Record of Decision: Lincoln-Pipestone Rural Water; Existing System North/Lyon County Phase and Northeast Phase Expansion; Environmental Impact Statement

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