ake permit process (81 FR 91494)

ntended to address some of industry’s concerns regarding the BGEPA incidental take permit process (81 FR 91494). One measure strongly supported by industry, a general permit for activities that constitute a low risk of taking eagles, was not considered as part of this rulemaking process, though FWS did accept comments on the subject for consideration in a future rulemaking. The FWS is reviewing these comments to determine whether additional regulatory changes would be appropriate to reduce the burden on industry. G. Bureau of Reclamation The BOR is the second largest producer of hydroelectric power in the United States, operating 53 hydroelectric power facilities, comprising 14,730 megawatts of capacity. Each year, BOR generates over 40 million megawatt-hours of electricity (the equivalent demand of approximately 3.5 million US homes),6 producing over one billion dollars in Federal revenue. In addition to our authorities to develop, operate, and maintain Federal hydropower facilities, BOR is also authorized to permit the use of our nonpowered assets to non-Federal entities for the purposes of hydropower development via a lease of power privilege (LOPP). The BOR is committed to facilitating the development of non-Federal hydropower at our existing Federal assets. Acting on this commitment, BOR has undertaken a number of activities, including: i. Completion of two publically available resource assessments. Assessments identify technical hydropower potential at existing BOR facilities, irrespective of financial viability. ii. Collaboration with stakeholder groups to improve the LOPP process and LOPP Directive and Standard (D&S) policy guidance document. A BOR LOPP is a contractual right given to a non-Federal entity to use a BOR asset (e.g. dam or conduit) for electric power generation consistent with BOR project purposes. The BOR has conducted LOPP outreach with stakeholder groups and hydropower industry associations; and made resources and staff available via a LOPP website: https://www.usbr.gov/power/LOPP/index.html. The BOR has also partnered with sister 6 See, https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=97&t=3 34 agencies (United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Energy) under the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for Hydropower to, in part, encourage and streamline non-Federal development on Federal infrastructure. Through these activities, BOR has made resources available to developers and peeled back the barriers that may burden non-Federal hydropower development – while continuing to protect the Federal assets that our customers, operating partners, and stakeholders have depended on for over a century. The response BOR has received from these groups (including the development community) in this effort has been overwhelmingly positive.eals have split on whether the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) imposes criminal liability on companies and individuals for the inadvertent death of migratory birds resulting from industrial activities. Three circuits – the underlying Federal water resource project. H. Bureau of Indian Affairs The BIA provides services to nearly 2 milli LOPP projects provide a source of reliable, domestic, and sustainable generation – that supports rural economies and the underlying Federal water resource project. H. Bureau of Indian Affairs The BIA provides services to nearly 2 million American Indians and Alaska Natives in 567 federally recognized tribes in the 48 contiguous States and Alaska. The BIA’s natural resource programs assist tribes in the management, development, and protection of Indian trust land and natural resources on 56 million surface acres and 59 million subsurface mineral estates. These programs enable tribal trust landowners to optimize sustainable stewardship and use of resources, providing benefits such as revenue, jobs and the protection of cultural, spiritual, and traditional resources. Income from energy production is the largest source of revenue generated from trust lands, with royalty income of $534 million in 2016. Indian Energy Actions i. Clarify “Inherently Federal Functions for Tribal Energy Resource Agreements (TERAs) Tribal Energy Resource Agreements (TERAs) are authorized under Title V of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. A TERA is a means by which a tribe could be authorized to review, Rectangular magnetsthe underlying Federal water resource project. H. Bureau of Indian Affairs The BIA provides services to nearly 2 million American Indians and Alaska Natives in 567 federally recognized tribes in the 48 contiguous States and Alaska. The BIA’s natural resource programs assist tribes in the management, development, and protection of Indian trust land and natural
neodymium bar magnetsthe underlying Federal water resource project. H. Bureau of Indian Affairs The BIA provides services to nearly 2 million American Indians and Alaska Natives in 567 federally recognized tribes in the 48 contiguous States and Alaska. The BIA’s natural resource programs assist tribes in the management, development, and protection of Indian trust land and natural
neodymium block magnetsthe underlying Federal water resource project. H. Bureau of Indian Affairs The BIA provides services to nearly 2 million American Indians and Alaska Natives in 567 federally recognized tribes in the 48 contiguous States and Alaska. The BIA’s natural resource programs assist tribes in the management, development, and protection of Indian trust land and natural
strong bar magnetsapprove, and manage business agreements, leases, and rights-of-way pertaining to energy development on Indian trust lands, absent approval of each individual transaction by the Secretary. Interior promulgated TERA regulations in 2008 at 25 CFR part 224. The TERAs offer the opportunity to promote development of domestically produced energy resources on Indian land; however, 12 years after the passage of the Act and 9 years after the issuance of TERA regulations, not one tribe has sought Interior’s approval for a TERA. One theory asserted by at least one tribe as to the failure of this legislation is the Act does not address precisely how much Federal oversight would disappear for tribes operating under TERAs. Specifically, Interior had not defined the term “inherently Federal functions” that Interior will retain following approval of a TERA. This term appears in Interior’s regulations at 25 CFR §§ 224.52(c) and 224.53(e)(2), but not in the Act. Without some assurance as to the benefits (in terms of less Federal oversight) a tribe would receive through clarification of “inherently Federal functions,” tribes have no incentive to undergo the intensive process of applying for a TERA. Clarification of this phrase would also address Recommendation 5 of GAO-15-502, Indian Energy magnetic sphereoversight would disappear for tribes operating under TERAs. Specifically, Interior had not defined the term “inherently Federal functions” that Interior will retain following approval of a TERA. This term appears in Interior’s regulations at 25 CFR §§ 224.52(c) and 224.53(e)(2), but not in
ball magnetsoversight would disappear for tribes operating under TERAs. Specifically, Interior had not defined the term “inherently Federal functions” that Interior will retain following approval of a TERA. This term appears in Interior’s regulations at 25 CFR §§ 224.52(c) and 224.53(e)(2), but not in
sphere magnetsoversight would disappear for tribes operating under TERAs. Specifically, Interior had not defined the term “inherently Federal functions” that Interior will retain following approval of a TERA. This term appears in Interior’s regulations at 25 CFR §§ 224.52(c) and 224.53(e)(2), but not in
magnetic ballsoversight would disappear for tribes operating under TERAs. Specifically, Interior had not defined the term “inherently Federal functions” that Interior will retain following approval of a TERA. This term appears in Interior’s regulations at 25 CFR §§ 224.52(c) and 224.53(e)(2), but not in
ball magnetsoversight would disappear for tribes operating under TERAs. Specifically, Interior had not defined the term “inherently Federal functions” that Interior will retain following approval of a TERA. This term appears in Interior’s regulations at 25 CFR §§ 224.52(c) and 224.53(e)(2), but not in
magnetic ballsoversight would disappear for tribes operating under TERAs. Specifically, Interior had not defined the term “inherently Federal functions” that Interior will retain following approval of a TERA. This term appears in Interior’s regulations at 25 CFR §§ 224.52(c) and 224.53(e)(2), but not in
magnetic balls toyoversight would disappear for tribes operating under TERAs. Specifically, Interior had not defined the term “inherently Federal functions” that Interior will retain following approval of a TERA. This term appears in Interior’s regulations at 25 CFR §§ 224.52(c) and 224.53(e)(2), but not in
sphere magnetsDevelopment: Poor Management by BIA Has Hindered Energy Development on Indian Lands (June 2015). The recommendation directed Interior to “provide additional energy 35 development-specific guidance on provisions of TERA regulations that tribes have identified to Interior as unclear.” The BIA has been working closely with the Office of the Solicitor to develop guidance on how

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *