18398 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 22, 2009 / Notices 

provide services to the gaming facility; 

and provides for dispute resolution over 

any breaches of this Compact. 

Dated: April 13, 2009. 

George T. Skibine, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and 

Economic Development. 

[FR Doc. E9–9260 Filed 4–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–4N–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Indian Gaming 

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of amendment to 

approved Tribal-State compact. 

SUMMARY: This notice publishes the 

approval of the Seventh Amendment to 

the Agreement between the Crow Tribe 

of Montana and the State of Montana 

Concerning Class III Gaming. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 22, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Paula Hart, Acting Director, Office of 

Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy 

Assistant Secretary—Policy and 

Economic Development, Washington, 

DC 20240, (202) 219–4066. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to section 11 of the Indian Gaming 

Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA), Public 

Law 100–497, 25 U.S.C. 2710, the 

Secretary of the Interior shall publish in 

the Federal Register notice of the 

approved Tribal-State compacts for the 

purpose of engaging in Class III gaming 

activities on Indian lands. This 

Amendment increases the number of 

Class III video gambling machines 

available for play to 400; allows for 

Tribal gaming operations to be located 

anywhere on the reservation; increases 

the prize limit for Class III gaming to 

$2,000.00; increases the wager limit on 

Tribally owned machines to $5.00; and 

sets out the technical and internal 

control standards for Class III gaming 

machines on the reservation. 

Dated: April 15, 2009. 

George T. Skibine, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and 

Economic Development. 

[FR Doc. E9–9258 Filed 4–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–4N–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Rate Adjustments for Indian Irrigation 

Projects 

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of rate adjustments. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Indian Affairs 

(BIA) owns, or has an interest in, 

irrigation projects located on or 

associated with various Indian 

reservations throughout the United 

States. We are required to establish 

irrigation assessment rates to recover the 

costs to administer, operate, maintain, 

and rehabilitate these projects. We are 

notifying you that we have adjusted the 

irrigation assessment rates at several of 

our irrigation projects and facilities to 

reflect current costs of administration, 

operation, maintenance, and 

rehabilitation. 

DATES: Effective Date: The irrigation 

assessment rates shown in the tables as 

final are effective as of January 1, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

details about a particular BIA irrigation 

project or facility, please use the tables 

in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section to contact the regional or local 

office where the project or facility is 

located. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A Notice 

of Proposed Rate Adjustment was 

published in the Federal Register on 

October 30, 2008 (73 FR 64629) to 

propose adjustments to the irrigation 

assessment rates at several BIA 

irrigation projects. The public and 

interested parties were provided an 

opportunity to submit written 

comments during the 60-day period that 

ended December 29, 2008. 

Did the BIA defer or change any 

proposed rate increases? 

Yes. At the Fort Belknap, Fort Peck, 

and Uintah Irrigation Projects, the 

project operations and maintenance 

(O&M) has been contracted by the water 

users and/or tribes. Based on the budget 

submitted by the water users at Fort 

Belknap, the rate was only raised to 

$14.75 instead of $20.00 per acre. Based 

on the budget submitted by the water 

users at Fort Peck, the rate was only 

raised to $24.00 instead of $25.75 per 

acre. Based on the budget submitted by 

the water users at Uintah, the rate is 

raised to $15.00 instead of the 

previously proposed $13.70 per acre. 

Did the BIA receive any comments on 

the proposed irrigation assessment rate 

adjustments? 

Written comments were received 

related to the proposed rate adjustments 

for the San Carlos Irrigation Project— 

Joint Works, the Wapato Irrigation 

Project, and the Wind River Irrigation 

Project. 

What issues were of concern to the 

commenters? 

Individuals and entities commenting 

on the proposed rates raised concerns 

about one or more of the following 

issues: (1) How funds are expended for 

O&M costs; (2) the BIA’s trust 

responsibility for projects; (3) the BIA’s 

responsibility to enhance idle land 

tracts to make them productive; (4) the 

efficiencies of contracting with water 

users groups to perform O&M to save 

costs; and (5) how rate increases impact 

the local agricultural economy and 

individual land owners. 

Commenters raised concerns specific 

to the Wind River Irrigation Project 

(WRIP), asserting that: (1) The BIA is 

responsible for delivery of the full 

amount of water quantified in the Big 

Horn Decree; (2) the WRIP should not be 

considered self-supporting for irrigation 

O&M funding and requires Federal 

assistance; and (3) the Eastern Shoshone 

and Northern Arapaho Tribes and their 

members should not be subsidizing nonIndian lessee water users. 

A commenter raised concerns specific 

to the San Carlos Irrigation Project— 

Joint Works, asserting that: (1) The 

number of BIA personnel required to 

operate and maintain the project is too 

high; (2) the BIA should maintain the 

project wells; (3) anticipated project 

expenses for FY 2010 will be higher; 

and (4) the BIA is budgeting too much 

for emergency reserves. 

The Yakama Nation raised concerns 

specific to the Wapato Irrigation Project, 

stating that the Yakama Nation does not 

believe that the BIA has authority to 

charge the Yakama Nation and its 

members irrigation O&M charges as 

provided in this notice. 

How does the BIA respond to concerns 

regarding how funds are expended for 

O&M costs? 

The BIA considers the following 

expenses when determining an 

irrigation project’s budget: Project 

personnel costs; materials and supplies; 

vehicle and equipment repairs; 

equipment; capitalization expenses; 

acquisition expenses; rehabilitation 

costs; maintenance of a reserve fund for 

contingencies or emergencies; and other 

expenses that we determine are 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES