Amended Proposed Finding Against Acknowledgment of the Pointe-au-Chien Indian Tribe (PACIT) of Louisiana, 31142-31143 [E8-12153]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
31142
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 105 / Friday, May 30, 2008 / Notices
request for this document. The three
subgroups of the BCCM petitioner
submitted current and former governing
documents describing their individual
governing procedures and membership
criteria. All three subgroups require
descent from historical Indians, but do
not identify which historical Indians. In
the absence of a BCCM governing
document, or a descriptive statement,
the BCCM petitioner does not meet the
requirements of this criterion.
The BCCM petitioner does not meet
the requirements of criterion 83.7(e).
The three subgroups of the petitioner
submitted separate membership lists
identifying a total of 2,545 members.
The GCD subgroup’s membership list
lacked certification, and the ‘‘Grand
Council’’ governing body of the
petitioner did not separately certify the
three subgroups’ lists. The regulations
require that the petitioner’s governing
body separately certify its current,
complete membership list. An analysis
of selected members demonstrates that
more than half of them descend from at
least one of two individual historical
‘‘Indians,’’ but those historical
individuals have not been shown to be
a part of a historical Indian tribe, or of
historical tribes which combined and
functioned as a single tribal entity. The
evidence in the record has not
demonstrated that the BCCM
petitioner’s members descend from a
historical Indian tribe. Therefore, the
petitioner does not meet the
requirements of criterion 83.7(e).
The BCCM petitioner meets the
requirements of criterion 83.7(f). The
names of current BCCM members do not
appear on rolls of federally recognized
Indian tribes reviewed for this amended
proposed finding. Additionally, each of
the BCCM petitioner’s subgroups
requires its members to disavow
membership in any other Indian group,
and their submissions included
disavowals for 89 percent of the 2,545
BCCM members. Because evidence in
the record indicates that the petitioning
group is composed principally of
persons who are not members of any
acknowledged North American Indian
tribe, the BCCM petitioner meets the
requirements of this criterion.
The BCCM petitioner meets the
requirements of criterion 83.7(g).
Because no evidence has been
submitted or located that indicates the
petitioner, its members, or their
ancestors have been the subject of
congressional legislation that has
expressly terminated or forbidden a
relationship with the Federal
Government as Indians or as an Indian
tribe, the BCCM petitioner meets the
requirements of this criterion.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:39 May 29, 2008
Jkt 214001
As provided by 25 CFR 83.10(h), a
report summarizing the evidence,
reasoning, and analyses that are the
basis for the amended proposed finding
will be provided to the petitioner and
interested parties, and is available to
other parties upon written request.
After the expiration of the comment
and response periods described above,
the Department will consult with the
petitioner concerning establishment of a
schedule for preparation of the final
determination. The AS-IA will publish
the final determination of the
petitioner’s status in the Federal
Register as provided in 25 CFR 83.10(1),
at a time that is consistent with that
schedule.
Dated: May 22, 2008.
Carl J. Artman,
Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. E8–12155 Filed 5–29–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–G1–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Amended Proposed Finding Against
Acknowledgment of the Pointe-auChien Indian Tribe (PACIT) of
Louisiana
Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of amended proposed
finding.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Pursuant to 25 CFR 83.10(h),
the Department of the Interior
(Department) gives notice that the
Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs
(AS–IA) proposes to determine that the
Pointe-au-Chien Indian Tribe, c/o
Charles Verdin, P.O. Box 416, Montegut,
Louisiana 70377, is not an Indian tribe
within the meaning of Federal law.
This notice is based on a
determination that the petitioner does
not satisfy all seven of the criteria set
forth in Part 83 of Title 25 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (25 CFR Part 83),
specifically criteria 83.7(b), 83.7(c), and
83.7(e), and therefore, does not meet the
requirements for a government-togovernment relationship with the
United States.
DATES: Comments on this amended
proposed finding are due on or before
November 26, 2008. Publication of this
notice of the amended proposed finding
in the Federal Register initiates a 180day comment period during which the
petitioner and interested and informed
parties may submit arguments and
evidence to support or rebut the
evidence relied upon in the amended
proposed finding. Interested or
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
informed parties must provide a copy of
their comments to the petitioner. The
regulations, 25 CFR 83.10(k), provide
petitioners a minimum of 60 days to
respond to any submissions on the
amended proposed finding received
from interested and informed parties
during the comment period.
ADDRESSES: Comments and requests for
a copy of the summary evaluation of the
evidence should be addressed to the
Office of the Assistant Secretary—
Indian Affairs, Attention: Office of
Federal Acknowledgment, 1951
Constitution Avenue, NW., Mail Stop
34B–SIB, Washington, DC 20240.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R.
Lee Fleming, Director, Office of Federal
Acknowledgment, (202) 513–7650.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Department publishes this notice in the
exercise of authority that the Secretary
of the Interior delegated to the AS—IA
by 209 DM 8.
The Pointe-au-Chien Indian Tribe
(PACIT), Petitioner #56b, claims to be
the continuation of a historical Indian
community on a bayou in south-central
Louisiana that was originally settled in
the mid-19th century. PACIT has 682
members. It has a written constitution as
its governing document. PACIT’s
membership criteria require its members
to descend from an individual living in
the Bayou ‘‘Pointe-au-Chien’’ Indian
settlement in 1900. It has described its
members as descendants of the
historical Chitimacha, Acolapissa,
Atakapa, Choctaw, and Biloxi Indian
tribes, but its members and their
ancestors have been called ‘‘Houma’’
Indians since at least 1907. The
petitioner’s current organization was
incorporated under Louisiana law in
1993 as the ‘‘Documented Houma
Tribe’’ and adopted the name ‘‘Pointe au
Chien Indian Tribe’’ in 1995, adding
hyphens to its name in 2005. Most of
PACIT’s members previously had been
members of the United Houma Nation
(UHN), Petitioner #56, which received a
negative proposed finding in 1994.
PACIT submitted a letter of intent to
petition for Federal acknowledgment in
1996. The Department advised the
PACIT petitioner in 1997 of its decision
to issue an ‘‘amended Proposed
Finding’’ for PACIT, saying that,
‘‘[p]rocedurally, PACIT is being treated
as a petitioner with a proposed finding.
* * *’’ The Department informed the
PACIT petitioner that it would treat the
petitioner as being ‘‘covered by the
documented petition which was
previously submitted’’ by the UHN
petitioner. The Department set a time
period for PACIT to comment on the
UHN proposed finding and submit its
E:\FR\FM\30MYN1.SGM
30MYN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 105 / Friday, May 30, 2008 / Notices
own petition documentation. On
November 10, 1997, the Department
received petition documentation from
the PACIT petitioner. The Department
notified PACIT that evaluation of its
petition began on February 4, 2005, and
a period to submit additional materials
would close on April 15, 2005. The
PACIT petitioner submitted petition
documentation to the Department by
April 15, 2005.
This notice is based on a
determination that PACIT does not
satisfy all of the seven mandatory
criteria for acknowledgment in 25 CFR
83.7. The acknowledgment process is
based on the regulations at 25 CFR Part
83. Under these regulations, the
petitioner has the burden to present
evidence that it meets the seven
mandatory criteria in section 83.7. This
amended proposed finding reaches the
following conclusions for each of the
mandatory criteria in 25 CFR Part 83.7:
The PACIT petitioner meets the
requirements of criterion 83.7(a). This
amended proposed finding concludes
that identifications of a ‘‘Houma’’
population or group when combined
with other identifications of a Pointe au
Chien settlement or group of the
‘‘Houma’’ provides evidence sufficient
to demonstrate the substantially
continuous identification of the
petitioner as an Indian entity since
1900. Therefore, the PACIT petitioner
meets the requirements of this criterion.
The PACIT petitioner does not meet
the requirements of criterion 83.7(b).
This amended proposed finding
concludes the PACIT petitioner has not
demonstrated that it meets the
requirements of this criterion because
the evidence is insufficient to
demonstrate that its ancestors and
others associated with them constituted
a community before 1830. This finding
concludes the PACIT petitioner meets
this criterion between 1830 and 1940 on
the basis of the conclusions contained
in the 1994 proposed finding on the
UHN petitioner and that it meets this
criterion since 1940 on the basis of the
evidence available for this amended
proposed finding. Because the evidence
in the record does not show that the
petitioning group existed as a
community from historical times to the
present, the PACIT petitioner has not
demonstrated that it meets the
requirements of this criterion.
The PACIT petitioner does not meet
the requirements of criterion 83.7(c).
This amended proposed finding
concludes the PACIT petitioner has not
demonstrated that it meets the
requirements of this criterion because
there is insufficient evidence that it
maintained political influence over its
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:52 May 29, 2008
Jkt 214001
historical ancestors before 1830. This
finding concludes the PACIT petitioner
meets this criterion between 1830 and
1940 on the basis of the conclusions
contained in the 1994 proposed finding
on the UHN petitioner. For the period
since 1940, the evidence available for
this amended proposed finding is
sufficient to demonstrate that the
petitioner meets this criterion only since
1988. Because the evidence in the
record is insufficient to show that the
petitioning group has maintained
political influence over group members
from historical times to the present, the
PACIT petitioner has not demonstrated
that it meets the requirements of this
criterion.
The PACIT petitioner meets the
requirements of criterion 83.7(d). The
PACIT petitioner provided current
governing documents that describe its
governing procedures and membership
criteria, and, therefore, meets the
requirements of this criterion.
The PACIT petitioner does not meet
the requirements of criterion 83.7(e).
The petitioner submitted a certified
membership list identifying 682
members. An analysis of selected
members demonstrates that most of
them descend from at least one of two
individual historical ‘‘Indians,’’ but
those historical individuals have not
been shown to be a part of a historical
Indian tribe, or of historical Indian
tribes which combined and functioned
as a single tribal entity. The evidence in
the record has not demonstrated that the
PACIT petitioner’s members descend
from a historical Indian tribe and,
therefore, the PACIT petitioner does not
meet the requirements of this criterion.
The PACIT petitioner meets the
requirements of criterion 83.7(f). The
names of current PACIT members do
not appear on rolls of federally
recognized Indian tribes reviewed for
this amended proposed finding.
Additionally, the PACIT petitioner
requires its members to disavow
membership in any other Indian group,
and its submission included disavowals
for 84 percent of the 682 PACIT
members. Because evidence in the
record indicates that the petitioning
group is composed principally of
persons who are not members of any
acknowledged North American Indian
tribe, the PACIT petitioner meets the
requirements of this criterion.
The PACIT petitioner meets the
requirements of criterion 83.7(g).
Because no evidence has been
submitted or located that indicates the
petitioner, its members, or their
ancestors have been the subject of
congressional legislation that has
expressly terminated or forbidden a
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
31143
relationship with the Federal
Government as Indians or as an Indian
tribe, the PACIT petitioner meets the
requirements of this criterion.
As provided by 25 CFR 83.10(h), a
report summarizing the evidence,
reasoning, and analyses that are the
basis for the amended proposed finding
will be provided to the petitioner and
interested parties, and is available to
other parties upon written request.
After the expiration of the comment
and response periods described above,
the Department will consult with the
petitioner concerning establishment of a
schedule for preparation of the final
determination. The AS-IA will publish
the final determination of the
petitioner’s status in the Federal
Register as provided in 25 CFR 83.10(1),
at a time that is consistent with that
schedule.
Dated: May 22, 2008.
Carl J. Artman,
Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. E8–12153 Filed 5–29–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–G1–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Final Environmental Impact Statement
for the Cowlitz Indian Tribe’s Proposed
151.87-Acre Fee-to-Trust Transfer,
Reservation Proclamation, and CasinoResort Project, Clark County, WA
Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This notice advises the public
that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
as lead agency, with the Cowlitz Indian
Tribe (Tribe), National Indian Gaming
Commission (NIGC), Federal Highway
Administration, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Washington Department of
Transportation, Clark County, Clark
County Sheriff’s Office, Cowlitz County,
City of La Center, City of Vancouver,
City of Ridgefield, Port of Ridgefield,
City of Woodland and City of Battle
Ground as cooperating agencies, intends
to file a Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency for
the Tribe’s proposed 151.87-acre fee-totrust transfer, reservation proclamation,
and casino-resort project in Clark
County, Washington. The proposed
action would include approval by the
NIGC of a gaming management contract.
The FEIS is now available to the public
and is part of the administrative process
that evaluates tribal applications that
seek to have the United States take land
E:\FR\FM\30MYN1.SGM
30MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 105 (Friday, May 30, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31142-31143]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-12153]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Amended Proposed Finding Against Acknowledgment of the Pointe-au-
Chien Indian Tribe (PACIT) of Louisiana
AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of amended proposed finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to 25 CFR 83.10(h), the Department of the Interior
(Department) gives notice that the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs
(AS-IA) proposes to determine that the Pointe-au-Chien Indian Tribe, c/
o Charles Verdin, P.O. Box 416, Montegut, Louisiana 70377, is not an
Indian tribe within the meaning of Federal law.
This notice is based on a determination that the petitioner does
not satisfy all seven of the criteria set forth in Part 83 of Title 25
of the Code of Federal Regulations (25 CFR Part 83), specifically
criteria 83.7(b), 83.7(c), and 83.7(e), and therefore, does not meet
the requirements for a government-to-government relationship with the
United States.
DATES: Comments on this amended proposed finding are due on or before
November 26, 2008. Publication of this notice of the amended proposed
finding in the Federal Register initiates a 180-day comment period
during which the petitioner and interested and informed parties may
submit arguments and evidence to support or rebut the evidence relied
upon in the amended proposed finding. Interested or informed parties
must provide a copy of their comments to the petitioner. The
regulations, 25 CFR 83.10(k), provide petitioners a minimum of 60 days
to respond to any submissions on the amended proposed finding received
from interested and informed parties during the comment period.
ADDRESSES: Comments and requests for a copy of the summary evaluation
of the evidence should be addressed to the Office of the Assistant
Secretary--Indian Affairs, Attention: Office of Federal Acknowledgment,
1951 Constitution Avenue, NW., Mail Stop 34B-SIB, Washington, DC 20240.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R. Lee Fleming, Director, Office of
Federal Acknowledgment, (202) 513-7650.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department publishes this notice in the
exercise of authority that the Secretary of the Interior delegated to
the AS--IA by 209 DM 8.
The Pointe-au-Chien Indian Tribe (PACIT), Petitioner 56b,
claims to be the continuation of a historical Indian community on a
bayou in south-central Louisiana that was originally settled in the
mid-19th century. PACIT has 682 members. It has a written constitution
as its governing document. PACIT's membership criteria require its
members to descend from an individual living in the Bayou ``Pointe-au-
Chien'' Indian settlement in 1900. It has described its members as
descendants of the historical Chitimacha, Acolapissa, Atakapa, Choctaw,
and Biloxi Indian tribes, but its members and their ancestors have been
called ``Houma'' Indians since at least 1907. The petitioner's current
organization was incorporated under Louisiana law in 1993 as the
``Documented Houma Tribe'' and adopted the name ``Pointe au Chien
Indian Tribe'' in 1995, adding hyphens to its name in 2005. Most of
PACIT's members previously had been members of the United Houma Nation
(UHN), Petitioner 56, which received a negative proposed
finding in 1994.
PACIT submitted a letter of intent to petition for Federal
acknowledgment in 1996. The Department advised the PACIT petitioner in
1997 of its decision to issue an ``amended Proposed Finding'' for
PACIT, saying that, ``[p]rocedurally, PACIT is being treated as a
petitioner with a proposed finding. * * *'' The Department informed the
PACIT petitioner that it would treat the petitioner as being ``covered
by the documented petition which was previously submitted'' by the UHN
petitioner. The Department set a time period for PACIT to comment on
the UHN proposed finding and submit its
[[Page 31143]]
own petition documentation. On November 10, 1997, the Department
received petition documentation from the PACIT petitioner. The
Department notified PACIT that evaluation of its petition began on
February 4, 2005, and a period to submit additional materials would
close on April 15, 2005. The PACIT petitioner submitted petition
documentation to the Department by April 15, 2005.
This notice is based on a determination that PACIT does not satisfy
all of the seven mandatory criteria for acknowledgment in 25 CFR 83.7.
The acknowledgment process is based on the regulations at 25 CFR Part
83. Under these regulations, the petitioner has the burden to present
evidence that it meets the seven mandatory criteria in section 83.7.
This amended proposed finding reaches the following conclusions for
each of the mandatory criteria in 25 CFR Part 83.7:
The PACIT petitioner meets the requirements of criterion 83.7(a).
This amended proposed finding concludes that identifications of a
``Houma'' population or group when combined with other identifications
of a Pointe au Chien settlement or group of the ``Houma'' provides
evidence sufficient to demonstrate the substantially continuous
identification of the petitioner as an Indian entity since 1900.
Therefore, the PACIT petitioner meets the requirements of this
criterion.
The PACIT petitioner does not meet the requirements of criterion
83.7(b). This amended proposed finding concludes the PACIT petitioner
has not demonstrated that it meets the requirements of this criterion
because the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that its ancestors
and others associated with them constituted a community before 1830.
This finding concludes the PACIT petitioner meets this criterion
between 1830 and 1940 on the basis of the conclusions contained in the
1994 proposed finding on the UHN petitioner and that it meets this
criterion since 1940 on the basis of the evidence available for this
amended proposed finding. Because the evidence in the record does not
show that the petitioning group existed as a community from historical
times to the present, the PACIT petitioner has not demonstrated that it
meets the requirements of this criterion.
The PACIT petitioner does not meet the requirements of criterion
83.7(c). This amended proposed finding concludes the PACIT petitioner
has not demonstrated that it meets the requirements of this criterion
because there is insufficient evidence that it maintained political
influence over its historical ancestors before 1830. This finding
concludes the PACIT petitioner meets this criterion between 1830 and
1940 on the basis of the conclusions contained in the 1994 proposed
finding on the UHN petitioner. For the period since 1940, the evidence
available for this amended proposed finding is sufficient to
demonstrate that the petitioner meets this criterion only since 1988.
Because the evidence in the record is insufficient to show that the
petitioning group has maintained political influence over group members
from historical times to the present, the PACIT petitioner has not
demonstrated that it meets the requirements of this criterion.
The PACIT petitioner meets the requirements of criterion 83.7(d).
The PACIT petitioner provided current governing documents that describe
its governing procedures and membership criteria, and, therefore, meets
the requirements of this criterion.
The PACIT petitioner does not meet the requirements of criterion
83.7(e). The petitioner submitted a certified membership list
identifying 682 members. An analysis of selected members demonstrates
that most of them descend from at least one of two individual
historical ``Indians,'' but those historical individuals have not been
shown to be a part of a historical Indian tribe, or of historical
Indian tribes which combined and functioned as a single tribal entity.
The evidence in the record has not demonstrated that the PACIT
petitioner's members descend from a historical Indian tribe and,
therefore, the PACIT petitioner does not meet the requirements of this
criterion.
The PACIT petitioner meets the requirements of criterion 83.7(f).
The names of current PACIT members do not appear on rolls of federally
recognized Indian tribes reviewed for this amended proposed finding.
Additionally, the PACIT petitioner requires its members to disavow
membership in any other Indian group, and its submission included
disavowals for 84 percent of the 682 PACIT members. Because evidence in
the record indicates that the petitioning group is composed principally
of persons who are not members of any acknowledged North American
Indian tribe, the PACIT petitioner meets the requirements of this
criterion.
The PACIT petitioner meets the requirements of criterion 83.7(g).
Because no evidence has been submitted or located that indicates the
petitioner, its members, or their ancestors have been the subject of
congressional legislation that has expressly terminated or forbidden a
relationship with the Federal Government as Indians or as an Indian
tribe, the PACIT petitioner meets the requirements of this criterion.
As provided by 25 CFR 83.10(h), a report summarizing the evidence,
reasoning, and analyses that are the basis for the amended proposed
finding will be provided to the petitioner and interested parties, and
is available to other parties upon written request.
After the expiration of the comment and response periods described
above, the Department will consult with the petitioner concerning
establishment of a schedule for preparation of the final determination.
The AS-IA will publish the final determination of the petitioner's
status in the Federal Register as provided in 25 CFR 83.10(1), at a
time that is consistent with that schedule.
Dated: May 22, 2008.
Carl J. Artman,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. E8-12153 Filed 5-29-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-G1-P
