Final Determination Against Federal Acknowledgment of the Choctaw Nation of Florida, 23621-23623 [2011-10117]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2011 / Notices
cokendolpheri), and Helotes mold beetle
(Batrisodes venyivi). Seven additional
species have been identified as
potentially affected by the proposed
covered activities and maybe considered
for inclusion in the RHCP: Whooping
crane (Grus americana), big red sage
(Salvia penstemonoides), to busch
fishhook cactus (Sclerocactus
brevihamatus ssp tobuschii), bracted
twistflower (Streptanthus bracteatus),
golden orb (Quadrula aurea), Texas
pimpleback (Quadrula petrina), and
Texas fatmucket (Lampsilis bracteata).
Incidental take authorization for these
additional species may be necessary
during the term of the ITP. Inclusion of
these species will be determined during
the RHCP planning and development
process. The RHCP may include
conservation measures to benefit these
species, where practicable, and support
research to help fill data gaps regarding
the biology, habitat, distribution, and/or
management of these species, even if
incidental take coverage is not requested
under the ITP.
Candidate and Federally listed
species not likely to be taken by the
covered activities, and therefore not
covered by the proposed ITP, may also
be addressed in the draft RHCP to
explain why the applicants believe
these species will not be taken.
Counties included in the proposed
permit area are Bexar, Medina, Bandera,
Kerr, Kendall, Blanco, and Comal
Counties.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Public Availability of Comments
Written comments we receive become
part of the public record associated with
this action. Before including your
address, phone number, e-mail address,
or other personal identifying
information in your comment, you
should be aware that the 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.
Environmental Review
The Service will conduct an
environmental review to analyze the
proposed action, as well as other
alternatives evaluated and the
associated impacts of each. The draft
EIS will be the basis for the impact
evaluation for each species covered and
the range of alternatives to be addressed.
The draft EIS is expected to provide
biological descriptions of the affected
species and habitats, as well as the
effects of the alternatives on other
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:36 Apr 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
resources, such as vegetation, wetlands,
wildlife, geology and soils, air quality,
water resources, water quality, cultural
resources, land use, recreation, water
use, local economy, and environmental
justice.
Following completion of the
environmental review, the Service will
publish a notice of availability and a
request for comment on the draft EIS
and the applicants’ permit application,
which will include the draft RHCP. The
draft EIS and draft RHCP are expected
to be completed and available to the
public in late 2011.
Joy E. Nicholopoulos,
Acting Regional Director, Region 2,
Albuquerque, New Mexico.
[FR Doc. 2011–10143 Filed 4–26–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R8–FHC–2011–N083; 81331–1334–
8TWG–W4]
Trinity Adaptive Management Working
Group
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
AGENCY:
The Trinity Adaptive
Management Working Group (TAMWG)
affords stakeholders the opportunity to
give policy, management, and technical
input concerning Trinity River
(California) restoration efforts to the
Trinity Management Council (TMC).
The TMC interprets and recommends
policy, coordinates and reviews
management actions, and provides
organizational budget oversight. This
notice announces a TAMWG meeting,
which is open to the public.
DATES: TAMWG will meet from 9 a.m.
to 5 p.m. on Tuesday, May 17, 2011.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
the Weaverville Victorian Inn, 1709
Main Street, Weaverville, CA 96093.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Meeting Information: Randy A. Brown,
TAMWG Designated Federal Officer,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1655
Heindon Road, Arcata, CA 95521;
telephone: (707) 822–7201. Trinity River
Restoration Program
(TRRP)Information: Jennifer Faler,
Acting Executive Director, Trinity River
Restoration Program, P.O. Box 1300,
1313 South Main Street, Weaverville,
CA 96093; telephone: (530) 623–1800;
e-mail: jfaler@usbr.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under
section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
23621
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), this
notice announces a meeting of the
TAMWG.The meeting will include
discussion of the following topics:
• TRRP FY 2012 budget and work
plan,
• Temperature and reservoir
management and recent CVO letter,
• Acting Executive Director’s Report,
• Policies for work in tributary
watersheds,
• Initial report on peak releases,
• Channel rehabilitation phase II
planning update,
• TMC chair report,
• TAMWG bylaws, and
• Designated Federal Officer topics.
Completion of the agenda is dependent
on the amount of time each item takes.
The meeting could end early if the
agenda has been completed.
Dated: April 21, 2011.
Joseph Polos,
Supervisory Fishery Biologist, Arcata Fish
and Wildlife Office, Arcata, CA.
[FR Doc. 2011–10141 Filed 4–26–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Final Determination Against Federal
Acknowledgment of the Choctaw
Nation of Florida
Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of Final Determination.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the Department of the Interior
(Department) declines to acknowledge
that the group known as the ‘‘Choctaw
Nation of Florida’’ (CNF, formerly
known as the Hunter Tsalagi-Choctaw
Tribe), Petitioner #288, c/o Mr. Alfonso
James, Jr., Post Office Box 6322,
Marianna, Florida 32447, is an
American Indian group that exists as an
Indian tribe under Department
procedures. This notice is based on a
determination that the petitioner does
not meet one of the seven mandatory
criteria set forth in 25 CFR 83.7,
specifically criterion 83.7(e), descent
from a historical Indian tribe, and
therefore, the Department may not
acknowledge the petitioner under 25
CFR part 83. Based on the limited
nature and extent of comment and
consistent with previous practices, the
Department did not produce a detailed
report or other summary under the
criteria pertaining to this FD. This
notice is the Final Determination (FD).
DATES: This determination is final and
will become effective 90 days from
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\27APN1.SGM
27APN1
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
23622
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2011 / Notices
publication of this notice in the Federal
Register on July 26, 2011, according to
section 83.10(l)(4), unless a request for
reconsideration is filed with the Interior
Board of Indian Appeals according to
section 83.11.
ADDRESSES: Requests for a copy of the
Federal Register notice should be
addressed to the Office of the Assistant
Secretary—Indian Affairs, Attention:
Office of Federal Acknowledgment,
1951 Constitution Avenue, NW., MS:
34B–SIB, Washington, DC 20240. The
Federal Register notice is also available
through https://www.bia.gov/WhoWeAre/
AS-IA/OFA/RecentCases/index.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R.
Lee Fleming, Director, Office of Federal
Acknowledgment, (202) 513–7650.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 2,
2010, the Department issued a proposed
finding (PF) that the CNF petitioner was
not an American Indian group that
exists as an Indian tribe under
Department procedures because the
petitioner did not meet one of the seven
mandatory criteria for Federal
acknowledgment as an Indian tribe,
criterion 83.7(e). This criterion requires
that the petitioner’s membership consist
of individuals who descend from a
historical Indian tribe or from historical
Indian tribes that combined and
functioned as a single autonomous
political entity. The review of the
evidence for the proposed finding
clearly established that the petitioner
did not meet criterion 83.7(e) and the
Department issued a proposed finding
denying acknowledgment under that
one criterion (83.10(e)(1)). The
Department published a notice of the PF
in the Federal Register on July 12, 2010
(75 FR 39703). Publishing notice of the
PF initiated a 180-day comment period
during which time the petitioner and
interested and informed parties could
submit arguments and evidence to
support or rebut the PF. In response to
the PF, the petitioner or third parties
must provide evidence for the FD that
the petitioner meets the criterion in
question under the standard set forth at
25 CFR 83.6(d). This initial comment
period ended on January 10, 2011.
By letter dated January 3, 2011, the
petitioner’s attorney submitted on the
petitioner’s behalf copies of 44
documents consisting of 74 pages
described as ‘‘additional information’’
for the Department ‘‘to consider in
making its final decision.’’ The
Department received these comments on
January 6, 2011, before the close of the
comment period on January 10, 2011.
The petitioning group did not provide
any narrative or thorough explanation
regarding the relevance of these
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:36 Apr 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
documents to criterion 83.7(e). The
petitioner did not submit any changes to
its most current membership list of 77
individuals. The Department analyzed
the submitted documents as the group’s
comments on the PF. The Department
did not receive comments from any
party other than the petitioner. After the
close of the applicable comment
periods, the Department received an
additional comment from the
petitioner’s attorney. In accord with the
regulations, the Department did not
consider this unsolicited comment in
the preparation of the FD (83.10(l)(1)).
The petitioner claims to be a group of
Choctaw Indians that migrated from
North Carolina to Georgia and then
Florida following the Choctaw Indian
removal of the 1830s. None of the
evidence in the record for the PF
demonstrated the validity of this claim.
None of the evidence in the record for
the PF demonstrated the petitioner’s
members or claimed ancestors
descended from a Choctaw Indian tribe
or any other Indian tribe. The petitioner
did not submit any materials in its
submission for the FD that established,
by the standard set forth at 83.6(d),
descent from a historical Indian tribe as
required by criterion 83.7(e).
Of the 44 documents the petitioner
submitted for the FD, 37 were
previously submitted and analyzed for
the PF. Only seven of the documents
were new submissions, and six of them
did not provide evidence for
documenting descent from a historical
tribe as required by criterion 83.7(e). Of
these six documents, the first described
statutes of 1852, 1898, and 1902; the
second was a one-sentence description
of ‘‘Fort Chippola’’; the third briefly
described the courthouse history of
Walton County, Florida; the fourth
described the Choctawhatchee River;
the fifth was a two-page list of Choctaw
villages transcribed for the Internet from
the Handbook of American Indians
North of Mexico (1907); and the sixth
described United States Code, Title 18,
Section 1164, ‘‘Destroying boundary and
warning signs.’’ None of these
documents provides descent evidence
linking members of the petitioner to a
historical Indian tribe.
Only one document received from the
petitioner in the comment period had
any bearing on criterion 83.7(e): A
Dawes Commission Roll index entry for
a Lucy Pope. The Department finds this
evidence insufficient to document the
required descent for the petitioner
under criterion 83.7(e) for the following
reasons.
For the PF, the Department
determined that most of the current
group’s members descend from a Burton
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Hunter (b.ca. 1836–1842) and his wife
Lucy (b.ca. 1844–1850) whose maiden
name was not documented. The
petitioner claimed Lucy’s last name was
‘‘Pope’’ and submitted for the PF two
Federal census entries in an attempt to
support its theory: An 1860 Federal
census entry for an ‘‘L. Pope’’ of South
Carolina and an 1870 Federal census
entry for a ‘‘Lucy Pope’’ of Florida.
Evaluation presented in the PF
demonstrates that the census entries
pertained to two women, neither of
whom could have been the wife of
Burton Hunter. Further, the PF found no
evidence in the record that Burton
Hunter’s wife Lucy was a Pope or that
either he or Lucy descended from a
historical Choctaw Indian tribe or any
other Indian tribe.
For the FD, the petitioner submitted a
two-page index from an Internet Web
site that listed a Lucy Pope among some
Choctaw Indians whose names appeared
on the 1898–1914 Dawes Commission
Roll. The petitioner placed an asterisk
next to the entry for Lucy Pope, Roll No.
8626. The Department believes the
petitioner is using this annotation to
advance a claim that the Dawes
Commission, a Federal organization that
Congress authorized in 1893, had
enrolled one of its claimed ancestors as
a member of the Choctaw Nation in
Indian Territory (now Oklahoma).
The Department examined the
evidence behind the Dawes Commission
Roll index reference and found that the
enrolled Choctaw Lucy Pope is different
from Burton Hunter’s documented wife
Lucy and different from both of the
Pope women the petitioner claimed as
Burton Hunter’s wife. As explained in
the PF, Burton Hunter’s wife Lucy was
born around 1842 in Florida and died in
1907 in Florida. The ‘‘L. Pope’’ the
petitioner claimed as Burton Hunter’s
wife, citing the 1860 Federal census of
South Carolina, was born between 1831
and 1833 in South Carolina, and the
other ‘‘Lucy Pope’’ claimed as Burton
Hunter’s wife, citing the 1870 Federal
census of Florida, was born about 1832
in Florida. In contrast, the Dawes
Commission enrollment record for a
Lucy Pope, Roll No. 8626 on Census
Card #2933, submitted by the petitioner
for the FD, shows that this Lucy Pope
was born around 1878, her maiden
name was Sam, and she was married to
a Pope. She appeared on the 1910
Federal Census as living with her family
in Pittsburg County, Oklahoma.
Therefore, this Lucy (Sam) Pope (b.
1878–d.aft. 1910) is not the same person
as any of the three women analyzed in
the PF as the wife of Burton Hunter: L.
Pope (b. 1831–1833 SC), Lucy Pope (b.
1832 FL) or Lucy [—?—] Hunter (b. 1842
E:\FR\FM\27APN1.SGM
27APN1
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2011 / Notices
FL) (documented wife of Burton
Hunter).
In the PF, the Department discussed
in detail Lucy [—?—] Hunter as well as
the L. Pope and Lucy Pope the
petitioner claimed as the wife of Burton
Hunter. None of the evidence for the PF
demonstrated any descent from a
historical Choctaw Indian tribe or other
historical Indian tribe for Lucy Hunter
or the other Pope women the petitioner
claimed. The evidence behind the
Dawes Commission Roll index reference
pertains to a Lucy Pope who is not the
petitioner’s claimed ancestor although
her married name is the same as that of
two individuals previously analyzed in
the PF. Therefore, the Dawes
Commission Roll evidence does not
demonstrate Indian ancestry for Burton
Hunter’s documented wife Lucy or
either of the Pope women whom the
petitioner claimed as the wife of its
ancestor Burton Hunter.
None of the material submitted for the
FD changes the conclusions of the PF
that the petitioner does not meet the
requirements of criterion 83.7(e), which
requires that the petitioner’s
membership consist of individuals who
descend from a historical Indian tribe or
from historical Indian tribes that
combined and functioned as a single
autonomous political entity.
To summarize, the petitioner claims
to have descended as a group from a
historical tribe of Choctaw Indians.
There is no primary or reliable
secondary evidence submitted by the
petitioner or located by the Department
showing that any of the named
ancestors or members of the group
descended from a historical Choctaw
Indian tribe or any other Indian tribe.
None of the documentation on the
petitioner’s members and their claimed
individual ancestors, submitted by the
petitioner or found by the Department’s
researchers, supports the petitioner’s
claim of descent from a historical
Choctaw Indian tribe or any other
Indian tribe. No document in the record
identified the petitioner’s members and
claimed ancestors as part of the
historical Choctaw or other Indian tribe.
In fact, the evidence shows the
petitioner’s members and claimed
ancestors were consistently identified as
non-Indians living in non-Indian
communities. The extensive evidence in
the record does not demonstrate descent
from any historical Indian tribe.
The Department declines to
acknowledge the CNF petitioner as an
Indian tribe because the evidence in the
record does not demonstrate, by the
standard set forth at 25 CFR 83.6(d), that
the membership descends from a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:36 Apr 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
historical Indian tribe as required by
mandatory criterion 83.7(e).
After the publication of notice of the
FD, the petitioner or any interested
party may file a request for
reconsideration with the Interior Board
of Indian Appeals (IBIA) under the
procedures set forth in section 83.11 of
the regulations. The IBIA must receive
this request no later than 90 days after
the publication of the FD in the Federal
Register. The FD will become final and
effective as provided in the regulations
90 days from the Federal Register
publication, unless a request for
reconsideration is received within that
time.
Dated: April 21, 2011.
Larry Echo Hawk,
Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2011–10117 Filed 4–26–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–G1–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Backcountry Management Plan,
Environmental Impact Statement,
Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona
National Park Service,
Department of the Interior.
ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement for the
Backcountry Management Plan, Grand
Canyon National Park.
AGENCY:
Pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)), the National Park
Service (NPS) is preparing an
Environmental Impact Statement for the
Backcountry Management Plan for
Grand Canyon National Park. This plan
will help guide park decisions on
protecting natural and cultural
resources while providing for a variety
of visitor opportunities to experience
the park’s backcountry. Over 94% of the
park has been proposed as wilderness,
and an updated plan is needed to
comply with NPS wilderness policy and
other policies. A range of reasonable
alternatives for managing the park’s
backcountry will be developed, with
public input, through this planning
process and will include, at a minimum,
a no-action and an agency preferred
alternative.
Major issues the plan will address
include visitor access and use of the
park’s backcountry, levels of
commercial services, levels of
administrative and scientific research
activities, management of natural and
cultural resources, and the protection of
wilderness character. The National Park
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
23623
Service will identify additional issues to
be addressed through public scoping.
A scoping newsletter is being
prepared that details the issues
identified to date. Copies of that
information will be made available on
NPS Planning, Environment, and Public
Comment (PEPC) at https://
parkplanning.nps.gov/grca.
The Park Service will accept
comments from the public through June
27, 2011. Public meetings will occur in
Flagstaff and Grand Canyon, Arizona
and other locations to be determined.
Specific dates, times, and locations will
be announced in the local media and on
the internet at https://
parkplanning.nps.gov/grca.
DATES:
Information will be
available for public review and
comment online at https://
parkplanning.nps.gov/grca, in the Office
of the Superintendent, Jane Lyder,
1 Village Loop, Grand Canyon, Arizona
86023, 928–638–7945, or in the Office of
Planning and Compliance,
1 Village Loop, Grand Canyon, Arizona
86023.
ADDRESSES:
Jane
Lyder, Acting Superintendent, P.O. Box
129, Grand Canyon, Arizona, 86023,
928–638–7945, Jane_Lyder@nps.gov or
Rachel Bennett, Environmental
Protection Specialist, P.O. Box 129,
Grand Canyon, Arizona 86023, 928–
638–7326, Rachel_Bennett@nps.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
If you
wish to comment on the scoping
newsletter or on any other issues
associated with the plan, you may
submit your comments by any one of
several methods. You may comment via
the Internet at https://
parkplanning.nps.gov/grca. If you do
not have access to a computer, you may
mail comments to Jane Lyder, Acting
Superintendent, P.O. Box 129, Grand
Canyon, AZ 86023. Finally, you may
hand-deliver comments to Grand
Canyon National Park Headquarters,
1 Village Loop, Grand Canyon, AZ.
Before including your address, phone
number, e-mail address, or other
personal identifying information in your
comment, 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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\27APN1.SGM
27APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 27, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23621-23623]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10117]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Final Determination Against Federal Acknowledgment of the Choctaw
Nation of Florida
AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of Final Determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Department of the Interior
(Department) declines to acknowledge that the group known as the
``Choctaw Nation of Florida'' (CNF, formerly known as the Hunter
Tsalagi-Choctaw Tribe), Petitioner 288, c/o Mr. Alfonso James,
Jr., Post Office Box 6322, Marianna, Florida 32447, is an American
Indian group that exists as an Indian tribe under Department
procedures. This notice is based on a determination that the petitioner
does not meet one of the seven mandatory criteria set forth in 25 CFR
83.7, specifically criterion 83.7(e), descent from a historical Indian
tribe, and therefore, the Department may not acknowledge the petitioner
under 25 CFR part 83. Based on the limited nature and extent of comment
and consistent with previous practices, the Department did not produce
a detailed report or other summary under the criteria pertaining to
this FD. This notice is the Final Determination (FD).
DATES: This determination is final and will become effective 90 days
from
[[Page 23622]]
publication of this notice in the Federal Register on July 26, 2011,
according to section 83.10(l)(4), unless a request for reconsideration
is filed with the Interior Board of Indian Appeals according to section
83.11.
ADDRESSES: Requests for a copy of the Federal Register notice should be
addressed to the Office of the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs,
Attention: Office of Federal Acknowledgment, 1951 Constitution Avenue,
NW., MS: 34B-SIB, Washington, DC 20240. The Federal Register notice is
also available through https://www.bia.gov/WhoWeAre/AS-IA/OFA/RecentCases/index.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R. Lee Fleming, Director, Office of
Federal Acknowledgment, (202) 513-7650.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 2, 2010, the Department issued a
proposed finding (PF) that the CNF petitioner was not an American
Indian group that exists as an Indian tribe under Department procedures
because the petitioner did not meet one of the seven mandatory criteria
for Federal acknowledgment as an Indian tribe, criterion 83.7(e). This
criterion requires that the petitioner's membership consist of
individuals who descend from a historical Indian tribe or from
historical Indian tribes that combined and functioned as a single
autonomous political entity. The review of the evidence for the
proposed finding clearly established that the petitioner did not meet
criterion 83.7(e) and the Department issued a proposed finding denying
acknowledgment under that one criterion (83.10(e)(1)). The Department
published a notice of the PF in the Federal Register on July 12, 2010
(75 FR 39703). Publishing notice of the PF initiated a 180-day comment
period during which time the petitioner and interested and informed
parties could submit arguments and evidence to support or rebut the PF.
In response to the PF, the petitioner or third parties must provide
evidence for the FD that the petitioner meets the criterion in question
under the standard set forth at 25 CFR 83.6(d). This initial comment
period ended on January 10, 2011.
By letter dated January 3, 2011, the petitioner's attorney
submitted on the petitioner's behalf copies of 44 documents consisting
of 74 pages described as ``additional information'' for the Department
``to consider in making its final decision.'' The Department received
these comments on January 6, 2011, before the close of the comment
period on January 10, 2011. The petitioning group did not provide any
narrative or thorough explanation regarding the relevance of these
documents to criterion 83.7(e). The petitioner did not submit any
changes to its most current membership list of 77 individuals. The
Department analyzed the submitted documents as the group's comments on
the PF. The Department did not receive comments from any party other
than the petitioner. After the close of the applicable comment periods,
the Department received an additional comment from the petitioner's
attorney. In accord with the regulations, the Department did not
consider this unsolicited comment in the preparation of the FD
(83.10(l)(1)).
The petitioner claims to be a group of Choctaw Indians that
migrated from North Carolina to Georgia and then Florida following the
Choctaw Indian removal of the 1830s. None of the evidence in the record
for the PF demonstrated the validity of this claim. None of the
evidence in the record for the PF demonstrated the petitioner's members
or claimed ancestors descended from a Choctaw Indian tribe or any other
Indian tribe. The petitioner did not submit any materials in its
submission for the FD that established, by the standard set forth at
83.6(d), descent from a historical Indian tribe as required by
criterion 83.7(e).
Of the 44 documents the petitioner submitted for the FD, 37 were
previously submitted and analyzed for the PF. Only seven of the
documents were new submissions, and six of them did not provide
evidence for documenting descent from a historical tribe as required by
criterion 83.7(e). Of these six documents, the first described statutes
of 1852, 1898, and 1902; the second was a one-sentence description of
``Fort Chippola''; the third briefly described the courthouse history
of Walton County, Florida; the fourth described the Choctawhatchee
River; the fifth was a two-page list of Choctaw villages transcribed
for the Internet from the Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico
(1907); and the sixth described United States Code, Title 18, Section
1164, ``Destroying boundary and warning signs.'' None of these
documents provides descent evidence linking members of the petitioner
to a historical Indian tribe.
Only one document received from the petitioner in the comment
period had any bearing on criterion 83.7(e): A Dawes Commission Roll
index entry for a Lucy Pope. The Department finds this evidence
insufficient to document the required descent for the petitioner under
criterion 83.7(e) for the following reasons.
For the PF, the Department determined that most of the current
group's members descend from a Burton Hunter (b.ca. 1836-1842) and his
wife Lucy (b.ca. 1844-1850) whose maiden name was not documented. The
petitioner claimed Lucy's last name was ``Pope'' and submitted for the
PF two Federal census entries in an attempt to support its theory: An
1860 Federal census entry for an ``L. Pope'' of South Carolina and an
1870 Federal census entry for a ``Lucy Pope'' of Florida. Evaluation
presented in the PF demonstrates that the census entries pertained to
two women, neither of whom could have been the wife of Burton Hunter.
Further, the PF found no evidence in the record that Burton Hunter's
wife Lucy was a Pope or that either he or Lucy descended from a
historical Choctaw Indian tribe or any other Indian tribe.
For the FD, the petitioner submitted a two-page index from an
Internet Web site that listed a Lucy Pope among some Choctaw Indians
whose names appeared on the 1898-1914 Dawes Commission Roll. The
petitioner placed an asterisk next to the entry for Lucy Pope, Roll No.
8626. The Department believes the petitioner is using this annotation
to advance a claim that the Dawes Commission, a Federal organization
that Congress authorized in 1893, had enrolled one of its claimed
ancestors as a member of the Choctaw Nation in Indian Territory (now
Oklahoma).
The Department examined the evidence behind the Dawes Commission
Roll index reference and found that the enrolled Choctaw Lucy Pope is
different from Burton Hunter's documented wife Lucy and different from
both of the Pope women the petitioner claimed as Burton Hunter's wife.
As explained in the PF, Burton Hunter's wife Lucy was born around 1842
in Florida and died in 1907 in Florida. The ``L. Pope'' the petitioner
claimed as Burton Hunter's wife, citing the 1860 Federal census of
South Carolina, was born between 1831 and 1833 in South Carolina, and
the other ``Lucy Pope'' claimed as Burton Hunter's wife, citing the
1870 Federal census of Florida, was born about 1832 in Florida. In
contrast, the Dawes Commission enrollment record for a Lucy Pope, Roll
No. 8626 on Census Card 2933, submitted by the petitioner for
the FD, shows that this Lucy Pope was born around 1878, her maiden name
was Sam, and she was married to a Pope. She appeared on the 1910
Federal Census as living with her family in Pittsburg County, Oklahoma.
Therefore, this Lucy (Sam) Pope (b. 1878-d.aft. 1910) is not the same
person as any of the three women analyzed in the PF as the wife of
Burton Hunter: L. Pope (b. 1831-1833 SC), Lucy Pope (b. 1832 FL) or
Lucy [--?--] Hunter (b. 1842
[[Page 23623]]
FL) (documented wife of Burton Hunter).
In the PF, the Department discussed in detail Lucy [--?--] Hunter
as well as the L. Pope and Lucy Pope the petitioner claimed as the wife
of Burton Hunter. None of the evidence for the PF demonstrated any
descent from a historical Choctaw Indian tribe or other historical
Indian tribe for Lucy Hunter or the other Pope women the petitioner
claimed. The evidence behind the Dawes Commission Roll index reference
pertains to a Lucy Pope who is not the petitioner's claimed ancestor
although her married name is the same as that of two individuals
previously analyzed in the PF. Therefore, the Dawes Commission Roll
evidence does not demonstrate Indian ancestry for Burton Hunter's
documented wife Lucy or either of the Pope women whom the petitioner
claimed as the wife of its ancestor Burton Hunter.
None of the material submitted for the FD changes the conclusions
of the PF that the petitioner does not meet the requirements of
criterion 83.7(e), which requires that the petitioner's membership
consist of individuals who descend from a historical Indian tribe or
from historical Indian tribes that combined and functioned as a single
autonomous political entity.
To summarize, the petitioner claims to have descended as a group
from a historical tribe of Choctaw Indians. There is no primary or
reliable secondary evidence submitted by the petitioner or located by
the Department showing that any of the named ancestors or members of
the group descended from a historical Choctaw Indian tribe or any other
Indian tribe. None of the documentation on the petitioner's members and
their claimed individual ancestors, submitted by the petitioner or
found by the Department's researchers, supports the petitioner's claim
of descent from a historical Choctaw Indian tribe or any other Indian
tribe. No document in the record identified the petitioner's members
and claimed ancestors as part of the historical Choctaw or other Indian
tribe. In fact, the evidence shows the petitioner's members and claimed
ancestors were consistently identified as non-Indians living in non-
Indian communities. The extensive evidence in the record does not
demonstrate descent from any historical Indian tribe.
The Department declines to acknowledge the CNF petitioner as an
Indian tribe because the evidence in the record does not demonstrate,
by the standard set forth at 25 CFR 83.6(d), that the membership
descends from a historical Indian tribe as required by mandatory
criterion 83.7(e).
After the publication of notice of the FD, the petitioner or any
interested party may file a request for reconsideration with the
Interior Board of Indian Appeals (IBIA) under the procedures set forth
in section 83.11 of the regulations. The IBIA must receive this request
no later than 90 days after the publication of the FD in the Federal
Register. The FD will become final and effective as provided in the
regulations 90 days from the Federal Register publication, unless a
request for reconsideration is received within that time.
Dated: April 21, 2011.
Larry Echo Hawk,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2011-10117 Filed 4-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-G1-P
