DEIS fell into 
six general areas. The six areas include the following:
    1. Projected Water Needs.
    2. LPRW Relationship with and Eligibility of the City of Marshall, 
Marshall Municipal Utilities (MMU) and Minnesota Corn Processor (MCP) 
for RUS Programs.
    3. Contingency Plan.
    4. Water Budget for Lake Cochrane.
    5. Supplemental Well Field and Exploration Efforts.
    6. Speculative Nature of Conclusions.

Preferred Alternative and Conclusions

    After carefully considering all of the comments received from the 
public and Federal and State environmental

[[Page 28798]]

regulatory agencies, RUS continues to support the preferred alternative 
as outlined in the DEIS with slight modifications. The preferred 
alternative is as follows:
    1. Finance the Northeast Phase Expansion.
    2. Continue to maintain the Burr Well Field as a primary water 
source. To minimize reductions in the potentiometric surface, RUS 
supports limiting pumping rates from wells developed in the Burr Unit 
of the Prairie Coteau aquifer to 400-525 gpm with a corresponding 
annual appropriation rate.
    3. 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 Minnesota 
Department of Natural Resources (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.
    4. RUS recommends that the MDNR consider integrating the proposed 
Water Resource Management Plan into the Burr Well Field's Water 
Appropriation Permit.

Mitigation Measures

    In order to avoid or minimize any significant adverse environmental 
impacts to the surface water resources that are hydraulically connected 
to the Burr Unit, RUS believes that it is necessary to formalize and 
establish a comprehensive methodology to monitor on-going groundwater 
appropriations and effects to surface water resources. In addition, it 
would be appropriate to enable all concerned parties to provide input 
into evaluating these activities. Therefore, to accomplish these goals 
RUS will establish as a mitigation measure and as a condition of 
financing the Northeast Phase Expansion a requirement that LPRW prepare 
a Water Resource Management Plan (WRMP).
    The WRMP should formalize all procedures, protocols, and 
methodologies to monitor in a comprehensive fashion groundwater 
appropriations at the Burr Well Field and effects to the surface water 
resources hydraulically connected to the Burr Unit. The following 
components should be included in the WRMP:
    1. Contingency Plan--the plan should document impact thresholds 
established by MDNR and outline what procedures LPRW will take in the 
event water appropriations from the Burr Unit are restricted.
    2. Well Field Operation and Management Plan--this plan should be 
designed to minimize reductions in the potentiometric surface in the 
Burr Unit.
    3. Supplemental Well Field Exploration Plan.
    4. Monitoring Plan--formalize monitoring well locations; establish 
standard methodologies or procedures for data collection, 
documentation, and information sharing.
    While RUS recommends that the MDNR consider integrating the WRMP 
into the Burr Well Field's Water Appropriation Permit, it cannot 
require that it do so. RUS will evaluate the technical sufficiency of 
the WRMP through consultations with hydrogeologists at the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Region 8. The mechanism for 
this consultation will be provided for through RUS' cooperating agency 
agreement with USEPA, Region 8. RUS will condition its concurrence with 
the WRMP and the release of funds for the Northeast Phase Expansion 
area subject to consultations with the MDNR and the USEPA and LPRW 
being able to obtain the appropriate Water Appropriation Permit(s) from 
the MDNR.
    In the DEIS, RUS proposed that LPRW formalize an agreement with 
South Dakota to establish monitoring procedures and protocols to 
evaluate the effects of groundwater appropriations from the Burr Unit 
on surface water resources in South Dakota. The purpose of this 
agreement was to formalize monitoring input to the WRMP from South 
Dakota officials. RUS has decided to remove this requirement for the 
following reasons:
    1. Governors from both South Dakota and Minnesota have already 
formally pledged in writing to cooperate on evaluating the effects of 
groundwater appropriations to the surface water resources hydraulically 
connected to the Burr Unit.
    2. RUS believes that the MDNR has the appropriate statutory and 
regulatory procedures in place to allow for South Dakota's input into 
their Water Appropriation Permitting process.
    3. All regulatory issues, concerns, or conditions related to MDNR's 
Water Appropriation Permit at the Burr Well Field from South Dakota 
should be directed at MDNR not LPRW.
    Provided all of the above conditions are met, RUS is prepared to 
approve LPRW's application for the Northeast Phase Expansion proposal. 
In addition, RUS is willing to consider in accordance with RUS 
regulations and subject to the availability of funding development 
costs for a supplemental well field.
    While RUS supports the development of a supplemental well field, 
based on monitoring compiled to date it does not appear that surface 
water resources around the Burr Well Field are being significantly 
impacted at this time. However, until more definitive conclusions can 
be drawn from longer term monitoring data, exploration and possible 
development of the supplemental well field should continue. It does not 
appear however, that an immediate sense of urgency is justified, rather 
supplemental well field development should be a long-term goal with 
exploration being the short-term goal.

    Dated: May 20, 1999.
John P. Romano,
Deputy Administrator, Water and Environmental Program.
[FR Doc. 99-13354 Filed 5-26-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-15-P