Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Notices 29577 

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. 

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 

[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. 

SUMMARY: The plats of survey described 

below are scheduled to be officially 

filed in the New Mexico State Office, 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 

Santa Fe, New Mexico, thirty (30) 

calendar days from the date of this 

publication. 

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 

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 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
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. 

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 Units Minimum Charge for per tract .................................. 15.00 15.00 

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 (includes Agency, Lodge Grass #1, Lodge Grass 

#2, Reno, Upper Little Horn, and Forty Mile 

Units) *.

Basic-per acre .......................................................... 20.80 22.80 

Crow Irrigation Project—All Others (includes Bighorn, Soap Creek, and Pryor Units) *.Basic-per acre .......................................................... 20.50 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 .......................................................... 24.00 24.70 

Wind River Irrigation Project * .................................. Basic-per acre .......................................................... 18.00 20.00 

Wind River Irrigation Project—LeClair District * ....... Basic-per acre .......................................................... 19.00 27.00 

Wind River Irrigation Project—CrowHeart Unit * ...... Basic-per acre .......................................................... 18.00 14.00 

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-feet ......................... 51.00 52.50 

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 #1) * ........... Basic per acre up to 5.0 acre-feet ........................... 77.00 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) .......... 77.00 86.00 

San Carlos Irrigation Project (Joint Works) (See 

Note # 2).

Basic per acre .......................................................... 21.00 21.00 

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). 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Notices 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).) 

Project name Rate category Final 

2009 rate 

Final 

2010 rate 

Final 

2011 rate 

Western Region Rate Table 

San Carlos Irrigation Project (Joint 

Works) (See Note #3).

Basic per acre .......................................... $21.00 $21.00 $25.00 

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 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
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 

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 http:// 

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. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Notices 29581 

Project Name 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 .............. 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 Joint 

Works.

Bryan Bowker, 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 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 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. 

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.). 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
29582 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Notices 

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 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R7–R–2010–N082; 70133–1265–0000– 

U4] 

Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge, 

Fairbanks, AK 

AGENCY: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability: record of 

decision. 

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. 

ADDRESSES: 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 http:// 

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 

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. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1