Rate Adjustments for Indian Irrigation Projects, 29577-29582 [2010-12658]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Notices
areas, protection and enhancement of
Indiana bat habitat outside the project
area, various curtailment regimes for
turbines during prime activity or
migration periods, and postconstruction monitoring for fatalities.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
Santa Fe, New Mexico, thirty (30)
calendar days from the date of this
publication.
Environmental Review
The Service will conduct an
environmental review to analyze
various alternatives for implementing
the proposed action and the associated
impacts of each. The draft EIS will be
the basis for the impact evaluation for
Indiana bats and the range of
alternatives to be addressed. The draft
EIS is expected to provide biological
descriptions of the affected species and
habitats, as well as the effects of the
alternatives on other resources such as
vegetation, wetlands, wildlife, geology
and soils, air quality, water resources,
water quality, cultural resources, land
use, recreation, water use, local
economy, and environmental justice.
Following completion of the
environmental review, the Service will
publish a notice of availability and a
request for comments on the draft EIS
and the applicant’s permit application,
which will include the draft HCP. The
draft EIS and draft HCP are expected to
be completed and available to the public
in mid-2010.
Authority
This notice is being furnished as
provided for by the NEPA Regulations
(40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22). The intent
of the notice is to obtain suggestions and
additional information from other
agencies and the public on the scope of
issues to be considered. Comments and
participation in this scoping process are
solicited.
Dated: May 13, 2010.
Lynn M. Lewis,
Assistant Regional Director, Ecological
Services, Region 3, Fort Snelling, MN.
[FR Doc. 2010–12668 Filed 5–25–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
[LLNM915000L14200000.BJ0000]
Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey, New
Mexico
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of filing of plats of
survey.
The plats of survey described
below are scheduled to be officially
filed in the New Mexico State Office,
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:16 May 25, 2010
Jkt 220001
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
These plats will be available for
inspection in the New Mexico State
Office, Bureau of Land Management,
301 Dinosaur Trail, Santa Fe, New
Mexico. Copies may be obtained from
this office upon payment. Contact
Marcella Montoya at 505–954–2097, or
by e-mail at
Marcella_Montoya@nm.blm.gov, for
assistance.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
New Mexico Principal Meridian, New
Mexico (NM)
The plat, in four sheets, representing the
dependent resurvey and survey in Township
13 North, Range 4 East, of the New Mexico
Principal Meridian, accepted March 21, 2010,
for Group 1094 NM.
The plat representing the dependent
resurvey and survey in Township 29 North,
Range 11 West, of the New Mexico Principal
Meridian, accepted April 16, 2010, for Group
1101 NM.
The plat, in two sheets, representing the
dependent resurvey and survey in Township
25 North, Range 10 West, of the New Mexico
Principal Meridian, accepted April 13, 2010,
for Group 1085 NM.
The plat, representing the dependent
resurvey and survey, in Township 3 North,
Range 7 West, of the New Mexico Principal
Meridian, accepted April 20, 2010, for Group
1089 NM.
Indian Meridian, Oklahoma (OK)
The plat, in two sheets, representing the
dependent resurvey and survey in Township
19 North, Range 8 East, of the Indian
Meridian, accepted October 13, 2009, for
Group 157 OK.
The plat representing the dependent
resurvey and survey in Township 28 North,
Range 23 East, of the Indian Meridian,
accepted March 18, 2010, for Group 183 OK.
The plat representing the dependent
resurvey and survey in Township 19 North,
Range 22 East, of the Indian Meridian,
accepted April 28, 2010, for Group 178 OK.
The plat, in eighteen sheets, representing
the dependent resurvey and survey in
Township 10 North, Range 25 East, of the
Indian Meridian, accepted April 30, 2010, for
Group 61 OK.
Polk County, Texas (TX)
The plat representing the dependent
resurvey and survey of the AlabamaCoushatta Indian Reservation, accepted April
8, 2010, for Group 5 TX.
If a protest against a survey, as shown
on any of the above plats, is received
prior to the date of official filing, the
filing will be stayed pending
consideration of the protest. A plat will
not be officially filed until the day after
all protests have been dismissed and
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
29577
become final or appeals from the
dismissal affirmed.
A person or party who wishes to
protest against any of these surveys
must file a written protest with the New
Mexico State Director, Bureau of Land
Management, stating that they wish to
protest.
A statement of reasons for a protest
may be filed with the notice of protest
to the State Director or the statement of
reasons must be filed with the State
Director within thirty (30) days after the
protest is filed.
Robert A. Casias,
Chief, Branch of Cadastral, Survey/
GeoSciences.
[FR Doc. 2010–12672 Filed 5–25–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–FB–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 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, 2010.
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:
I. Effect of this Notice
II. Responses to Comments on Proposed Rate
Adjustments
III. Further Information on This Notice
IV. Administrative Requirements
I. Effect of This Notice
Does this notice affect me?
This notice affects you if you own or
lease land within the assessable acreage
E:\FR\FM\26MYN1.SGM
26MYN1
29578
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Notices
of one of our irrigation projects, or if
you have a carriage agreement with one
of our irrigation projects.
What irrigation assessments or charges
are adjusted by this notice for the 2010
season?
The rate table below contains the
current, final rates for the 2010 season
for all irrigation projects where we
recover costs of administering,
operating, maintaining, and
rehabilitating them. An asterisk
following the name of the project notes
the irrigation projects where the 2010
rates are different from the 2009 rates.
Rate
category
Project name
Final
2009 rate
Final
2010 rate
Northwest Region Rate Table
Flathead Irrigation Project * ......................................
Fort Hall Irrigation Project ........................................
Fort Hall Irrigation Project—Minor Units ..................
Fort Hall Irrigation Project—Michaud .......................
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 * ...............
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 ........................................
Minimum Charge for per tract ..................................
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 ..........................................................
$23.45
10.75
65.00
40.50
30.00
21.00
30.00
41.50
58.00
30.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
58.00
58.00
68.00
63.00
63.00
70.00
70.00
$23.45
11.75
65.00
40.50
30.00
21.00
30.00
41.50
58.00
30.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
60.00
60.00
70.00
65.00
65.00
72.00
72.00
Basic-per acre ..........................................................
Basic-per acre ..........................................................
18.00
20.80
19.00
22.80
Basic-per acre ..........................................................
20.50
22.50
Basic-per
Basic-per
Basic-per
Basic-per
Basic-per
Basic-per
2.00
14.75
24.00
18.00
19.00
18.00
2.00
14.75
24.70
20.00
27.00
14.00
50.00
15.00
50.00
15.00
Basic per acre up to 5.75 acre-feet .........................
Excess Water per acre-foot over 5.75 acre-feet ......
Basic per acre ..........................................................
Basic per acre up to 5.0 acre-feet ...........................
Excess Water per acre-foot over 5.0 acre-feet ........
Basic per acre up to 5.0 acre-feet (Ranch 5) ..........
Basic per acre ..........................................................
51.00
17.00
5.30
77.00
14.00
77.00
21.00
52.50
17.00
5.30
86.00
14.00
86.00
21.00
Basic per acre ..........................................................
Basic per acre ..........................................................
Minimum Bill .............................................................
Basic per acre, Indian ..............................................
Basic per acre, non-Indian .......................................
57.00
15.00
25.00
16.00
16.00
57.00
15.00
25.00
19.00
19.00
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 * .......
Wind River Irrigation Project—CrowHeart Unit * ......
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
Southwest Region Rate Table
Pine River Irrigation Project .....................................
Minimum Charge per tract ........................................
Basic-per acre ..........................................................
Western Region Rate Table
Colorado River Irrigation Project * ............................
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Duck Valley Irrigation Project ...................................
Fort Yuma Irrigation Project (See Note #1) * ...........
San Carlos Irrigation Project (Joint Works) (See
Note # 2).
San Carlos Irrigation Project (Indian Works) ...........
Uintah Irrigation Project ............................................
Walker River Irrigation Project * ...............................
* Notes irrigation projects where rates have been adjusted.
Note #1—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 2010 is $79.00/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 2010 BIA rate remains unchanged
at $7.00/acre. The rates shown include the 2010 Reclamation rate and the 2010 BIA rate.
Note #2—The 2010 rate was established by final notice published in the Federal Register on April 22, 2009 (Vol. 74, No. 76, page 18398).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:16 May 25, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\26MYN1.SGM
26MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Notices
When will BIA publish irrigation
assessments or charges for the 2011
season?
We published some proposed rates for
the 2011 season in the Federal Register
on October 23, 2009 (74 FR 54848), and
we will publish other proposed 2011
rates in the near future. We will publish
the 2011 season final rates in the
Federal Register after considering any
Project name
29579
comments that we receive on our
proposals. (We have already published
final rates for the 2011 season for the
San Carlos Irrigation Project (74 FR
40227).)
Final
2009 rate
Rate category
Final
2010 rate
Final
2011 rate
$21.00
$21.00
$25.00
Western Region Rate Table
San Carlos Irrigation Project
Works) (See Note #3).
(Joint
Basic per acre ..........................................
Note #3–The 2011 rate was established by final notice published in the Federal Register on August 11, 2009 (Vol. 74, No. 153, page 40227).
Has a Notice of Proposed Rate
Adjustment been published?
Yes. A Notice of Proposed Rate
Adjustment was published in the
Federal Register on October 23, 2009
(74 FR 54846) 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 22, 2009.
Did the BIA defer or change any
proposed rate increases?
No.
II. Responses to Comments on Proposed
Rate Adjustments
Did the BIA receive any comments on
the proposed irrigation assessment rate
adjustments?
BIA received written comments
related to the proposed rate adjustments
for the Crow Irrigation Project and the
Wapato Irrigation Project.
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
What issues were of concern to the
commenters?
Commenters raised concerns specific
to the Crow Irrigation Project about the
following issues: (1) Opposition to the
$2.00 rate increase for 2010; (2)
opposition to the amount of the
operation and maintenance (O&M)
budget spent on administration and
salaries versus maintenance projects; (3)
lack of supervision and direction during
the irrigation season; (4) opposition to
the hiring of additional project
employees; (5) efficiencies of
contracting with private entities to
perform O&M; and (6) impact of rate
increases on the local agricultural
economy and individual land owners.
Commenters raised concerns specific
to the Wapato Irrigation Project on the
proposed rates about one or more of the
following issues: (1) Objection that the
underlying O&M charges are
inconsistent with the Yakama Nation’s
litigation position in the pending
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:16 May 25, 2010
Jkt 220001
appeals ; and (2) assertion concerning
BIA’s responsibility to manage land that
is designated for irrigation water
delivery.
The following comments are specific to
the Crow Irrigation Project: How does
the BIA respond to the opposition to the
$2.00 rate increase for 2010?
The proposed 2010 O&M budget for
the Crow Irrigation Project budget was
prepared in accordance with BIA
financial guidelines. The BIA considers
the following 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 are determined to be
necessary to operate and maintain an
irrigation project. The proposed 2010
O&M budget for the Crow Irrigation
Project contains increased amounts in
staffing, contracts, and materials in an
effort to address increasing project
rehabilitation needs. These increased
budget amounts support the rate
increase of $2.00.
How does the BIA respond to the
opposition to the amount of O&M
budget spent on administration and
salaries versus maintenance projects?
The proposed 2010 O&M budget for
the Crow Irrigation Project is an increase
of approximately three percent (3%)
over the 2009 O&M budget.
Administrative salaries have been held
steady from 2009 to 2010 at
approximately 28% to 29% of the entire
budget. In 2009 the amount budgeted for
maintenance contracts and materials
was 16% of the budget total and in 2010
that amount was increased to 32% of
the budget total. The BIA is committed
to working with local stakeholders in
the development of other cost-saving
options. Examples of cost-saving
options include stakeholder contracts or
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
agreements for selected O&M functions
within the project boundaries.
How does the BIA respond to the lack
of supervision and direction during the
irrigation season?
At the end of the 2008 irrigation
season, the Crow Irrigation Supervisory
Project Engineer vacated to take a new
position. In early March 2009, the BIA
advertised for new Crow Irrigation
Supervisory Project Engineer. Later that
month, the BIA entered into
negotiations with the Crow Tribe in
response to its request to contract all of
the O&M functions of the Crow
Irrigation Project for the 2009 season.
These contract negotiations resulted in
cancellation of the Project Engineer
vacancy announcement. The Crow Tribe
subsequently canceled its request for
contracting options, and the supervisory
position went unfilled in the 2009
irrigation season. Currently, BIA is
pursuing a stakeholder cooperative
agreement for O&M activities for the
2010 season. The extent of O&M
cooperative agreements will help BIA
determine the type of supervision
required at the Crow Irrigation Project
for 2010.
How does the BIA respond to opposition
to the hiring of additional project
employees?
In July 2008, the BIA conducted a
program review of the Crow Irrigation
Project and found, ‘‘the number of
equipment operators and irrigation
system operators is insufficient. This
reduces the amount of control the
project has over water deliveries. Most
if not all repair work is reactionary
versus planned.’’ (2008 Program Review,
Crow Irrigation Project, page 8). In the
follow-up Corrective Action Plan, the
Project and Regional staff agreed to
increase staff to fill vacant positions
and/or pursue stakeholder agreements
to increase the level of maintenance
activities. The final decision on hiring
additional field staff for 2010 is
dependent on the development of
E:\FR\FM\26MYN1.SGM
26MYN1
29580
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Notices
stakeholder agreements. Likewise, the
timing of a new Project Engineer is also
dependent on the development of
stakeholder agreements.
How does the BIA respond to the
efficiencies of contracting with private
entities to perform O&M?
The BIA agrees with the potential for
efficiency increases through contracting
options. The BIA continues to
encourage stakeholder cooperative
agreements for selected O&M activities
for the 2010 season.
How does the BIA respond to how rate
increases impact the local agricultural
economy 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 U.S. Government
Accountability Office (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 Wapato Irrigation Project: How does
BIA respond to concerns that the
operation and maintenance charges
reflected in the 2010 rates conflict with
the Yakama Nation’s position in
pending appeals of these charges?
The Yakama Nation, which is served
by the Wapato Irrigation Project, has an
administrative appeal regarding the BIA
charging the irrigation operation and
maintenance on trust lands. Because
this is a legal issue currently being
appealed and does not specifically
target the rate change, it will not be
discussed in this notice.
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. 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). This
means the BIA has no obligation to
enhance idle tracks of land. However,
recognizing the potential benefits to
projects from such enhancements, the
Project Name
updated Irrigation O&M regulations (25
CFR part 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
operation and maintenance (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 realize a more stable and
productive land base.
III. Further Information on this Notice
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 facilities.
Project/Agency Contacts
Northwest Region Contacts
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
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 ...............
Wapato Irrigation Project ................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:16 May 25, 2010
Chuck Courville, Superintendent, Flathead Agency Irrigation Division, P.O. Box 40, Pablo, MT 59855–
0040, Telephone: (406) 675–2700.
Eric J. LaPointe, Superintendent, Dean Fox, Deputy Superintendent, Daniel Harelson, Irrigation Project Engineer, Fort Hall Agency, P.O. Box 220, Fort Hall, ID 83203–0220, Telephone: (208) 238–1992.
Pierce Harrison, Project Administrator, Wapato Irrigation Project, P.O. Box 220, Wapato, WA 98951–0220,
Telephone: (509) 877–3155.
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\26MYN1.SGM
26MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Notices
Project Name
29581
Project/Agency Contacts
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.
Judy Gray, Superintendent, Vacant, Irrigation Project Manager, P.O. Box 69, Crow Agency, MT 59022,
Telephones: (406) 638–2672, Superintendent, (406) 638–2863, Irrigation Project Manager.
Jim Montes, Acting Superintendent, Vacant, Irrigation Project Manager, (Project operations & management
contracted by the 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, Vacant, 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 Engineer, 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, 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 ............
John Waconda, Superintendent, Vacant, Irrigation Engineer, P.O. Box 315, Ignacio, CO 81137–0315, Telephones: (970) 563–4511, Superintendent, (970) 563–9484, Irrigation Engineer.
Western Region Contacts
Vacant, Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Western Regional Office, 2600 N, Central Avenue, 4th Floor Mailroom, 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) 738–5165.
Marlene Walker, Acting Superintendent, P.O. Box 11000, Yuma, AZ 85366, Telephone: (520) 782–1202.
Bryan Bowker, Project Manager, Clarence Begay, Irrigation Manager, P.O. Box 250, Coolidge, AZ 85228,
Telephone: (520) 723–6215.
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, Dale Thomas, 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.
IV. Administrative Requirements
Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (Executive Order
13211)
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:16 May 25, 2010
Jkt 220001
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) as this
rate adjustment is implemented. This is
a notice for rate adjustments at BIAowned 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
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 of the Interior (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.).
E:\FR\FM\26MYN1.SGM
26MYN1
29582
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Notices
Takings (Executive Order 12630)
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
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.
Fish and Wildlife Service
Federalism (Executive Order 13132)
AGENCY: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability: record of
decision.
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
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)).
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
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).
[FR Doc. 2010–12658 Filed 5–25–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–W7–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:16 May 25, 2010
Jkt 220001
Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge,
Fairbanks, AK
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
availability of the record of decision
(ROD) for the final environmental
impact statement (EIS) for a Proposed
Land Exchange in the Yukon Flats
National Wildlife Refuge (NWR,
Refuge). We completed a thorough
analysis of the environmental, social,
and economic considerations and
presented it in our final EIS, which we
released to the public on March 12,
2010.
DATES: The Regional Director of the
Alaska Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, signed the ROD on April 21,
2010.
You may view or obtain
copies of the ROD/final EIS on paper or
CD–ROM by any of the following
methods:
Web Site: Download a copy of the
document(s) at https://
yukonflatseis.ensr.com.
E-mail: yukonflats_planning@fws.gov.
Include ‘‘Yukon Flats ROD’’ in the
subject line of the message.
Fax: Attn: Laura Greffenius, EIS
Project Coordinator, (907) 786–3965.
Mail: Laura Greffenius, EIS Project
Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1011 East Tudor Road, MS–231,
Anchorage, AK 99503.
In-Person Viewing or Pickup: Call
Laura Greffenius, EIS Project
Coordinator at (907) 786–3872 to make
an appointment during regular business
hours at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
1011 East Tudor Rd., MS–231,
Anchorage, AK 99503.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Laura Greffenius, EIS Project
Coordinator, phone (907) 786–3872.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: With this
notice, we finalize the EIS process for a
Proposed Land Exchange in the Yukon
Flats NWR. In accordance with National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40
CFR 1506.6(b)) requirements, this notice
announces the availability of the ROD
for the final EIS for a Proposed Land
Exchange in the Yukon Flats NWR. We
completed a thorough analysis of the
environmental, social, and economic
ADDRESSES:
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 December 31,
2012.
Dated: May 17, 2010.
Larry Echo Hawk,
Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.
[FWS–R7–R–2010–N082; 70133–1265–0000–
U4]
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
considerations, which we included in
the final EIS. The ROD documents our
selection of the No Land Exchange
Alternative (No Action Alternative), the
Service’s preferred alternative in the
final EIS. Under this alternative the
Service would not exchange land with
Doyon, Limited (Doyon). The No Land
Exchange Alternative, as we described
in the final EIS/ROD, is the decision to
continue to manage lands within the
Refuge as they currently are.
Background Information
The Final EIS analyzes the potential
direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts
associated with the Service’s proposed
‘‘Agreement in Principle’’ (Agreement)
between the Service and Doyon to
exchange and acquire lands within the
Refuge. Under the terms of the
Agreement, the proposed land exchange
involved 110,000 acres of Refuge lands
that may hold developable oil and gas
reserves, and oil and gas rights to an
adjacent 97,000 acres of Refuge lands.
Under the Proposed Action, the Refuge
would have received a minimum of
150,000 acres of Doyon lands within the
Refuge boundaries, and Doyon would
have reallocated 56,500 acres of Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act 12(b) land
entitlements within the Refuge to lands
outside the Refuge.
Alternatives
Alternatives analyzed in the Final EIS
included the No Land Exchange (No
Action) Alternative, or continuation of
present management. The No Action
Alternative was the Service’s preferred
alternative. In addition, three action
alternatives were evaluated: (1) The
Proposed Action, with land exchanges
and acquisitions as described in the
Agreement; (2) A Land Exchange with
Non-development Easements
Alternative, where Doyon would grant
non-development easements on 120,000
acres, but would not sell land to the
Service; and (3) A Land Exchange
Excluding the White-Crazy Mountains
Alternative that would exclude from the
exchange an area within the Refuge that
had been recommended for Wilderness
designation.
Among the alternatives evaluated, the
No Land Exchange Alternative is the
environmentally preferable alternative.
It has the least potential for adverse
effects to the biological and physical
environment of the Refuge, it best
protects and preserves the Refuge’s
resources, and it best supports the
purposes for which the Refuge was
established.
E:\FR\FM\26MYN1.SGM
26MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29577-29582]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12658]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 2010.
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:
I. Effect of this Notice
II. Responses to Comments on Proposed Rate Adjustments
III. Further Information on This Notice
IV. Administrative Requirements
I. Effect of This Notice
Does this notice affect me?
This notice affects you if you own or lease land within the
assessable acreage
[[Page 29578]]
of one of our irrigation projects, or if you have a carriage agreement
with one of our irrigation projects.
What irrigation assessments or charges are adjusted by this notice for
the 2010 season?
The rate table below contains the current, final rates for the 2010
season for all irrigation projects where we recover costs of
administering, operating, maintaining, and rehabilitating them. An
asterisk following the name of the project notes the irrigation
projects where the 2010 rates are different from the 2009 rates.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project name Rate category Final 2009 rate Final 2010 rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northwest Region Rate Table
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flathead Irrigation Project *............... Basic per acre--A............. $23.45 $23.45
Basic per acre--B............. 10.75 11.75
Minimum Charge per tract...... 65.00 65.00
Fort Hall Irrigation Project................ Basic per acre................ 40.50 40.50
Minimum Charge per tract...... 30.00 30.00
Fort Hall Irrigation Project--Minor Units... Basic per acre................ 21.00 21.00
Minimum Charge per tract...... 30.00 30.00
Fort Hall Irrigation Project--Michaud....... Basic per acre................ 41.50 41.50
Pressure per acre............. 58.00 58.00
Minimum Charge per tract...... 30.00 30.00
Wapato Irrigation Project--Toppenish/Simcoe Minimum Charge for per tract.. 15.00 15.00
Units.
Basic per acre................ 15.00 15.00
Wapato Irrigation Project--Ahtanum Units.... Minimum Charge per tract...... 15.00 15.00
Basic per acre................ 15.00 15.00
Wapato Irrigation Project--Satus Unit *..... Minimum Charge per tract...... 58.00 60.00
``A'' Basic per acre.......... 58.00 60.00
``B'' Basic per acre.......... 68.00 70.00
Wapato Irrigation Project--Additional Works Minimum Charge per tract...... 63.00 65.00
*.
Basic per acre................ 63.00 65.00
Wapato Irrigation Project--Water Rental *... Minimum Charge................ 70.00 72.00
Basic per acre................ 70.00 72.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rocky Mountain Region Rate Table
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blackfeet Irrigation Project *.............. Basic-per acre................ 18.00 19.00
Crow Irrigation Project--Willow Creek O&M Basic-per acre................ 20.80 22.80
(includes Agency, Lodge Grass 1,
Lodge Grass 2, Reno, Upper Little
Horn, and Forty Mile Units) *.
Crow Irrigation Project--All Others Basic-per acre................ 20.50 22.50
(includes Bighorn, Soap Creek, and Pryor
Units) *.
Crow Irrigation Two Leggins Drainage Basic-per acre................ 2.00 2.00
District.
Fort Belknap Irrigation Project............. Basic-per acre................ 14.75 14.75
Fort Peck Irrigation Project *.............. Basic-per acre................ 24.00 24.70
Wind River Irrigation Project *............. Basic-per acre................ 18.00 20.00
Wind River Irrigation Project--LeClair Basic-per acre................ 19.00 27.00
District *.
Wind River Irrigation Project--CrowHeart Basic-per acre................ 18.00 14.00
Unit *.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Region Rate Table
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pine River Irrigation Project............... Minimum Charge per tract...... 50.00 50.00
Basic-per acre................ 15.00 15.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Western Region Rate Table
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado River Irrigation Project *......... Basic per acre up to 5.75 acre- 51.00 52.50
feet.
Excess Water per acre-foot 17.00 17.00
over 5.75 acre-feet.
Duck Valley Irrigation Project.............. Basic per acre................ 5.30 5.30
Fort Yuma Irrigation Project (See Note Basic per acre up to 5.0 acre- 77.00 86.00
1) *. feet.
Excess Water per acre-foot 14.00 14.00
over 5.0 acre-feet.
Basic per acre up to 5.0 acre- 77.00 86.00
feet (Ranch 5).
San Carlos Irrigation Project (Joint Works) Basic per acre................ 21.00 21.00
(See Note 2).
San Carlos Irrigation Project (Indian Works) Basic per acre................ 57.00 57.00
Uintah Irrigation Project................... Basic per acre................ 15.00 15.00
Minimum Bill.................. 25.00 25.00
Walker River Irrigation Project *........... Basic per acre, Indian........ 16.00 19.00
Basic per acre, non-Indian.... 16.00 19.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Notes irrigation projects where rates have been adjusted.
Note 1--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 2010 is $79.00/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 2010 BIA rate remains unchanged at
$7.00/acre. The rates shown include the 2010 Reclamation rate and the 2010 BIA rate.
Note 2--The 2010 rate was established by final notice published in the Federal Register on April 22,
2009 (Vol. 74, No. 76, page 18398).
[[Page 29579]]
When will BIA publish irrigation assessments or charges for the 2011
season?
We published some proposed rates for the 2011 season in the Federal
Register on October 23, 2009 (74 FR 54848), and we will publish other
proposed 2011 rates in the near future. We will publish the 2011 season
final rates in the Federal Register after considering any comments that
we receive on our proposals. (We have already published final rates for
the 2011 season for the San Carlos Irrigation Project (74 FR 40227).)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final
Project name Rate category Final 2009 rate Final 2010 rate 2011
rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Western Region Rate Table
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Carlos Irrigation Project (Joint Basic per acre............ $21.00 $21.00 $25.0
Works) (See Note 3). 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 3-The 2011 rate was established by final notice published in the Federal Register on August 11,
2009 (Vol. 74, No. 153, page 40227).
Has a Notice of Proposed Rate Adjustment been published?
Yes. A Notice of Proposed Rate Adjustment was published in the
Federal Register on October 23, 2009 (74 FR 54846) 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 22, 2009.
Did the BIA defer or change any proposed rate increases?
No.
II. Responses to Comments on Proposed Rate Adjustments
Did the BIA receive any comments on the proposed irrigation assessment
rate adjustments?
BIA received written comments related to the proposed rate
adjustments for the Crow Irrigation Project and the Wapato Irrigation
Project.
What issues were of concern to the commenters?
Commenters raised concerns specific to the Crow Irrigation Project
about the following issues: (1) Opposition to the $2.00 rate increase
for 2010; (2) opposition to the amount of the operation and maintenance
(O&M) budget spent on administration and salaries versus maintenance
projects; (3) lack of supervision and direction during the irrigation
season; (4) opposition to the hiring of additional project employees;
(5) efficiencies of contracting with private entities to perform O&M;
and (6) impact of rate increases on the local agricultural economy and
individual land owners.
Commenters raised concerns specific to the Wapato Irrigation
Project on the proposed rates about one or more of the following
issues: (1) Objection that the underlying O&M charges are inconsistent
with the Yakama Nation's litigation position in the pending appeals ;
and (2) assertion concerning BIA's responsibility to manage land that
is designated for irrigation water delivery.
The following comments are specific to the Crow Irrigation Project: How
does the BIA respond to the opposition to the $2.00 rate increase for
2010?
The proposed 2010 O&M budget for the Crow Irrigation Project budget
was prepared in accordance with BIA financial guidelines. The BIA
considers the following 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 are determined to
be necessary to operate and maintain an irrigation project. The
proposed 2010 O&M budget for the Crow Irrigation Project contains
increased amounts in staffing, contracts, and materials in an effort to
address increasing project rehabilitation needs. These increased budget
amounts support the rate increase of $2.00.
How does the BIA respond to the opposition to the amount of O&M budget
spent on administration and salaries versus maintenance projects?
The proposed 2010 O&M budget for the Crow Irrigation Project is an
increase of approximately three percent (3%) over the 2009 O&M budget.
Administrative salaries have been held steady from 2009 to 2010 at
approximately 28% to 29% of the entire budget. In 2009 the amount
budgeted for maintenance contracts and materials was 16% of the budget
total and in 2010 that amount was increased to 32% of the budget total.
The BIA is committed to working with local stakeholders in the
development of other cost-saving options. Examples of cost-saving
options include stakeholder contracts or agreements for selected O&M
functions within the project boundaries.
How does the BIA respond to the lack of supervision and direction
during the irrigation season?
At the end of the 2008 irrigation season, the Crow Irrigation
Supervisory Project Engineer vacated to take a new position. In early
March 2009, the BIA advertised for new Crow Irrigation Supervisory
Project Engineer. Later that month, the BIA entered into negotiations
with the Crow Tribe in response to its request to contract all of the
O&M functions of the Crow Irrigation Project for the 2009 season. These
contract negotiations resulted in cancellation of the Project Engineer
vacancy announcement. The Crow Tribe subsequently canceled its request
for contracting options, and the supervisory position went unfilled in
the 2009 irrigation season. Currently, BIA is pursuing a stakeholder
cooperative agreement for O&M activities for the 2010 season. The
extent of O&M cooperative agreements will help BIA determine the type
of supervision required at the Crow Irrigation Project for 2010.
How does the BIA respond to opposition to the hiring of additional
project employees?
In July 2008, the BIA conducted a program review of the Crow
Irrigation Project and found, ``the number of equipment operators and
irrigation system operators is insufficient. This reduces the amount of
control the project has over water deliveries. Most if not all repair
work is reactionary versus planned.'' (2008 Program Review, Crow
Irrigation Project, page 8). In the follow-up Corrective Action Plan,
the Project and Regional staff agreed to increase staff to fill vacant
positions and/or pursue stakeholder agreements to increase the level of
maintenance activities. The final decision on hiring additional field
staff for 2010 is dependent on the development of
[[Page 29580]]
stakeholder agreements. Likewise, the timing of a new Project Engineer
is also dependent on the development of stakeholder agreements.
How does the BIA respond to the efficiencies of contracting with
private entities to perform O&M?
The BIA agrees with the potential for efficiency increases through
contracting options. The BIA continues to encourage stakeholder
cooperative agreements for selected O&M activities for the 2010 season.
How does the BIA respond to how rate increases impact the local
agricultural economy 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 U.S. Government Accountability Office
(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 Wapato Irrigation Project:
How does BIA respond to concerns that the operation and maintenance
charges reflected in the 2010 rates conflict with the Yakama Nation's
position in pending appeals of these charges?
The Yakama Nation, which is served by the Wapato Irrigation
Project, has an administrative appeal regarding the BIA charging the
irrigation operation and maintenance on trust lands. Because this is a
legal issue currently being appealed and does not specifically target
the rate change, it will not be discussed in this notice.
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. 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). This means the
BIA has no obligation to enhance idle tracks of land. However,
recognizing the potential benefits to projects from such enhancements,
the updated Irrigation O&M regulations (25 CFR part 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 operation and maintenance (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 realize a more stable and productive land base.
III. Further Information on this Notice
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 facilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,
Flathead Agency Irrigation
Division, P.O. Box 40, Pablo, MT
59855-0040, Telephone: (406) 675-
2700.
Fort Hall Irrigation Project...... Eric J. LaPointe, Superintendent,
Dean Fox, Deputy Superintendent,
Daniel Harelson, Irrigation Project
Engineer, Fort Hall Agency, P.O.
Box 220, Fort Hall, ID 83203-0220,
Telephone: (208) 238-1992.
Wapato Irrigation Project......... Pierce Harrison, Project
Administrator, Wapato Irrigation
Project, P.O. Box 220, Wapato, WA
98951-0220, Telephone: (509) 877-
3155.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29581]]
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........... Judy Gray, 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... Jim Montes, Acting Superintendent,
Vacant, Irrigation Project Manager,
(Project operations & management
contracted by the 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, Vacant,
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 Engineer, 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, 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..... John Waconda, Superintendent,
Vacant, Irrigation Engineer, P.O.
Box 315, Ignacio, CO 81137-0315,
Telephones: (970) 563-4511,
Superintendent, (970) 563-9484,
Irrigation Engineer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Western Region Contacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vacant, Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Western Regional
Office, 2600 N, Central Avenue, 4th Floor Mailroom, 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) 738-5165.
Fort Yuma Irrigation Project...... Marlene Walker, Acting
Superintendent, P.O. Box 11000,
Yuma, AZ 85366, Telephone: (520)
782-1202.
San Carlos Irrigation Project Bryan Bowker, Project Manager,
Joint Works. Clarence Begay, Irrigation Manager,
P.O. Box 250, Coolidge, AZ 85228,
Telephone: (520) 723-6215.
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, Dale
Thomas, 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Administrative Requirements
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) as this rate adjustment is
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 of the Interior
(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.).
[[Page 29582]]
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 December
31, 2012.
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: May 17, 2010.
Larry Echo Hawk,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2010-12658 Filed 5-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-W7-P
