Rate Adjustments for Indian Irrigation Projects, 26759-26766 [2011-11165]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2011 / Notices
a new 638 contract to complete the
transfer process, or use an existing 638
contract, as applicable.
I. Reporting Requirements for Award
Recipients
1. Quarterly Reporting Requirements
During the life of the EMDP project,
quarterly written reports are to be
submitted to the DEMD project monitor
for the project. The beginning and
ending quarter periods are to be based
on the actual start date of the EMDP
project. This date can be determined
between DEMD’s project monitor and
the tribe.
The quarterly report can be a one- to
two-page summary of events,
accomplishments, problems and results
that took place during the quarter.
Quarterly reports are due 2 weeks after
the end of a project’s fiscal quarter.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
2. Final Reporting Requirements
• Delivery Schedules. The tribe must
deliver all products and data generated
by the proposed assessment project to
DEMD’s office within 2 weeks after
completion of the project.
• Mandatory Requirement to Provide
Reports and Data in Digital Form. The
DEMD maintains a repository for all
energy and mineral data on Indian
lands, much of it derived from these
energy and mineral development
reports. As EMDP projects produce
reports with large amounts of raw and
processed data, analyses and assays,
DEMD requires that deliverable
products be provided in digital format,
along with printed hard copies.
Reports can be provided in either
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat PDF
format. Spreadsheet data can be
provided in Microsoft Excel, Microsoft
Access, or Adobe PDF formats. All
vector figures should be converted to
PDF format. Raster images can be
provided in PDF, JPEG, TIFF, or any of
the Windows metafile formats.
• Number of Copies. When a tribe
prepares a contract for energy and
mineral development, it must describe
the deliverable products and include a
requirement that the products be
prepared in standard format (see format
description above). Each energy and
mineral development contract will
provide funding for a total of six printed
and six digital copies to be distributed
as follows:
(a) The tribe will receive two printed
and two digital copies of the EMDP
report.
(b) The DEMD requires four printed
copies and four digital copies of the
EMDP report. The DEMD will transmit
one of these copies to the tribe’s BIA
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 May 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
Regional Office, and one copy to the
tribe’s BIA Agency Office. Two printed
and two digital copies will then reside
with DEMD. These copies should be
forwarded to the DEMD offices in
Lakewood, Colorado, to the attention of
the ‘‘Energy and Mineral Development
Program.’’
All products generated by EMDP
studies belong to the tribe and cannot be
released to the public without the tribe’s
written approval. Products include all
reports and technical data obtained
during the study such as geophysical
data, geochemical analyses, core data,
lithologic logs, assay data of samples
tested, results of special tests, maps and
cross sections, status reports, and the
final report.
J. Requests for Technical Assistance
The DEMD staff may provide
technical consultation (i.e., work
directly with tribal staff on a proposed
project), provide support documentation
and data, provide written language on
specialized sections of the proposal, and
suggest ways a tribe may obtain other
assistance, such as from a company or
consultant specializing in a particular
area of expertise. However, the tribe is
responsible for preparing the executive
summary, justification, and scope of
work for their proposal.
The tribe must notify DEMD in
writing that they require assistance, and
DEMD will then appoint staff to provide
the requested assistance. The tribe’s
request must clearly specify the type of
technical assistance desired.
Requests for technical assistance
should be submitted well in advance of
the proposal deadline established in the
DATES section of this solicitation to
allow DEMD staff time to provide the
appropriate assistance. Tribes not
seeking technical assistance should also
attempt to submit their EMDP proposals
well in advance of the deadline to allow
DEMD staff time to review the proposals
for possible deficiencies and allow time
to contact the tribe with requests for
revisions to the initial submission.
II. Information on BIA’s Web Site
You may find additional information
about the EMDP program from our Web
site, such as sample proposals,
frequently asked questions, and general
information about the services the
DEMD office and provide to tribes. To
locate our web page, navigate to the
Indian Affairs Web site at https://
www.bia.gov. Along the top tabs, click
on the tab ‘‘Who We Are’’. On that page
you will find a heading ‘‘Our
Organization Structure’’. Locate the
‘‘Indian Energy and Economic
Development (IEED)’’ link and click on
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26759
that. Under the ‘‘Spotlight’’ section there
will be a new announcement titled
‘‘Energy and Mineral Tribal Grant
Program (EMDP)’’. Clicking on that link
will take you to the page containing the
EMDP program information.
The full link to the same page is as
follows: https://www.bia.gov/
WhoWeAre/ASIA/IEED/DEMD/TT/TF/
index.htm. Copy the above link address
and paste it into the address box on
your Internet browser program.
Dated: April 27, 2011.
Jodi Gillette,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2011–11196 Filed 5–6–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–4M–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.
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.
SUMMARY:
Effective Date: The irrigation
assessment rates shown in the tables as
final are effective as of January 3, 2011.
DATES:
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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
A Notice
of Proposed Rate Adjustment was
published in the Federal Register on
November 1, 2010 (75 FR 67095) 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 January 3, 2011.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\09MYN1.SGM
09MYN1
26760
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2011 / Notices
Did the BIA defer or change any
proposed rate increases?
Yes. The 2011 Operation and
Maintenance (O&M) rate for the
Riverton Valley Irrigation District of the
Wind River Irrigation Project was
proposed in the Federal Register at
$17.00 per acre. After further review,
BIA discovered that the 2011 O&M rate
for Riverton Valley Irrigation District
should have been at $16.00 per acre
pursuant to the Memorandum of
Agreement between the BIA and the
Riverton Valley Irrigation District.
Hence, this notice of rate adjustments
reflects a 2011 O&M rate of $16.00 per
acre for the Riverton Valley Irrigation
District.
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 and
the Wapato Irrigation Project.
What issues were of concern to the
commenters?
Commenters raised concerns specific
to the San Carlos Irrigation Project on
the proposed rates about the following
issues: (1) The methodology used for
O&M rate setting; and (2) the
appropriateness of specific O&M budget
items relating to undelivered orders,
environmental compliance, staffing
levels and salary charges for the
Irrigation System Operators, the reserve
fund, and deferred maintenance at
Coolidge Dam.
Commenters raised concerns specific
to the Wapato Irrigation Project on the
proposed rates about the following
issues: (1) The Yakama Nation’s concern
that ‘‘it is impossible to comment on the
substance of the proposed increases
without being provided the basic cost
and acreage information that go into the
determination of the rate’’; and (2) the
Nation’s objection that the underlying
O&M charges are inconsistent with the
Nation’s litigation position in the
pending appeals.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
The following comments are specific to
the San Carlos Irrigation Project
Written comments relating to the
proposed rate adjustment for the San
Carlos Irrigation Project–Joint Works
(Project) were received by letter dated
December 28, 2010, from the San Carlos
Irrigation and Drainage District
(District).
The District raised several issues in its
letter. The BIA’s summary of the
District’s issues and the BIA’s responses
are provided below.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 May 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
Comment: The BIA’s methodology for
setting the 2012 O&M assessment rate
was unreasonable.
Response: The methodology used by
the BIA to determine the 2012 O&M
assessment rate was reasonable. Based
on a review of historical income and
expenditures, a budget of projected
income and expenditures is developed
approximately two years before the
O&M assessments are collected and
expenses are incurred. The BIA relies on
financial reports generated by the
Federal Finance System for reviewing
past expenditures and projecting a
future budget and expenditures.
Procurement files and records
maintained by the Project are also
reviewed and considered. For example,
with regard to development of the 2012
Project budget, the BIA reviewed: (1)
The year-end reconciled income and
expenditure information for 2009; (2)
available income and expenditure
information for 2010; (3) previous
budget projections for 2011; and (4)
other information relevant to potential
future Project expenses, such as cost
information for replacement of the
Coolidge Dam cylinder gates.
The BIA provided the District with
draft budget and supporting
information, held budget fact-finding
meetings between November 2009 and
April 2010, and received feedback from
the District. In addition, in accordance
with BIA policy, the BIA held meetings
with Project water users (including the
District) to discuss O&M rates and
maintenance needs.
Comment: A large sum of obligated
funds are carried over from year-to-year
as undelivered orders (UDOs). As a
result, funds are collected twice to
satisfy the same UDOs. Obligated funds
should be de-obligated at the end of
each fiscal year and made available to
meet expenses in the following year.
Response: The BIA’s management of
UDOs complies with Federal
procurement requirements and is
otherwise reasonable. The BIA met with
the District several times to explain the
UDOs carried by the Project’s budget
and how the UDOs are tracked and
accounted for in the Federal Financial
System. Specifically, the BIA explained
this issue during year-end budget
reconciliation presentations made to
Project stakeholders for Fiscal Years
2008, 2009, and 2010. The Project’s
UDOs relate mostly to contract work in
progress for annual maintenance of
Project wells and annual environmental
compliance activities. These contracts
are awarded and administered in
accordance with Federal procurement
processes. Future contracts for these
activities will also be solicited and
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
awarded by the BIA in compliance with
Federal procurement requirements.
When funds obligated to a contract are
not fully expended during the period of
the contract, the BIA de-obligates the
unexpended funds and the funds
become available to satisfy other Project
financial obligations. The BIA disagrees
with the District’s assertion that this is
an ‘‘unreasonable fiscal management
practice.’’ The BIA manages the funds
within the approved Federal Financial
System and Federal procurement
processes. The BIA’s management of the
funds is transparent to Project water
users, and the amount, purpose, and
status of the funds are reported to
Project water users on a regular basis.
Comment: The BIA should not use
two ISOs to change gates and stoplogs.
One ISO can perform these tasks and the
additional ISO is an unnecessary
expense.
Response: The BIA currently uses two
Project ISOs to perform certain O&M
tasks, rather than one, as an interim
measure in response to the accidental
deaths of two Project ISOs, one in 2006
and the other in 2010, when they fell
into the Project’s Pima Lateral and
drowned. During the summer of 2010,
the BIA Safety Office visited the Project
to conduct a Safety and Occupational
Health Program Evaluation and develop
a safety plan for the Project. The plan
should be completed in 2011. Until the
plan is completed and specific
recommendations are issued, the BIA
will continue to use two ISOs for certain
O&M activities. The BIA will re-evaluate
this practice and implement appropriate
measures once the plan is complete.
Comment: The salaries of Project ISOs
are high considering their work
assignments. The Joint Control Board
assumed many of the duties previously
held by Project ISOs. The pay for these
positions should be reduced.
Response: The current Project ISOs
are paid at current levels because they
are on temporary detail from higherpaid positions. The BIA detailed two
Power Division employees to the
Irrigation Division to address the Project
ISO issue noted in the previous
response. These employees are heavy
equipment operators and are paid at the
prevailing wage scale for those positions
while on detail to the Irrigation
Division. The BIA detailed these
employees to the Irrigation Division on
a temporary basis, rather than
immediately hiring new ISOs, because
Project staff are in the midst of working
with the BIA’s Human Resources Office
to reorganize the Irrigation Division and
establish ISO positions at the GS 04/05
level. The BIA initiated this
reorganization at the request of the
E:\FR\FM\09MYN1.SGM
09MYN1
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2011 / Notices
District and other Project water users.
Once the reorganization is approved and
the positions recruited and filled, the
Project’s Irrigation Division staff budget
will change accordingly. The BIA
anticipated this change in the proposed
FY 2013 O&M budget shared with
Project water users.
This reorganization initiative follows
changes already made by the Project’s
Irrigation Division during calendar year
2009 in response to the Joint Control
Board’s assumption of maintenance
duties on the Joint Works facilities. The
Irrigation Division’s organization chart
no longer includes heavy equipment
operators because the maintenance
functions of these positions were
assumed by the Joint Control Board. The
BIA will adjust staffing levels further
once the Project’s water delivery
facilities are fully automated. When this
occurs, the BIA will re-evaluate the
duties of the ISOs and adjust ISO wage
levels so that salaries are commensurate
with the skills, knowledge, and abilities
required for delivering water using
automated facilities.
Comment: The Project’s contract for
environmental and archaeological
services should be terminated and these
services should be procured
competitively in the future. Entities
applying for encroachment permits
should be charged fees that will cover
cost of necessary environmental and
archaeological evaluations and permit
processing.
Response: The BIA did not extend the
environmental and archaeological
services contract non-competitively.
The BIA extended the performance
deadline for the contract, but the scope
of work has remained the same. The BIA
is taking several steps to reduce costs
associated with performing
environmental compliance activities.
In some instances, the BIA develops
its own environmental compliance work
product in furtherance of O&M
responsibilities (e.g., the San Carlos
Reservoir litigation initiated by the San
Carlos Apache Tribe). The BIA also uses
environmental documents produced by
other agencies where possible. To
further reduce costs, the BIA is
discussing with Project water users
other options for conducting
environmental compliance activities.
The options include hiring an
environmental specialist for the Project,
charging fees to proponents of activities
that require Federal environmental
compliance, continuing to solicit
contracts for this service, or some
combination of these options.
Environmental compliance activities
associated with the Project’s O&M
responsibilities are funded through
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 May 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
O&M assessments and collections from
the District and from Federal
appropriations on behalf of the Indian
Works. The BIA is legally obligated to
perform these compliance activities and
they benefit Project users by ensuring
that the environmental effects of Project
activities are understood. The BIA is
evaluating whether a fee schedule is
appropriate for funding environmental
compliance required for certain
activities. Until this evaluation is
complete, the BIA will continue to fund
Federal environmental compliance
activities from the Project O&M
revenues as authorized by Congress.
Comment: The emergency reserve
fund should be reduced.
Response: The Project’s emergency
reserve fund is within the range
specified in the Emergency Reserve
Fund Determination Guidelines in the
August 2008 BIA National Irrigation
Handbook. The BIA reduced the reserve
fund from $800,000 to $400,000
following the transfer of certain
maintenance responsibilities to the Joint
Control Board. The BIA continues to be
responsible for the maintenance and
management of Project wells and
Coolidge Dam. Replacement of a single
well is estimated to cost between
$250,000 and $300,000. The BIA
believes that the reserve fund should be
maintained as proposed and consistent
with the guidelines so that it can cover
the cost of replacing a single well and
other miscellaneous contingencies.
Comment: The amount budgeted for
replacement of the broken Coolidge
Dam cylinder gates should be reduced.
A single bulkhead gate would be
sufficient and less expensive and should
be used. The current cost estimate for
the replacement of the gates exceeds the
initial cost estimate and the BIA has not
explained the reason for the increased
cost.
Response: Replacing the cylinder
gates at Coolidge Dam with a single
bulkhead gate is not appropriate. Also,
the initial cost estimate referenced by
the District is out-of-date and was a
preliminary estimate. Recent cost
estimates developed by the Bureau of
Reclamation to replace both cylinder
gates with automated bulkhead gates are
more accurate. Replacing the inoperable
gates with automated gates provides the
greatest security to Project water users.
The BIA provided information on this
matter to Project water users.
Additionally, in response to concerns
expressed by the District at the last two
water user meetings, the BIA proposed
to schedule technical work group
meetings this summer with the
interested water users to re-review all
available technical and cost information
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26761
relating to the cylinder gates, and to
refine the planning schedule for
replacement of the cylinder gates.
Using a single bulkhead gate to close
both cylinder gates is inadvisable for
several reasons: (1) The bulkhead gate
may not fit in both gate towers because
the towers likely do not have the same
dimensions; (2) a crane capable of lifting
the bulkhead gate may not be available
locally—in an emergency situation
significant damage could occur to
Coolidge Dam while waiting for a
suitable crane to be procured; (3) the
single bulkhead gate could close only
one conduit at a time; and (4) the road
crossing the crest of the dam would
need to be closed when the bulkhead
gate is removed or installed.
Comment: The employment of
additional ISOs and replacement of
Coolidge Dam cylinder gates are
deviations from the ‘‘approved budget.’’
These deviations should not be made
without documentation and
consultation with the District.
Response: The budget shared by the
BIA during the Fact Finding process is
not binding on the BIA. The BIA must
update its O&M budget regularly to
reflect actual expenditures and
unplanned contingencies. The O&M
budget presented during the Fact
Finding process is the BIA’s best
estimate of what it will cost to operate
the Project. The budget cannot be
expected to remain unchanged because
it is prepared two years in advance of
the fiscal year in which the Project
performs the actual O&M work. The BIA
provides the District with an update on
the Project’s budget at nearly every
monthly District Board meeting, at
regularly scheduled water user
meetings, and upon specific request
from the District.
The BIA provided the District
adequate information regarding the
O&M activities to which the District
objects. The BIA provided the District
and other stakeholders with detailed
technical information and cost estimates
for the cylinder gate replacement
operation in 2006, and the BIA has
continued to discuss this matter with
stakeholders. More recently, in February
2011, the BIA hosted a site visit at
Coolidge Dam at the request of water
users to discuss the cylinder gate issue.
The BIA’s Regional Safety of Dams
Officer answered questions posed by the
water users during this site visit. Also,
the BIA has discussed the ISO interim
measure and associated budget
implications with water users
continually since 2006. The BIA
understands that the District disagrees
with the interim measure undertaken by
the Project to address this issue. The
E:\FR\FM\09MYN1.SGM
09MYN1
26762
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2011 / Notices
BIA believes it has provided the District
sufficient information and
documentation regarding these
activities.
The Yakama Nation (Nation) raised
the following comments. The BIA’s
response is provided immediately after
each comment statement.
The following comments are specific
to the Wapato Irrigation Project:
Comment: The Nation is concerned
that ‘‘it is impossible to comment on the
substance of the proposed increases
without being provided the basic cost
and acreage information that go into the
determination of the rate.’’
Response: Following BIA policy, the
Wapato Irrigation Project conducted two
water user meetings for the 2010
irrigation season. Representatives
attending the meetings included the
Nation and non-Indian water users. The
purpose of these meetings is to provide
opportunity for attendees to ask the BIA
questions as well as to discuss
maintenance plans for the upcoming
year, among other topics. In accordance
with 25 CFR Part 171.500, Operation
and Maintenance, the Wapato Irrigation
Project calculates the annual operation
and maintenance assessment rate by
estimating the annual operation,
maintenance and rehabilitation costs
and then dividing by the total assessable
acres within the Project.
Comment: The Nation objects that the
underlying O&M charges are
inconsistent with the Nation’s litigation
position in the pending appeals.
Response: The Nation, which is
served by the Wapato Irrigation Project,
has an administrative appeal regarding
the BIA’s charging irrigation O&M on
trust lands. As a general matter, the
BIA’s position is that we have statutory
authority to establish the rates provided
for under this notice. Regarding this
particular issue, it raises concerns
currently on appeal and does not
specifically target the rate change, so it
will not be discussed further in this
notice.
Where can I get information on the
regulatory and legal citations in this
notice?
Does this notice affect me?
Who can I contact for further
information?
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.
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
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.
The following tables are the regional
and project/agency contacts for our
irrigation projects and facilities:
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
Project Name
Project/Agency Contacts
Fort Hall
Irrigation Project
Dean Fox, Acting Superintendent
Fort Hall Agency
P.O. Box 220
Fort Hall, ID 83203–0220
Telephone: (208) 238–1992
Wapato
Irrigation Project
Edwin Lewis, 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
Project Name
Agency/Project Contacts
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Blackfeet
Irrigation Project
Stephen Pollock, Superintendent
Vacant, Irrigation Project Manager
Box 880
Browning, MT 59417
Telephones: (406) 338–7544, Superintendent
(406) 338–7519, Irrigation Project Manager
Crow
Irrigation Project
Vianna Stewart, Superintendent
Karl Helvik, Acting Irrigation Project Engineer
P.O. Box 69
Crow Agency, MT 59022
Telephones: (406) 638–2672, Superintendent
(406) 638–2863, Irrigation Project Manager
Fort Belknap
Cliff Hall, Superintendent
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 May 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\09MYN1.SGM
09MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2011 / Notices
Irrigation Project
Vacant, Irrigation Project Manager
(Project O&M 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,
PH: (406) 768–5312
P.O. Box 637
Poplar, MT 59255;
Huber Wright, Acting Irrigation Manager,
PH: (406) 653–1752
602 6th Avenue North
Wolf Point, MT 59201
Wind River
Irrigation Project
Ed Lone Fight, Superintendent
Ray Nation, Acting Irrigation Project Manager
P.O. Box 158
Fort Washakie, WY 82514
Telephones: (307) 332–7810, Superintendent
(307) 332–2596, Irrigation Project Manager
Southwest Region Contacts
William T. Walker, Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Southwest Regional Office, 1001 Indian School Road, Albuquerque, New
Mexico 87104, Telephone: (505) 563–3100
Project Name
Project/Agency Contacts
Pine River
Irrigation Project
John Waconda, Superintendent
Reginald Howe, Supervisory Irrigation Systems Operator
P.O. Box 315
Ignacio, CO 81137–0315
Telephones: (970) 563–4511, Superintendent
(970) 563–9484, Supervisory Irrigation Systems Operator
Western Region Contacts
Bryan Bowker, Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Western
Regional Office, 2600 N, Central Avenue, 4th Floor Mailroom Phoenix, Arizona 85004, Telephone: (602) 379–6600
Project Name
Project/Agency Contacts
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
Irene Herder, Superintendent
256 South Second Avenue, Suite D
Yuma, AZ 85364–2258
Telephone: (928) 782–1202
San Carlos
Irrigation Project
Joint Works
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Colorado River
Irrigation Project
Ferris Begay, Acting Project Manager
Clarence Begay, Irrigation Manager
P.O. Box 250
Coolidge, AZ 85228
Telephone: (520) 723–6215
San Carlos
Irrigation Project
Indian Works
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
Uintah
Daniel Picard, Superintendent
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 May 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\09MYN1.SGM
09MYN1
26763
26764
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2011 / Notices
Irrigation Project
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
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 of
administering, operating, maintaining,
and rehabilitating them. The table also
contains the final rates for the 2011
season and subsequent years where
applicable. An asterisk immediately
following the name of the project notes
where the 2011 rates are different from
the 2010 rates.
Northwest Region Rate Table
Project name
Rate category
Fort Hall Irrigation Project * ................................................
Basic per acre .................................................
$40.50
$42.00
Minimum Charge per tract ..............................
$30.00
$31.50
Basic per acre .................................................
$21.00
$22.50
Minimum Charge per tract ..............................
$30.00
$31.50
Basic per acre .................................................
$41.50
$43.00
Pressure per acre ...........................................
$58.00
$59.50
Minimum Charge per tract ..............................
$30.00
$31.50
Minimum Charge for per bill ...........................
$15.00
$17.00
Basic per acre .................................................
$15.00
$17.00
Minimum Charge per bill ................................
$15.00
$17.00
Basic per acre .................................................
$15.00
$17.00
Minimum Charge for per bill ...........................
‘‘A’’ Basic per acre ..........................................
$58.00
$58.00
$63.00
$63.00
‘‘B’’ Basic per acre ..........................................
$68.00
$70.00
Minimum Charge per bill ................................
$63.00
$67.00
Basic per acre .................................................
$63.00
$67.00
Minimum Charge ............................................
$70.00
$72.00
Basic per acre .................................................
$70.00
$72.00
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 ....................................................
Wapato/Satus Unit * ...........................................................
Wapato Irrigation Project—Additional Works * ...................
Wapato Irrigation Project Water Rental * ...........................
Final 2010 rate
Final 2011 rate
Rocky Mountain Region Rate Table
Rate category
Blackfeet Irrigation Project .................................................
Basic-per acre .................................................
$19.00
$19.00
Crow Irrigation Project—Willow Creek O&M (includes
Agency, Lodge Grass #1, Lodge Grass #2, Reno,
Upper Little Horn, and Forty Mile Units).
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Project name
Basic-per acre .................................................
$22.80
$22.80
Crow Irrigation Project—All Others (includes Bighorn,
Soap Creek, and Pryor Units).
Basic-per acre .................................................
$22.50
$22.50
Crow Irrigation Two Leggins Drainage District ..................
Basic-per acre .................................................
$2.00
$2.00
Fort Belknap Irrigation Project ...........................................
Basic-per acre .................................................
$14.75
$14.75
Fort Peck Irrigation Project ................................................
Basic-per acre .................................................
$24.70
$24.70
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 May 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\09MYN1.SGM
Final 2010 rate
09MYN1
Final 2011 rate
26765
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2011 / Notices
Wind River Irrigation Project ..............................................
Basic-per acre .................................................
$20.00
$20.00
Wind River Irrigation Project—LeClair District * (see
Noten #1).
Basic-per acre .................................................
$26.00
$21.00
Wind River Irrigation Project—CrowHeart Unit ..................
Basic-per acre .................................................
$14.00
$14.00
Wind River Irrigation Project—Riverton Valley Irrigation
District.
Basic-per acre .................................................
............................
$16.00
Southwest Region Rate Table
Project name
Rate category
Final 2010 rate
Final 2011 rate
Pine River Irrigation Project ...............................................
Minimum Charge per tract ..............................
$50.00
$50.00
Basic-per acre .................................................
$15.00
$15.00
Western Region Rate Table
Project name
Colorado River Irrigation
Project *.
Rate category
Final 2010 rate
Final 2011 rate
Proposed 2012 rate
Basic per acre up to 5.75 acre-feet ....
$52.50
$54.00
Excess Water per acre-foot over 5.75
acre-feet.
$17.00
$17.00
Duck Valley Irrigation Project ...
Basic per acre .....................................
$5.30
$5.30
Fort Yuma Irrigation Project .....
(See Note #2) ...........................
Basic per acre up to 5.0 acre-feet ......
$86.00
$86.00
Excess Water per acre-foot over 5.0
acre-feet.
$14.00
$14.00
Basic per acre up to 5.0 acre-feet
(Ranch 5).
$86.00
$86.00
San Carlos Irrigation Project
(Joint Works) *.
(See Note #3) ...........................
Basic per acre .....................................
$21.00
$25.00
$30.00
San Carlos Irrigation Project
(Indian Works).
(See Note #4) ...........................
Basic per acre .....................................
$57.00
$68.00
To be determined
Uintah Irrigation Project ...........
Basic per acre .....................................
$15.00
$15.00
Minimum Bill ........................................
$25.00
$25.00
Indian per acre ....................................
$19.00
$22.00
non-Indian per acre .............................
$19.00
$22.00
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Walker River Irrigation Project *
To be determined.
* Notes irrigation projects where rates have been adjusted.
Note #1—Upon further budget review and subsequent meetings with the water users, BIA revised the O&M rate to $26.00 per acre for FY
2010 versus the $27.00 per acre that was published in the Federal Register on May 26, 2010 (Vol. 75, No. 101, page 29578).
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 2011 BOR rate remains unchanged at $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 2011 BIA rate remains unchanged at $7.00/acre. The rates shown include the 2011 Reclamation rate and the 2011 BIA rate.
Note #3—This notice establishes the final rate for the SCIP–Joint Works for FY 2012. The proposed rate for FY 2012 was published in the
Federal Register on November 1, 2011 (Vol. 75, No. 210, page 67095). The 2011 rate was established by final notice in the Federal Register
on August 11, 2009 (Vol. 74 No. 153, page 40227).
Note #4—The 2011 O&M rate for the San Carlos Irrigation Project—Indian Works has three components. The first component is the O&M rate
established by the San Carlos Irrigation Project—Indian Works, the owner and operator of the Project; this rate is proposed to be $36.00 per
acre. The second component is for the O&M rate established by the San Carlos Irrigation Project—Joint Works and is determined to be $25.00
per acre. The third component is the O&M rate established by the San Carlos Irrigation Project Joint Control Board and is proposed to be $7 per
acre.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 May 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\09MYN1.SGM
09MYN1
26766
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2011 / Notices
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Consultation and Coordination With
Tribal Governments (Executive Order
13175)
To fulfill its consultation
responsibility to Tribes and Tribal
organizations, the BIA communicates,
coordinates, and consults on a
continuing basis with these entities on
issues 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)
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) 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
Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866.
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
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).
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)).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
Data Quality Act
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Regulatory Flexibility Act
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 May 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 27, 2011.
Jodi Gillette,
Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2011–11165 Filed 5–6–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–W7–P
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[LLNM940000 L1420000.BJ0000]
Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey, New
Mexico
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of filing of Plats of
Survey.
AGENCY:
The plats of survey described
below are scheduled to be officially
filed in the New Mexico State Office,
Bureau of Land Management, Santa Fe,
New Mexico, thirty (30) calendar days
from the date of this publication.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
New Mexico Principal Meridian, New
Mexico (NM)
The plat, representing the dependent
resurvey and survey, in Township 22
South, Range 2 East, of the New Mexico
Principal Meridian, accepted March 15,
2011, for Group 1116 NM.
The plat, representing the dependent
resurvey and survey, in Township 4
South, Range 1 West, of the New Mexico
Principal Meridian, accepted March 16,
2011, for Group 1108 NM.
The plat, in five sheets, representing
the dependent resurvey and survey, in
Township 14 North, Range 20 West, of
the New Mexico Principal Meridian,
accepted April 19, 2011, for Group 1099
NM.
The supplemental plat, for Township
29 North, Range 13 East, of the New
Mexico Principal Meridian accepted
March 23, 2011.
Indian Meridian, Oklahoma (OK)
The plat, representing the dependent
resurvey and survey in Township 22
North, Range 21 East, of the Indian
Meridian, accepted March 22, 2011, for
Group 193 OK.
Sixth Principal Meridian, Kansas (KS)
The plat, representing the dependent
resurvey and survey in Township 4
South, Range 15 East, of the Sixth
Principal Meridian, accepted April 7,
2011, for Group 35 KS.
The plat, representing the dependent
resurvey and survey in Township 7
South, Range 14 East, of the Sixth
Principal Meridian, accepted March 30,
2011, for Group 34 KS.
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
E:\FR\FM\09MYN1.SGM
09MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 89 (Monday, May 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26759-26766]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11165]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 3, 2011.
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 November 1, 2010 (75 FR 67095) 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 January 3, 2011.
[[Page 26760]]
Did the BIA defer or change any proposed rate increases?
Yes. The 2011 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) rate for the Riverton
Valley Irrigation District of the Wind River Irrigation Project was
proposed in the Federal Register at $17.00 per acre. After further
review, BIA discovered that the 2011 O&M rate for Riverton Valley
Irrigation District should have been at $16.00 per acre pursuant to the
Memorandum of Agreement between the BIA and the Riverton Valley
Irrigation District. Hence, this notice of rate adjustments reflects a
2011 O&M rate of $16.00 per acre for the Riverton Valley Irrigation
District.
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 and the Wapato
Irrigation Project.
What issues were of concern to the commenters?
Commenters raised concerns specific to the San Carlos Irrigation
Project on the proposed rates about the following issues: (1) The
methodology used for O&M rate setting; and (2) the appropriateness of
specific O&M budget items relating to undelivered orders, environmental
compliance, staffing levels and salary charges for the Irrigation
System Operators, the reserve fund, and deferred maintenance at
Coolidge Dam.
Commenters raised concerns specific to the Wapato Irrigation
Project on the proposed rates about the following issues: (1) The
Yakama Nation's concern that ``it is impossible to comment on the
substance of the proposed increases without being provided the basic
cost and acreage information that go into the determination of the
rate''; and (2) the Nation's objection that the underlying O&M charges
are inconsistent with the Nation's litigation position in the pending
appeals.
The following comments are specific to the San Carlos Irrigation
Project
Written comments relating to the proposed rate adjustment for the
San Carlos Irrigation Project-Joint Works (Project) were received by
letter dated December 28, 2010, from the San Carlos Irrigation and
Drainage District (District).
The District raised several issues in its letter. The BIA's summary
of the District's issues and the BIA's responses are provided below.
Comment: The BIA's methodology for setting the 2012 O&M assessment
rate was unreasonable.
Response: The methodology used by the BIA to determine the 2012 O&M
assessment rate was reasonable. Based on a review of historical income
and expenditures, a budget of projected income and expenditures is
developed approximately two years before the O&M assessments are
collected and expenses are incurred. The BIA relies on financial
reports generated by the Federal Finance System for reviewing past
expenditures and projecting a future budget and expenditures.
Procurement files and records maintained by the Project are also
reviewed and considered. For example, with regard to development of the
2012 Project budget, the BIA reviewed: (1) The year-end reconciled
income and expenditure information for 2009; (2) available income and
expenditure information for 2010; (3) previous budget projections for
2011; and (4) other information relevant to potential future Project
expenses, such as cost information for replacement of the Coolidge Dam
cylinder gates.
The BIA provided the District with draft budget and supporting
information, held budget fact-finding meetings between November 2009
and April 2010, and received feedback from the District. In addition,
in accordance with BIA policy, the BIA held meetings with Project water
users (including the District) to discuss O&M rates and maintenance
needs.
Comment: A large sum of obligated funds are carried over from year-
to-year as undelivered orders (UDOs). As a result, funds are collected
twice to satisfy the same UDOs. Obligated funds should be de-obligated
at the end of each fiscal year and made available to meet expenses in
the following year.
Response: The BIA's management of UDOs complies with Federal
procurement requirements and is otherwise reasonable. The BIA met with
the District several times to explain the UDOs carried by the Project's
budget and how the UDOs are tracked and accounted for in the Federal
Financial System. Specifically, the BIA explained this issue during
year-end budget reconciliation presentations made to Project
stakeholders for Fiscal Years 2008, 2009, and 2010. The Project's UDOs
relate mostly to contract work in progress for annual maintenance of
Project wells and annual environmental compliance activities. These
contracts are awarded and administered in accordance with Federal
procurement processes. Future contracts for these activities will also
be solicited and awarded by the BIA in compliance with Federal
procurement requirements. When funds obligated to a contract are not
fully expended during the period of the contract, the BIA de-obligates
the unexpended funds and the funds become available to satisfy other
Project financial obligations. The BIA disagrees with the District's
assertion that this is an ``unreasonable fiscal management practice.''
The BIA manages the funds within the approved Federal Financial System
and Federal procurement processes. The BIA's management of the funds is
transparent to Project water users, and the amount, purpose, and status
of the funds are reported to Project water users on a regular basis.
Comment: The BIA should not use two ISOs to change gates and
stoplogs. One ISO can perform these tasks and the additional ISO is an
unnecessary expense.
Response: The BIA currently uses two Project ISOs to perform
certain O&M tasks, rather than one, as an interim measure in response
to the accidental deaths of two Project ISOs, one in 2006 and the other
in 2010, when they fell into the Project's Pima Lateral and drowned.
During the summer of 2010, the BIA Safety Office visited the Project to
conduct a Safety and Occupational Health Program Evaluation and develop
a safety plan for the Project. The plan should be completed in 2011.
Until the plan is completed and specific recommendations are issued,
the BIA will continue to use two ISOs for certain O&M activities. The
BIA will re-evaluate this practice and implement appropriate measures
once the plan is complete.
Comment: The salaries of Project ISOs are high considering their
work assignments. The Joint Control Board assumed many of the duties
previously held by Project ISOs. The pay for these positions should be
reduced.
Response: The current Project ISOs are paid at current levels
because they are on temporary detail from higher-paid positions. The
BIA detailed two Power Division employees to the Irrigation Division to
address the Project ISO issue noted in the previous response. These
employees are heavy equipment operators and are paid at the prevailing
wage scale for those positions while on detail to the Irrigation
Division. The BIA detailed these employees to the Irrigation Division
on a temporary basis, rather than immediately hiring new ISOs, because
Project staff are in the midst of working with the BIA's Human
Resources Office to reorganize the Irrigation Division and establish
ISO positions at the GS 04/05 level. The BIA initiated this
reorganization at the request of the
[[Page 26761]]
District and other Project water users. Once the reorganization is
approved and the positions recruited and filled, the Project's
Irrigation Division staff budget will change accordingly. The BIA
anticipated this change in the proposed FY 2013 O&M budget shared with
Project water users.
This reorganization initiative follows changes already made by the
Project's Irrigation Division during calendar year 2009 in response to
the Joint Control Board's assumption of maintenance duties on the Joint
Works facilities. The Irrigation Division's organization chart no
longer includes heavy equipment operators because the maintenance
functions of these positions were assumed by the Joint Control Board.
The BIA will adjust staffing levels further once the Project's water
delivery facilities are fully automated. When this occurs, the BIA will
re-evaluate the duties of the ISOs and adjust ISO wage levels so that
salaries are commensurate with the skills, knowledge, and abilities
required for delivering water using automated facilities.
Comment: The Project's contract for environmental and
archaeological services should be terminated and these services should
be procured competitively in the future. Entities applying for
encroachment permits should be charged fees that will cover cost of
necessary environmental and archaeological evaluations and permit
processing.
Response: The BIA did not extend the environmental and
archaeological services contract non-competitively. The BIA extended
the performance deadline for the contract, but the scope of work has
remained the same. The BIA is taking several steps to reduce costs
associated with performing environmental compliance activities.
In some instances, the BIA develops its own environmental
compliance work product in furtherance of O&M responsibilities (e.g.,
the San Carlos Reservoir litigation initiated by the San Carlos Apache
Tribe). The BIA also uses environmental documents produced by other
agencies where possible. To further reduce costs, the BIA is discussing
with Project water users other options for conducting environmental
compliance activities. The options include hiring an environmental
specialist for the Project, charging fees to proponents of activities
that require Federal environmental compliance, continuing to solicit
contracts for this service, or some combination of these options.
Environmental compliance activities associated with the Project's
O&M responsibilities are funded through O&M assessments and collections
from the District and from Federal appropriations on behalf of the
Indian Works. The BIA is legally obligated to perform these compliance
activities and they benefit Project users by ensuring that the
environmental effects of Project activities are understood. The BIA is
evaluating whether a fee schedule is appropriate for funding
environmental compliance required for certain activities. Until this
evaluation is complete, the BIA will continue to fund Federal
environmental compliance activities from the Project O&M revenues as
authorized by Congress.
Comment: The emergency reserve fund should be reduced.
Response: The Project's emergency reserve fund is within the range
specified in the Emergency Reserve Fund Determination Guidelines in the
August 2008 BIA National Irrigation Handbook. The BIA reduced the
reserve fund from $800,000 to $400,000 following the transfer of
certain maintenance responsibilities to the Joint Control Board. The
BIA continues to be responsible for the maintenance and management of
Project wells and Coolidge Dam. Replacement of a single well is
estimated to cost between $250,000 and $300,000. The BIA believes that
the reserve fund should be maintained as proposed and consistent with
the guidelines so that it can cover the cost of replacing a single well
and other miscellaneous contingencies.
Comment: The amount budgeted for replacement of the broken Coolidge
Dam cylinder gates should be reduced. A single bulkhead gate would be
sufficient and less expensive and should be used. The current cost
estimate for the replacement of the gates exceeds the initial cost
estimate and the BIA has not explained the reason for the increased
cost.
Response: Replacing the cylinder gates at Coolidge Dam with a
single bulkhead gate is not appropriate. Also, the initial cost
estimate referenced by the District is out-of-date and was a
preliminary estimate. Recent cost estimates developed by the Bureau of
Reclamation to replace both cylinder gates with automated bulkhead
gates are more accurate. Replacing the inoperable gates with automated
gates provides the greatest security to Project water users. The BIA
provided information on this matter to Project water users.
Additionally, in response to concerns expressed by the District at the
last two water user meetings, the BIA proposed to schedule technical
work group meetings this summer with the interested water users to re-
review all available technical and cost information relating to the
cylinder gates, and to refine the planning schedule for replacement of
the cylinder gates.
Using a single bulkhead gate to close both cylinder gates is
inadvisable for several reasons: (1) The bulkhead gate may not fit in
both gate towers because the towers likely do not have the same
dimensions; (2) a crane capable of lifting the bulkhead gate may not be
available locally--in an emergency situation significant damage could
occur to Coolidge Dam while waiting for a suitable crane to be
procured; (3) the single bulkhead gate could close only one conduit at
a time; and (4) the road crossing the crest of the dam would need to be
closed when the bulkhead gate is removed or installed.
Comment: The employment of additional ISOs and replacement of
Coolidge Dam cylinder gates are deviations from the ``approved
budget.'' These deviations should not be made without documentation and
consultation with the District.
Response: The budget shared by the BIA during the Fact Finding
process is not binding on the BIA. The BIA must update its O&M budget
regularly to reflect actual expenditures and unplanned contingencies.
The O&M budget presented during the Fact Finding process is the BIA's
best estimate of what it will cost to operate the Project. The budget
cannot be expected to remain unchanged because it is prepared two years
in advance of the fiscal year in which the Project performs the actual
O&M work. The BIA provides the District with an update on the Project's
budget at nearly every monthly District Board meeting, at regularly
scheduled water user meetings, and upon specific request from the
District.
The BIA provided the District adequate information regarding the
O&M activities to which the District objects. The BIA provided the
District and other stakeholders with detailed technical information and
cost estimates for the cylinder gate replacement operation in 2006, and
the BIA has continued to discuss this matter with stakeholders. More
recently, in February 2011, the BIA hosted a site visit at Coolidge Dam
at the request of water users to discuss the cylinder gate issue. The
BIA's Regional Safety of Dams Officer answered questions posed by the
water users during this site visit. Also, the BIA has discussed the ISO
interim measure and associated budget implications with water users
continually since 2006. The BIA understands that the District disagrees
with the interim measure undertaken by the Project to address this
issue. The
[[Page 26762]]
BIA believes it has provided the District sufficient information and
documentation regarding these activities.
The Yakama Nation (Nation) raised the following comments. The BIA's
response is provided immediately after each comment statement.
The following comments are specific to the Wapato Irrigation
Project:
Comment: The Nation is concerned that ``it is impossible to comment
on the substance of the proposed increases without being provided the
basic cost and acreage information that go into the determination of
the rate.''
Response: Following BIA policy, the Wapato Irrigation Project
conducted two water user meetings for the 2010 irrigation season.
Representatives attending the meetings included the Nation and non-
Indian water users. The purpose of these meetings is to provide
opportunity for attendees to ask the BIA questions as well as to
discuss maintenance plans for the upcoming year, among other topics. In
accordance with 25 CFR Part 171.500, Operation and Maintenance, the
Wapato Irrigation Project calculates the annual operation and
maintenance assessment rate by estimating the annual operation,
maintenance and rehabilitation costs and then dividing by the total
assessable acres within the Project.
Comment: The Nation objects that the underlying O&M charges are
inconsistent with the Nation's litigation position in the pending
appeals.
Response: The Nation, which is served by the Wapato Irrigation
Project, has an administrative appeal regarding the BIA's charging
irrigation O&M on trust lands. As a general matter, the BIA's position
is that we have statutory authority to establish the rates provided for
under this notice. Regarding this particular issue, it raises concerns
currently on appeal and does not specifically target the rate change,
so it will not be discussed further in 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 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 and facilities:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Name Project/Agency Contacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fort Hall Dean Fox, Acting
Superintendent
Irrigation Project Fort Hall Agency
P.O. Box 220
Fort Hall, ID 83203-0220
Telephone: (208) 238-1992
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wapato Edwin Lewis, Project
Administrator
Irrigation Project 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Name Agency/Project Contacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blackfeet Stephen Pollock,
Superintendent
Irrigation Project Vacant, Irrigation Project
Manager
Box 880
Browning, MT 59417
Telephones: (406) 338-7544,
Superintendent
(406) 338-7519, Irrigation
Project Manager
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crow Vianna Stewart,
Superintendent
Irrigation Project Karl Helvik, Acting
Irrigation Project Engineer
P.O. Box 69
Crow Agency, MT 59022
Telephones: (406) 638-2672,
Superintendent
(406) 638-2863, Irrigation
Project Manager
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fort Belknap Cliff Hall, Superintendent
[[Page 26763]]
Irrigation Project Vacant, Irrigation Project
Manager
(Project O&M 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 Florence White Eagle,
Superintendent,
Irrigation Project PH: (406) 768-5312
P.O. Box 637
Poplar, MT 59255;
Huber Wright, Acting
Irrigation Manager,
PH: (406) 653-1752
602 6th Avenue North
Wolf Point, MT 59201
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wind River Ed Lone Fight,
Superintendent
Irrigation Project Ray Nation, Acting
Irrigation Project Manager
P.O. Box 158
Fort Washakie, WY 82514
Telephones: (307) 332-7810,
Superintendent
(307) 332-2596, Irrigation
Project Manager
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Region Contacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
William T. Walker, Regional Director,
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Southwest
Regional Office, 1001 Indian School Road,
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87104, Telephone:
(505) 563-3100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Name Project/Agency Contacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pine River John Waconda, Superintendent
Irrigation Project Reginald Howe, Supervisory
Irrigation Systems Operator
P.O. Box 315
Ignacio, CO 81137-0315
Telephones: (970) 563-4511,
Superintendent
(970) 563-9484, Supervisory
Irrigation Systems Operator
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Western Region Contacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Bowker, Regional Director, Bureau of
Indian Affairs, Western Regional Office,
2600 N, Central Avenue, 4th Floor
Mailroom Phoenix, Arizona 85004,
Telephone: (602) 379-6600
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Name Project/Agency Contacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado River Janice Staudte,
Superintendent
Irrigation Project Ted Henry, Irrigation
Project Manager
12124 1st Avenue
Parker, AZ 85344
Telephone: (928) 669-7111
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duck Valley Joseph McDade,
Superintendent
Irrigation Project 1555 Shoshone Circle
Elko, NV 89801
Telephone: (775) 738-5165
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fort Yuma Irene Herder, Superintendent
Irrigation Project 256 South Second Avenue,
Suite D
Yuma, AZ 85364-2258
Telephone: (928) 782-1202
------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Carlos Ferris Begay, Acting Project
Manager
Irrigation Project Clarence Begay, Irrigation
Manager
Joint Works P.O. Box 250
Coolidge, AZ 85228
Telephone: (520) 723-6215
------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Carlos Cecilia Martinez,
Superintendent
Irrigation Project Joe Revak, Supervisory
General Engineer
Indian Works Pima Agency, Land Operations
P.O. Box 8
Sacaton, AZ 85247
Telephone: (520) 562-3326
Telephone: (520) 562-3372
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uintah Daniel Picard,
Superintendent
[[Page 26764]]
Irrigation Project Dale Thomas, Irrigation
Manager
P.O. Box 130
Fort Duchesne, UT 84026
Telephone: (435) 722-4300
Telephone: (435) 722-4341
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walker River Athena Brown, Superintendent
Irrigation Project 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 of administering, operating,
maintaining, and rehabilitating them. The table also contains the final
rates for the 2011 season and subsequent years where applicable. An
asterisk immediately following the name of the project notes where the
2011 rates are different from the 2010 rates.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northwest Region Rate Table
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project name Rate category Final 2010 rate Final 2011 rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fort Hall Irrigation Project *............. Basic per acre................. $40.50 $42.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum Charge per tract....... $30.00 $31.50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fort Hall Irrigation Project--Minor Units * Basic per acre................. $21.00 $22.50
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum Charge per tract....... $30.00 $31.50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fort Hall Irrigation Project--Michaud *.... Basic per acre................. $41.50 $43.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Pressure per acre.............. $58.00 $59.50
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum Charge per tract....... $30.00 $31.50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wapato Irrigation Project--Toppenish/Simcoe Minimum Charge for per bill.... $15.00 $17.00
Units *.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic per acre................. $15.00 $17.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wapato Irrigation Project--Ahtanum Units *. Minimum Charge per bill........ $15.00 $17.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic per acre................. $15.00 $17.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wapato Irrigation Project.................. Minimum Charge for per bill.... $58.00 $63.00
Wapato/Satus Unit *........................ ``A'' Basic per acre.......... $58.00 $63.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------
``B'' Basic per acre.......... $68.00 $70.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wapato Irrigation Project--Additional Works Minimum Charge per bill........ $63.00 $67.00
*.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic per acre................. $63.00 $67.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wapato Irrigation Project Water Rental *... Minimum Charge................. $70.00 $72.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic per acre................. $70.00 $72.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rocky Mountain Region Rate Table
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project name Rate category Final 2010 rate Final 2011 rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blackfeet Irrigation Project............... Basic-per acre................. $19.00 $19.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crow Irrigation Project--Willow Creek O&M Basic-per acre................. $22.80 $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................. $22.50 $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................. $24.70 $24.70
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 26765]]
Wind River Irrigation Project.............. Basic-per acre................. $20.00 $20.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wind River Irrigation Project--LeClair Basic-per acre................. $26.00 $21.00
District * (see Noten 1).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wind River Irrigation Project--CrowHeart Basic-per acre................. $14.00 $14.00
Unit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wind River Irrigation Project--Riverton Basic-per acre................. ................ $16.00
Valley Irrigation District.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Region Rate Table
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project name Rate category Final 2010 rate Final 2011 rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pine River Irrigation Project.............. Minimum Charge per tract....... $50.00 $50.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic-per acre................. $15.00 $15.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Western Region Rate Table
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project name Rate category Final 2010 rate Final 2011 rate Proposed 2012 rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado River Irrigation Basic per acre up to $52.50 $54.00 To be determined.
Project *. 5.75 acre-feet.
-------------------------------------------
Excess Water per acre- $17.00 $17.00
foot over 5.75 acre-
feet.
-------------------------------------------
Duck Valley Irrigation Project. Basic per acre......... $5.30 $5.30
-------------------------------------------
Fort Yuma Irrigation Project... Basic per acre up to $86.00 $86.00
(See Note 2).......... 5.0 acre-feet.
-------------------------------------------
Excess Water per acre- $14.00 $14.00
foot over 5.0 acre-
feet.
-------------------------------------------
Basic per acre up to $86.00 $86.00
5.0 acre-feet (Ranch
5).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Carlos Irrigation Project Basic per acre......... $21.00 $25.00 $30.00
(Joint Works) *.
(See Note 3)..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Carlos Irrigation Project Basic per acre......... $57.00 $68.00 To be determined
(Indian Works).
(See Note 4)..........
-------------------------------------------
Uintah Irrigation Project...... Basic per acre......... $15.00 $15.00
-------------------------------------------
Minimum Bill........... $25.00 $25.00
-------------------------------------------
Walker River Irrigation Project Indian per acre........ $19.00 $22.00
*.
-------------------------------------------
non-Indian per acre.... $19.00 $22.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Notes irrigation projects where rates have been adjusted.
Note 1--Upon further budget review and subsequent meetings with the water users, BIA revised the O&M
rate to $26.00 per acre for FY 2010 versus the $27.00 per acre that was published in the Federal Register on
May 26, 2010 (Vol. 75, No. 101, page 29578).
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 2011
BOR rate remains unchanged at $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 2011 BIA rate remains
unchanged at $7.00/acre. The rates shown include the 2011 Reclamation rate and the 2011 BIA rate.
Note 3--This notice establishes the final rate for the SCIP-Joint Works for FY 2012. The proposed
rate for FY 2012 was published in the Federal Register on November 1, 2011 (Vol. 75, No. 210, page 67095). The
2011 rate was established by final notice in the Federal Register on August 11, 2009 (Vol. 74 No. 153, page
40227).
Note 4--The 2011 O&M rate for the San Carlos Irrigation Project--Indian Works has three components.
The first component is the O&M rate established by the San Carlos Irrigation Project--Indian Works, the owner
and operator of the Project; this rate is proposed to be $36.00 per acre. The second component is for the O&M
rate established by the San Carlos Irrigation Project--Joint Works and is determined to be $25.00 per acre.
The third component is the O&M rate established by the San Carlos Irrigation Project Joint Control Board and
is proposed to be $7 per acre.
[[Page 26766]]
Consultation and Coordination With Tribal Governments (Executive Order
13175)
To fulfill its consultation responsibility to Tribes and Tribal
organizations, the BIA communicates, coordinates, and consults on a
continuing basis with these entities on issues 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.).
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)).
Data 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 27, 2011.
Jodi Gillette,
Deputy Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2011-11165 Filed 5-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-W7-P
