Rate Adjustments for Indian Irrigation Projects, 18398-18403 [E9-9277]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
18398
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 22, 2009 / Notices
provide services to the gaming facility;
and provides for dispute resolution over
any breaches of this Compact.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Dated: April 13, 2009.
George T. Skibine,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and
Economic Development.
[FR Doc. E9–9260 Filed 4–21–09; 8:45 am]
Rate Adjustments for Indian Irrigation
Projects
AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Interior.
BILLING CODE 4310–4N–P
ACTION:
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Indian Gaming
AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of amendment to
approved Tribal-State compact.
SUMMARY: This notice publishes the
approval of the Seventh Amendment to
the Agreement between the Crow Tribe
of Montana and the State of Montana
Concerning Class III Gaming.
DATES:
Effective Date: April 22, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Paula Hart, Acting Director, Office of
Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy
Assistant Secretary—Policy and
Economic Development, Washington,
DC 20240, (202) 219–4066.
Pursuant
to section 11 of the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA), Public
Law 100–497, 25 U.S.C. 2710, the
Secretary of the Interior shall publish in
the Federal Register notice of the
approved Tribal-State compacts for the
purpose of engaging in Class III gaming
activities on Indian lands. This
Amendment increases the number of
Class III video gambling machines
available for play to 400; allows for
Tribal gaming operations to be located
anywhere on the reservation; increases
the prize limit for Class III gaming to
$2,000.00; increases the wager limit on
Tribally owned machines to $5.00; and
sets out the technical and internal
control standards for Class III gaming
machines on the reservation.
dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Dated: April 15, 2009.
George T. Skibine,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and
Economic Development.
[FR Doc. E9–9258 Filed 4–21–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–4N–P
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:31 Apr 21, 2009
Jkt 217001
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Notice of rate adjustments.
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA) owns, or has an interest in,
irrigation projects located on or
associated with various Indian
reservations throughout the United
States. We are required to establish
irrigation assessment rates to recover the
costs to administer, operate, maintain,
and rehabilitate these projects. We are
notifying you that we have adjusted the
irrigation assessment rates at several of
our irrigation projects and facilities to
reflect current costs of administration,
operation, maintenance, and
rehabilitation.
DATES: Effective Date: The irrigation
assessment rates shown in the tables as
final are effective as of January 1, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
details about a particular BIA irrigation
project or facility, please use the tables
in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section to contact the regional or local
office where the project or facility is
located.
A Notice
of Proposed Rate Adjustment was
published in the Federal Register on
October 30, 2008 (73 FR 64629) to
propose adjustments to the irrigation
assessment rates at several BIA
irrigation projects. The public and
interested parties were provided an
opportunity to submit written
comments during the 60-day period that
ended December 29, 2008.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Did the BIA defer or change any
proposed rate increases?
Yes. At the Fort Belknap, Fort Peck,
and Uintah Irrigation Projects, the
project operations and maintenance
(O&M) has been contracted by the water
users and/or tribes. Based on the budget
submitted by the water users at Fort
Belknap, the rate was only raised to
$14.75 instead of $20.00 per acre. Based
on the budget submitted by the water
users at Fort Peck, the rate was only
raised to $24.00 instead of $25.75 per
acre. Based on the budget submitted by
the water users at Uintah, the rate is
raised to $15.00 instead of the
previously proposed $13.70 per acre.
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Did the BIA receive any comments on
the proposed irrigation assessment rate
adjustments?
Written comments were received
related to the proposed rate adjustments
for the San Carlos Irrigation Project—
Joint Works, the Wapato Irrigation
Project, and the Wind River Irrigation
Project.
What issues were of concern to the
commenters?
Individuals and entities commenting
on the proposed rates raised concerns
about one or more of the following
issues: (1) How funds are expended for
O&M costs; (2) the BIA’s trust
responsibility for projects; (3) the BIA’s
responsibility to enhance idle land
tracts to make them productive; (4) the
efficiencies of contracting with water
users groups to perform O&M to save
costs; and (5) how rate increases impact
the local agricultural economy and
individual land owners.
Commenters raised concerns specific
to the Wind River Irrigation Project
(WRIP), asserting that: (1) The BIA is
responsible for delivery of the full
amount of water quantified in the Big
Horn Decree; (2) the WRIP should not be
considered self-supporting for irrigation
O&M funding and requires Federal
assistance; and (3) the Eastern Shoshone
and Northern Arapaho Tribes and their
members should not be subsidizing nonIndian lessee water users.
A commenter raised concerns specific
to the San Carlos Irrigation Project—
Joint Works, asserting that: (1) The
number of BIA personnel required to
operate and maintain the project is too
high; (2) the BIA should maintain the
project wells; (3) anticipated project
expenses for FY 2010 will be higher;
and (4) the BIA is budgeting too much
for emergency reserves.
The Yakama Nation raised concerns
specific to the Wapato Irrigation Project,
stating that the Yakama Nation does not
believe that the BIA has authority to
charge the Yakama Nation and its
members irrigation O&M charges as
provided in this notice.
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
E:\FR\FM\22APN1.SGM
22APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 22, 2009 / Notices
dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
necessary to properly operate and
maintain an irrigation project. Personnel
costs include the cost of hiring
employees, which includes a mandatory
background check, as well as the costs
of salaries and employee benefits
including Social Security and health
care.
One common misconception water
users have is that all salary costs are
administrative and are not used to
provide services directly related to
operation and maintenance of irrigation
facilities. Only a portion of each
project’s budget is for administrative
costs. The administrative costs for a
project include 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 irrigation
project or facility. O&M workers
perform O&M work, and thus their
salaries are considered O&M 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).
There have been concerns raised that
irrigation project funds have been used
to pay BIA staff members who are not
performing work related to operation
and maintenance of irrigation facilities.
This is not in accordance with
applicable law and regulations, and the
BIA is committed to ensuring that any
such payments do not occur. Central
Office staff from the BIA’s Irrigation,
Power, and Safety of Dams Program
review expenditures routinely to ensure
compliance with this policy. At some
projects, non-irrigation staff assist the
projects and are not being paid out of
irrigation funds. For example, at the
Wind River Irrigation Project, the
Deputy Superintendent—Trust Services
acted as the project manager and was
not paid out of irrigation funding.
How does the BIA respond to comments
regarding the BIA’s trust responsibility
in relation to projects?
The BIA disagrees that establishing
irrigation assessments in accordance
with applicable law 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:31 Apr 21, 2009
Jkt 217001
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 consistent
source of funding for the BIA’s irrigation
projects.
How does the BIA respond to comments
regarding the BIA’s trust responsibility
to enhance idle tracts to make them
productive?
As stated in the answer to the
preceding question, the BIA has no trust
obligation to operate and maintain
irrigation projects. Likewise, the BIA
has no obligation to enhance idle tracks
of land within an irrigation project.
However, recognizing the potential
benefits to projects from such
enhancements, the updated Irrigation
O&M regulations (25 CFR 171.610)
provide for an incentive to potential
lessees who want to lease project land
that is not being farmed (idle land). The
lessee is eligible to enter into an
Incentive Agreement with BIA. Under
such an Incentive Agreement, BIA is
able to waive O&M fees for up to three
years while improvements are made to
bring lands that are currently idle back
into production. This feature provides
benefits to landowners, who can more
readily lease their lands; to lessees, who
experience reduced costs associated
with bringing lands back into
production through reduced or waived
O&M assessments; and to the projects,
which will realize a more stable and
productive land base.
How does the BIA respond to comments
regarding the efficiencies of contracting
with water user associations to perform
O&M to save costs?
The BIA remains committed to work
with all project water users to review
and develop options for cost savings. If
the water users believe that they can
perform O&M functions more efficiently
and effectively, the BIA will consider
proposals and work with the
appropriate parties regarding the
potential to facilitate the transfer of
O&M functions through a contract or
other agreement.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
18399
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.
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
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 over time.
Rate deficiencies force the BIA to raise
irrigation assessment rates in larger
increments over shorter periods of time
than would have been otherwise
necessary.
The following comments are specific
to the Wind River Irrigation Project
(WRIP):
How does the BIA respond to concerns
regarding the BIA’s responsibility for
delivery of the full amount of water
quantified in the Big Horn Decree, as
BIA only delivers 40 percent of the
water quantified?
This notice only pertains to the water
delivered to WRIP, which is
approximately 40 percent of the Eastern
Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes’
water right quantified under the Big
Horn Decree. The BIA delivers the
E:\FR\FM\22APN1.SGM
22APN1
18400
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 22, 2009 / Notices
amount of water that it has the capacity
to deliver and is requested for use
through the WRIP. The balance of the
Tribes’ water right is available for future
uses and not affected by this notice.
How does the BIA respond to the
concern that the WRIP should not be
considered self-supporting for
irrigation O&M funding and requires
Federal assistance?
During some periods in the past, the
BIA provided limited appropriated
funds to irrigation projects to assist the
projects with their O&M. At this time
the BIA does not have discretionary
funding available to subsidize O&M
costs. Without necessary rate increases,
the lack of adequate O&M funds could
result in the inability of the project to
maintain irrigation system components
and deliver water.
How does the BIA respond to comments
that the Shoshone and Arapaho Tribes
and Tribal members should not be
subsidizing the non-Indians?
This comment implies that Tribes and
Tribal members are subsidizing nonIndians by paying for the O&M on lands
leased by non-Indians. This is incorrect.
Irrigation O&M for lands leased by
others, Indian or non-Indian, are paid by
the lessee, not the land owner.
The following comments are specific
to the San Carlos Irrigation Project—
Joint Works:
How does the BIA respond to the issue
raised by users of the San Carlos
Irrigation Project—Joint Works
regarding the number of BIA personnel
required to operate and maintain the
project and the decision to lower the
grade of the Supervisory Civil Engineer
and make the position part time, as
well as to abolish one Irrigation System
Operator?
The Supervisory Civil Engineer
position is typically responsible for
management of the BIA irrigation
employees and the irrigation system,
including performing engineering
analysis of system needs. As the BIA
owns the entire San Carlos Irrigation
Project—Joint Works, a Supervisory
Civil Engineer will still be necessary to
exercise oversight responsibility over
the Joint Control Board to ensure that
O&M is carried out in compliance with
Government Standards.
In addition, the BIA is still
responsible for ‘‘Scheduling and
Delivery’’ of water, and based on
workload projections, 3 Irrigation
System Operators are needed in order to
properly manage and schedule water.
Joint Works is within the recommended
guidelines.
The following comment is specific to
the Wapato Irrigation Project:
How does the BIA respond to the issue
raised by users of the San Carlos
Irrigation Project—Joint Works
regarding who is to manage the
project’s wells, and whether this can be
changed in order to reduce anticipated
FY 2010 project expenses?
The Yakama Nation, which is served
by the Wapato Irrigation Project, has an
administrative appeal pending regarding
the BIA’s policy of setting irrigation
assessment rates on assessable lands
within BIA irrigation projects. The BIA’s
position is that we have statutory
authority to establish the rates provided
for under this notice.
The current agreement requires the
BIA to continue maintenance of project
wells until such time as they become a
District Rehabilitation Responsibility
project as defined in sections 9.1 and
9.4 of the Joint Control Board (JCB)
Agreement. It may at some point prove
feasible to transfer this responsibility to
the JCB that has taken over portions of
the project. However, as the agreement
between the BIA and the JCB has yet to
be implemented—a task the parties of
the JCB rejected during settlement
negotiations—it makes little sense to
amend the agreement prior to
implementation.
How does the BIA respond to concerns
raised regarding amount of the
emergency reserve for the project?
This concern is based on the
preceding questions, so the BIA does
not agree that the amount of the
emergency reserve fund should be
adjusted. The reserve funds are to
prepare for events or emergencies which
might interrupt the delivery of irrigation
water and are required for BIA irrigation
projects. The BIA recommends all
projects follow U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation guidelines to determine the
amount of the reserve fund. The amount
is based on a percentage of the annual
O&M revenue funds collected by the
project each year. The amount proposed
for the San Carlos Irrigation Project—
Project name
How does the BIA respond to the
Yakama Nation’s objection to the BIA’s
policy of charging the Yakama Nation
and its members irrigation O&M
charges regardless of whether the
parcel is producing adequate funds
from agriculture to pay the O&M?
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 if
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. 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.
Who can I contact for further
information?
The following tables are the regional
and project/agency contacts for our
irrigation projects.
Project/agency contacts
dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Northwest Region Contacts
Stanley Speaks, Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Northwest Regional Office, 911 NE. 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232–4169,
Telephone: (503) 231–6702.
Flathead Irrigation Project ...............
Fort Hall Irrigation Project ...............
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:31 Apr 21, 2009
Chuck Courville, Superintendent, John Plouffe, Acting Irrigation Manager, Flathead Agency Irrigation Division, P.O. Box 40, Pablo, MT 59855–0040, Telephone: (406) 675–2700.
Eric J. LaPointe, Superintendent, Vacant, Supervisory General Engineer, Fort Hall Agency, P.O. Box 220,
Fort Hall, ID 83203–0220, Telephone: (208) 238–2301.
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\22APN1.SGM
22APN1
18401
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 22, 2009 / Notices
Project name
Project/agency contacts
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, Montana 59101,
Telephone: (406) 247–7943.
Blackfeet Irrigation Project ..............
Crow Irrigation Project ....................
Fort Belknap Irrigation Project ........
Fort Peck Irrigation Project .............
Wind River 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.
Frank Merchant, Acting Superintendent, Vacant, Irrigation Project Manager, P.O. Box 69, Crow Agency,
MT 59022, Telephones: (406) 638–2672, Superintendent, (406) 638–2863, Irrigation Project Manager.
Judy Gray, Superintendent, Vacant, Irrigation Project Manager, (Project Operations and Mgmt Contracted
by Tribes), 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, Sheridan Nicholas, 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
William T. Walker, Acting Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Southwest Regional Office, 1001 Indian School Road, Albuquerque, New
Mexico 87104, Telephone: (505) 563–3100.
Pine River Irrigation Project ............
Vacant, 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,
Arizona 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 ........
Janice Staudte, Superintendent, Ted Henry, Irrigation Project Manager, 12124 1st Avenue, 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.
Bryan Bowker, Project Manager, Augie Fisher, Acting Supervisory General Engineer, P.O. Box 250, Coolidge, AZ 85228, Telephone: (520) 723–6216.
Cecilia Martinez, Superintendent, Joe Revak, Supervisory General Engineer, Pima Agency, Land Operations, P.O. Box 8, Sacaton, AZ 85247, Telephone: (520) 562–3326, Telephone: (520) 562–3372.
Daniel Picard, Superintendent, Karnel Murdock, Acting Irrigation Manager, P.O. Box 130, Fort Duchesne,
UT 84026, Telephone: (435) 722–4300, 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 irrigation projects
where we recover costs for operation
and maintenance. The table also
contains the final rates for the 2009
season and subsequent years where
Project name
applicable. An asterisk immediately
following the name of the project notes
the irrigation projects where rates are
adjusted for 2009.
Final 2008
rate
Rate category
Final 2009
rate
Final 2010
rate
Northwest Region Rate Table
Flathead Irrigation Project* (See Note #1) .....
dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Fort Hall Irrigation Project* .............................
Fort Hall Irrigation Project—Minor Units* .......
Fort Hall Irrigation Project—Michaud* ............
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:31 Apr 21, 2009
Jkt 217001
Basic per acre—A ..........................................
Basic per acre—B ..........................................
Minimum Charge per tract .............................
Basic per acre ................................................
$23.45
10.75
65.00
31.00
$23.45
10.75
65.00
40.50
Minimum Charge per tract .............................
Basic per acre ................................................
Minimum Charge per tract .............................
Basic per acre ................................................
Pressure per acre ..........................................
Minimum Charge per tract .............................
Minimum Charge for farm unit/land tracts up
to one acre.
27.00
21.00
27.00
39.75
55.50
27.00
14.00
30.00
21.00
30.00
41.50
58.00
30.00
15.00
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\22APN1.SGM
22APN1
$23.45
11.75
65.00
To be
determined
18402
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 22, 2009 / Notices
Project name
Final 2008
rate
Rate category
Wapato Irrigation Project—Toppenish/Simcoe
Units*.
Wapato Irrigation Project—Ahtanum Units* ...
Wapato Irrigation Project—Satus Unit* ..........
Wapato Irrigation Project—Additional Works*
Wapato Irrigation Project—Water Rental* ......
Final 2009
rate
Farm unit/land tracts over one acre—per
acre.
Minimum Charge per tract .............................
14.00
15.00
14.00
15.00
Basic per acre ................................................
Minimum Charge per tract .............................
Basic per acre ................................................
Minimum Charge per tract .............................
‘‘A’’ Basic per acre .........................................
‘‘B’’ Basic per acre .........................................
Minimum Charge per tract .............................
Basic per acre ................................................
Minimum Charge ............................................
Basic per acre ................................................
14.00
14.00
14.00
55.00
55.00
65.00
60.00
60.00
67.00
67.00
Final 2010
rate
15.00
15.00
15.00
58.00
58.00
68.00
63.00
63.00
70.00
70.00
Project name
Final 2008
rate
Rate category
Final 2009 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 ................................
$17.00
20.80
$18.00
20.80
Basic-per acre ................................
20.50
20.50
Basic-per
Basic-per
Basic-per
Basic-per
Basic-per
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
2.00
13.88
22.00
16.00
17.00
2.00
14.75
24.00
18.00
19.00
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 2008
rate
Rate category
Final 2009
rate
Final 2010
rate
Final 2011
rate
$52.50
To be
determined
To be
determined
To be
determined
$54.00.
....................
Western Region Rate Table
Colorado River* Irrigation Project .............
Fort Yuma* Irrigation Project (See Note
#2).
San Carlos Irrigation Project (Joint Works)
(See Note #3).
San Carlos Irrigation Project (Indian
Works).
Uintah Irrigation Project* ...........................
Walker River Irrigation Project* (See Note
#4).
$47.00
17.00
$51.00
17.00
5.30
5.30
Basic per acre up to 5.0 acre-feet ...........
77.00
77.00
Excess Water per acre-foot over 5.0
acre-feet.
Basic per acre up to 5.0 acre-feet
(Ranch 5).
Basic per acre ..........................................
14.00
14.00
28.00
77.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
Basic per acre ..........................................
57.00
57.00
To be
determined
To be
determined.
To be
determined.
Basic per acre ..........................................
Minimum Bill ............................................
Indian per acre .........................................
12.50
25.00
$13.00
15.00
25.00
$16.00
$19.00
$22.00.
non-Indian per acre .................................
Duck Valley Irrigation Project ....................
Basic per acre up to 5.75 acre-feet .........
Excess Water per acre-foot over 5.75
acre-feet.
Basic per acre ..........................................
16.00
16.00
19.00
22.00.
dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
*
To be
determined.
To be
determined.
Notes irrigation projects where rates are proposed for adjustment.
Note #1—The 2009 rate was established by final notice published in the Federal Register on June 5, 2008 (Vol. 73, No. 109, page 32046).
The 2010 rate is final by this notice.
Note #2—The O&M rate for the 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 2009 remains unchanged at $70.00/acre. The second component is for the O&M rate established by BIA to cover administrative costs including billing and collections for the Project. The 2009 BIA rate remains unchanged at $7.00/acre. In 2009, the BOR rate for ‘‘Ranch 5’’ will be increased from $28.00/acre to $70.00/acre, and BIA will begin
charging the $7.00/acre administrative fee on ‘‘Ranch 5’’ acreage.
Note #3—The 2009 rate was established by final notice published in the Federal Register on April 20, 2007 (Vol. 72, No. 76, page 19954).
Note #4—The 2009 rate was established by final notice published in the Federal Register on June 5, 2008 (Vol. 73, No. 109, page 32047).
The 2010 rate is final through this notice.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:31 Apr 21, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\22APN1.SGM
22APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 22, 2009 / Notices
Consultation and Coordination With
Tribal Governments (Executive Order
13175)
To fulfill its consultation
responsibility to tribes and tribal
organizations, BIA communicates,
coordinates, and consults on a
continuing basis with these entities on
issues related to water delivery, water
availability, and costs of administration,
operation, maintenance, and
rehabilitation of projects that concern
them. This is accomplished at the
individual irrigation project by Project,
Agency, and Regional representatives,
as appropriate, in accordance with local
protocol and procedures. This notice is
one component of our overall
coordination and consultation process
to provide notice to these entities when
we adjust irrigation assessment rates.
Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (Executive Order
13211)
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
These rate adjustments are not a rule
for the purposes of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act because they establish ‘‘a
rule of particular applicability relating
to rates.’’ 5 U.S.C. 601(2).
dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
These rate adjustments do not impose
an unfunded mandate on State, local, or
tribal governments in the aggregate, or
on the private sector, of more than $130
million per year. The rule does not have
a significant or unique effect on State,
local, or tribal governments or the
private sector. Therefore, the
Department is not required to prepare a
statement containing the information
15:31 Apr 21, 2009
Jkt 217001
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 will not affect the States, the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among various levels of
government.
Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order
12988)
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
irrigation projects, except for the Fort
Yuma Irrigation Project. The Fort Yuma
Irrigation Project is owned and operated
by the Bureau of Reclamation with a
portion serving the Fort Yuma
Reservation.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
required by the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
In issuing this rule, the Department
has taken the necessary steps to
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity,
minimize potential litigation, and
provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, as required by section
3 of Executive Order 12988.
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)).
Information Quality Act
In developing this notice, we did not
conduct or use a study, experiment, or
survey requiring peer review under the
Information Quality Act (Pub. L. 106–
554).
Dated: April 13, 2009.
George Skibine,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy
and Economic Development.
[FR Doc. E9–9277 Filed 4–21–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–W7–P
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
18403
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R4–ES–2009–N0067; 40120–1113–
0000–C2]
Technical Agency Draft Recovery Plan
for the Endangered St. Andrew Beach
Mouse
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of document availability
and opening of public comment period.
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, announce the
availability of the technical agency draft
recovery plan for the St. Andrew beach
mouse (Peromyscus polionotus
peninsularis). This technical agency
draft recovery plan includes specific
recovery objectives and criteria to be
met in order to reclassify this species to
threatened status and delist it under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). We request review and
comment on this technical agency draft
recovery plan from local, State, and
Federal agencies, and the public.
DATES: In order to be considered,
comments on the technical agency draft
recovery plan must be received on or
before June 22, 2009.
ADDRESSES: If you wish to review this
technical agency draft recovery plan,
you may obtain a copy by contacting
Janet Mizzi, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1601 Balboa Ave, Panama City,
FL 32405, tel. (850) 769–0552, or by
visiting either the Service’s recovery
plan Web site at https://
endangered.fws.gov/recovery/
index.html#plans or the Panama City
Field Office Web site at https://
www.fws.gov/panamacity/. If you wish
to comment, you may submit your
comments by one of the following
methods:
1. You may submit written comments
and materials to Janet Mizzi, at the
above address.
2. You may hand-deliver written
comments to our Panama City Field
Office, at the above address.
3. You may fax your comments to
(850) 763–2177.
4. You may send comments by e-mail
to janet_mizzi@fws.gov. For directions
on submitting comments electronically,
see the ‘‘Public Comments Solicited’’
section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Janet Mizzi at the above addresses or
telephone: (850) 769–0552, ext. 247.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\22APN1.SGM
22APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 76 (Wednesday, April 22, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18398-18403]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-9277]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 located on or associated with various Indian
reservations throughout the United States. We are required to establish
irrigation assessment rates to recover the costs to administer,
operate, maintain, and rehabilitate these projects. We are notifying
you that we have adjusted the irrigation assessment rates at several of
our irrigation projects and facilities to reflect current costs of
administration, operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation.
DATES: Effective Date: The irrigation assessment rates shown in the
tables as final are effective as of January 1, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For details about a particular BIA
irrigation project or facility, please use the tables in the
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 October 30, 2008 (73 FR 64629) to
propose adjustments to the irrigation assessment rates at several BIA
irrigation projects. The public and interested parties were provided an
opportunity to submit written comments during the 60-day period that
ended December 29, 2008.
Did the BIA defer or change any proposed rate increases?
Yes. At the Fort Belknap, Fort Peck, and Uintah Irrigation
Projects, the project operations and maintenance (O&M) has been
contracted by the water users and/or tribes. Based on the budget
submitted by the water users at Fort Belknap, the rate was only raised
to $14.75 instead of $20.00 per acre. Based on the budget submitted by
the water users at Fort Peck, the rate was only raised to $24.00
instead of $25.75 per acre. Based on the budget submitted by the water
users at Uintah, the rate is raised to $15.00 instead of the previously
proposed $13.70 per acre.
Did the BIA receive any comments on the proposed irrigation assessment
rate adjustments?
Written comments were received related to the proposed rate
adjustments for the San Carlos Irrigation Project--Joint Works, the
Wapato Irrigation Project, and the Wind River Irrigation Project.
What issues were of concern to the commenters?
Individuals and entities commenting on the proposed rates raised
concerns about one or more of the following issues: (1) How funds are
expended for O&M costs; (2) the BIA's trust responsibility for
projects; (3) the BIA's responsibility to enhance idle land tracts to
make them productive; (4) the efficiencies of contracting with water
users groups to perform O&M to save costs; and (5) how rate increases
impact the local agricultural economy and individual land owners.
Commenters raised concerns specific to the Wind River Irrigation
Project (WRIP), asserting that: (1) The BIA is responsible for delivery
of the full amount of water quantified in the Big Horn Decree; (2) the
WRIP should not be considered self-supporting for irrigation O&M
funding and requires Federal assistance; and (3) the Eastern Shoshone
and Northern Arapaho Tribes and their members should not be subsidizing
non-Indian lessee water users.
A commenter raised concerns specific to the San Carlos Irrigation
Project--Joint Works, asserting that: (1) The number of BIA personnel
required to operate and maintain the project is too high; (2) the BIA
should maintain the project wells; (3) anticipated project expenses for
FY 2010 will be higher; and (4) the BIA is budgeting too much for
emergency reserves.
The Yakama Nation raised concerns specific to the Wapato Irrigation
Project, stating that the Yakama Nation does not believe that the BIA
has authority to charge the Yakama Nation and its members irrigation
O&M charges as provided in this notice.
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
[[Page 18399]]
necessary to properly operate and maintain an irrigation project.
Personnel costs include the cost of hiring employees, which includes a
mandatory background check, as well as the costs of salaries and
employee benefits including Social Security and health care.
One common misconception water users have is that all salary costs
are administrative and are not used to provide services directly
related to operation and maintenance of irrigation facilities. Only a
portion of each project's budget is for administrative costs. The
administrative costs for a project include 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 irrigation project or facility. O&M workers perform O&M work, and
thus their salaries are considered O&M 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).
There have been concerns raised that irrigation project funds have
been used to pay BIA staff members who are not performing work related
to operation and maintenance of irrigation facilities. This is not in
accordance with applicable law and regulations, and the BIA is
committed to ensuring that any such payments do not occur. Central
Office staff from the BIA's Irrigation, Power, and Safety of Dams
Program review expenditures routinely to ensure compliance with this
policy. At some projects, non-irrigation staff assist the projects and
are not being paid out of irrigation funds. For example, at the Wind
River Irrigation Project, the Deputy Superintendent--Trust Services
acted as the project manager and was not paid out of irrigation
funding.
How does the BIA respond to comments regarding the BIA's trust
responsibility in relation to projects?
The BIA disagrees that establishing irrigation assessments in
accordance with applicable law 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 consistent source of funding for the BIA's irrigation
projects.
How does the BIA respond to comments regarding the BIA's trust
responsibility to enhance idle tracts to make them productive?
As stated in the answer to the preceding question, the BIA has no
trust obligation to operate and maintain irrigation projects. Likewise,
the BIA has no obligation to enhance idle tracks of land within an
irrigation project. However, recognizing the potential benefits to
projects from such enhancements, the updated Irrigation O&M regulations
(25 CFR 171.610) provide for an incentive to potential lessees who want
to lease project land that is not being farmed (idle land). The lessee
is eligible to enter into an Incentive Agreement with BIA. Under such
an Incentive Agreement, BIA is able to waive O&M fees for up to three
years while improvements are made to bring lands that are currently
idle back into production. This feature provides benefits to
landowners, who can more readily lease their lands; to lessees, who
experience reduced costs associated with bringing lands back into
production through reduced or waived O&M assessments; and to the
projects, which will realize a more stable and productive land base.
How does the BIA respond to comments regarding the efficiencies of
contracting with water user associations to perform O&M to save costs?
The BIA remains committed to work with all project water users to
review and develop options for cost savings. If the water users believe
that they can perform O&M functions more efficiently and effectively,
the BIA will consider proposals and work with the appropriate parties
regarding the potential to facilitate the transfer of O&M functions
through a contract or other agreement.
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.
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 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 over time. Rate deficiencies force the BIA to raise
irrigation assessment rates in larger increments over shorter periods
of time than would have been otherwise necessary.
The following comments are specific to the Wind River Irrigation
Project (WRIP):
How does the BIA respond to concerns regarding the BIA's responsibility
for delivery of the full amount of water quantified in the Big Horn
Decree, as BIA only delivers 40 percent of the water quantified?
This notice only pertains to the water delivered to WRIP, which is
approximately 40 percent of the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho
Tribes' water right quantified under the Big Horn Decree. The BIA
delivers the
[[Page 18400]]
amount of water that it has the capacity to deliver and is requested
for use through the WRIP. The balance of the Tribes' water right is
available for future uses and not affected by this notice.
How does the BIA respond to the concern that the WRIP should not be
considered self-supporting for irrigation O&M funding and requires
Federal assistance?
During some periods in the past, the BIA provided limited
appropriated funds to irrigation projects to assist the projects with
their O&M. At this time the BIA does not have discretionary funding
available to subsidize O&M costs. Without necessary rate increases, the
lack of adequate O&M funds could result in the inability of the project
to maintain irrigation system components and deliver water.
How does the BIA respond to comments that the Shoshone and Arapaho
Tribes and Tribal members should not be subsidizing the non-Indians?
This comment implies that Tribes and Tribal members are subsidizing
non-Indians by paying for the O&M on lands leased by non-Indians. This
is incorrect. Irrigation O&M for lands leased by others, Indian or non-
Indian, are paid by the lessee, not the land owner.
The following comments are specific to the San Carlos Irrigation
Project--Joint Works:
How does the BIA respond to the issue raised by users of the San Carlos
Irrigation Project--Joint Works regarding the number of BIA personnel
required to operate and maintain the project and the decision to lower
the grade of the Supervisory Civil Engineer and make the position part
time, as well as to abolish one Irrigation System Operator?
The Supervisory Civil Engineer position is typically responsible
for management of the BIA irrigation employees and the irrigation
system, including performing engineering analysis of system needs. As
the BIA owns the entire San Carlos Irrigation Project--Joint Works, a
Supervisory Civil Engineer will still be necessary to exercise
oversight responsibility over the Joint Control Board to ensure that
O&M is carried out in compliance with Government Standards.
In addition, the BIA is still responsible for ``Scheduling and
Delivery'' of water, and based on workload projections, 3 Irrigation
System Operators are needed in order to properly manage and schedule
water.
How does the BIA respond to the issue raised by users of the San Carlos
Irrigation Project--Joint Works regarding who is to manage the
project's wells, and whether this can be changed in order to reduce
anticipated FY 2010 project expenses?
The current agreement requires the BIA to continue maintenance of
project wells until such time as they become a District Rehabilitation
Responsibility project as defined in sections 9.1 and 9.4 of the Joint
Control Board (JCB) Agreement. It may at some point prove feasible to
transfer this responsibility to the JCB that has taken over portions of
the project. However, as the agreement between the BIA and the JCB has
yet to be implemented--a task the parties of the JCB rejected during
settlement negotiations--it makes little sense to amend the agreement
prior to implementation.
How does the BIA respond to concerns raised regarding amount of the
emergency reserve for the project?
This concern is based on the preceding questions, so the BIA does
not agree that the amount of the emergency reserve fund should be
adjusted. The reserve funds are to prepare for events or emergencies
which might interrupt the delivery of irrigation water and are required
for BIA irrigation projects. The BIA recommends all projects follow
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation guidelines to determine the amount of the
reserve fund. The amount is based on a percentage of the annual O&M
revenue funds collected by the project each year. The amount proposed
for the San Carlos Irrigation Project--Joint Works is within the
recommended guidelines.
The following comment is specific to the Wapato Irrigation Project:
How does the BIA respond to the Yakama Nation's objection to the BIA's
policy of charging the Yakama Nation and its members irrigation O&M
charges regardless of whether the parcel is producing adequate funds
from agriculture to pay the O&M?
The Yakama Nation, which is served by the Wapato Irrigation
Project, has an administrative appeal pending regarding the BIA's
policy of setting irrigation assessment rates on assessable lands
within BIA irrigation projects. The BIA's position is that we have
statutory authority to establish the rates provided for under this
notice.
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 if 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. 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.
Who can I contact for further information?
The following tables are the regional and project/agency contacts
for our irrigation projects.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project name Project/agency contacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northwest Region Contacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stanley Speaks, Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Northwest
Regional Office, 911 NE. 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-4169,
Telephone: (503) 231-6702.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flathead Irrigation Project....... Chuck Courville, Superintendent,
John Plouffe, Acting Irrigation
Manager, Flathead Agency Irrigation
Division, P.O. Box 40, Pablo, MT
59855-0040, Telephone: (406) 675-
2700.
Fort Hall Irrigation Project...... Eric J. LaPointe, Superintendent,
Vacant, Supervisory General
Engineer, Fort Hall Agency, P.O.
Box 220, Fort Hall, ID 83203-0220,
Telephone: (208) 238-2301.
[[Page 18401]]
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, Montana 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........... Frank Merchant, Acting
Superintendent, Vacant, Irrigation
Project Manager, P.O. Box 69, Crow
Agency, MT 59022, Telephones: (406)
638-2672, Superintendent, (406) 638-
2863, Irrigation Project Manager.
Fort Belknap Irrigation Project... Judy Gray, Superintendent, Vacant,
Irrigation Project Manager,
(Project Operations and Mgmt
Contracted by Tribes), 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,
Sheridan Nicholas, 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
William T. Walker, Acting Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Southwest Regional Office, 1001 Indian School Road, Albuquerque, New
Mexico 87104, Telephone: (505) 563-3100.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pine River Irrigation Project..... Vacant, 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, Arizona 85004, Telephone: (602) 379-6600.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado River Irrigation Project. Janice Staudte, Superintendent, Ted
Henry, Irrigation Project Manager,
12124 1st Avenue, 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 Bryan Bowker, Project Manager, Augie
Joint Works. Fisher, Acting Supervisory General
Engineer, P.O. Box 250, Coolidge,
AZ 85228, Telephone: (520) 723-
6216.
San Carlos Irrigation Project Cecilia Martinez, Superintendent,
Indian Works. Joe Revak, Supervisory General
Engineer, Pima Agency, Land
Operations, P.O. Box 8, Sacaton, AZ
85247, Telephone: (520) 562-3326,
Telephone: (520) 562-3372.
Uintah Irrigation Project......... Daniel Picard, Superintendent,
Karnel Murdock, Acting Irrigation
Manager, P.O. Box 130, Fort
Duchesne, UT 84026, Telephone:
(435) 722-4300, 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 irrigation
projects where we recover costs for operation and maintenance. The
table also contains the final rates for the 2009 season and subsequent
years where applicable. An asterisk immediately following the name of
the project notes the irrigation projects where rates are adjusted for
2009.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final 2008 Final 2009 Final 2010
Project name Rate category rate rate rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northwest Region Rate Table
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flathead Irrigation Project* (See Basic per acre--A.......... $23.45 $23.45 $23.45
Note 1).
Basic per acre--B.......... 10.75 10.75 11.75
Minimum Charge per tract... 65.00 65.00 65.00
Fort Hall Irrigation Project*...... Basic per acre............. 31.00 40.50 To be
determined
Minimum Charge per tract... 27.00 30.00
Fort Hall Irrigation Project--Minor Basic per acre............. 21.00 21.00
Units*.
Minimum Charge per tract... 27.00 30.00
Fort Hall Irrigation Project-- Basic per acre............. 39.75 41.50
Michaud*.
Pressure per acre.......... 55.50 58.00
Minimum Charge per tract... 27.00 30.00
Minimum Charge for farm 14.00 15.00
unit/land tracts up to one
acre.
[[Page 18402]]
Farm unit/land tracts over 14.00 15.00
one acre--per acre.
Wapato Irrigation Project-- Minimum Charge per tract... 14.00 15.00
Toppenish/Simcoe Units*.
Basic per acre............. 14.00 15.00
Wapato Irrigation Project--Ahtanum Minimum Charge per tract... 14.00 15.00
Units*.
Basic per acre............. 14.00 15.00
Wapato Irrigation Project--Satus Minimum Charge per tract... 55.00 58.00
Unit*.
``A'' Basic per acre....... 55.00 58.00
``B'' Basic per acre....... 65.00 68.00
Wapato Irrigation Project-- Minimum Charge per tract... 60.00 63.00
Additional Works*.
Basic per acre............. 60.00 63.00
Wapato Irrigation Project--Water Minimum Charge............. 67.00 70.00
Rental*.
Basic per acre............. 67.00 70.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final 2008
Project name Rate category rate Final 2009 rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rocky Mountain Region Rate Table
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blackfeet Irrigation Project*................. Basic-per acre.................. $17.00 $18.00
Crow Irrigation Project--Willow Creek O&M Basic-per acre.................. 20.80 20.80
(includes Agency, Lodge Grass 1,
Lodge Grass 2, Reno, Upper Little
Horn, and Forty Mile Units).
Crow Irrigation Project--All Others (includes Basic-per acre.................. 20.50 20.50
Bighorn, Soap Creek, and Pryor Units).
Crow Irrigation Two Leggins Drainage District. Basic-per acre.................. 2.00 2.00
Fort Belknap Irrigation Project*.............. Basic-per acre.................. 13.88 14.75
Fort Peck Irrigation Project*................. Basic-per acre.................. 22.00 24.00
Wind River Irrigation Project *............... Basic-per acre.................. 16.00 18.00
Wind River Irrigation Project--*LeClair Basic-per acre.................. 17.00 19.00
District.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Region Rate Table
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pine River Irrigation Project................. Minimum Charge per tract........ 50.00 50.00
Basic-per acre.................. 15.00 15.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final 2008 Final 2009 Final 2010 Final 2011
Project name Rate category rate rate rate rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Western Region Rate Table
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado River* Irrigation Basic per acre up to 5.75 $47.00 $51.00 $52.50 $54.00.
Project. acre-feet.
Excess Water per acre- 17.00 17.00 To be ...........
foot over 5.75 acre-feet. determined
Duck Valley Irrigation Project... Basic per acre........... 5.30 5.30 To be To be
determined determined.
Fort Yuma* Irrigation Project Basic per acre up to 5.0 77.00 77.00 To be To be
(See Note 2). acre-feet. determined determined.
Excess Water per acre- 14.00 14.00
foot over 5.0 acre-feet.
Basic per acre up to 5.0 28.00 77.00
acre-feet (Ranch 5).
San Carlos Irrigation Project Basic per acre........... 21.00 21.00 21.00 To be
(Joint Works) (See Note 3).
San Carlos Irrigation Project Basic per acre........... 57.00 57.00 To be To be
(Indian Works). determined determined.
Uintah Irrigation Project*....... Basic per acre........... 12.50 15.00
Minimum Bill............. 25.00 25.00
Walker River Irrigation Project* Indian per acre.......... $13.00 $16.00 $19.00 $22.00.
(See Note 4).
non-Indian per acre...... 16.00 16.00 19.00 22.00.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Notes irrigation projects where rates are proposed for adjustment.
Note 1--The 2009 rate was established by final notice published in the Federal Register on June 5, 2008
(Vol. 73, No. 109, page 32046). The 2010 rate is final by this notice.
Note 2--The O&M rate for the 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 2009 remains unchanged at $70.00/acre. The second component is for the O&M rate established by BIA to
cover administrative costs including billing and collections for the Project. The 2009 BIA rate remains
unchanged at $7.00/acre. In 2009, the BOR rate for ``Ranch 5'' will be increased from $28.00/acre to $70.00/
acre, and BIA will begin charging the $7.00/acre administrative fee on ``Ranch 5'' acreage.
Note 3--The 2009 rate was established by final notice published in the Federal Register on April 20,
2007 (Vol. 72, No. 76, page 19954).
Note 4--The 2009 rate was established by final notice published in the Federal Register on June 5, 2008
(Vol. 73, No. 109, page 32047). The 2010 rate is final through this notice.
[[Page 18403]]
Consultation and Coordination With Tribal Governments (Executive Order
13175)
To fulfill its consultation responsibility to tribes and tribal
organizations, BIA communicates, coordinates, and consults on a
continuing basis with these entities on issues related to water
delivery, water availability, and costs of administration, operation,
maintenance, and rehabilitation of projects that concern them. This is
accomplished at the individual irrigation project by Project, Agency,
and Regional representatives, as appropriate, in accordance with local
protocol and procedures. This notice is one component of our overall
coordination and consultation process to provide notice to these
entities when we adjust irrigation assessment 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 irrigation projects, except for the Fort Yuma
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
These rate adjustments are not a rule for the purposes of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act because they establish ``a rule of
particular applicability relating to rates.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(2).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
These rate adjustments do not impose an unfunded mandate on State,
local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or on the private
sector, of more than $130 million per year. The rule does not have a
significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or
the private sector. Therefore, the Department is not required to
prepare a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
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 will not affect the
States, the relationship between the national government and the
States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among various
levels of government.
Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988)
In issuing this rule, the Department has taken the necessary steps
to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential
litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, as
required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988.
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)).
Information Quality Act
In developing this notice, we did not conduct or use a study,
experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Information
Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554).
Dated: April 13, 2009.
George Skibine,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Economic Development.
[FR Doc. E9-9277 Filed 4-21-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-W7-P
