Rate Adjustments for Indian Irrigation Projects, 32043-32048 [E8-12610]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 109 / Thursday, June 5, 2008 / Notices
Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2705.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is
hereby given that, in a letter dated May
22, 2008, the President declared a major
disaster under the authority of the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C.
5121–5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
I have determined that the damage in
certain areas of the State of South Dakota
resulting from a severe winter storm and
record and near record snow during the
period of May 1–2, 2008, is of sufficient
severity and magnitude to warrant a major
disaster declaration under the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121–5206 (the
Stafford Act). Therefore, I declare that such
a major disaster exists in the State of South
Dakota.
In order to provide Federal assistance, you
are hereby authorized to allocate from funds
available for these purposes such amounts as
you find necessary for Federal disaster
assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public
Assistance in the designated areas; assistance
for emergency protective measures (Public
Assistance Category B), including snow
removal for any continuous 48-hour period
during or proximate to the incident period in
the designated areas; Hazard Mitigation
throughout the State; and any other forms of
assistance under the Stafford Act that you
deem appropriate.
Consistent with the requirement that
Federal assistance be supplemental, any
Federal funds provided under the Stafford
Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to
75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal
funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance also will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs, except for
any particular projects that are eligible for a
higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under
the FEMA Public Assistance Pilot Program
instituted pursuant to 6 U.S.C. 777. If Other
Needs Assistance under Section 408 of the
Stafford Act is later requested and warranted,
Federal funding under that program also will
be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible
costs.
Further, you are authorized to make
changes to this declaration to the extent
allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that
pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order
12148, as amended, Tony Russell, of
FEMA, is appointed to act as the Federal
Coordinating Officer for this declared
disaster.
The following areas of the State of
South Dakota have been designated as
adversely affected by this declared
major disaster:
Bennett, Butte, Harding, Jackson, and
Perkins Counties for Public Assistance.
Butte, Harding, and Lawrence Counties for
emergency protective measures (Category B),
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:51 Jun 04, 2008
Jkt 214001
including snow removal assistance, under
the Public Assistance program for any
continuous 48-hour period during or
proximate to the incident period.
All counties within the State of South
Dakota are eligible to apply for assistance
under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used
for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora
Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034,
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA);
97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant;
97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to
Individuals and Households in Presidential
Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidential
Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster
Housing Operations for Individuals and
Households, 97.050, Presidential Declared
Disaster Assistance to Individuals and
Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster
Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard
Mitigation Grant.)
R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8–12523 Filed 6–4–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–10–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Policy
Committee—Notice of Renewal
Minerals Management Service
(MMS), Interior.
AGENCY:
Notice of Renewal of the Outer
Continental Shelf Policy Committee.
ACTION:
SUMMARY: Following consultation with
the General Services Administration,
notice is hereby given that the Secretary
of the Interior (Secretary) is renewing
the OCS Policy Committee.
The OCS Policy Committee will
provide advice to the Secretary through
the Director of the Minerals
Management Service related to the
discretionary functions of the Bureau
under the OCS Lands Act and related
statutes. The Committee will review and
comment on all aspects of leasing,
exploration, development and
protection of OCS resources and provide
a forum to convey views representative
of coastal states, local government,
offshore industries, environmental
community, other users of the offshore,
and the interested public.
Ms.
Jeryne Bryant, Minerals Management
Service, Offshore Minerals Management,
Herndon, Virginia 20170–4817,
telephone (703) 787–1213.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
32043
Certification
I hereby certify that the renewal of the
OCS Policy Committee is in the public
interest in connection with the
performance of duties imposed on the
Department of the Interior by 43 U.S.C.
1331 et seq.
Dated: May 30, 2008.
Dirk Kempthorne,
Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. E8–12617 Filed 6–4–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Rate Adjustments for Indian Irrigation
Projects
AGENCY:
Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Interior.
ACTION:
Notice of rate adjustments.
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA) owns or has an interest in
irrigation projects and facilities located
on various Indian reservations
throughout the United States. We are
authorized to establish rates to recover
the costs to administer, operate,
maintain, and rehabilitate those
facilities. We are notifying you that we
have adjusted the irrigation assessment
rates at several of our irrigation projects
and facilities for operation and
maintenance.
Effective Date: The irrigation
assessment rates shown in the tables are
effective on January 1, 2008.
DATES:
For
details about a particular BIA irrigation
project or facility, please use the tables
in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
to contact the regional or local office
where the project or facility is located.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
A Notice
of Proposed Rate Adjustment was
published in the Federal Register on
February 8, 2008 (73 FR 7583) to adjust
the irrigation rates at several BIA
irrigation projects and facilities. The
public and interested parties were
provided an opportunity to submit
written comments during the 60-day
period that ended April 8, 2008.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Did the BIA Defer Any Proposed Rate
Increases?
For the Fort Belknap Indian Irrigation
Project, the BIA, in consultation with
the Gros Ventre and Assiniboine Tribes
and Project water users, has deferred the
rate increase for 2008.
E:\FR\FM\05JNN1.SGM
05JNN1
32044
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 109 / Thursday, June 5, 2008 / Notices
Did the BIA Receive Any Comments on
the Proposed Irrigation Assessment
Rate Adjustments?
Written comments were received for
the proposed rate adjustments for the
Blackfeet Irrigation Project, Fort
Belknap Irrigation Project, and the Wind
River Irrigation Project.
What Issues Were of Concern by the
Commenters?
Individuals and entities commenting
on the proposed rates for 2008 were
concerned with one or more of the
following issues: (1) How funds are
expended for operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs; (2) how rate
increases are justified and
communicated to water users; (3) how
rate increases impact the local
agricultural economy and individual
land owners; (4) the role of the BIA’s
Central Office in managing projects and
the burden of federal regulations; (4)
land owners without access to project
water being assessed irrigation charges;
(5) the BIA’s non-delivery of water to
water users with outstanding O&M
charges; and (6) the BIA’s trust
responsibility for projects. The
following comment is specific to the
Wind River Irrigation Project: users
assert that O&M rates should not be
adjusted until a study of the project’s
irrigable and assessable acreage is
completed.
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
How Does the Bia Respond to Concerns
Regarding How Funds Are Expended
for O&M Costs?
The BIA considers the following
expenses when determining an
irrigation project’s budget: project
personnel costs; materials and supplies;
vehicle and equipment repairs;
equipment; capitalization expenses;
acquisition expenses; rehabilitation
costs; maintenance of a reserve fund for
contingencies or emergencies; and other
expenses that we determine are
necessary to properly operate and
maintain an irrigation project.
One common misconception water
users have is that all salary costs are
administrative. Only a portion of each
project’s budget is for administrative
costs. The administrative costs for a
project includes office costs, office staff
(accounting and clerical), and a portion
of the project manager’s salary. Nonadministrative costs are the cost to
operate and maintain the project or
facility. Operation and maintenance
workers perform operation and
maintenance work, thus their salaries
are considered operation and
maintenance costs, not administrative
costs. All projects need essential
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:51 Jun 04, 2008
Jkt 214001
personnel to operate and maintain the
project, including a project manager,
accounting staff, and irrigation system
operators (ditchriders).
How Does the Bia Respond to Concerns
Regarding the Justification for and
Communication of Rate Increases to
Land Owners?
BIA policy states that irrigation
project managers are required to meet, at
a minimum, twice annually with their
water users—once at the end of the
irrigation season and once before the
next season. For projects that operate
year-round, project managers will
determine the best schedule for holding
these meetings. At these meetings,
irrigation staff will provide water users
with information regarding project
operations—including budget plans and
actual annual expenditures—and obtain
feedback and input from water users.
Individuals concerned with the BIA’s
management of its projects and its O&M
rates may review the BIA’s records at
their convenience. The BIA’s project
budget estimates and expense records
are available for review by stakeholders
or interested parties. Stakeholders
(water users, land owners, or tribes) can
review these records during normal
business hours at the individual agency
office. Alternatively, stakeholders or
interested parties may request project
records under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA). The BIA will
provide copies of such records to the
requesting party in accordance with
FOIA.
To review or obtain copies of project
records, stakeholders and interested
parties should contact the BIA
representative at the specific project or
facility serving them, using the tables in
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below.
How does the BIA respond to concerns
regarding the impact of irrigation
assessment rate increases on local
agricultural economies and individual
land owners?
The BIA’s projects are important
economic contributors to the local
communities they serve. These projects
contribute millions of dollars in crop
value annually. Historically, the BIA
tempered irrigation rate increases to
demonstrate sensitivity to the economic
impact on water users. This past
practice resulted in a rate deficiency at
some irrigation projects. The BIA does
not have discretionary funds to
subsidize irrigation projects. Funding to
operate and maintain these projects
needs to come from revenues from the
water users served by those projects.
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Over the past several years, the BIA’s
irrigation program has been the subject
of several Office of Inspector General
(OIG) and GAO audits. In the most
recent OIG audit, No. 96–I–641, March
1996, the OIG concluded: ‘‘Operation
and maintenance revenues were
insufficient to maintain the projects,
and some projects had deteriorated to
the extent that their continued
capability to deliver water was in doubt.
This occurred because operation and
maintenance rates were not based on the
full cost of delivering irrigation water,
including the costs of systematically
rehabilitating and replacing project
facilities and equipment, and because
project personnel did not seek regular
rate increases to cover the full cost of
project operation.’’ A previous OIG
audit performed on one of the BIA’s
largest irrigation projects, the Wapato
Indian Irrigation Project, No. 95–I–1402,
September 1995, reached the same
conclusion.
To address the issues noted in these
audits, the BIA must systematically
review and evaluate irrigation
assessment rates and adjust them, when
necessary, to reflect the full costs to
properly operate and perform all
appropriate maintenance on the
irrigation project or facility
infrastructure to ensure safe and reliable
operation. If this review and adjustment
is not accomplished, a rate deficiency
can accumulate. Rate deficiencies force
the BIA to raise irrigation assessment
rates in larger increments over shorter
periods of time than would have been
otherwise necessary.
How does the BIA respond to concerns
regarding the role of the BIA’s Central
Office in managing projects and the
costs associated with complying with
federal regulations?
The BIA must follow Federal
regulations as it operates and maintains
the projects under its ownership or
control. Specifically, the BIA must
follow Federal guidelines in hiring and
compensating personnel to operate and
manage irrigation projects. The BIA sets
rates in accordance with the criteria
identified above. The BIA Central Office
does not unilaterally impose rate
increases on projects. The BIA is
reviewing various options for cost
savings, including turning over projects
or sections of projects to water users and
sharing personnel between or among
projects.
E:\FR\FM\05JNN1.SGM
05JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 109 / Thursday, June 5, 2008 / Notices
How does the BIA respond to concerns
regarding land owners without access
to project water being assessed
irrigation charges?
As mentioned above, OIG and GAO
performed audits on the BIA irrigation
program and noted that the BIA has not
set irrigation assessment rates at levels
high enough to operate and maintain its
irrigation projects. The BIA has been
increasing rates to address this concern.
Because rates were low for many years,
numerous maintenance items were
deferred. At some projects, this deferral
resulted in the BIA’s inability to deliver
water to all users. To assist water users
in this regard, the BIA updated its
Irrigation Operations and Maintenance
regulations, 25 CFR part 171, to allow a
water user to apply for a waiver of
irrigation assessment charges if the BIA
is incapable of delivering water to that
water user. To apply for this waiver, a
water user must meet with local project
staff.
How does the BIA respond to concerns
regarding the BIA’s refusal to deliver
water to water users with outstanding
O&M charges?
The BIA’s irrigation regulations, 25
CFR part 171, require the BIA to
withhold irrigation services from users
who have delinquent debt with the BIA,
including balances that have been
referred to the United States Treasury.
How does the BIA respond to comments
regarding the BIA’s trust responsibility
in relation to projects?
The BIA disagrees that increasing
O&M rates for projects violates any trust
duty. The BIA has no trust obligation to
operate and maintain irrigation projects.
See, e.g., Grey v. United States, 21 Cl.
Ct. 285 (1990), aff’d, 935 F.2d 281 (Fed.
Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1057
(1992). The BIA, pursuant to 25 U.S.C.
section 381 et seq. and 25 CFR Part 171,
has the responsibility to administer
constructed projects, set rates, collect
assessments, and make decisions
regarding water delivery. The BIA must
collect O&M assessments to operate and
maintain the irrigation infrastructure on
its projects. Over time, the costs of
operating and maintaining these
projects increases, and rates must be
adjusted accordingly to enable the BIA
to continue to provide irrigation
services. Raising rates to reflect the full
costs associated with operating and
maintaining projects is essential because
O&M rates are the only regular source of
funding for the BIA’s irrigation projects.
How does the BIA response to the issue
raised by users of the Wind River
Irrigation Project, that O&M rates
should not be adjusted until the redesignation study of the project’s
irrigable and assessable acreage is
completed?
The BIA levies assessments on lands
to which its project is authorized and
capable of delivering water. Thus, a
parcel’s irrigation history is immaterial
to whether it is subject to an irrigation
assessment. The Secretary may deem
lands within a project non-assessable, in
which case those lands may be removed
from the project—permanently or
temporarily—with the landowner’s
consent. 25 U.S.C. sections 389a, 389b.
The redesignation study will not
determine what O&M assessment the
lands could support. The study only
determines if the lands are irrigable and
if they should remain assessable. The
overall O&M assessment for a project is
based on its total assessable acres. If the
redeisgnation study recommends
removing assessable acres from the
project, the O&M assessment rate would
Project name
32045
increase significantly for those acres
remaining in the project. Until such
time as the land re-designation study
referenced by this commenter is
finished, individual users may apply for
an annual assessment waiver under 25
CFR part 171.
Did the BIA receive comments on any
proposed changes other than rate
adjustments?
No.
Does this notice affect me?
This notice affects you if you own or
lease land within the assessable acreage
of one of our irrigation projects, or you
have a carriage agreement with one of
our irrigation projects.
Where can I get information on the
regulatory and legal citations in this
notice?
You can contact the appropriate
office(s) stated in the tables for the
irrigation project that serves you, or you
can use the Internet site for the
Government Printing Office at https://
www.gpo.gov.
What authorizes you to issue this
notice?
Our authority to issue this notice is
vested in the Secretary of the Interior by
5 U.S.C. section 301 and the Act of
August 14, 1914 (38 Stat. 583; 25 U.S.C.
385). The Secretary has in turn
delegated this authority to the Assistant
Secretary—Indian Affairs under Part
209, Chapter 8.1A, of the Department of
the Interior’s Departmental Manual.
Whom can I contact for further
information?
The following tables are the regional
and project/agency contacts for our
irrigation projects and facilities.
Project/agency contacts
Northwest Region Contacts
Stanley Speaks, Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Northwest Regional Office, 911 N.E. 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232–4169,
Telephone: (503) 231–6702.
Flathead Irrigation Project ...............
Fort Hall Irrigation Project ...............
Wapato Irrigation Project ................
Chuck Courville, Acting Superintendent, Flathead Agency Irrigation Division, P.O. Box 40, Pablo, MT
59855–0040, Telephone: (406) 675–2700.
Eric J. LaPointe, Superintendent, Alan Oliver, Supervisory General Engineer, Fort Hall Agency, P.O. Box
220, Fort Hall, ID 83203–0220, Telephone: (208) 238–2301.
Pierce Harrison, Project Administrator, Wapato Irrigation Project, P.O. Box 220, Wapato, WA 98951–0220,
Telephone: (509) 877–3155.
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
Rocky Mountain Region Contacts
Ed Parisian, Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Rocky Mountain Regional Office, 316 North 26th Street, Billings, MT 59101, Telephone:
(406) 247–7943.
Blackfeet Irrigation Project ..............
Crow Irrigation Project ....................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:51 Jun 04, 2008
Stephen Pollock, Superintendent, Ted Hall, Irrigation Project Manager, Box 880, Browning, MT 59417,
Telephones: (406) 338–7544, Superintendent, (406) 338–7519, Irrigation Project Manager.
George Gover, Superintendent, Karl Helvik, Irrigation Project Manager, P.O. Box 69, Crow Agency, MT
59022, Telephones: (406) 638–2672, Superintendent, (406) 638–2863, Irrigation Project Manager.
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\05JNN1.SGM
05JNN1
32046
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 109 / Thursday, June 5, 2008 / Notices
Project name
Project/agency contacts
Fort Belknap Irrigation Project ........
Judy Gray, Superintendent, Ralph Leo, Irrigation Project Manager, R.R. 1, Box 980, Harlem, MT 59526,
Telephones: (406) 353–2901, Superintendent, (406) 353–2905, Irrigation Project Manager.
Florence White Eagle, Superintendent, P.O. Box 637, Poplar, MT 59255, Richard Kurtz, Irrigation Manager, 602 6th Avenue North, Wolf Point, MT 59201, Telephones: (406) 768–5312, Superintendent, (406)
653–1752, Irrigation Manager.
Ed Lone Fight, Superintendent, Ray Nation, Acting Irrigation Project Manager, P.O. Box 158, Fort
Washakie, WY 82514, Telephones: (307) 332–7810, Superintendent, (307) 332–2596, Irrigation Project
Manager.
Fort Peck Irrigation Project .............
Wind River Irrigation Project ...........
Southwest Region Contacts
Larry Morrin, Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Southwest Regional Office, 1001 Indian School Road, Albuquerque, NM 87104,
Telephone: (505) 563–3100.
Pine River Irrigation Project ............
Ross P. Denny, Superintendent, John Formea, Irrigation Engineer, P.O. Box 315, Ignacio, CO 81137–
0315, Telephones: (970) 563–4511, Superintendent, (970) 563–9484, Irrigation Engineer.
Western Region Contacts
Allen Anspach, Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Western Regional Office, Two Arizona Center, 400 N. 5th Street, 12th floor, Phoenix,
AZ 85004, Telephone: (602) 379–6600.
Colorado River Irrigation Project ....
Duck Valley Irrigation Project .........
Fort Yuma Irrigation Project ............
San Carlos Irrigation Project Joint
Works.
San Carlos Irrigation Project Indian
Works.
Uintah Irrigation Project ..................
Walker River Irrigation Project ........
Perry Baker, Superintendent, Ted Henry, Irrigation Project Manager, R.R. 1, Box 9–C, Parker, AZ 85344,
Telephone: (928) 669–7111.
Joseph McDade, Superintendent, 1555 Shoshone Circle, Elko, NV 89801, Telephone: (775) 738–0569.
Raymond Fry, Superintendent, P.O. Box 11000, Yuma, AZ 85366, Telephone: (520) 782–1202.
Carl Christensen, Supervisory General Engineer, P.O. Box 250, Coolidge, AZ 85228, Telephone: (520)
723–6216.
Joe Revak, Supervisory General Engineer, Pima Agency, Land Operations, Box 8, Sacaton, AZ 85247,
Telephone: (520) 562–3372.
Lynn Hansen, Irrigation Manager, P.O. Box 130, Fort Duchesne, UT 84026, Telephone: (435) 722–4341.
Athena Brown, Superintendent, 311 E. Washington Street, Carson City, NV 89701, Telephone: (775) 887–
3500.
What irrigation assessments or charges
are adjusted by this notice?
The rate table below contains the
current rates for all of our irrigation
projects where we recover our costs for
operation and maintenance. The table
also contains the final rates for the 2008
season and subsequent years where
applicable. An asterisk immediately
following the name of the project notes
that the BIA adjusted that project’s rates
for 2009.
NORTHWEST REGION RATE TABLE
Final 2007
rate
Final 2008
rate
Final 2009
rate
Project name
Rate category
Flathead Irrigation Project ....................................
Basic per acre—A ................................................
Basic per acre—B ................................................
Minimum Charge per tract ...................................
Basic per acre ......................................................
Minimum Charge per tract ...................................
Basic per acre ......................................................
Minimum Charge per tract ...................................
Basic per acre ......................................................
Pressure per acre .................................................
Minimum Charge per tract ...................................
Billing Charge per Tract .......................................
$23.45
10.75
65.00
27.00
25.00
17.00
25.00
35.75
50.00
25.00
5.00
$23.45
10.75
65.00
31.00
27.00
21.00
27.00
39.75
55.50
27.00
5.00
$23.45
10.75
65.00
Minimum Charge for farm unit/land tracts up to
one acre.
Farm unit/land tracts over one acre—per acre ....
Billing Charge per Tract .......................................
Minimum Charge for farm unit/land tracts up to
one acre.
Farm unit/land tracts over one acre—per acre ....
Billing Charge per Tract .......................................
Minimum Charge for farm unit/land tracts up to
one acre.
‘‘A’’ farm unit/land tracts over one acre—per acre
Additional Works farm unit/land tracts over one
acre—per acre.
‘‘B’’ farm unit/land tracts over one acre—per acre
14.00
14.00
15.00
14.00
5.00
14.00
14.00
5.00
14.00
15.00
5.00
15.00
14.00
5.00
55.00
14.00
5.00
55.00
15.00
5.00
58.00
55.00
60.00
55.00
60.00
58.00
63.00
65.00
65.00
68.00
Fort Hall Irrigation Project* ...................................
Fort Hall Irrigation Project—Minor Units* .............
Fort Hall Irrigation Project—Michaud* ..................
Wapato Irrigation
Units*.
Project—Toppenish/Simcoe
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
Wapato Irrigation Project—Ahtanum Units* .........
Wapato Irrigation Project—Satus Unit* ................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:51 Jun 04, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\05JNN1.SGM
05JNN1
1
5.00
32047
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 109 / Thursday, June 5, 2008 / Notices
NORTHWEST REGION RATE TABLE—Continued
Project name
Final 2007
rate
Rate category
Water Rental Agreement Lands—per acre ..........
1To
Final 2008
rate
67.00
67.00
Final 2009
rate
70.00
be determined.
Project name
Final 2007
rate
Rate category
Final 2008
rate
Rocky Mountain Region Rate Table
Blackfeet Irrigation Project* .............................................................................
Crow Irrigation Project—Willow* Creek O&M (includes Agency, Lodge
Grass #1, Lodge Grass #2, Reno, Upper Little Horn, and Forty Mile
Units).
Crow Irrigation Project—All* Others (includes Bighorn, Soap Creek, and
Pryor Units).
Crow Irrigation Two Leggins Drainage District ...............................................
Fort Belknap Irrigation Project ........................................................................
Fort Peck Irrigation Project* ............................................................................
Wind River Irrigation Project* ..........................................................................
Wind River Irrigation Project—LeClair District ................................................
Basic-per acre ....................................
Basic-per acre ....................................
$15.50
19.30
$17.00
20.80
Basic-per acre ....................................
19.00
20.50
Basic-per
Basic-per
Basic-per
Basic-per
Basic-per
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
2.00
13.88
20.00
15.00
17.00
2.00
13.88
22.00
16.00
17.00
Minimum Charge per tract .................
Basic-per acre ....................................
50.00
15.00
50.00
15.00
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
Southwest Region Rate Table
Pine River Irrigation Project ............................................................................
Project name
Final 2007
rate
Rate category
Colorado River Irrigation Project ....................
Final 2009 rate
San Carlos Irrigation Project (Joint Works)
(See Note #2).
San Carlos Irrigation Project* (Indian Works)
Uintah Irrigation Project* ................................
Walker River Irrigation Project* (See Note
#3).
up to 5.75 acre-feet ...............
per acre-foot over 5.75 acre-
$47.00
17.00
$47.00
17.00
................................................
up to 5.0 acre-feet .................
per acre-foot over 5.0 acre-
5.30
72.00
10.50
5.30
77.00
14.00
up to 2.0 acre-feet (Ranch 5)
................................................
....................
30.00
28.00
21.00
Basic-per acre ................................................
Basic-per acre ................................................
Minimum Bill ...................................................
Indian per acre ...............................................
77.00
12.00
25.00
10.00
57.00
12.50
25.00
13.00
16.00
non-Indian per acre ........................................
Duck Valley Irrigation Project .........................
Fort Yuma Irrigation Project* ..........................
(See Note #1) .................................................
Basic per acre
Excess Water
feet.
Basic-per acre
Basic-per acre
Excess Water
feet.
Basic-per acre
Basic-per acre
Final 2008
rate
To be determined.
16.00
16.00
16.00
21.00
To be determined.
* Irrigation projects where rates were adjusted.
Note #1—The O&M rate for Fort Yuma Irrigation Project has two components. The first component is the O&M rate established by the Bureau
of Reclamation (BOR), the owner and operator of the Project. The BOR rate for 2008 is $70.00/acre. The second component is for the O&M rate
established by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to cover administrative costs including billing and collections for the Project. The 2008 BIA rate
remains unchanged at $7.00/acre. The 2008 BOR rate for ‘‘Ranch 5’’ is $28.00/acre. In 2008, the BIA is not charging administrative costs on
‘‘Ranch 5’’ acreage. For 2009, the BIA will be proposing the addition of the $7.00 BIA administrative fee to the ‘‘Ranch 5’’ acreage.
Note #2—The 2008 and 2009 rate was established by final notice published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on April 20, 2007 (Vol. 72, No. 76, page
19954). The 2010 rate is to be determined. The Arizona Water Settlement Act is expected to be effective December 31, 2007, and this circumstance may affect what the O&M rate should be for the SCIPJW in 2010.
Note #3—The 2008 and 2009 irrigation rates are established through this notice.
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
Consultation and Coordination With
Tribal Governments (Executive Order
13175)
To fulfill its consultation
responsibility to tribes and tribal
organizations the BIA communicates,
coordinates, and consults on a
continuing basis with these entities on
issues of water delivery, water
availability, and costs of administration,
operation, maintenance, and
rehabilitation of projects that concern
them. This is accomplished at the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:51 Jun 04, 2008
Jkt 214001
individual projects by Project, Agency,
and Regional representatives, as
appropriate, in accordance with local
protocol and procedures. This notice is
one component of the BIA’s overall
coordination and consultation process
to provide notice to, and request
comments from, these entities when the
BIA adjusts irrigation rates.
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (Executive Order
13211)
The rate adjustments will have no
adverse effects on energy supply,
distribution, or use (including a
shortfall in supply, price increases, and
increase use of foreign supplies) should
the proposed rate adjustments be
implemented. This is a notice for rate
adjustments at BIA-owned and operated
projects, except for the Fort Yuma
E:\FR\FM\05JNN1.SGM
05JNN1
32048
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 109 / Thursday, June 5, 2008 / Notices
Irrigation Project. The Fort Yuma
Irrigation Project is owned and operated
by the Bureau of Reclamation with a
portion serving the Fort Yuma
Reservation.
Regulatory Planning and Review
(Executive Order 12866)
These rate adjustments are not a
significant regulatory action and do not
need to be reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
These rate adjustments impose no
unfunded mandates on any
governmental or private entity and are
in compliance with the provisions of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995.
Takings (Executive Order 12630)
The Department has determined that
these rate adjustments do not have
significant ‘‘takings’’ implications. The
rate adjustments do not deprive the
public, state, or local governments of
rights or property.
Federalism (Executive Order 13132)
The Department has determined that
these rate adjustments do not have
significant Federalism effects because
they pertain solely to Federal-tribal
relations and will not interfere with the
roles, rights, and responsibilities of
states.
Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order
12988)
In accordance with Executive Order
12988, the Office of the Solicitor has
determined that this rule does not
unduly burden the judicial system and
meets the requirements of sections 3(a)
and 3(b)(2) of the Order.
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
These rate adjustments do not affect
the collections of information which
have been approved by the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget,
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995. The OMB Control Number is
1076–0141 and expires August 31, 2009.
National Environmental Policy Act
The Department has determined that
these rate adjustments do not constitute
14:51 Jun 04, 2008
Dated: May 16, 2008.
Carl J. Artman,
Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. E8–12610 Filed 6–4–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–W7–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
This rate making is not a rule for the
purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act because it is ‘‘a rule of particular
applicability relating to rates.’’ 5 U.S.C.
601(2).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
a major Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human
environment and that no detailed
statement is required under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321–4370(d)).
Jkt 214001
Bureau of Land Management
[WY–050–1310–DB]
Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
for the GMI Natural Gas Development
Project, Fremont and Natrona
Counties, WY
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of Intent (NOI).
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) Lander Field Office
announces its intent to prepare an EIS
for a proposed conventional natural gas
field development near Lysite,
Wyoming. The proposed development
project is known as the Gun Barrel/
Madden and Iron Horse (GMI) Natural
Gas Development Project and is located
in Fremont and Natrona Counties,
Wyoming.
DATES: This NOI initiates the public
scoping process for the EIS. The
purpose of the public scoping process is
to determine relevant issues that will
influence the scope of the
environmental analysis and EIS
alternatives. To provide the public with
an opportunity to review the proposed
project and project information, the
BLM will host a meeting in Lander and
a meeting in Casper, Wyoming, within
30 days of the publication of this notice.
The BLM will notify the public of these
meetings and any other opportunities
for the public to be involved in the
environmental process for this proposal
at least 15 days prior to the event.
Meeting dates, locations, and times will
be announced by news release to the
media, individual mailings, and
postings on the following BLM Web site:
https://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/
NEPA/lfodocs/gmi.html. To be most
helpful, you should submit formal
scoping comments within 30 days after
this NOI is published.
Before including your address, phone
number, email address, or other
personal identifying information in your
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
comment, you should be aware that
your entire comment—including your
personal identifying information—may
be made publically available at any
time. While you can ask us in your
comment to withhold your personal
indentifying information from public
review, we cannot guarantee that we
will be able to do so. The minutes and
list of attendees for each scoping
meeting will be made available to the
public and open for 30 days after the
meeting to any participant who wished
to clarify the views he or she expressed.
ADDRESSES: You may submit written
comments by any of the following
methods:
• Web site: https://www.blm.gov/wy/
st/en/info/NEPA/lfodocs/gmi.html
• E-mail: 3Pam_Olson@blm.gov
• Fax: 307–332–8444
• Mail: Lander Field Office, 1335
Main Street, Lander, WY 82520.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bureau of Land Management, Pam
Olson, GMI Project Leader, Lander Field
Office, 1335 Main Street, Lander,
Wyoming 82520 or call (307) 332–8400,
or send an electronic message to:
Pam_Olson@blm.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under
Section 102(2)(C) of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the
BLM Lander Field Office announces its
intent to prepare an EIS on the potential
impacts of a proposed natural gas field
development, ancillary facilities,
pipelines and roads. The project area is
located in Fremont and Natrona
Counties, Wyoming, and encompasses
approximately 146,000 acres of land, the
majority of which is public land
administered by the BLM Lander Field
Office. A small portion of the project
area is administered by the BLM Casper
Field Office.
In January 2008, oil and gas operators
and proponents of the project, EnCana
Oil & Gas (USA), Inc. (EnCana),
Burlington Resources Oil and Gas
Company LP (Burlington), and Noble
Energy, Inc. (Noble) submitted a
proposal to the BLM to develop
approximately 1,470 wells near Lysite,
Wyoming. The proposed project area
consists of three units operated by three
different companies: the Gun Barrel
Federal Exploratory Unit (Encana), the
Madden Deep Federal Exploratory Unit
(Burlington), and the Iron Horse Federal
Exploratory Unit (Noble).
The purpose of the proposal is to
continue extracting and developing
natural gas within these three units
during a ten to fifteen year period. The
proponents estimate that within the Gun
Barrel Unit, an additional 750 natural
gas wells may be drilled; within the
E:\FR\FM\05JNN1.SGM
05JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 109 (Thursday, June 5, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32043-32048]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-12610]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Rate Adjustments for Indian Irrigation Projects
AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of rate adjustments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) owns or has an interest in
irrigation projects and facilities located on various Indian
reservations throughout the United States. We are authorized to
establish rates to recover the costs to administer, operate, maintain,
and rehabilitate those facilities. We are notifying you that we have
adjusted the irrigation assessment rates at several of our irrigation
projects and facilities for operation and maintenance.
DATES: Effective Date: The irrigation assessment rates shown in the
tables are effective on January 1, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For details about a particular BIA
irrigation project or facility, please use the tables in SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section to contact the regional or local office where the
project or facility is located.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A Notice of Proposed Rate Adjustment was
published in the Federal Register on February 8, 2008 (73 FR 7583) to
adjust the irrigation rates at several BIA irrigation projects and
facilities. The public and interested parties were provided an
opportunity to submit written comments during the 60-day period that
ended April 8, 2008.
Did the BIA Defer Any Proposed Rate Increases?
For the Fort Belknap Indian Irrigation Project, the BIA, in
consultation with the Gros Ventre and Assiniboine Tribes and Project
water users, has deferred the rate increase for 2008.
[[Page 32044]]
Did the BIA Receive Any Comments on the Proposed Irrigation Assessment
Rate Adjustments?
Written comments were received for the proposed rate adjustments
for the Blackfeet Irrigation Project, Fort Belknap Irrigation Project,
and the Wind River Irrigation Project.
What Issues Were of Concern by the Commenters?
Individuals and entities commenting on the proposed rates for 2008
were concerned with one or more of the following issues: (1) How funds
are expended for operation and maintenance (O&M) costs; (2) how rate
increases are justified and communicated to water users; (3) how rate
increases impact the local agricultural economy and individual land
owners; (4) the role of the BIA's Central Office in managing projects
and the burden of federal regulations; (4) land owners without access
to project water being assessed irrigation charges; (5) the BIA's non-
delivery of water to water users with outstanding O&M charges; and (6)
the BIA's trust responsibility for projects. The following comment is
specific to the Wind River Irrigation Project: users assert that O&M
rates should not be adjusted until a study of the project's irrigable
and assessable acreage is completed.
How Does the Bia Respond to Concerns Regarding How Funds Are Expended
for O&M Costs?
The BIA considers the following expenses when determining an
irrigation project's budget: project personnel costs; materials and
supplies; vehicle and equipment repairs; equipment; capitalization
expenses; acquisition expenses; rehabilitation costs; maintenance of a
reserve fund for contingencies or emergencies; and other expenses that
we determine are necessary to properly operate and maintain an
irrigation project.
One common misconception water users have is that all salary costs
are administrative. Only a portion of each project's budget is for
administrative costs. The administrative costs for a project includes
office costs, office staff (accounting and clerical), and a portion of
the project manager's salary. Non-administrative costs are the cost to
operate and maintain the project or facility. Operation and maintenance
workers perform operation and maintenance work, thus their salaries are
considered operation and maintenance costs, not administrative costs.
All projects need essential personnel to operate and maintain the
project, including a project manager, accounting staff, and irrigation
system operators (ditchriders).
How Does the Bia Respond to Concerns Regarding the Justification for
and Communication of Rate Increases to Land Owners?
BIA policy states that irrigation project managers are required to
meet, at a minimum, twice annually with their water users--once at the
end of the irrigation season and once before the next season. For
projects that operate year-round, project managers will determine the
best schedule for holding these meetings. At these meetings, irrigation
staff will provide water users with information regarding project
operations--including budget plans and actual annual expenditures--and
obtain feedback and input from water users.
Individuals concerned with the BIA's management of its projects and
its O&M rates may review the BIA's records at their convenience. The
BIA's project budget estimates and expense records are available for
review by stakeholders or interested parties. Stakeholders (water
users, land owners, or tribes) can review these records during normal
business hours at the individual agency office. Alternatively,
stakeholders or interested parties may request project records under
the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The BIA will provide copies of
such records to the requesting party in accordance with FOIA.
To review or obtain copies of project records, stakeholders and
interested parties should contact the BIA representative at the
specific project or facility serving them, using the tables in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below.
How does the BIA respond to concerns regarding the impact of irrigation
assessment rate increases on local agricultural economies and
individual land owners?
The BIA's projects are important economic contributors to the local
communities they serve. These projects contribute millions of dollars
in crop value annually. Historically, the BIA tempered irrigation rate
increases to demonstrate sensitivity to the economic impact on water
users. This past practice resulted in a rate deficiency at some
irrigation projects. The BIA does not have discretionary funds to
subsidize irrigation projects. Funding to operate and maintain these
projects needs to come from revenues from the water users served by
those projects.
Over the past several years, the BIA's irrigation program has been
the subject of several Office of Inspector General (OIG) and GAO
audits. In the most recent OIG audit, No. 96-I-641, March 1996, the OIG
concluded: ``Operation and maintenance revenues were insufficient to
maintain the projects, and some projects had deteriorated to the extent
that their continued capability to deliver water was in doubt. This
occurred because operation and maintenance rates were not based on the
full cost of delivering irrigation water, including the costs of
systematically rehabilitating and replacing project facilities and
equipment, and because project personnel did not seek regular rate
increases to cover the full cost of project operation.'' A previous OIG
audit performed on one of the BIA's largest irrigation projects, the
Wapato Indian Irrigation Project, No. 95-I-1402, September 1995,
reached the same conclusion.
To address the issues noted in these audits, the BIA must
systematically review and evaluate irrigation assessment rates and
adjust them, when necessary, to reflect the full costs to properly
operate and perform all appropriate maintenance on the irrigation
project or facility infrastructure to ensure safe and reliable
operation. If this review and adjustment is not accomplished, a rate
deficiency can accumulate. Rate deficiencies force the BIA to raise
irrigation assessment rates in larger increments over shorter periods
of time than would have been otherwise necessary.
How does the BIA respond to concerns regarding the role of the BIA's
Central Office in managing projects and the costs associated with
complying with federal regulations?
The BIA must follow Federal regulations as it operates and
maintains the projects under its ownership or control. Specifically,
the BIA must follow Federal guidelines in hiring and compensating
personnel to operate and manage irrigation projects. The BIA sets rates
in accordance with the criteria identified above. The BIA Central
Office does not unilaterally impose rate increases on projects. The BIA
is reviewing various options for cost savings, including turning over
projects or sections of projects to water users and sharing personnel
between or among projects.
[[Page 32045]]
How does the BIA respond to concerns regarding land owners without
access to project water being assessed irrigation charges?
As mentioned above, OIG and GAO performed audits on the BIA
irrigation program and noted that the BIA has not set irrigation
assessment rates at levels high enough to operate and maintain its
irrigation projects. The BIA has been increasing rates to address this
concern. Because rates were low for many years, numerous maintenance
items were deferred. At some projects, this deferral resulted in the
BIA's inability to deliver water to all users. To assist water users in
this regard, the BIA updated its Irrigation Operations and Maintenance
regulations, 25 CFR part 171, to allow a water user to apply for a
waiver of irrigation assessment charges if the BIA is incapable of
delivering water to that water user. To apply for this waiver, a water
user must meet with local project staff.
How does the BIA respond to concerns regarding the BIA's refusal to
deliver water to water users with outstanding O&M charges?
The BIA's irrigation regulations, 25 CFR part 171, require the BIA
to withhold irrigation services from users who have delinquent debt
with the BIA, including balances that have been referred to the United
States Treasury.
How does the BIA respond to comments regarding the BIA's trust
responsibility in relation to projects?
The BIA disagrees that increasing O&M rates for projects violates
any trust duty. The BIA has no trust obligation to operate and maintain
irrigation projects. See, e.g., Grey v. United States, 21 Cl. Ct. 285
(1990), aff'd, 935 F.2d 281 (Fed. Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S.
1057 (1992). The BIA, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. section 381 et seq. and 25
CFR Part 171, has the responsibility to administer constructed
projects, set rates, collect assessments, and make decisions regarding
water delivery. The BIA must collect O&M assessments to operate and
maintain the irrigation infrastructure on its projects. Over time, the
costs of operating and maintaining these projects increases, and rates
must be adjusted accordingly to enable the BIA to continue to provide
irrigation services. Raising rates to reflect the full costs associated
with operating and maintaining projects is essential because O&M rates
are the only regular source of funding for the BIA's irrigation
projects.
How does the BIA response to the issue raised by users of the Wind
River Irrigation Project, that O&M rates should not be adjusted until
the re-designation study of the project's irrigable and assessable
acreage is completed?
The BIA levies assessments on lands to which its project is
authorized and capable of delivering water. Thus, a parcel's irrigation
history is immaterial to whether it is subject to an irrigation
assessment. The Secretary may deem lands within a project non-
assessable, in which case those lands may be removed from the project--
permanently or temporarily--with the landowner's consent. 25 U.S.C.
sections 389a, 389b. The redesignation study will not determine what
O&M assessment the lands could support. The study only determines if
the lands are irrigable and if they should remain assessable. The
overall O&M assessment for a project is based on its total assessable
acres. If the redeisgnation study recommends removing assessable acres
from the project, the O&M assessment rate would increase significantly
for those acres remaining in the project. Until such time as the land
re-designation study referenced by this commenter is finished,
individual users may apply for an annual assessment waiver under 25 CFR
part 171.
Did the BIA receive comments on any proposed changes other than rate
adjustments?
No.
Does this notice affect me?
This notice affects you if you own or lease land within the
assessable acreage of one of our irrigation projects, or you have a
carriage agreement with one of our irrigation projects.
Where can I get information on the regulatory and legal citations in
this notice?
You can contact the appropriate office(s) stated in the tables for
the irrigation project that serves you, or you can use the Internet
site for the Government Printing Office at https://www.gpo.gov.
What authorizes you to issue this notice?
Our authority to issue this notice is vested in the Secretary of
the Interior by 5 U.S.C. section 301 and the Act of August 14, 1914 (38
Stat. 583; 25 U.S.C. 385). The Secretary has in turn delegated this
authority to the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs under Part 209,
Chapter 8.1A, of the Department of the Interior's Departmental Manual.
Whom can I contact for further information?
The following tables are the regional and project/agency contacts
for our irrigation projects and facilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project name Project/agency contacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northwest Region Contacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stanley Speaks, Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Northwest
Regional Office, 911 N.E. 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-4169,
Telephone: (503) 231-6702.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flathead Irrigation Project....... Chuck Courville, Acting
Superintendent, Flathead Agency
Irrigation Division, P.O. Box 40,
Pablo, MT 59855-0040, Telephone:
(406) 675-2700.
Fort Hall Irrigation Project...... Eric J. LaPointe, Superintendent,
Alan Oliver, Supervisory General
Engineer, Fort Hall Agency, P.O.
Box 220, Fort Hall, ID 83203-0220,
Telephone: (208) 238-2301.
Wapato Irrigation Project......... Pierce Harrison, Project
Administrator, Wapato Irrigation
Project, P.O. Box 220, Wapato, WA
98951-0220, Telephone: (509) 877-
3155.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rocky Mountain Region Contacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Parisian, Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Rocky Mountain
Regional Office, 316 North 26th Street, Billings, MT 59101, Telephone:
(406) 247-7943.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blackfeet Irrigation Project...... Stephen Pollock, Superintendent, Ted
Hall, Irrigation Project Manager,
Box 880, Browning, MT 59417,
Telephones: (406) 338-7544,
Superintendent, (406) 338-7519,
Irrigation Project Manager.
Crow Irrigation Project........... George Gover, Superintendent, Karl
Helvik, Irrigation Project Manager,
P.O. Box 69, Crow Agency, MT 59022,
Telephones: (406) 638-2672,
Superintendent, (406) 638-2863,
Irrigation Project Manager.
[[Page 32046]]
Fort Belknap Irrigation Project... Judy Gray, Superintendent, Ralph
Leo, Irrigation Project Manager,
R.R. 1, Box 980, Harlem, MT 59526,
Telephones: (406) 353-2901,
Superintendent, (406) 353-2905,
Irrigation Project Manager.
Fort Peck Irrigation Project...... Florence White Eagle,
Superintendent, P.O. Box 637,
Poplar, MT 59255, Richard Kurtz,
Irrigation Manager, 602 6th Avenue
North, Wolf Point, MT 59201,
Telephones: (406) 768-5312,
Superintendent, (406) 653-1752,
Irrigation Manager.
Wind River Irrigation Project..... Ed Lone Fight, Superintendent, Ray
Nation, Acting Irrigation Project
Manager, P.O. Box 158, Fort
Washakie, WY 82514, Telephones:
(307) 332-7810, Superintendent,
(307) 332-2596, Irrigation Project
Manager.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Region Contacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Morrin, Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Southwest
Regional Office, 1001 Indian School Road, Albuquerque, NM 87104,
Telephone: (505) 563-3100.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pine River Irrigation Project..... Ross P. Denny, Superintendent, John
Formea, Irrigation Engineer, P.O.
Box 315, Ignacio, CO 81137-0315,
Telephones: (970) 563-4511,
Superintendent, (970) 563-9484,
Irrigation Engineer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Western Region Contacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allen Anspach, Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Western
Regional Office, Two Arizona Center, 400 N. 5th Street, 12th floor,
Phoenix, AZ 85004, Telephone: (602) 379-6600.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado River Irrigation Project. Perry Baker, Superintendent, Ted
Henry, Irrigation Project Manager,
R.R. 1, Box 9-C, Parker, AZ 85344,
Telephone: (928) 669-7111.
Duck Valley Irrigation Project.... Joseph McDade, Superintendent, 1555
Shoshone Circle, Elko, NV 89801,
Telephone: (775) 738-0569.
Fort Yuma Irrigation Project...... Raymond Fry, Superintendent, P.O.
Box 11000, Yuma, AZ 85366,
Telephone: (520) 782-1202.
San Carlos Irrigation Project Carl Christensen, Supervisory
Joint Works. General Engineer, P.O. Box 250,
Coolidge, AZ 85228, Telephone:
(520) 723-6216.
San Carlos Irrigation Project Joe Revak, Supervisory General
Indian Works. Engineer, Pima Agency, Land
Operations, Box 8, Sacaton, AZ
85247, Telephone: (520) 562-3372.
Uintah Irrigation Project......... Lynn Hansen, Irrigation Manager,
P.O. Box 130, Fort Duchesne, UT
84026, Telephone: (435) 722-4341.
Walker River Irrigation Project... Athena Brown, Superintendent, 311 E.
Washington Street, Carson City, NV
89701, Telephone: (775) 887-3500.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What irrigation assessments or charges are adjusted by this notice?
The rate table below contains the current rates for all of our
irrigation projects where we recover our costs for operation and
maintenance. The table also contains the final rates for the 2008
season and subsequent years where applicable. An asterisk immediately
following the name of the project notes that the BIA adjusted that
project's rates for 2009.
Northwest Region Rate Table
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final 2007 Final 2008 Final 2009
Project name Rate category rate rate rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flathead Irrigation Project............. Basic per acre--A.............. $23.45 $23.45 $23.45
Basic per acre--B.............. 10.75 10.75 10.75
Minimum Charge per tract....... 65.00 65.00 65.00
Fort Hall Irrigation Project*........... Basic per acre................. 27.00 31.00 \1\
Minimum Charge per tract....... 25.00 27.00
Fort Hall Irrigation Project--Minor Basic per acre................. 17.00 21.00
Units*.
Minimum Charge per tract....... 25.00 27.00
Fort Hall Irrigation Project--Michaud*.. Basic per acre................. 35.75 39.75
Pressure per acre.............. 50.00 55.50
Minimum Charge per tract....... 25.00 27.00
Wapato Irrigation Project--Toppenish/ Billing Charge per Tract....... 5.00 5.00 5.00
Simcoe Units*.
Minimum Charge for farm unit/ 14.00 14.00 15.00
land tracts up to one acre.
Farm unit/land tracts over one 14.00 14.00 15.00
acre--per acre.
Wapato Irrigation Project--Ahtanum Billing Charge per Tract....... 5.00 5.00 5.00
Units*.
Minimum Charge for farm unit/ 14.00 14.00 15.00
land tracts up to one acre.
Farm unit/land tracts over one 14.00 14.00 15.00
acre--per acre.
Wapato Irrigation Project--Satus Unit*.. Billing Charge per Tract....... 5.00 5.00 5.00
Minimum Charge for farm unit/ 55.00 55.00 58.00
land tracts up to one acre.
``A'' farm unit/land tracts 55.00 55.00 58.00
over one acre--per acre.
Additional Works farm unit/land 60.00 60.00 63.00
tracts over one acre--per acre.
``B'' farm unit/land tracts 65.00 65.00 68.00
over one acre--per acre.
[[Page 32047]]
Water Rental Agreement Lands-- 67.00 67.00 70.00
per acre.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\To be determined.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final 2007 Final 2008
Project name Rate category rate rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rocky Mountain Region Rate Table
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blackfeet Irrigation Basic-per acre. $15.50 $17.00
Project*.
Crow Irrigation Project-- Basic-per acre. 19.30 20.80
Willow* Creek O&M (includes
Agency, Lodge Grass 1, Lodge Grass 2,
Reno, Upper Little Horn, and
Forty Mile Units).
Crow Irrigation Project--All* Basic-per acre. 19.00 20.50
Others (includes Bighorn,
Soap Creek, and Pryor Units).
Crow Irrigation Two Leggins Basic-per acre. 2.00 2.00
Drainage District.
Fort Belknap Irrigation Basic-per acre. 13.88 13.88
Project.
Fort Peck Irrigation Project* Basic-per acre. 20.00 22.00
Wind River Irrigation Basic-per acre. 15.00 16.00
Project*.
Wind River Irrigation Basic-per acre. 17.00 17.00
Project--LeClair District.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Region Rate Table
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pine River Irrigation Project Minimum Charge 50.00 50.00
per tract.
Basic-per acre. 15.00 15.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final 2007 Final 2008
Project name Rate category rate rate Final 2009 rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado River Irrigation Project Basic per acre up to $47.00 $47.00 To be determined.
5.75 acre-feet.
Excess Water per 17.00 17.00
acre-foot over 5.75
acre-feet.
Duck Valley Irrigation Project... Basic-per acre...... 5.30 5.30
Fort Yuma Irrigation Project*.... Basic-per acre up to 72.00 77.00
5.0 acre-feet.
(See Note 1)............ Excess Water per 10.50 14.00
acre-foot over 5.0
acre-feet.
Basic-per acre up to ........... 28.00
2.0 acre-feet
(Ranch 5).
San Carlos Irrigation Project Basic-per acre...... 30.00 21.00 21.00
(Joint Works) (See Note 2).
San Carlos Irrigation Project* Basic-per acre...... 77.00 57.00 To be determined.
(Indian Works).
Uintah Irrigation Project*....... Basic-per acre...... 12.00 12.50
Minimum Bill........ 25.00 25.00
Walker River Irrigation Project* Indian per acre..... 10.00 13.00 16.00
(See Note 3).
non-Indian per acre. 16.00 16.00 16.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Irrigation projects where rates were adjusted.
Note 1--The O&M rate for Fort Yuma Irrigation Project has two components. The first component is the
O&M rate established by the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), the owner and operator of the Project. The BOR rate
for 2008 is $70.00/acre. The second component is for the O&M rate established by the Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA) to cover administrative costs including billing and collections for the Project. The 2008 BIA rate
remains unchanged at $7.00/acre. The 2008 BOR rate for ``Ranch 5'' is $28.00/acre. In 2008, the BIA is not
charging administrative costs on ``Ranch 5'' acreage. For 2009, the BIA will be proposing the addition of the
$7.00 BIA administrative fee to the ``Ranch 5'' acreage.
Note 2--The 2008 and 2009 rate was established by final notice published in the Federal Register on
April 20, 2007 (Vol. 72, No. 76, page 19954). The 2010 rate is to be determined. The Arizona Water Settlement
Act is expected to be effective December 31, 2007, and this circumstance may affect what the O&M rate should
be for the SCIPJW in 2010.
Note 3--The 2008 and 2009 irrigation rates are established through this notice.
Consultation and Coordination With Tribal Governments (Executive Order
13175)
To fulfill its consultation responsibility to tribes and tribal
organizations the BIA communicates, coordinates, and consults on a
continuing basis with these entities on issues of water delivery, water
availability, and costs of administration, operation, maintenance, and
rehabilitation of projects that concern them. This is accomplished at
the individual projects by Project, Agency, and Regional
representatives, as appropriate, in accordance with local protocol and
procedures. This notice is one component of the BIA's overall
coordination and consultation process to provide notice to, and request
comments from, these entities when the BIA adjusts irrigation rates.
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (Executive Order 13211)
The rate adjustments will have no adverse effects on energy supply,
distribution, or use (including a shortfall in supply, price increases,
and increase use of foreign supplies) should the proposed rate
adjustments be implemented. This is a notice for rate adjustments at
BIA-owned and operated projects, except for the Fort Yuma
[[Page 32048]]
Irrigation Project. The Fort Yuma Irrigation Project is owned and
operated by the Bureau of Reclamation with a portion serving the Fort
Yuma Reservation.
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order 12866)
These rate adjustments are not a significant regulatory action and
do not need to be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This rate making is not a rule for the purposes of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act because it is ``a rule of particular applicability
relating to rates.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(2).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
These rate adjustments impose no unfunded mandates on any
governmental or private entity and are in compliance with the
provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
Takings (Executive Order 12630)
The Department has determined that these rate adjustments do not
have significant ``takings'' implications. The rate adjustments do not
deprive the public, state, or local governments of rights or property.
Federalism (Executive Order 13132)
The Department has determined that these rate adjustments do not
have significant Federalism effects because they pertain solely to
Federal-tribal relations and will not interfere with the roles, rights,
and responsibilities of states.
Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988)
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the
Solicitor has determined that this rule does not unduly burden the
judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of the Order.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
These rate adjustments do not affect the collections of information
which have been approved by the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995. The OMB Control Number is 1076-0141 and expires August 31,
2009.
National Environmental Policy Act
The Department has determined that these rate adjustments do not
constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment and that no detailed statement is required
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-
4370(d)).
Dated: May 16, 2008.
Carl J. Artman,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. E8-12610 Filed 6-4-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-W7-P
