37604 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 154 / Friday, August 11, 2017 / Notices 

II. Background 

To help us carry out our conservation 

responsibilities for affected species, and 

in consideration of section 10(a)(1)(A) of 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), along 

with Executive Order 13576, 

‘‘Delivering an Efficient, Effective, and 

Accountable Government,’’ and the 

President’s Memorandum for the Heads 

of Executive Departments and Agencies 

of January 21, 2009—Transparency and 

Open Government (74 FR 4685; Jan. 26, 

2009), which call on all Federal 

agencies to promote openness and 

transparency in Government by 

disclosing information to the public, we 

invite public comment on these permit 

applications before final action is taken. 

III. Permit Applications 

We invite the public to comment on 

applications to conduct certain 

activities with endangered species. With 

some exceptions, the Endangered 

Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; 

ESA) prohibits activities with listed 

species unless Federal authorization is 

acquired that allows such activities. 

Applicant: Liliana Cortez Ortiz, Ann 

Arbor, MI; PRT–26524C 

The applicant requests a permit to 

import howler monkey (Alouatta 

palliata palliata) biological samples 

from nongovernmental organization 

(NGO) Asociacio ́n para el Desarrollo de 

Solentiname, Isla Mancarro ́n, El 

Archipielago de Solentiname, 

Nicaragua, for the purpose of scientific 

research. This notification covers 

activities to be conducted by the 

applicant over a 5-year period. 

Applicant: Zoological Society of 

Philadelphia, PA; PRT–31910C 

The applicant requests a permit to 

import one captive born female jaguar 

(Panthera onca) from Zoo de Granby, 

Quebec, Canada, for the purpose of 

enhancement of the survival of the 

species. 

Applicant: Ricardo Longoria, Natalia, 

TX; PRT–192403 

The applicant requests renewal of a 

permit to authorize interstate commerce, 

export and cull excess barasingha 

(Rucervus duvaucelii), Eld’s deer 

(Rucervus eldii), and red lechwe (Kobus 

lechwe) from the captive herds 

maintained at their facility for the 

purpose of enhancement of the survival 

of the species. This notification covers 

activities to be conducted by the 

applicant over a 5-year period. 

Applicant: Cynthia Page-Karjian, 

Florida Atlantic Univ, Fort Pierce, FL; 

PRT–34054C 

The applicant requests a permit to 

import DNA samples from the following 

species: leatherback sea turtle 

(Dermochelys coriacea), green sea turtle 

(Chelonia mydas), and hawksbill sea 

turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) for the 

purpose of scientific research. This 

notification is for a single import. 

Applicant: John Aynes, Oklahoma City, 

OK; PRT–29141A 

The applicant requests a renewal and 

amendment to a captive-bred wildlife 

registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for 

the following species: Golden conure/ 

Queen of Bavaria conure (Aratinga 

guarouba), which is listed as the golden 

parakeet; red-vented cockatoo (Cacatua 

haematuropygia), which is listed as the 

Philippine cockatoo; citron cockatoo 

(Cacatua sulphurea citrinocristata); and 

blue-throated macaw (Ara 

glaucogularis) to enhance the 

propagation or survival of the species. 

This notification covers activities to be 

conducted by the applicant over a 5- 

year period. 

Applicant: Jason Troxell, Eagle River, 

AK; PRT–32830 

The applicant requests a captive-bred 

wildlife registration under 50 CFR 

17.21(g) for radiated tortoises 

(Astrochelys radiata) to enhance species 

survival. This notification covers 

activities conducted by the applicant 

over a 5-year period. 

Multiple Applicants 

Applicant: Sal Davino, Morristown, NJ; 

PRT–21334C 

Applicant: Sharon Fisher, Dorr, MI; 

PRT–32360C 

The applicant requests a permit to 

import sport-hunted trophies of a male 

bontebok (Damaliscus pygargus 

pygargus) culled from a captive herd 

maintained under the management 

program of the Republic of South Africa, 

for the purpose of enhancing the 

propagation or survival of the species. 

IV. Next Steps 

If the Service decides to issue permits 

to any of the applicants listed in this 

notice, we will publish a notice in the 

Federal Register. You may locate the 

Federal Register notice announcing the 

permit issuance date by searching in 

www.regulations.gov under the permit 

number listed in this document. 

V. Public Comments 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this notice by one 

of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We 

will not consider comments sent by 

email or fax or to an address not listed 

in ADDRESSES. 

If you submit a comment via http://

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

comment, including any personal 

identifying information, will be posted 

on the Web site. If you submit a 

hardcopy comment that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

We will post all hardcopy comments 

on http://www.regulations.gov. 

VI. Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Joyce Russell, 

Government Information Specialist, Branch 

of Permits, Division of Management 

Authority. 

[FR Doc. 2017–16947 Filed 8–10–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

[178A2100DD/AAKC001030/ 

A0A501010.999900 253G] 

Rate Adjustments for Indian Irrigation 

Projects 

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice. 

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: The irrigation assessment rates 

are current as of January 1, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

details about a particular BIA irrigation 

project or facility, please use the tables 

in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section to find contacts at the regional 

or local office at which the project or 

facility is located. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A Notice 

of Proposed Rate Adjustment was 

published in the Federal Register on 

April 21, 2017 (82 FR 18770) to propose 

adjustments to the irrigation assessment 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 154 / Friday, August 11, 2017 / Notices 37605 

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 June 20, 2017. 

Did BIA defer or change any proposed 

rate increases? 

Yes. For the Flathead Indian Irrigation 

Project, the full rate increase to $33.50 

as published in the proposed notice for 

the 2018 rate will not be implemented. 

The final 2018 rate will be changed from 

$33.50 to $29.00, with the remainder of 

the full rate increase to be implemented 

in 2019. For the Wind River Irrigation 

Project, the Crowheart and A Canal 

Units increase to $15.75 as published in 

the proposed notice for the 2017 rate 

will not be implemented. The final 2017 

rate is $15.50. All other rates are to be 

implemented at the respective irrigation 

projects as published. 

Did BIA receive any comments on the 

proposed irrigation assessment rate 

adjustments? 

Yes. Written comments were received 

related to the proposed irrigation rate 

adjustment for the Flathead (FIIP) and 

Colorado River (CRIIP) Indian Irrigation 

Projects. 

What issues were of concern to the 

commenters? 

Commenters raised concerns on the 

proposed rates about the following 

issues: 

The Following Comments Are Specific 

to the Flathead Indian Irrigation Project 

Written comments relating to the 

proposed rate adjustment were received 

by letter. BIA’s summary of the issues 

and BIA’s responses are provided 

below. 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed a position that, under the 

irrigation districts’ repayment contracts, 

only irrigation districts have the power 

to assess themselves. 

Response: As noted in the April 21, 

2017 Federal Register notice, BIA is 

required to establish irrigation 

assessment rates that recover the costs 

to administer, operate, maintain, and 

rehabilitate our projects. As owner of 

the FIIP, it is BIA’s responsibility to 

ensure adequate resources are made 

available to meet the requirements 

noted above. BIA’s authority to assess 

rates dates back to the Act of May 29, 

1908, is codified at 25 U.S.C. 381 et seq., 

and is addressed in the BIA’s 

regulations at 25 CFR part 171. 

Additionally, the repayment contracts 

between the irrigation districts and 

Interior explicitly state that operation 

and maintenance expenses ‘‘shall be 

paid . . . as provided . . . by rules 

made or to be made . . . by the 

Secretary of the Interior.’’ The 

repayment contracts between the 

irrigation districts and Interior capture 

the irrigators’ obligation to pay annual 

assessments as well as the irrigation 

districts’ authority to collect such 

assessments for payment to the United 

States. The authority to assess rates, 

however, rests solely with Interior and 

has not been delegated to the irrigation 

districts. 

Comment: Several commenters 

requested that the rate increase be 

deferred until current litigation is 

resolved regarding the transfer of the 

operation and maintenance of the FIIP. 

Response: As current project operator, 

BIA must plan for the 2018 season and 

set O&M rates at a level sufficient to 

cover the costs of administering, 

operating, maintaining and 

rehabilitating the FIIP. It is imperative 

that the project operator be able to 

operate and maintain the project, ensure 

adequate staffing levels, purchase 

supplies and materials, repair and/or 

replace existing key infrastructure, 

implement an invasive weed control 

program, maintain operating equipment, 

maintain an adequate equipment 

sinking fund for replacing vital heavy 

equipment, and maintain an adequate 

Emergency Reserve Fund. Additionally, 

the project operator will also need to 

address deferred maintenance projects 

on the FIIP. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

a 29% increase is unwarranted at this 

time. 

Response: The costs associated with 

operating and maintaining the FIIP have 

historically and consistently exceeded 

the amount paid through assessments. 

Even during the timeframe during 

which the Cooperative Management 

Entity operated the FIIP, the O&M 

assessment rate was increased twice, in 

2010 and 2011. Since reassumption, the 

BIA has made clear the need to increase 

FIIP assessments rates to address its 

operation and maintenance needs and 

has publicly noticed the need to raise 

rates in both 2015 and 2016 (see 80 FR 

33279, June 11, 2015, and 81 FR 51927, 

August 5, 2016, respectively). The only 

reason rate increases were not 

implemented during these years was 

because of the timeframe necessary to 

communicate an increase to the 

counties that collect the O&M funds. 

Rate increases have been needed for 

many years, and FIIP’s ability to address 

its operation and maintenance needs 

have been compromised by not 

increasing rates since 2011. 

Moreover, the methodology used by 

BIA to determine the 2017 O&M rate 

was reasonable. Based on a review of 

historical income receipts and 

expenditures, a budget of projected 

income receipts and expenditures is 

developed approximately two years 

before the O&M assessments are 

collected and expenses are incurred. 

BIA relies on financial reports generated 

by the Financial and Business 

Management System for reviewing past 

expenditures and projecting a future 

budget and expenditures. Procurement 

files and records maintained by the FIIP 

were also reviewed and considered. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

no rate increase should be made at this 

time because of local agricultural 

economics. 

Response: BIA’s projects are 

important economic contributors to the 

local communities they serve, and they 

contribute millions of dollars in crop 

value annually. Unfortunately, the costs 

associated with operating and 

maintaining an irrigation project may 

increase independently of prices and 

costs that are realized by the irrigators. 

Historically, BIA tempered irrigation 

rate increases to demonstrate sensitivity 

to the economic impact on water users, 

but that past practice resulted in a rate 

deficiency at some irrigation projects 

and BIA does not have discretionary 

funds to subsidize irrigation projects. 

Therefore, funding to operate and 

maintain these projects needs to come 

from revenues from the water users 

served by those projects. 

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, 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 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
37606 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 154 / Friday, August 11, 2017 / Notices 

operation. If this review and adjustment 

is not accomplished, a rate deficiency 

can accumulate over time. Rate 

deficiencies force BIA to raise irrigation 

assessment rates in larger increments 

over shorter periods than would have 

been otherwise necessary. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the proposed rate increase was not 

discussed with the Joint Board of 

Control (JBC) nor the Confederated 

Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT). 

Response: The status of the FIIP 

budget and the need to increase rates 

were communicated to the JBC as early 

as 2014 and have been discussed with 

both the JBC and CSKT numerous times 

since then. BIA publicly noticed its 

intent to increase assessment rates in 

both 2015 and 2016 (see 80 FR 33279, 

June 11, 2015, and 81 FR 51927, August 

5, 2016). Regarding the 2018 proposed 

increase, the Project Manager provided 

and discussed the proposed budget 

information that supports the rate 

increase to the JBC in January 2017. 

This information was also provided at 

an April 11, 2017 water user meeting. 

The CSKT was also notified of the rate 

increase. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended a gradual rate increase 

over the next 5 to 7 years. 

Response: BIA has projected this 

proposed rate increase for several years, 

and anticipated increasing the 

assessment rates in both 2015 and 2016. 

The FIIP O&M budget was prepared in 

accordance with BIA financial 

guidelines. BIA considers the following 

items when determining an irrigation’s 

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. 

Based on increased costs associated 

with administering, operating, 

maintaining and rehabilitating the FIIP, 

the need for the proposed rate increase 

is clear and the $7.50 increase is 

justified. However, given the timing of 

the Federal Register notice, BIA has 

decided to impose only a $3.00 increase 

in 2018 and postpone the remainder of 

the increase until 2019. 

The Following Comment Is Specific to 

the Colorado River Indian Irrigation 

Project 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the rate for the Colorado River 

Indian Tribes should be increased by 

11%. Included were several reports 

related to previous and recent 

information collected regarding the 

Colorado River Indian Irrigation Project 

(CRIIP). 

Response: The recent information 

collected concerning the CRIIP is being 

evaluated to determine how this might 

impact the future operation and 

maintenance activities of the project. 

However, in order to implement an 

increase it would be necessary to 

propose the change and again solicit 

comments. For the purpose of this 

notice, the proposed rate as published 

in the Federal Register at 82 FR 18770 

(April 21, 2017) will remain unchanged. 

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 

(Secretary) 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. 

Whom 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 N.E. 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232– 

4169,Telephone: (503) 231–6702. 

Flathead Indian Irrigation Project .... Pete Plant, Acting Superintendent, Pete Plant, Irrigation Project Manager, P.O. Box 40, Pablo, MT 59855, 

Telephones: (406) 675–2700 ext. 1300 Superintendent, (406) 745–2661 ext. 2 Project Manager. 

Fort Hall Irrigation Project ............... David Bollinger, Irrigation Project Manager, Building #2 Bannock Ave., Fort Hall, ID 83203–0220, Telephone: (208) 238–6264. 

Wapato Irrigation Project ................ David Shaw, Superintendent, Larry Nelson, Acting Project Administrator, P.O. Box 220, Wapato, WA 

98951–0220, Telephones: (509) 865–2421 Superintendent, (509) 877–3155 Acting Project Administrator. 

Rocky Mountain Region Contacts 

Darryl LaCounte, Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Rocky Mountain Regional Office, 2021 4th Avenue North, Billings, MT 59101, 

Telephone: (406) 247–7943. 

Blackfeet Irrigation Project .............. Thedis Crowe, Superintendent, Greg Tatsey, 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, John Anevski, Acting Irrigation Project Manager, P.O. Box 69, Crow 

Agency, MT 59022, Telephones: (406) 638–2672, Superintendent, (406) 247–7998, Acting Irrigation 

Project Manager. 

Fort Belknap Irrigation Project ........ John St. Pierre, Superintendent, John Anevski, Acting Irrigation Project Manager (BIA), (Project operation 

& maintenance contracted to Tribes), R.R.1, Box 980, Harlem, MT 59526, Telephones: (406) 353–2901, 

Superintendent, (406) 353–8454, Irrigation Project Manager (Tribal Office). 

Fort Peck Irrigation Project ............. Howard Beemer, Superintendent, Huber Wright, Acting Irrigation Project Manager, P.O. Box 637, Poplar, 

MT 59255, Telephones: (406) 768–5312, Superintendent, (406) 653–1752, Irrigation Project Manager. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 154 / Friday, August 11, 2017 / Notices 37607 

Project name Project/agency contacts 

Wind River Irrigation Project ........... Norma Gourneau, Superintendent, John Anevski, Acting Irrigation Project Manager, P.O. Box 158, Fort 

Washakie, WY 82514, Telephones: (307) 332–7810, Superintendent, (406) 247–7998, Acting Irrigation 

Project Manager. 

Southwest Region Contacts 

William T. Walker, Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Southwest Regional Office, 1001 Indian School Road, Albuquerque, NM 87104, 

Telephone: (505) 563–3100. 

Pine River Irrigation Project ............ Priscilla Bancroft, Superintendent, Vickie Begay, Irrigation Project Manager, P.O. Box 315, Ignacio, CO 

81137–0315, Telephones: (970) 563–4511, Superintendent, (970) 563–9484, Irrigation Project Manager. 

Western Region Contacts 

Bryan Bowker, Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Western Regional Office, 2600 N. Central Ave., 4th Floor Mailroom, Phoenix, AZ 

85004, Telephone: (602) 379–6600. 

Colorado River Irrigation Project .... Kellie Youngbear, Superintendent, Gary Colvin, Irrigation Project Manager, 12124 1st Avenue, Parker, AZ 

85344, Telephone: (928) 669–7111. 

Duck Valley Irrigation Project ......... Joseph McDade, Superintendent, (Project operation & management compacted to Tribes), 2719 Argent 

Ave., Suite 4, Gateway Plaza, Elko, NV 89801, Telephone: (775) 738–5165, (208) 759–3100, (Tribal Office). 

Yuma Project, Indian Unit ............... Denni Shields, Superintendent, 256 South Second Avenue, Suite D, Yuma, AZ 85364, Telephone: (928) 

782–1202. 

San Carlos Irrigation Project Indian 

Works and Joint Works.

Ferris Begay, Project Manager, Clarence Begay, Irrigation Manager, 13805 N. Arizona Boulevard, Coolidge, AZ 85128, Telephone: (520) 723–6225. 

Uintah Irrigation Project .................. Antonio Pingree, Acting Superintendent, Ken Asay, Irrigation System Manager, P.O. Box 130, Fort 

Duchesne, UT 84026, Telephone: (435) 722–4300, (435) 722–4344. 

Walker River Irrigation Project ........ Robert Eben, 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 2017 

calendar year and subsequent years 

where applicable. An asterisk 

immediately following the rate category 

notes the irrigation projects where 2017 

rates are different from the 2016 rates. 

Project name Rate 

category 

Final 

2016 rate 

Final 

2017 rate 

Final 

2018 rate ** 

Northwest Region Rate Table 

Flathead Indian Irrigation Project (See Note #1) .................... Basic-per acre—A ..................

Basic-per acre—B ..................

Minimum Charge per tract .....

$26.00 

13.00 

75.00 

$26.00 

13.00 

75.00 

$29.00 

14.50 

75.00 

Project name Rate 

category 

Final 

2016 rate 

Final 

2017 rate 

Fort Hall Irrigation Project .......................................................................... Basic per acre * ............................... $52.00 $54.00 

Minimum Charge per tract * ............ 37.00 38.50 

Fort Hall Irrigation Project—Minor Units .................................................... Basic per acre * ............................... 31.00 32.50 

Minimum Charge per tract * ............ 37.00 38.50 

Fort Hall Irrigation Project—Michaud ........................................................ Basic per acre * ............................... 55.00 57.50 

Pressure per acre * .......................... 83.00 88.50 

Minimum Charge per tract * ............ 37.00 38.50 

Wapato Irrigation Project—Toppenish/Simcoe Units ................................ Minimum Charge per bill ................. 25.00 25.00 

Basic per acre ................................. 25.00 25.00 

Wapato Irrigation Project—Ahtanum Units ................................................ Minimum Charge per bill ................. 30.00 30.00 

Basic per acre ................................. 30.00 30.00 

Wapato Irrigation Project—Satus Unit ....................................................... Minimum Charge per bill ................. 79.00 79.00 

‘‘A’’ Basic per acre .......................... 79.00 79.00 

‘‘B’’ Basic per acre .......................... 85.00 85.00 

Wapato Irrigation Project—Additional Works ............................................ Minimum Charge per bill * ............... 78.00 80.00 

Basic per acre * ............................... 78.00 80.00 

Wapato Irrigation Project—Water Rental .................................................. Minimum Charge ............................. 86.00 86.00 

Basic per acre ................................. 86.00 86.00 

Rocky Mountain Region Rate Table 

Blackfeet Irrigation Project ......................................................................... Basic-per acre ................................. 20.00 20.00 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
37608 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 154 / Friday, August 11, 2017 / Notices 

Project name Rate 

category 

Final 

2016 rate 

Final 

2017 rate 

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 * ............................... 26.00 28.00 

Crow Irrigation Project—All Others (includes Bighorn, Soap Creek, and 

Pryor Units).

Basic-per acre * ............................... 26.00 28.00 

Crow Irrigation Project—Two Leggins Unit ............................................... Basic-per acre ................................. 14.00 14.00 

Crow Irrigation Two Leggins Drainage District .......................................... Basic-per acre ................................. 2.00 2.00 

Fort Belknap Irrigation Project ................................................................... Basic-per acre ................................. 16.00 16.00 

Fort Peck Irrigation Project ........................................................................ Basic-per acre ................................. 26.00 26.50 

Wind River Irrigation Project—Units 2, 3 and 4 ........................................ Basic-per acre * ............................... 22.50 23.50 

Wind River Irrigation Project—Unit 6 ........................................................ Basic-per acre ................................. 21.00 21.00 

Wind River Irrigation Project—LeClair District ..........................................

(see Note #2) .............................................................................................

Basic-per acre ................................. 47.00 47.00 

Wind River Irrigation Project—Crow Heart Unit ........................................ Basic-per acre ................................. 15.50 15.50 

Wind River Irrigation Project—A Canal Unit ............................................. Basic-per acre ................................. 15.50 15.50 

Wind River Irrigation Project—Riverton Valley Irrigation District .............. Basic-per acre * ............................... 26.00 30.65 

Southwest Region Rate Table 

Pine River Irrigation Project ....................................................................... Minimum Charge per tract .............. 50.00 50.00 

Basic-per acre * ............................... 18.00 19.00 

Western Region Rate Table 

Colorado River Irrigation Project ............................................................... Basic per acre up to 5.75 acre-feet 54.00 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 

Yuma Project, Indian Unit (See Note #3) .................................................. Basic per acre up to 5.0 acre-feet * 113.00 118.50 

Excess Water per acre-foot over 

5.0 acre-feet *.

24.50 27.50 

Basic per acre up to 5.0 acre-feet 

(Ranch 5) *.

113.00 118.50 

Project name Rate category Final 2016 rate Final 2017 rate Final 2018 rate ** 

San Carlos Irrigation 

Project (Joint Works) 

(See Note #4).

Basic per acre * ................. $30.00 ............................... $25.00 ............................... $27.90. 

Final 2017–2018 Construction Water Rate Schedule:

Off Project Construction On Project Construction— 

Gravity Water 

On Project Construction— 

Pump Water. 

Administrative Fee ............ $300.00 ............................. $300.00 ............................. $300.00. 

Usage Fee ........................ $250.00 per month ............ No Fee .............................. $100.00 per acre foot. 

Excess Water Rate † ........ $5.00 per 1,000 gal ........... No Charge ......................... No Charge. 

† The excess water rate applies to all water used in excess of 50,000 gallons in any one month. 

Project name Rate category Final 

2016 rate 

Final 

2017 rate 

San Carlos Irrigation Project (Indian Works) (See Note #5) ..................... Basic per acre ................................. $81.00 $81.00 

Uintah Irrigation Project ............................................................................. Basic per acre ................................. 18.00 18.00 

Minimum Bill .................................... 25.00 25.00 

Walker River Irrigation Project ................................................................... Basic per acre ................................. 31.00 31.00 

* Notes irrigation projects where rates are adjusted. 

** The requirement for a final 2018 Rate is only applicable to the Flathead and San Carlos Irrigation Projects due to their specific billing requirements. 

Note #1: Federal Register Notice on April 06, 2017 established the 2017 rate for the Flathead Indian Irrigation Project (82 FR 16849). This 

notice makes final the 2018 rate for the FIIP. 

Note #2: The O&M rate may vary yearly based upon the budget submitted by the LeClair District. 

Note #3: The O&M rate for the Yuma Project, Indian Unit 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 2017 is $115.00/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 2017 BIA rate is $3.50/acre. 

Note #4: The construction water rate schedule identifies the fees assessed for use of irrigation water for non-irrigation purposes. Federal Register Notice on April 06, 2017 established the 2017 rate for the SCIP–JW (82 FR 16849). This notice makes final the 2018 rate for the SCIP– 

JW. 

Note #5: The 2017 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 $50.00 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 $6.00 per acre. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 154 / Friday, August 11, 2017 / Notices 37609 

Consultation and Coordination With 

Tribal Governments (Executive Order 

13175) 

The Department of the Interior strives 

to strengthen its government-togovernment relationship with Indian 

Tribes through a commitment to 

consultation with Indian Tribes and 

recognition of their right to selfgovernance and Tribal sovereignty. We 

have evaluated this notice under the 

Department’s consultation policy and 

under the criteria of Executive Order 

13175 and have determined there to be 

substantial direct effects on federally 

recognized Tribes because the irrigation 

projects are located on or associated 

with Indian reservations. To fulfill its 

consultation responsibility to Tribes and 

Tribal organizations, BIA 

communicates, coordinates, and 

consults on a continuing basis with 

these entities on issues of 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, and request comments from, 

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 are not a 

significant energy action under the 

definition in Executive Order 13211. A 

Statement of Energy Effects is not 

required. 

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. They do not have a 

significant or unique effect on state, 

local, or tribal governments or the 

private sector. Therefore, the 

Department is not required to prepare a 

statement containing the information 

required by the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Takings (Executive Order 12630) 

These rate adjustments do not effect a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have ‘‘takings’’ implications under 

Executive Order 12630. The rate 

adjustments do not deprive the public, 

state, or local governments of rights or 

property. 

Federalism (Executive Order 13132) 

Under the criteria in section 1 of 

Executive Order 13132, these rate 

adjustments do not have sufficient 

federalism implications to warrant the 

preparation of a federalism summary 

impact statement 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. A federalism 

summary impact statement is not 

required. 

Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 

12988) 

This notice complies with the 

requirements of Executive Order 12988. 

Specifically, in issuing this notice, 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 June 30, 2019. 

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), pursuant to 43 

CFR 46.210(i). In addition, the rate 

adjustments do not present any of the 12 

extraordinary circumstances listed at 43 

CFR 46.215. 

Data Quality Act 

In developing this notice, we did not 

conduct or use a study, experiment, or 

survey requiring peer review under the 

Data Quality Act (Pub. L. 106–554). 

Dated: July 27, 2017. 

Michael S. Black, 

Acting Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2017–16910 Filed 8–10–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4337–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

[178A2100DD/AAKC001030/ 

A0A501010.999900 253G] 

Land Acquisitions; The Cherokee 

Nation 

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Principal Deputy 

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs 

made a final agency determination to 

acquire 45.92 acres, more or less, 

located in Cherokee County, Oklahoma 

(Cherokee Springs Site) in trust for the 

Cherokee Nation for gaming and other 

purposes on January 19, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian 

Gaming, Bureau of Indian Affairs, MS– 

3657 MIB, 1849 C Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20240, telephone (202) 

219–4066. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

notice is published in the exercise of 

authority delegated by the Secretary of 

the Interior to the Principal Deputy 

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs by 

209 Departmental Manual 8.1, and is 

published to comply with the 

requirements of 25 CFR 151.12 (c)(2)(ii) 

that notice of the decision to acquire 

land in trust be promptly provided in 

the Federal Register. 

On January 19, 2017, the Principal 

Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian 

Affairs issued a decision to accept the 

Cherokee Springs Site, consisting of 

approximately 45.92 acres, more or less, 

of land in trust for the Nation, under the 

authority of the Indian Reorganization 

Act, 25 U.S.C. 5108. The Principal 

Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian 

Affairs determined that the Nation’s 

request also meets the requirements of 

the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act’s 

‘‘Oklahoma exception,’’ 25 U.S.C. 

2719(a)(2)(A)(i), to the general 

prohibition contained in 25 U.S.C. 

2719(a) on gaming on lands acquired in 

trust after October 17, 1988. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES