Priations for Fiscal Year 2010
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRON- MENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPRO- PRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, DC. NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES [CLERK’S NOTE.—The subcommittee was unable to hold hearings on nondepartmental witnesses. The statements and letters of those submitting written testimony are as follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE 1854 TREATY AUTHORITY The 1854 Treaty Authority is an inter-tribal natural resource organization which implements the off-reservation hunting, fishing, and gathering rights of the Grand Portage and Bois Forte Bands of the Lake Superior Chippewa in the area ceded to the United States in the Treaty of 1854. Our program is partially funded by a Public Law 93–638 contract with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The 1854 Authority respect- fully requests an increase of $270,000 to our existing base funding in order to meet the increased cost of fulfilling our court-ordered responsibilities. For background purposes, the Grand Portage, Bois Forte, and Fond du Lac Bands are signatories to the Treaty of September 30, 1854, 10 Stat. 1109. In that Treaty the Bands ceded approximately 5,000,000 acres in northeastern Minnesota, reserv- ing the right to hunt, fish, and gather in that territory. For most of the 20th cen- tury, those off-reservation rights lay dormant and unrecognized and tribal subsist- ence activities were relegated to lands within reservation boundaries. In 1985 the Bands went to Federal court seeking a declaratory judgment that the 1854 Treaty did indeed reserve these off-reservation rights and that the State of Minnesota had no authority to regulate tribal hunting, fishing, and gathering in the ceded territory. In the course of that litigation, the Bands and the State entered into negotiations concerning the exercise of treaty rights in the ceded territory. The ne- gotiations resulted in an agreement which was approved by both the Minnesota Leg- islature and the tribal governments. The agreement was then entered as a consent decree in the Federal litigation such that the obligations of the parties are enforce- able in court. One of the Bands’ obligations under the agreement and court order was to create a means by which the Bands could effectively regulate Band member activities. After the Fond du Lac Band exercised its right to opt out with notice, the two re- maining Bands formed the 1854 Treaty Authority. To this day, the 1854 Treaty Au- thority is the entity responsible for management of the Bands off-reservation hunt- ing, fishing, and gathering rights. The 1854 Treaty Authority employs 10 full-time employees, consisting of an Ad- ministrative Division (3), a Resource Management Division (4) and an Enforcement Division (3). Two of the Resource Management positions are grant (temporary) fund- ed. The organization is overseen by a Board of Directors comprised of the elected Tribal Councils of the Grand Portage and Bois Forte Bands. The 1854 Treaty Au- thority also has a judicial services division which retains a judge to hear matters arising under the tribal code. The 1854 Treaty Authority is a shining example of cooperation as we gather and share biological information with State, Federal, local, and other tribal govern- mental units. The 1854 Treaty Authority is authorized through a Joint Powers Agreement with the State of Minnesota to enforce State natural resource laws over (1) 2 non-tribal users and State Officers are authorized to enforce tribal law applicable to tribal users. The 1854 Treaty Authority has also conducted many natural re- source improvement and research projects with the previously mentioned govern- ment entities, as well as organizations from the private sector. However, the 1854 Treaty Authority has struggled to maintain its full-time staff as we have not had an increase in base funding for our programs of any significance in many years, and in fact the base funding has decreased the last seven funding cycles. Simultaneously, cost of living expenses have been increasing at a regular rate, and some expenses have been increasing at an alarming rate (e.g., health in- surance, vehicle insurance, fuel, etc.). Staff pay costs (wages plus benefits) combined with a decrease in base funding has compelled the Treaty Authority to absorb all the cost increases internally at the expense of other programs and services. How- ever, in 2007 we were unable to do so and two vacated positions (one biologist and one enforcement) remain unfilled due to lack of funding. Of particular concern is the fact that our current enforcement staffing level (three officers) is woefully inad- equate to cover the 5 million acres of ceded territory. The funding would go toward filling the two current vacancies and adding an additional officer. I understand that this is not a unique situation as budgets are tight everywhere, but at the same time the Federal Government has a trust responsibility to protect and preserve treaty rights. Those rights will be jeopardized if the 1854 Treaty Au- thority cannot fulfill its obligations as an effective manager of treaty resources. We strongly believe that we can continue to be an integral and positive component of natural resource management in northeastern Minnesota. As history shows in the short 20 years of our existence we have been able to establish the Bands rightful place among all stakeholders and provide services that stretch beyond tribal benefit. In short, the work we do benefits all users and citizens of this region. Without an increase in base funding, the Treaty Authority will be forced to make further changes that will result in diminishment of services to the Band members and lose the Bands’ ability to participate meaningfully in natural resource manage- ment and conservation in northeastern Minnesota. Finally, I would like to close with a sincere thank you for the years of funding which have enabled the tribes success in this area and respectfully reiterate the re- quest of an additional $270,000 in base funding to continue our work in the natural resource realm which is a positive for everyone. PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PETROLEUM GEOLOGISTS To the chair and members of the subcommittee: Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) about the importance of the geological programs conducted by the U.S. Geo- logical Survey (USGS). AAPG is the world’s largest scientific and professional geological association. The purpose of the association is to advance the science of geology, foster scientific re- search, and promote technology. AAPG has more than 34,000 members around the world, with roughly two-thirds living and working in the United States. These are the professional geoscientists in industry, government, and academia who practice, regulate, and teach the science and process of finding and producing energy re- sources from the Earth. AAPG strives to increase public awareness of the crucial role that the geosciences, and particularly petroleum geology, play in our society. The USGS is crucial to meeting these societal needs, and several of its programs deserve special attention by the subcommittee. GEOLOGIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENTS Energy Resources Program The USGS Energy Resources Program (ERP) conducts both basic and applied geo- science research focused on geologic energy resources (both domestic and inter- national), including oil, natural gas, coal, coalbed methane, gas hydrates, geo- thermal, oil shale, bitumen, and heavy oil. ERP also conducts research on the envi- ronmental, economic, and human health impacts of the production and use of these resources. This research provides both the public and private sectors with vital in- formation. An urgent problem that the ERP is currently working on is the preservation of geological and geophysical data. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005, Public Law 109–58) includes section 351 Preservation of Geological and Geophysical Data. This program is designed to preserve geological, geophysical data, and engineering data, maps, well logs, and samples. It further envisages creating a national catalog 3 of this archival material, and providing technical and financial assistance related to the archival material. As the act stipulated, the USGS has developed a plan to con- duct this program, and is ready to go. It awaits sufficient appropriated funds to achieve the goals and objectives set forth in EPACT 2005. Why is preservation important? Responsible management and efficient develop- ment of natural resources requires access to the best available scientific informa- tion. Over many years industry, such as petroleum and mining companies, has in- vested billions of dollars to acquire geological and geophysical data. Because of changing company focus and economic conditions this data may no longer have value to the company that acquired it, and is in jeopardy of being discarded. But this data still has value to society. The data is valuable for further natural resources exploration and development, and can be applied to basic and applied earth systems research, environmental remediation, and natural-hazard mitigation. It is the type of data that will enable future generations of scientists and policy makers to address the Nation’s energy, environmental, and natural-hazard chal- lenges of the 21st century. The EPACT 2005 section 351 program was authorized at $30 million annually from fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2010. Historical allocations for this pro- gram have ranged from $750,000 to $1,000,000 per year. These funding levels are inadequate to achieve this program’s objectives. AAPG supports President Obama’s fiscal year 2010 request to fund the Energy Resources Program activities at $29.7 million, and asks the subcommittee to addi- tionally appropriate $30 million authorized by EPACT 2005 for the preservation of geological and geophysical data, bringing the total Energy Resource Program budget to $59.7 million.