Lincoln-Pipestone Rural Water; Existing System North/Lyon County Phase and Northeast Phase Expansion Project

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