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 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