Amended Proposed Finding Against Acknowledgment of the Biloxi, Chitimacha Confederation of Muskogees, Inc. (BCCM) of Louisiana, 31140-31142 [E8-12155]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
31140
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 105 / Friday, May 30, 2008 / Notices
Former mortgagors and purchasers of
HUD-owned properties, home
improvement loan debtors who are
delinquent or in default (at least 90-days
delinquent on their loans or who have
had their partial claim subordinate
mortgage called due and payable and
has not been paid in full); or who have
any outstanding claims paid during the
last three years on a title II insured or
guaranteed home mortgage loans, or
individual who has claim paid in the
last three years on a Title I loan.
Period of the Match: Matching will
begin at least 40 days from the date
copies of the signed (by both agencies
DIBS) computer matching agreements
are sent to both Houses of Congress or
at least 30 days from the date this Notice
is published in the Federal Register,
whichever is later, providing no
comments are received which would
result in a contrary determination. The
matching program will be in effect and
continue for 18 months with an option
to renew for 12 additional months
unless one of the parties to the
agreement advises the other in writing
to terminate or modify the agreement.
Dated: May 22, 2008.
Joseph M. Milazzo,
Acting Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. E8–12050 Filed 5–29–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R4–ES–2008–N0139; 40120–1112–
0000–F2; ABC Code: F2]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Permits
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of receipt of an
application for an incidental take permit
for the expansion of the Sun Ray
Wastewater Treatment Facility, Polk
County, Florida.
AGENCY:
We, the Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service), announce the
availability of an incidental take permit
(ITP) and Habitat Conservation Plan
(HCP). Polk County Utilities (applicants)
request an ITP pursuant to section
10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The
applicants anticipate taking about 6.63
acres of sand skink (Neopseps
reynoldsi) and bluetail mole skink
(Eumeces egregius lividus) (skinks)
foraging and sheltering habitat
incidental to construction activities
associated with the expansion of the
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:52 May 29, 2008
Jkt 214001
existing Sun Ray Wastewater Treatment
Facility in Polk County, Florida
(project). The applicants’ HCP describes
the mitigation and minimization
measures proposed to address the
effects of the project on the skinks.
DATES: We must receive your written
comments on the ITP application and
HCP on or before June 30, 2008.
ADDRESSES: See the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section below for
information on how to submit your
comments on the ITP application and
HCP. You may obtain a copy of the ITP
application and HCP by writing the
South Florida Ecological Services
Office, Attn: Permit number TE182090–
0, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1339
20th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960–3559.
In addition, we will make the ITP
application and HCP available for
public inspection by appointment
during normal business hours at the
above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Trish Adams, Fish and Wildlife
Biologist, South Florida Ecological
Services Office (see ADDRESSES);
telephone: (772) 562–3909, ext. 232.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: If you
wish to comment on the ITP application
and HCP, you may submit comments by
any one of the following methods.
Please reference permit number
TE182090–0 in such comments.
1. Mail or hand-deliver comments to
our South Florida Ecological Services
Office address (see ADDRESSES).
2. E-mail comments to
trish_adams@fws.gov. If you do not
receive a confirmation that we have
received your e-mail message, contact
us directly at the telephone number
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Before including your address, phone
number, e-mail address, or other
personal identifying information in your
comments, you should be aware that
your entire comment-including your
personal identifying information-may be
made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask us in your comment
to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
Construction activities associated
with the expansion of the existing
wastewater treatment facility will take
place within Sections 7 and 18,
Township 32, Range 28, Frostproof,
Polk County, Florida.
Polk County Utilities is proposing to
expand the Sun Ray Wastewater
Treatment Facility onto a 37.09 acre site
adjacent to the existing facility that
would result in the development of 6.63
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
acres of occupied skink habitat. The
applicant proposes to mitigate for
impacts by restoring and managing in
perpetuity 19.9 acres of scrub habitat on
site.
We have determined that the
applicants’ proposal, including the
proposed mitigation and minimization
measures, will have a minor or
negligible effect on the species covered
in the HCP. Therefore, the ITP is a ‘‘loweffect’’ project and qualifies as a
categorical exclusion under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as
provided by the Department of the
Interior Manual (516 DM 2 Appendix 1
and 516 DM 6 Appendix 1). Low-effect
HCPs are those involving (1) minor or
negligible effects on federally listed or
candidate species and their habitats and
(2) minor or negligible effects on other
environmental values or resources.
Based on our review of public
comments that we receive in response to
this notice, we may revise this
preliminary determination.
We will evaluate the HCP and
comments submitted thereon to
determine whether the application
meets the requirements of section 10(a)
of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). If we
determine that the application meets the
requirements, we will issue the ITP for
incidental take of the skinks. We will
also evaluate whether issuance of the
section 10(a)(1)(B) ITP complies with
section 7 of the Act by conducting an
intra-Service section 7 consultation. We
will use the results of this consultation,
in combination with the above findings,
in the final analysis to determine
whether or not to issue the ITP.
Authority: We provide this notice pursuant
to Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and NEPA
regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).
Dated: May 14, 2008.
Paul Souza,
Field Supervisor, South Florida Ecological
Services Office.
[FR Doc. E8–12067 Filed 5–29–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Amended Proposed Finding Against
Acknowledgment of the Biloxi,
Chitimacha Confederation of
Muskogees, Inc. (BCCM) of Louisiana
AGENCY:
Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Interior.
ACTION:
Notice of amended proposed
finding.
E:\FR\FM\30MYN1.SGM
30MYN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 105 / Friday, May 30, 2008 / Notices
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
Biloxi, Chitimacha Confederation of
Muskogees, Inc. (BCCM), c/o Randy
Verdun, 114 Retreat Drive, Bourg,
Lousiana 70343, 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),
83.7(d), 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 Biloxi, Chitimacha Confederation
of Muskogees, Inc. (BCCM), Petitioner
#56a, is a confederation of three
subgroups each of which claims to be
the continuation of a historical Indian
community on a specific bayou in
south-central Louisiana: The Bayou
Lafourche Band, Grand Caillou/Dulac
Band, and Isle de Jean Charles Band.
BCCM has 2,545 members in its three
subgroups. BCCM’s subgroups have
adopted constitutions, but BCCM has
not submitted a governing document for
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:52 May 29, 2008
Jkt 214001
the confederation. BCCM claims to
descend from the historical Biloxi,
Chitimacha, Acolapissa, Atakapa, and
Choctaw tribes, but its members and
their ancestors have been called
‘‘Houma’’ Indians since at least 1907.
The petitioner’s current organization
was formed in 1995. Most of BCCM’s
members previously had been members
of the United Houma Nation (UHN),
Petitioner #56, which received a
negative proposed finding in 1994.
BCCM submitted a letter of intent to
petition for Federal acknowledgment in
1995. The Department advised the
BCCM petitioner in 1996 of its decision
to issue an ‘‘amended Proposed
Finding’’ for BCCM, saying that,
‘‘[p]rocedurally, BCCM is being treated
as a petitioner with a proposed finding.
* * *’’ The Department informed the
BCCM 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 BCCM to comment on the
UHN proposed finding and submit its
own petition documentation. On
November 6, 1996, BCCM submitted
comments on the UHN petition plus its
own petition documentation. BCCM
submitted additional petition
documentation on May 15, 1997. The
Department notified BCCM that
evaluation of its petition began on
February 4, 2005, and a period to submit
additional materials would close on
April 15, 2005. Three subgroups of
BCCM separately submitted petition
documentation to the Department by
April 15, 2005.
This notice is based on a
determination that BCCM 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 BCCM 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 settlements
or groups of the ‘‘Houma’’ associated
with the petitioner’s subgroups provide
evidence sufficient to demonstrate the
substantially continuous identification
of the subgroups of the petitioner as
Indian entities since 1900. Therefore,
the BCCM petitioner meets the
requirements of this criterion.
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
31141
The BCCM petitioner does not meet
the requirements of criterion 83.7(b).
This amended proposed finding
concludes the BCCM petitioner has not
demonstrated that it meets the
requirements of this criterion. The
evidence is insufficient to demonstrate
that the petitioner’s ancestors and others
associated with them constituted a
community before 1830. This finding
concludes the BCCM 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, there is sufficient evidence for the
Isle de Jean Charles subgroup of the
petitioner, but the evidence in the
record is not sufficient to show that all
of the petitioner’s subgroups, or the
petitioner as a whole, meet the
requirements of this criterion. Because
the evidence in the record does not
show that the petitioning group has
existed as a community from historical
times to the present, the BCCM
petitioner has not demonstrated that it
meets the requirements of this criterion.
The BCCM petitioner does not meet
the requirements of criterion 83.7(c).
This amended proposed finding
concludes the BCCM petitioner has not
demonstrated that it meets the
requirements of this criterion. There is
insufficient evidence the petitioner
maintained political influence over its
historical ancestors before 1830. This
finding concludes the BCCM 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, there is sufficient evidence
for the Isle de Jean Charles subgroup of
the petitioner only since the 1990’s.
Thus, the evidence in the record is
insufficient to show that the petitioner’s
subgroups meet the requirements of this
criterion since 1940. The available
evidence is not sufficient to show that
the petitioner’s confederation currently
maintains political influence over its
members. 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
BCCM petitioner has not demonstrated
that it meets the requirements of this
criterion.
The BCCM petitioner does not meet
the requirements of criterion 83.7(d).
The petitioner, a confederation
comprising three subgroups, lacks a
governing document for the
confederation or a statement describing
in full how the confederation governs
itself and defines its membership
criteria, and did not respond to a
E:\FR\FM\30MYN1.SGM
30MYN1
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
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 105 (Friday, May 30, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31140-31142]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-12155]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Amended Proposed Finding Against Acknowledgment of the Biloxi,
Chitimacha Confederation of Muskogees, Inc. (BCCM) of Louisiana
AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of amended proposed finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 31141]]
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 Biloxi, Chitimacha Confederation
of Muskogees, Inc. (BCCM), c/o Randy Verdun, 114 Retreat Drive, Bourg,
Lousiana 70343, 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), 83.7(d), 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 Biloxi, Chitimacha Confederation of Muskogees, Inc. (BCCM),
Petitioner 56a, is a confederation of three subgroups each of
which claims to be the continuation of a historical Indian community on
a specific bayou in south-central Louisiana: The Bayou Lafourche Band,
Grand Caillou/Dulac Band, and Isle de Jean Charles Band. BCCM has 2,545
members in its three subgroups. BCCM's subgroups have adopted
constitutions, but BCCM has not submitted a governing document for the
confederation. BCCM claims to descend from the historical Biloxi,
Chitimacha, Acolapissa, Atakapa, and Choctaw tribes, but its members
and their ancestors have been called ``Houma'' Indians since at least
1907. The petitioner's current organization was formed in 1995. Most of
BCCM's members previously had been members of the United Houma Nation
(UHN), Petitioner 56, which received a negative proposed
finding in 1994.
BCCM submitted a letter of intent to petition for Federal
acknowledgment in 1995. The Department advised the BCCM petitioner in
1996 of its decision to issue an ``amended Proposed Finding'' for BCCM,
saying that, ``[p]rocedurally, BCCM is being treated as a petitioner
with a proposed finding. * * *'' The Department informed the BCCM
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 BCCM to comment on the
UHN proposed finding and submit its own petition documentation. On
November 6, 1996, BCCM submitted comments on the UHN petition plus its
own petition documentation. BCCM submitted additional petition
documentation on May 15, 1997. The Department notified BCCM that
evaluation of its petition began on February 4, 2005, and a period to
submit additional materials would close on April 15, 2005. Three
subgroups of BCCM separately submitted petition documentation to the
Department by April 15, 2005.
This notice is based on a determination that BCCM 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 BCCM 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 settlements or groups of the ``Houma'' associated with the
petitioner's subgroups provide evidence sufficient to demonstrate the
substantially continuous identification of the subgroups of the
petitioner as Indian entities since 1900. Therefore, the BCCM
petitioner meets the requirements of this criterion.
The BCCM petitioner does not meet the requirements of criterion
83.7(b). This amended proposed finding concludes the BCCM petitioner
has not demonstrated that it meets the requirements of this criterion.
The evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner's
ancestors and others associated with them constituted a community
before 1830. This finding concludes the BCCM 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, there is sufficient evidence for the Isle de Jean
Charles subgroup of the petitioner, but the evidence in the record is
not sufficient to show that all of the petitioner's subgroups, or the
petitioner as a whole, meet the requirements of this criterion. Because
the evidence in the record does not show that the petitioning group has
existed as a community from historical times to the present, the BCCM
petitioner has not demonstrated that it meets the requirements of this
criterion.
The BCCM petitioner does not meet the requirements of criterion
83.7(c). This amended proposed finding concludes the BCCM petitioner
has not demonstrated that it meets the requirements of this criterion.
There is insufficient evidence the petitioner maintained political
influence over its historical ancestors before 1830. This finding
concludes the BCCM 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, there is
sufficient evidence for the Isle de Jean Charles subgroup of the
petitioner only since the 1990's. Thus, the evidence in the record is
insufficient to show that the petitioner's subgroups meet the
requirements of this criterion since 1940. The available evidence is
not sufficient to show that the petitioner's confederation currently
maintains political influence over its members. 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 BCCM petitioner has not demonstrated that it meets
the requirements of this criterion.
The BCCM petitioner does not meet the requirements of criterion
83.7(d). The petitioner, a confederation comprising three subgroups,
lacks a governing document for the confederation or a statement
describing in full how the confederation governs itself and defines its
membership criteria, and did not respond to a
[[Page 31142]]
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.
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
