Get documents about "Lincoln-Pipestone Rural Water System, Record of Decis
Document Sample
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 1999 / Notices 53661
Done in Washington, DC, this 27th day of DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Dated: September 27, 1999.
September 1999. Hilda Diaz-Soltero,
Craig A. Reed, Forest Service Associate Chief for Natural Resources.
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health [FR Doc. 99–25659 Filed 10–1–99; 8:45 am]
Stewardship Contracting Pilot Project;
Inspection Service. BILLING CODE 3410–11–M
Multiparty Monitoring and Evaluation
[FR Doc. 99–25722 Filed 10–1–99; 8:45 am]
Process
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ACTION: Notice; reopen comment period. Rural Utilities Service
SUMMARY: The Forest Service is Record of Decision: Lincoln-Pipestone
Willamette Provincial Advisory
reopening the comment period on the Rural Water; Existing System North/
Committee (PAC) Lyon County Phase and Northeast
proposed framework for the multiparty
monitoring and evaluation component Phase Expansion; Environmental
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
of the stewardship contracting pilot Impact Statement
ACTION: Notice of meeting. projects. Notice of this framework was AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
published on August 17, 1999, in the
SUMMARY: The Willamette Province ACTION: Record of decision.
Federal Register; and the comment
Advisory Committee (PAC) will meet on period ended September 16, 1999. The The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) has
Thursday, October 14, 1999. The agency has received requests to reopen concluded an Environmental Impact
meeting is scheduled to begin at 9:00 the comment period from interested Statement (EIS) it prepared for the
a.m., and will conclude at parties and from representatives of Lincoln-Pipestone Rural Water (LPRW),
approximately 3:00 p.m. The meeting communities involved in the pilots. The Existing System North/Lyon County
will be held at the Quality Inn; 3301 agency realizes that many local groups (ESN/LC) Phase and Northeast Phase
Market Street NE; Salem, Oregon 97301; may not have been aware of the Federal Expansion proposal in southwest
(503) 370–7888. The tentative agenda Register notice and may not have had Minnesota and is announcing its
includes: (1) Presentation of proposed adequate time to provide comment on decision in this Record of Decision
Forest Service planning regulations, (2) the proposed framework during the (ROD). RUS’ decision is to approve
Presentation of the results of 1999 summer field season. Therefore, the LPRW’s application for financial
province monitoring and PAC agency is reopening the comment period assistance to construct the Northeast
evaluation of the results, (3) Discussion for 30 days. Phase Expansion proposal. This
of Oregon Plan and Federal Measures DATES: Comments must be received, in approval is predicated on LPRW’s
for anadromous fish recovery, and (4) writing, on or before November 3, 1999. acceptance of a set of conditions and
Roundtable information sharing by Pac completion of mitigation measures
ADDRESSES: Questions about this notice developed as part of and outlined in
members and federal agency may be sent to Cliff Hickman, via mail
representatives. RUS’ preferred alternative. Prior to loan/
at USDA Forest Service, Forest grant approval, LPRW must be in
The Public Forum is tentatively Management, Mail Stop 1105, P.O. Box compliance with all conditions of the
scheduled to begin at 10:00 a.m. Time 96090, Washington, DC 20090–6090 or water appropriation permits issued by
allotted for individual presentations electronically to chickman/ the Minnesota Department of Natural
will be limited to 3–4 minutes. Written wo@fs.fed.us. Resources (MDNR). Upon loan/grant
comments are encouraged, particularly Electronic copies of the FY 1999 approval and prior to the release of any
if the material cannot be presented Omnibus Appropriations Act or copies funds, LPRW must prepare and
within the time limits for the Public of the draft framework may be obtained complete a Water Resource Management
Forum. Written comments may be via Internet at www.fs.fed.us/land/fm/ Plan (WRMP) to RUS’ satisfaction.
submitted prior to the October 14 stewardship/framework.html. The purpose of the EIS was to
meeting by sending them to Designated evaluate the potential environmental
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cliff
Federal Official Neal Forrester at the impacts of a multiple-phase
Hickman, Forest Management Staff,
address given below. construction proposal where RUS has
(202) 205–1162, or chickman/
and proposes to provide financial
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For wo@fs.fed.us.
assistance for the development and
more information regarding this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section expansion of a public rural water
meeting, contact Designated Federal 347 of the FY 1999 Omnibus system. The applicant for this proposal
Official Neal Forrester; Willamette Appropriations Act authorized the is a public body named LPRW and
National Forest; 211 East Seventh Forest Service to implement up to 28 whose main offices are located in Lake
Avenue; Eugene, Oregon 97401; (541) stewardship end results contracting Benton, Minnesota. Specific project
465–6924. projects. Notice of the draft framework activities are and have included the
Dated: September 27, 1999. for multiparty monitoring and development of groundwater sources
evaluation for these projects was and production well fields and the
Darrel L. Kenops,
published in the Federal Register on construction of water treatment facilities
Forest Supervisor. August 17, 1999 (64 FRO 44685). The and water distribution networks. The
[FR. Doc. 99–25682 Filed 10–1–99; 8:45 am] Forest Service provided background counties in Minnesota affected by this
BILLING CODE 3410–11–M information about the provisions of proposal include Yellow Medicine,
Section 347 and its progress in Lincoln, and Lyon Counties and Deuel
implementing the legislation, in a notice County in South Dakota.
that appeared on the July 9, 1999, issue In accordance with the National
of the Federal Register (64 FR 37096). Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
53662 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 1999 / Notices
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4231 et seq.) and RUS reorganization, the Rural Development particularly as they related to the Burr
regulations (7 CFR part 1794), RUS Administration (RDA). RDA published a Well Field, were performed subsequent
prepared an EIS concerning these public notice announcing the to a previous decision to fund LPRW’s
actions. Some of the issues evaluated in availability of the supplemental EA in ESN/LC Phase proposal. This situation
the EIS date back to a previous agency local newspapers on October 14, 1994. presented RUS with a procedural
decision to fund one of the phases of a Upon review of the comments received dilemma as to the ultimate purpose of
multi-phase system expansion project on this document, a decision was made the analyses to be presented in the EIS.
initiated by LPRW in 1991, known as to prepare an EIS. During the time this The dilemma is that NEPA, as a
the ESN/LC Phase project. In that phase, decision was being made USDA again procedural law, requires consideration
LPRW developed, among other system reorganized its programs and the RDA of the potential environmental impacts
improvements, a water source—the Burr Water and Waste programs were of a proposed action before a decision
Well Field—and constructed a water combined with the utility programs of is made. Even though decisions have
treatment facility. These facilities were the Rural Electrification Administration already been made and significant
designed to provide potable water to the into a new agency—the Rural Utilities public funds have been committed for
northern portion of LPRW’s service area. Service. the development and construction of the
The Burr Well Field is located in RUS announced its intent to prepare ESN/LC Phase project, RUS decided,
southwestern Yellow Medicine County an EIS and hold public scoping based on information and evidence
and is adjacent to the South Dakota— meetings in a Notice of Intent, presented, that the intent of NEPA
Minnesota state line. The two water- published in the Federal Register on would be advanced by taking a ‘‘harder’’
bearing formations utilized at this well June 8, 1995, and in public notices in look at the outstanding issues from the
field—the so-called Burr Unit of the local newspapers. Public meetings were 1992 FmHA EA and the 1994 RDA
Prairie Coteau aquifer (Burr Unit) and held on July 18, 1995, in Canby, supplemented EA. Given this reality,
the deeper Altamont aquifer—underlie Minnesota, and July 19, 1995, in the primary decision facing RUS at this
portions of both South Dakota and Brookings, South Dakota, for the time is whether or not to fund the
Minnesota. The Altamont appears to be purpose of describing the project and Northeast Phase Expansion.
hydraulically isolated from the Burr soliciting the public’s comments about After considering public comments
Unit. the issues to be considered in the EIS. received in the scoping meetings, RUS
During construction of the Burr Well While RUS decided to prepare an EIS determined the significant issues that
Field (initiated on April 19, 1993) and on the outstanding concerns related to were evaluated in the EIS. This
subsequent to its operation, public and the FmHA’s previous decision (March included the range of alternatives, as
regulatory concerns were raised and 24, 1992) to fund the ESN/LC phase required by NEPA, which could meet
continue to be raised regarding the proposal it had on file an application the purpose and need of the proposed
potential environmental effects of from LPRW to complete the last phase action—that is, to provide a safe,
groundwater appropriations from the of the original system expansion reliable source of potable water to
Burr Unit. Because of geologic and project—the Northeast Phase Expansion. citizens within the northern portion of
hydrologic factors, groundwater from Because the Burr Well Field was LPRW’s service area. The primary issues
the Burr Unit discharges onto the land originally designed and built to serve as evaluated in the EIS, therefore, included
surface in both South Dakota and a source of water for not only the the outstanding concerns from the
Minnesota. These surface discharges Northeast Phase Expansion but two earlier 1992 EA, i.e., the environmental
occur as springs or seeps and create in previous construction phases—the ESN/ effects on the area’s fens and Lake
some areas unique wetland features LC Phase and the Yellow Medicine Cochrane (herein referred to as surface
called patterned calcareous fens (fens). Phase—and other areas within the water resources (includes resources in
In addition, it has been concluded that northern portions of LPRW’s service both South Dakota and Minnesota))
one of the lakes in the area, Lake area, it was determined that, because the from groundwater appropriations at the
Cochrane, also receives a portion of its activities of these construction phases Burr Well Field, and the potential
water budget from groundwater were so completely interrelated and environment impacts from construction
contributions of the Burr Unit. interdependent, separating the phases of the Northeast Phase Expansion
Fens in the study area are into separate environmental impact proposal.
characterized by a partially mineralized analyses would not be in compliance On February 23, 1998, the RUS
peat mass through which a groundwater with the intent of NEPA. Therefore, it announced the availability of the Draft
discharge occurs throughout the peat was decided to include the EIS (DEIS) in the Federal Register (63
mass. This peat mass is referred to as a environmental impact analyses for the FR 8901) and local newspapers. The
fen dome and in most areas the domes Northeast Phase Expansion proposal DEIS was sent to interested parties and
are elevated 5–10 feet above the ground into the EIS proposed for the ESN/LC made available for public review at a
surface. Fens are listed as ‘‘Outstanding phase project. The basis for this number of locations throughout the area
Resource Value Waters’’ in Minnesota’s decision, is stated in the Council on in both Minnesota and South Dakota
Rules 7050 and are protected under the Environmental Quality’s Procedures for and was available over the Internet at
Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act of Implementing the Procedural Provisions RUS’ website (http://www.usda.gov/
1991 (Minn. Stat. 103G). of the NEPA, 40 CFR 1502.4(a), Major rus/water/ees/eis.htm). Subsequent to a
In processing LPRW’s application for Federal Actions Requiring the 60-day public review period, RUS
the ESN/LC phase proposal, the Farmers Preparation of Environmental Impact sponsored a public meeting to solicit
Home Administration (FmHA) prepared Statements, * * * ‘‘Proposals or parts of additional comments from the public.
an Environmental Assessment (EA) on proposals which are related to each The public meeting was announced in
the proposal and published a Finding of other closely enough to be, in effect, a the Federal Register (63 FR 3461) on
No Significant Impact on February 7, single course of action shall be June 24, 1998, and local newspapers.
1992. Because of concerns raised evaluated in a single impact statement.’’ The meeting was held on July 30, 1998,
regarding the Burr Well Field, the EA The more in-depth environmental in Canby, Minnesota.
was amended or supplemented by an impact analyses and discussion of In total, RUS received comments from
agency newly created by a 1993 USDA alternatives presented in the EIS, 26 Federal and State agencies,
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 1999 / Notices 53663
Congressional representatives, public responding individually and the same newspapers and website used
bodies, individuals, and environmental collectively to these comments, RUS throughout the EIS process.
interest and industry groups. The announced the availability of the Final A summary of the public’s comments
number of comments added up to 79 EIS (FEIS) on May 27, 1999, in the received on the FEIS is included in the
pages. After reviewing, considering, and Federal Register (64 FR 28796) and in following table:
Number of
Commenter Affiliation pages
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources .............................. State Environmental Regulatory Agency ..................................... 16
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ............................................. State Environmental Regulatory Agency ..................................... 2
South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Re- State Environmental Regulatory Agency ..................................... 2
sources.
Subtotal State Agencies ........................................................ 3 ................................................................................................... 10
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8 ........................ Federal Environmental Regulatory Agency ................................. 12
Subtotal Federal Agencies ..................................................... 1 ................................................................................................... 2
East Dakota Water Development District ..................................... Public Body .................................................................................. 3
Subtotal Public Bodies ........................................................... 1 ................................................................................................... 3
South Dakota Resource Coalition (includes comments submitted Environmental Interest Group ...................................................... 7
but not received during DEIS).
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy ........................... Environmental Interest Group ...................................................... 3
Subtotal Environmental Interest Groups ................................ 2 ................................................................................................... 10
Jim Thompson ............................................................................... Citizen .......................................................................................... 14
Lyle Tobin, Representative of Lake Cochrane Improvement As- Citizen .......................................................................................... 2
sociation.
Shirley Holt .................................................................................... Citizen .......................................................................................... 2
Clayton Holt ................................................................................... Citizen .......................................................................................... 4
Subtotal Private Citizens ........................................................ 4 ................................................................................................... 12
1 With attachments.
In summary, most comments were Comments received on the FEIS can circumvented RUS regulations with
generally supportive of RUS’s preferred be summarized in general categories. regard to the City of Marshall’s
alternative and its inclusion of a These categories included concerns eligibility to participate in RUS loan and
Contingency Plan into the proposed related to: grant programs; and
WRMP, however, some commenters • A conflict of interest for RUS to
• RUS’s retraction of the DEIS’s
objected to RUS’s method of responding prepare the EIS;
• The use of engineering design, requirement for LPRW to develop an
to public comments, that is, to respond
to comments directly without revising operational, and monitoring data agreement with the SDDENR to
the text of the DEIS. Some commenters collected by LPRW’s engineering formalize monitoring protocols and
asserted opposition to RUS’s consulting firm; procedures in order to protect South
conclusions and others requested RUS • The use of limited or incomplete Dakota interests and natural resources.
prepare a supplemental EIS to address data sets in drawing conclusions and As required by NEPA, project
issues they felt had not been dealt with that actions taken as a result of these alternatives to meet the purpose and
adequately, such as the need to conclusions will not ‘‘minimize or need of the proposed action (including
supplement a Lake Cochrane water eliminate’’ damage to the area’s surface previous phases were considered; the
budget study previously developed by water features; reasonable alternatives considered are
the South Dakota Department of • LPRW’s relationship and water summarized in the following table:
Environment and Natural Resources supply contract with Marshal Municipal
(SDDENR). Utilities in that this relationship
Alternative Northeast phase expansion status Burr Well field status
Current Status (as of time of DEIS) .................. LPRW submitted application to RUS to fund LPRW is authorized under their current Water
construction of the Northeast Phase Expan- Appropriation Permit to appropriate ground-
sion. water at the rate of 750 gpm/400 Mgpy.
LPRW submitted an application to the
MDNR to increase groundwater appropria-
tions 1,500 gpm/800 Mgpy.
Proposed Action ................................................. Fund the Northeast Phase Expansion ............. Increase groundwater appropriations at the
Burr Well Field to 1,500 gpm/800 Mgpy.
Alternative 1 ....................................................... Fund the Northeast Phase Expansion ............. Discontinue use of Burr Well Field.
Alternative 2 ....................................................... Fund the Northeast Phase Expansion ............. Discontinue use of Burr Well Field. Supple-
ment water needs from other sources: Adja-
cent Rural Water Systems, Lewis and Clark
System, Altamont Aquifer, Canby Aquifer,
Other Aquifers.
53664 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 1999 / Notices
Alternative Northeast phase expansion status Burr Well field status
Alternative 3 ....................................................... Fund the Northeast Phase Expansion ............. Maintain current appropriations at Burr Well
Field.
Alternative 4 ....................................................... Fund the Northeast Phase Expansion ............. Maintain current 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 Northeast Phase Expansion; Maintain current appropriations at Burr Well
Finance Point-of-Use systems in Northeast Field.
Phase Expansion area.
Alternative 6—No Action Alternative ................. Do Not Fund the Northeast Phase Expansion. Maintain current appropriations at Burr Well
Field.
The factors RUS used to evaluate the ecological integrity of affected aquifers in a configuration similar to
environmental, economic, and resources. While this situation is that at the Burr Well Field or any other
technologic feasibilities of the relatively clear, determining the configuration determined by the MDNR
alternatives evaluated in the EIS are appropriate rate of groundwater as appropriate. Raw water from this well
outlined in the DEIS. These analyses appropriations and each affected field could be transported to the Burr
were not fundamentally changed in resources’ response to this pumping Water Treatment Plant for treatment and
response to comments on the DEIS and, while taking into account the inherent distribution to LPRW customers.
subsequent to the public comments on natural variation in environmental • RUS recommends that the MDNR
the FEIS, continue to be considered factors can only be established within a consider integrating the proposed Water
applicable and reasonable at the present reasonable level of certainty through Resource Management Plan (WRMP)
time. long-term monitoring. The outcome of into the Burr Well Field’s Water
Based on the monitoring data any monitoring will be to allow Appropriation Permit.
collected to date and factoring in the environmental regulatory officials to The WRMP listed in the last bullet is
inherent scientific uncertainties of adapt to on-going conditions and set the mitigation measure RUS will
drawing conclusions on limited data, appropriation rates as conditions establish as a condition of approving
RUS still maintains that the proposed warrant. LPRW’s application for the Northeast
action poses unreasonable Given these conclusions and from the Phase Expansion proposal. The basic
environmental risks to surface water alternatives considered, RUS has premise behind the need to develop a
features in both South Dakota and developed a preferred alternative that it WRMP is that the Burr Unit is
Minnesota and that under drought believes to be the most environmentally hydraulically connected to the area’s
conditions it is likely that significant preferable alternative and helps support surface water features and that under
adverse environmental impacts could the overall goal of providing citizens certain conditions and at a yet-to-be-
occur to these same resources. At the with a safe, reliable source of potable determined rate groundwater
same time, however, RUS still water in an area that has historically appropriations from the Burr Well Field
concludes that during and where had water supply and quality problems. have the potential to adversely impact
groundwater appropriations from the RUS believes that this goal can be these resources.
Burr Unit were limited to the range accomplished and at the same time The goal of the WRMP is to establish
between 400–525 gpm (with minimize or avoid significant adverse a mechanism for evaluating on an on-
corresponding annual appropriations) environmental impacts while providing going, real-time basis responses to
the data appears to indicate that no for the ecological sustainability of the surface water resources in both South
observable or significant adverse area’s surface water features. Dakota and Minnesota from
environmental impacts have occurred. The preferred alternative outlined in groundwater appropriations at the Burr
RUS, as previously stated in the DEIS the FEIS continues to be RUS’ Well Field and to formalize through
and FEIS, fully acknowledges that the preference and forms the basis for its impact thresholds established by State
data record that has been compiled to decision. The preferred alternative is as regulatory officials an acceptable
the present has occurred during a follows: environmental risk and reasonable
sustained period of above normal • Finance the Northeast Phase margin of safety to each State’s natural
precipitation and that until more data Expansion. resources. One of the purposes of the
has been collected the ability to • Continue to maintain the Burr Well WRMP will be to incorporate and
accurately predict the direct, indirect, Field as one of LPRW’s primary water integrate into the Burr Well Field’s
and cumulative ecological responses to sources. To minimize reductions in the operations and permit conditions an
the area’s surface water features from potentiometric surface, RUS supports ‘‘adaptive environmental management
Burr Well Field appropriations is limiting pumping rates from wells plan’’ whereby regulatory officials can
limited. It is reasonably certain and developed in the Burr Unit aquifer to continually assess ecologic responses in
foreseeable, however, that the 400–525 gpm with a corresponding surface water features and can make
magnitude and relative importance of annual appropriation rate. appropriate modifications to
impacts to surface water features that • At some future date, supplement groundwater withdrawals in the Burr
could occur under specific conditions existing wells at the Burr Well Field Well Field’s permit.
can be predicted, i.e., sustained with a new well field in an area south- One of the public’s criticisms to the
pumping of the Burr Unit will reduce southeast or north-northeast of the FEIS was RUS’ removal of a requirement
the potentiometric surface in the Burr current Burr Well Field or where that LPRW develop an agreement with
Unit reducing groundwater flow to sufficient aquifer materials can be the SDDENR to formalize monitoring
hydraulically connected resources thus found. This new well field could utilize procedures and protocols that would
potentially adversely affecting the both the Burr Unit and Altamont evaluate the effects of groundwater
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 1999 / Notices 53665
withdrawals at the Burr Well Field on RUS will support, within the context ACTION:Notice of Postponement of
South Dakota resources. and time frames of its loan approval Preliminary Determination of
Notwithstanding a Minnesota and South process, the planning and development Countervailing Duty Investigation.
Dakota written commitment to work of the WRMP by coordinating meetings
together on Burr Well Field permitting between the above participants. As EFFECTIVE DATE: October 4, 1999.
issues and a continuing belief that the stated previously, RUS shall not release
MDNR’s permitting procedures contain project funding until LPRW successfully FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
the appropriate statutory, regulatory, completes the WRMP to RUS’s Tipten Troidl at (202) 482–1767 and
and administrative processes to satisfaction. RUS will evaluate the Eric B. Greynolds at (202) 482–6071,
officially incorporate South Dakota technical sufficiency and acceptance of Office of CVD/AD Enforcement VI,
officials (and citizens’) concerns at the the WRMP primarily through Import Administration, International
Burr Well Field, RUS fully intends to consultations with hydrogeologists at Trade Administration, U.S. Department
encourage and invite SDDENR’s full the USEPA, Region 8 and the other of Commerce, 14th Street and
participation in the development of the regulatory officials. The mechanism for Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
WRMP. this consultation with USEPA will be Washington, D.C. 20230.
As stated in the FEIS, the WRMP provided for through RUS’s Cooperating POSTPONEMENT OF PRELIMINARY
should formalize all procedures, Agency Agreement with USEPA. RUS DETERMINATION: On July 27, 1999, the
protocols, and methodologies to monitor will further condition the release of Department initiated the countervailing
in a comprehensive fashion funds for the Northeast Phase Expansion duty investigation of structural steel
groundwater appropriations at the Burr area subject to LPRW being able to beams from the Republic of Korea. See
Well Field and its effects on the surface obtain the appropriate Water Notice of Initiation of Countervailing
water resources hydraulically connected Appropriation Permit(s) from the Duty Investigation: Structural Steel
to the Burr Unit in both South Dakota MDNR. Beams from the Republic of Korea, 64
and Minnesota. As a minimum, the Through the WRMP, RUS hopes to FR 42088 (August 3, 1999). The
following components shall be included foster a cooperative working preliminary determination currently
in the WRMP: environment among all stakeholders to must be issued by September 30, 1999.
• Contingency Plan—the plan should
the proposal. The overall goal of RUS’ On September 3, 1999 Northwestern
incorporate impact thresholds
decision is to promote the wise use and Steel & Wire Company, Nucor-Yamato
established by MDNR, SDDENR’s input,
sustainability of natural resources, Steel Company, and TXI-Chaparral
and outline what procedures LPRW will
avoiding irreversibility in the ecological Steel, Inc. (petitioners) made a timely
take in the event water appropriations
integrity of those resources, and provide request pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(e)
from the Burr Unit are restricted.
• Well Field Operation and the area’s citizens with a safe, reliable for a postponement of the preliminary
Management Plan—this plan should be source of potable water. Even though determination in accordance with
designed to minimize reductions in the the EIS is a decision document, not a section 703(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of
potentiometric surface in the Burr Unit scientific research report, RUS believes 1930, as amended (the Act). Petitioners
during any specified time periods. it has evaluated current and relevant requested a postponement because of
• Supplemental Well Field data and is confident that given a the complicated nature of the case, to
Exploration Plan—based on previous cooperative attitude among allow petitioners adequate time to
geologic exploration efforts, this plan stakeholders, significant adverse analyze submitted responses, and to
should outline future exploration efforts impacts to the environment can be allow time for the Department to
and development activities, including minimized or avoided through determine the extent to which particular
schedules, for a supplemental well field. mitigation and adopting an adaptive subsidies are being used.
• Monitoring Plan—formalize environmental management approach in
monitoring groundwater appropriations For reasons identified by petitioners,
monitoring well locations; establish we see no compelling reason not to
standard methodologies or procedures at the Burr Well Field.
postpone the preliminary
for data management, i.e., collection, Dated: September 16, 1999. determination. See Memorandum from
documentation, and information Wally Beyer, Bernard Carreau to Robert S. LaRussa,
sharing. dated September 15, 1999 (on file in the
Administrator, Rural Utilities Service.
Assuming LPRW continues to pursue public file of the Central Records Unit,
its request for financial assistance for [FR Doc. 99–25721 Filed 10–1–99; 8:45 am]
Room B–099 of the Department of
the Northeast Phase Expansion and RUS BILLING CODE 3410–15–P
Commerce). Therefore, we are
has funds available for and approves the postponing the preliminary
proposal, RUS will formally invite the determinations under section
following participants to contribute to 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act. We will make
and assist in the development of the DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
our preliminary determination in this
WRMP: investigation no later than December 6,
• Lincoln-Pipestone Rural Water International Trade Administration
• Minnesota Department of Natural 1999.
Resources [C–580–842] This notice of postponement is
• South Dakota Department of published pursuant to section 703(c)(2)
Environment and Natural Resources Structural Steel Beams From the of the Act.
• U.S. Environmental Protection Republic of Korea; Postponement of Dated: September 24, 1999.
Agency (USEPA), Region 8 (while Preliminary Determination of
Minnesota is in USEPA Region 5, Bernard T. Carreau,
Countervailing Duty Investigation
Region 8, in accordance with their Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Cooperating Agency Agreement with AGENCY: Import Administration, Administration.
RUS, has agreed to serve in the lead role International Trade Administration, [FR Doc. 99–25618 Filed 10–1–99; 8:45 am]
for this project). Department of Commerce. BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
Related docs
