[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