Final Decision on Remand Against Federal Acknowledgment of the Duwamish Tribal Organization, 39142-39144 [2015-16710]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
39142
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 130 / Wednesday, July 8, 2015 / Notices
acd.od.nih.gov, where any additional
information for the meeting will be posted
when available.
This notice is being published less than 15
days prior to the meeting due to the timing
limitations of receiving input from committee
members prior to presenting the plan to other
audiences for comment and meeting a
legislative reporting deadline.
Dated: July 1, 2015.
Anna Snouffer,
Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory
Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015–16703 Filed 7–7–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
[156A2100DD/AAKC001030/
A0A501010.999900 253G]
Final Decision on Remand Against
Federal Acknowledgment of the
Duwamish Tribal Organization
Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of final decision on
remand.
AGENCY:
The Department of the
Interior (Department) gives notice that
the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs
(AS–IA) declines to acknowledge that
the Duwamish Tribal Organization
(DTO), c/o Cecile Maxwell-Hansen, is
an Indian tribe within the meaning of
Federal law. This notice follows a Final
Decision on Remand (FD on Remand)
that the petitioner does not satisfy all
seven mandatory criteria in the either
the 1978 or 1994 regulations, 25 CFR
part 83. Therefore, the DTO does not
meet the requirements for a governmentto-government relationship with the
United States. The Department issues
the FD on Remand in response to
judicial review in Hansen v. Salazar,
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40622 (3/22/
2013).
DATES: This decision is final for the
Department on publication of this
notice.
ADDRESSES: Requests for a copy of this
FD on Remand 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 FD on
Remand is also available through
www.bia.gov/WhoWeAre/AS–IA/OFA/
RecentCases/index.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
R. Lee Fleming, Director, Office of
Federal Acknowledgment, (202) 513–
5650.
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:49 Jul 07, 2015
Jkt 235001
This FD
on Remand determines that the
petitioner does not satisfy all seven
mandatory criteria in the either the 1978
or 1994 regulations, 25 CFR part 83. It
affirms the conclusions of the 1996
Proposed Finding (PF) notice of which
was published in the Federal Register,
61 FR 33762 (1996), that found the DTO
did not meet all seven of the mandatory
criteria for Federal acknowledgment as
an Indian tribe under the regulations 25
CFR part 83 published in 1978.
This FD on Remand concludes the
administrative process during which the
AS–IA issued a PF against
acknowledgment and a Final
Determination against acknowledgment
on September 25, 2001, notice of which
was published in the Federal Register,
66 FR 49966 (2001). On December 31,
2001, the DTO, as the ‘‘Duwamish Tribe
of Washington,’’ filed a request for
reconsideration with the Interior Board
of Indian Appeals (IBIA). The IBIA
docketed the petitioner’s request,
dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction and
referred two issues, not within its
purview, to the Secretary of the Interior
as possible grounds for reconsideration
(37 IBIA 95). The two issues concerned
a January 19, 2001 draft decision by the
Acting AS–IA that proposed to
acknowledge the DTO under the 1994
regulations.
On May 8, 2002, in response to the
IBIA referral, the Secretary declined to
request that the AS–IA reconsider the
FD against acknowledgment of the DTO.
The FD declining to acknowledge the
DTO as an Indian tribe became final and
effective May 8, 2002.
On May 7, 2008, the DTO petitioned
for judicial review and other relief in
the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington. On March 22,
2013, the Court vacated the FD of
September 25, 2001, and remanded the
decision to the Department, ordering it
to ‘‘consider the Duwamish petition
under the 1994 acknowledgment
regulations or explain why it declines to
do so.’’ The court referred to the
unsigned draft of the former Acting AS–
IA and provided that ‘‘Whatever the
significance of that document, it clearly
gave decision makers in the Department
notice that consideration of the
Duwamish petition under both sets of
regulations might be appropriate’’
(Coughenour 3/22/2013, 18). The Court
did not address the merits of the
decision under the criteria in the FD.
The United States filed a notice of
appeal and following settlement, the
Ninth Circuit granted the motion to
dismiss the appeal voluntarily on June
9, 2014. This FD on Remand addresses
the Court’s procedural concerns by
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
reevaluating the evidence in the record
under the provisions of the 1994 revised
regulations. It also evaluates the
evidence under the 1978 regulations
and refers to those regulations to
explain or clarify how the Department
evaluated evidence in the PF and FD,
now superseded by this FD on Remand.
Finally, the FD on Remand refers to the
Acting AS–IA draft document.
This FD on Remand is made following
a review of the DTO’s response to the
PF, the public comments on the PF, the
documents submitted in court
proceedings, and it incorporates the
evidence considered in the 1996 PF and
the 2001 FD. This notice declining to
acknowledge the DTO is based on a
determination that of the seven
mandatory criteria for Federal
acknowledgment as an Indian tribe, the
petitioner has met criteria 83.7(d), (e),
(f), and (g), but has failed to meet
criteria 83.7(a), (b), and (c) under both
the 1978 and 1994 regulations.
Documentary sources describe a
historical Duwamish tribe comprising
Indians living at the confluence of the
Black, Cedar, and Duwamish Rivers
south of Lake Washington as well as
along the Green and White Rivers,
around Lake Washington, and along the
eastern shore of Puget Sound in the area
of Elliott Bay. Federal negotiators
combined the Duwamish with other
allied tribes and bands into
confederated ‘‘treaty tribes’’ to make a
treaty in 1855, and continued to deal
with these treaty tribes as the
‘‘D’Wamish and other allied tribes.’’
These treaty tribes moved to four
reservations and the separate tribes and
bands eventually consolidated as four
reservation tribes that continue today as
the Lummi Tribe of the Lummi
Reservation, Suquamish Indian Tribe of
the Port Madison Reservation,
Swinomish Indian Tribal Community,
and Tulalip Tribes of Washington. A
few Duwamish tribal members moved to
the Muckleshoot Reservation after its
creation in 1857. The petitioner’s
ancestors, primarily Duwamish Indian
women who married non-Indian
settlers, did not go to the reservations
with the treaty tribes. Rather, before and
after the treaty, they left the tribes as
individuals and families and, by the
1880s, lived dispersed throughout
western Washington. There is no
evidence that their descendants, who
are the DTO’s ancestors, maintained
tribal relations with the ‘‘D’Wamish and
other allied tribes’’ on the reservations
or that they were a part of a community
of similarly situated Duwamish
descendants.
The DTO petitioner first came into
existence in 1925 when eight men
E:\FR\FM\08JYN1.SGM
08JYN1
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 130 / Wednesday, July 8, 2015 / Notices
announced their ‘‘intention of forming’’
an organization. No evidence indicates
this new organization was a
continuation of the historical
‘‘D’Wamish and other allied tribes’’ on
the reservations or that it evolved as a
group from them. Nor does the evidence
show that the 1925 organization
continued activities of a previous group
of Duwamish Indians listed by Charles
Satiacum in 1915 in his efforts to
identify ‘‘the true Duwamish’’ as part of
an intertribal organization’s pursuit of
claims for unallotted Indians in
Washington State. Having formed only
in 1925, the petitioner cannot show any
identifications before its formation and,
therefore, does not meet criterion
83.7(a), requiring identifications as
‘‘American Indian,’’ or ‘‘aboriginal’’
since historical times to the present,
under the 1978 regulations, and as an
Indian entity since 1900, under the 1994
regulations. Outside observers first
identified the DTO in 1939 and Federal
officials have identified the petitioner
intermittently since 1940 as an Indian
organization. Contemporary
Government officials and American
settlers, and later ethnographers,
historians, and the Indian Claims
Commission identified a historical
Duwamish tribe, which existed at the
time of first sustained contact with nonIndians. External observers also
identified a Duwamish community at a
traditional location near the junction of
the Black and Cedar Rivers as late as
1900, but DTO’s ancestors were not part
of that community. Multiple sources,
including congressional appropriations,
have identified the ‘‘D’Wamish and
other allied tribes’’ on the reservations,
and the subsequently consolidated
reservation tribes, continuously since
the treaty in 1855, but these
identifications are not of the petitioner.
Because the petitioner was created only
in late 1925 and is not a continuation of
any earlier Duwamish entity, the
various identifications of a Duwamish
tribe before 1925 do not identify the
petitioner. The petitioner has not meet
criterion 83.7(a) at any time before 1939,
and, therefore, it does not meet it under
either the 1978 or 1994 regulations.
The petitioner does not meet criterion
83.7(b) for community under either the
1978 or the 1994 regulations. Under the
former, although the members descend
from a historical Duwamish tribe, the
petitioner’s members and their ancestors
have not inhabited a specific area or
lived in a community distinct from
other populations at any time. Under
the latter regulation, a predominant
portion of the petitioner has never
formed a distinct social or geographical
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:49 Jul 07, 2015
Jkt 235001
community. The petitioner did not
present evidence showing a majority of
its members undertook joint social or
cultural activities, married one another,
spoke the Duwamish language,
participated in cooperative economic
activities, or undertook informal social
activities together, the types of evidence
described in the 1994 regulations that
may be used to show a community
exists. The petitioner described families
living in isolated households as typical
of the petitioner’s ancestors, but did not
show that these geographically
dispersed families interacted in social
networks involving most of the
members at any time. Since 1925, other
than the organization’s annual meetings,
social activities between members took
place within their own extended
families, not among a broader DTO
membership. The petitioner’s current
members do not maintain a community
that is distinct from the surrounding
non-Indian population. The group’s
geographical dispersion is consistent
with other evidence showing that
members do not maintain, and have not
maintained, significant social contact
with each other. Before 1925, the
petitioner’s ancestors, primarily
descendants of marriages between
Duwamish Indians and pioneer settlers,
had little or no interaction either with
the Indians of the historical Duwamish
settlements or with those Duwamish
who moved to reservations. Because the
petitioner has not maintained a
community that is socially distinct from
the general populations from historical
contact to the present it has not met the
requirements of criterion (b) under
either the 1978 or the 1994 regulations.
The petitioner does not meet criterion
83.7(c) under the 1978 and 1994
regulations requiring a petitioner to
show political influence or other
political authority over its members.
The DTO formed in late 1925 and since
then it has not exercised political
influence or authority over its members.
It has limited itself, in general, to
pursuing Federal acknowledgment and
claims against the United States for its
dues-paying members. The petitioner
did not submit any evidence to show
the group’s leaders mobilized members
to undertake group activities and that
members were involved in making
decisions for the group at any time.
Because the petitioner formed in 1925
and has not maintained tribal political
influence or authority over its members,
there is insufficient evidence in the
record that it exercised political
influence of authority over its members
‘‘throughout history until the present’’
under the 1978 regulations or ‘‘from
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
39143
historical times until the present’’ under
the 1994 regulations. The DTO does not
meet the requirements of criterion (c)
under the 1978 and 1994 regulations.
The petitioner has met criterion (d) by
providing copies of the constitution and
by-laws the DTO adopted in 1925 and
are still in effect today. These governing
documents also describe the petitioner’s
membership criteria. The petitioner has
satisfied criterion (e), under the 1978
and 1994 regulations, because the
available evidence demonstrates that
about 99 percent (386 of 390) of its
members on the 1992 list descend from
historical Duwamish Indians. Evidence
submitted to the court in Hansen v.
Salazar relates to criterion 83.7(f). One
exhibit, ‘‘Combination of 1942 and 1979
Suquamish rolls compared with 1971
Duwamish Judgment Roll and Lane
Report,’’ shows DTO Chairwoman
Cecile Ann (Oliver) Hansen and her
brother Charles ‘‘Manny’’ Oliver, Jr., on
both the 1942 and 1979 Suquamish
rolls, which also identifies their greatgrandmother, Jane Garrison, as their
‘‘Duwamish Ancestor.’’
To confirm or refute Muckleshoot’s
allegation that at least some members of
DTO, including its leaders, may be
enrolled in Federal tribes, the
Department reviewed BIA censuses of
Tulalip, Muckleshoot, and Quinault
Reservations for Ms. Hansen’s ancestors
who were considered members of
federally recognized tribes. Her father
(Quinault-Cowlitz) and her paternal
grandparents were allotted lands on
Quinault Reservation. Her mother
(‘‘Snohomish-Duwamish’’) was recorded
on Tulalip Reservation censuses with
her parents and is buried on the Tulalip
Reservation. Hansen’s maternal
grandfather (Snohomish) was also
allotted land on Tulalip; however, his
wife, Hansen’s maternal grandmother,
Anna Garrison, was not allotted land. It
is through Jane Garrison, mother of
Anna (nee Garrison) Henry, that Cecile
Hansen claims descent from the
historical Duwamish Indian tribe. Thus,
it appears that the Oliver siblings were
eligible to enroll, or were enrolled, with
the Suquamish Indian Tribe. Only 11
individuals (less than 3 percent of 390
DTO members) descend from Jane
Garrison.
The PF did not find a ‘‘significant
percentage’’ of the DTO are enrolled in
federally recognized tribes. There is no
evidence that a significant percentage of
the petitioner’s members belong to any
federally-recognized tribe, or that the
petitioner was subject to legislation
terminating or forbidding a Federal
relationship. Thus, the petitioner has
met criteria (f) and (g), under both the
1978 and 1994 regulations.
E:\FR\FM\08JYN1.SGM
08JYN1
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
39144
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 130 / Wednesday, July 8, 2015 / Notices
The 1994 regulations clarified the
1978 regulations, but did not change the
standard of proof for weighing evidence
to determine whether a petitioner has
demonstrated the required continuity of
tribal existence from historical times to
the present. As the preamble to the 1994
regulations states, ‘‘additional language
has been added to clarify the standard
of proof,’’ which would continue to be
that ‘‘facts are considered established if
the available evidence demonstrates a
reasonable likelihood of their validity’’
(59 FR 9280). ‘‘[P]etitioners that were
not recognized under the previous
regulations would not be recognized by
these revised regulations’’ (59 FR 9282).
The 1994 regulations included a new
provision for previously recognized
tribes at section 83.8. To qualify for
evaluation under 83.8, a group must
provide substantial evidence of
unambiguous Federal acknowledgment,
and must provide evidence that it is a
continuation of a previously
acknowledged tribe or evolved from that
entity by showing it is a group
comprised of members who together left
the acknowledged tribe. The DTO
ancestors, however, did not leave the
treaty tribe as a group and the dispersed
ancestors did not form DTO until 1925.
Therefore, the DTO does not qualify for
evaluation under 83.8 of the 1994
regulations, for previously
acknowledged tribes. Since DTO
ancestors were not part of the D’Wamish
and other allied tribes, the evidence of
government-to-government relations
between the reservation tribes and the
United States cannot be used to
demonstrate the DTO meets either the
1978 or the 1994 regulations.
Based on the evaluation of the
evidence, the AS–IA concludes that the
Duwamish Tribal Organization should
not be granted Federal acknowledgment
as an Indian tribe under 25 CFR part 83.
A report summarizing the evidence,
reasoning, and analyses that are the
basis for the FD on Remand will be
provided to the petitioner and interested
parties, will be available to other parties
upon written request, and will be
available on the Department of the
Interior’s Web site at https://
www.doi.gov. Requests for a copy of the
summary evaluation of the evidence
should be addressed to the Federal
Government as instructed in the
ADDRESSES section of this notice.
This decision is final for the
Department on publication of this notice
in the Federal Register.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:49 Jul 07, 2015
Jkt 235001
Dated: July 2, 2015.
Kevin K. Washburn,
Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2015–16710 Filed 7–2–15; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4337–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
[156A2100DD/AAKC001030/
A0A501010.999900 253G]
Final Determination for Federal
Acknowledgment of the Pamunkey
Indian Tribe
Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of final determination.
AGENCY:
The Department of the
Interior (Department) gives notice the
Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs
(AS–IA) has determined to acknowledge
the Pamunkey Indian Tribe (Petitioner
#323) as an Indian tribe within the
meaning of Federal law. This notice is
based on a determination that affirms
the reasoning, analysis, and conclusions
in the Proposed Finding (PF), as
modified by additional evidence. The
petitioner has submitted more than
sufficient evidence to satisfy each of the
seven mandatory criteria for
acknowledgment set forth in the
regulations under 25 CFR 83.7, and,
therefore, meets the requirements for a
government-to-government relationship
with the United States. Based on the
limited nature and extent of comments
and consistent with prior practices, the
Department did not produce a separate
detailed report or other summary under
the criteria pertaining to this final
determination (FD). The proposed
finding, as supplemented by this notice,
is affirmed and constitutes the FD.
DATES: This determination is final and
will become effective on October 6,
2015, pursuant to 25 CFR 83.10(l)(4),
unless the petitioner or an interested
party files a request for reconsideration
under § 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 www.bia.gov/WhoWeAre/ASIA/OFA/RecentCases/index.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R.
Lee Fleming, Director, Office of Federal
Acknowledgment (OFA), (202) 513–
7650.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The
Department publishes this notice in the
exercise of authority the Secretary of the
Interior delegated to the AS–IA by 209
DM 8. The Department issued a PF to
acknowledge Petitioner #323 on January
16, 2014, and published notice of that
preliminary decision in the Federal
Register on January 23, 2014, pursuant
to part 83 of title 25 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (25 CFR part 83) (79
FR 3860). This FD affirms the PF and
concludes that the Pamunkey Indian
Tribe, c/o Mr. Kevin M. Brown, 331
Pocket Road, King William, VA 23086,
fully satisfies the seven mandatory
criteria for acknowledgment as an
Indian tribe. Since the promulgation of
the Department’s regulations in 1978,
the Department has reviewed over 50
complete petitions for Federal
acknowledgment. OFA experts view this
petition and the voluminous and clear
documentation as truly extraordinary.
Based on the facts and evidence,
Petitioner #323 easily satisfies the seven
mandatory criteria.
Publication of the PF in the Federal
Register initiated the 180-day comment
period provided in the regulations at
§ 83.10(i). The comment period closed
July 22, 2014. Neither the Pamunkey
petitioner nor other parties asked for an
on-the-record technical assistance
meeting under § 83.10(j)(2). The
petitioner submitted comments certified
by its governing body, and a third party
submitted comment on the PF during
the comment period. The Department
also received 10 letters from trade
associations and businesses that raised
concerns over the potential impact
acknowledgment of the petitioner might
have on tax revenues to the
Commonwealth and on their own
economic interests should the petitioner
venture into commercial enterprises.
Three of these letters were received after
the close of the comment period. Not all
of the correspondence was copied to the
petitioner as is required for comment
under § 83.10(i). The correspondence
did not address the evidence or analysis
in the PF, is not substantive comment
on whether the petitioner meets the
mandatory criteria, and is therefore not
further addressed in this FD. Further, as
provided under § 83.10(l)(1), untimely
comment cannot be considered. The
petitioner submitted its response to the
third-party comment and some of the
correspondence before the close of the
60-day response period on September
22, 2014.
As part of the consultation process
provided by the regulations at
§ 83.10(k)(1), the OFA wrote a letter to
the petitioner and interested parties on
October 16, 2014, followed by contact
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\08JYN1.SGM
08JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 130 (Wednesday, July 8, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39142-39144]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16710]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
[156A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900 253G]
Final Decision on Remand Against Federal Acknowledgment of the
Duwamish Tribal Organization
AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of final decision on remand.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of the Interior (Department) gives notice that
the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs (AS-IA) declines to acknowledge
that the Duwamish Tribal Organization (DTO), c/o Cecile Maxwell-Hansen,
is an Indian tribe within the meaning of Federal law. This notice
follows a Final Decision on Remand (FD on Remand) that the petitioner
does not satisfy all seven mandatory criteria in the either the 1978 or
1994 regulations, 25 CFR part 83. Therefore, the DTO does not meet the
requirements for a government-to-government relationship with the
United States. The Department issues the FD on Remand in response to
judicial review in Hansen v. Salazar, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40622 (3/
22/2013).
DATES: This decision is final for the Department on publication of this
notice.
ADDRESSES: Requests for a copy of this FD on Remand 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 FD on Remand is also available through
www.bia.gov/WhoWeAre/AS-IA/OFA/RecentCases/index.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. R. Lee Fleming, Director, Office
of Federal Acknowledgment, (202) 513-5650.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This FD on Remand determines that the
petitioner does not satisfy all seven mandatory criteria in the either
the 1978 or 1994 regulations, 25 CFR part 83. It affirms the
conclusions of the 1996 Proposed Finding (PF) notice of which was
published in the Federal Register, 61 FR 33762 (1996), that found the
DTO did not meet all seven of the mandatory criteria for Federal
acknowledgment as an Indian tribe under the regulations 25 CFR part 83
published in 1978.
This FD on Remand concludes the administrative process during which
the AS-IA issued a PF against acknowledgment and a Final Determination
against acknowledgment on September 25, 2001, notice of which was
published in the Federal Register, 66 FR 49966 (2001). On December 31,
2001, the DTO, as the ``Duwamish Tribe of Washington,'' filed a request
for reconsideration with the Interior Board of Indian Appeals (IBIA).
The IBIA docketed the petitioner's request, dismissed it for lack of
jurisdiction and referred two issues, not within its purview, to the
Secretary of the Interior as possible grounds for reconsideration (37
IBIA 95). The two issues concerned a January 19, 2001 draft decision by
the Acting AS-IA that proposed to acknowledge the DTO under the 1994
regulations.
On May 8, 2002, in response to the IBIA referral, the Secretary
declined to request that the AS-IA reconsider the FD against
acknowledgment of the DTO. The FD declining to acknowledge the DTO as
an Indian tribe became final and effective May 8, 2002.
On May 7, 2008, the DTO petitioned for judicial review and other
relief in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington. On March 22, 2013, the Court vacated the FD of September
25, 2001, and remanded the decision to the Department, ordering it to
``consider the Duwamish petition under the 1994 acknowledgment
regulations or explain why it declines to do so.'' The court referred
to the unsigned draft of the former Acting AS-IA and provided that
``Whatever the significance of that document, it clearly gave decision
makers in the Department notice that consideration of the Duwamish
petition under both sets of regulations might be appropriate''
(Coughenour 3/22/2013, 18). The Court did not address the merits of the
decision under the criteria in the FD.
The United States filed a notice of appeal and following
settlement, the Ninth Circuit granted the motion to dismiss the appeal
voluntarily on June 9, 2014. This FD on Remand addresses the Court's
procedural concerns by reevaluating the evidence in the record under
the provisions of the 1994 revised regulations. It also evaluates the
evidence under the 1978 regulations and refers to those regulations to
explain or clarify how the Department evaluated evidence in the PF and
FD, now superseded by this FD on Remand. Finally, the FD on Remand
refers to the Acting AS-IA draft document.
This FD on Remand is made following a review of the DTO's response
to the PF, the public comments on the PF, the documents submitted in
court proceedings, and it incorporates the evidence considered in the
1996 PF and the 2001 FD. This notice declining to acknowledge the DTO
is based on a determination that of the seven mandatory criteria for
Federal acknowledgment as an Indian tribe, the petitioner has met
criteria 83.7(d), (e), (f), and (g), but has failed to meet criteria
83.7(a), (b), and (c) under both the 1978 and 1994 regulations.
Documentary sources describe a historical Duwamish tribe comprising
Indians living at the confluence of the Black, Cedar, and Duwamish
Rivers south of Lake Washington as well as along the Green and White
Rivers, around Lake Washington, and along the eastern shore of Puget
Sound in the area of Elliott Bay. Federal negotiators combined the
Duwamish with other allied tribes and bands into confederated ``treaty
tribes'' to make a treaty in 1855, and continued to deal with these
treaty tribes as the ``D'Wamish and other allied tribes.'' These treaty
tribes moved to four reservations and the separate tribes and bands
eventually consolidated as four reservation tribes that continue today
as the Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reservation, Suquamish Indian Tribe of
the Port Madison Reservation, Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, and
Tulalip Tribes of Washington. A few Duwamish tribal members moved to
the Muckleshoot Reservation after its creation in 1857. The
petitioner's ancestors, primarily Duwamish Indian women who married
non-Indian settlers, did not go to the reservations with the treaty
tribes. Rather, before and after the treaty, they left the tribes as
individuals and families and, by the 1880s, lived dispersed throughout
western Washington. There is no evidence that their descendants, who
are the DTO's ancestors, maintained tribal relations with the
``D'Wamish and other allied tribes'' on the reservations or that they
were a part of a community of similarly situated Duwamish descendants.
The DTO petitioner first came into existence in 1925 when eight men
[[Page 39143]]
announced their ``intention of forming'' an organization. No evidence
indicates this new organization was a continuation of the historical
``D'Wamish and other allied tribes'' on the reservations or that it
evolved as a group from them. Nor does the evidence show that the 1925
organization continued activities of a previous group of Duwamish
Indians listed by Charles Satiacum in 1915 in his efforts to identify
``the true Duwamish'' as part of an intertribal organization's pursuit
of claims for unallotted Indians in Washington State. Having formed
only in 1925, the petitioner cannot show any identifications before its
formation and, therefore, does not meet criterion 83.7(a), requiring
identifications as ``American Indian,'' or ``aboriginal'' since
historical times to the present, under the 1978 regulations, and as an
Indian entity since 1900, under the 1994 regulations. Outside observers
first identified the DTO in 1939 and Federal officials have identified
the petitioner intermittently since 1940 as an Indian organization.
Contemporary Government officials and American settlers, and later
ethnographers, historians, and the Indian Claims Commission identified
a historical Duwamish tribe, which existed at the time of first
sustained contact with non-Indians. External observers also identified
a Duwamish community at a traditional location near the junction of the
Black and Cedar Rivers as late as 1900, but DTO's ancestors were not
part of that community. Multiple sources, including congressional
appropriations, have identified the ``D'Wamish and other allied
tribes'' on the reservations, and the subsequently consolidated
reservation tribes, continuously since the treaty in 1855, but these
identifications are not of the petitioner. Because the petitioner was
created only in late 1925 and is not a continuation of any earlier
Duwamish entity, the various identifications of a Duwamish tribe before
1925 do not identify the petitioner. The petitioner has not meet
criterion 83.7(a) at any time before 1939, and, therefore, it does not
meet it under either the 1978 or 1994 regulations.
The petitioner does not meet criterion 83.7(b) for community under
either the 1978 or the 1994 regulations. Under the former, although the
members descend from a historical Duwamish tribe, the petitioner's
members and their ancestors have not inhabited a specific area or lived
in a community distinct from other populations at any time. Under the
latter regulation, a predominant portion of the petitioner has never
formed a distinct social or geographical community. The petitioner did
not present evidence showing a majority of its members undertook joint
social or cultural activities, married one another, spoke the Duwamish
language, participated in cooperative economic activities, or undertook
informal social activities together, the types of evidence described in
the 1994 regulations that may be used to show a community exists. The
petitioner described families living in isolated households as typical
of the petitioner's ancestors, but did not show that these
geographically dispersed families interacted in social networks
involving most of the members at any time. Since 1925, other than the
organization's annual meetings, social activities between members took
place within their own extended families, not among a broader DTO
membership. The petitioner's current members do not maintain a
community that is distinct from the surrounding non-Indian population.
The group's geographical dispersion is consistent with other evidence
showing that members do not maintain, and have not maintained,
significant social contact with each other. Before 1925, the
petitioner's ancestors, primarily descendants of marriages between
Duwamish Indians and pioneer settlers, had little or no interaction
either with the Indians of the historical Duwamish settlements or with
those Duwamish who moved to reservations. Because the petitioner has
not maintained a community that is socially distinct from the general
populations from historical contact to the present it has not met the
requirements of criterion (b) under either the 1978 or the 1994
regulations.
The petitioner does not meet criterion 83.7(c) under the 1978 and
1994 regulations requiring a petitioner to show political influence or
other political authority over its members. The DTO formed in late 1925
and since then it has not exercised political influence or authority
over its members. It has limited itself, in general, to pursuing
Federal acknowledgment and claims against the United States for its
dues-paying members. The petitioner did not submit any evidence to show
the group's leaders mobilized members to undertake group activities and
that members were involved in making decisions for the group at any
time. Because the petitioner formed in 1925 and has not maintained
tribal political influence or authority over its members, there is
insufficient evidence in the record that it exercised political
influence of authority over its members ``throughout history until the
present'' under the 1978 regulations or ``from historical times until
the present'' under the 1994 regulations. The DTO does not meet the
requirements of criterion (c) under the 1978 and 1994 regulations.
The petitioner has met criterion (d) by providing copies of the
constitution and by-laws the DTO adopted in 1925 and are still in
effect today. These governing documents also describe the petitioner's
membership criteria. The petitioner has satisfied criterion (e), under
the 1978 and 1994 regulations, because the available evidence
demonstrates that about 99 percent (386 of 390) of its members on the
1992 list descend from historical Duwamish Indians. Evidence submitted
to the court in Hansen v. Salazar relates to criterion 83.7(f). One
exhibit, ``Combination of 1942 and 1979 Suquamish rolls compared with
1971 Duwamish Judgment Roll and Lane Report,'' shows DTO Chairwoman
Cecile Ann (Oliver) Hansen and her brother Charles ``Manny'' Oliver,
Jr., on both the 1942 and 1979 Suquamish rolls, which also identifies
their great-grandmother, Jane Garrison, as their ``Duwamish Ancestor.''
To confirm or refute Muckleshoot's allegation that at least some
members of DTO, including its leaders, may be enrolled in Federal
tribes, the Department reviewed BIA censuses of Tulalip, Muckleshoot,
and Quinault Reservations for Ms. Hansen's ancestors who were
considered members of federally recognized tribes. Her father
(Quinault-Cowlitz) and her paternal grandparents were allotted lands on
Quinault Reservation. Her mother (``Snohomish-Duwamish'') was recorded
on Tulalip Reservation censuses with her parents and is buried on the
Tulalip Reservation. Hansen's maternal grandfather (Snohomish) was also
allotted land on Tulalip; however, his wife, Hansen's maternal
grandmother, Anna Garrison, was not allotted land. It is through Jane
Garrison, mother of Anna (nee Garrison) Henry, that Cecile Hansen
claims descent from the historical Duwamish Indian tribe. Thus, it
appears that the Oliver siblings were eligible to enroll, or were
enrolled, with the Suquamish Indian Tribe. Only 11 individuals (less
than 3 percent of 390 DTO members) descend from Jane Garrison.
The PF did not find a ``significant percentage'' of the DTO are
enrolled in federally recognized tribes. There is no evidence that a
significant percentage of the petitioner's members belong to any
federally-recognized tribe, or that the petitioner was subject to
legislation terminating or forbidding a Federal relationship. Thus, the
petitioner has met criteria (f) and (g), under both the 1978 and 1994
regulations.
[[Page 39144]]
The 1994 regulations clarified the 1978 regulations, but did not
change the standard of proof for weighing evidence to determine whether
a petitioner has demonstrated the required continuity of tribal
existence from historical times to the present. As the preamble to the
1994 regulations states, ``additional language has been added to
clarify the standard of proof,'' which would continue to be that
``facts are considered established if the available evidence
demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of their validity'' (59 FR 9280).
``[P]etitioners that were not recognized under the previous regulations
would not be recognized by these revised regulations'' (59 FR 9282).
The 1994 regulations included a new provision for previously
recognized tribes at section 83.8. To qualify for evaluation under
83.8, a group must provide substantial evidence of unambiguous Federal
acknowledgment, and must provide evidence that it is a continuation of
a previously acknowledged tribe or evolved from that entity by showing
it is a group comprised of members who together left the acknowledged
tribe. The DTO ancestors, however, did not leave the treaty tribe as a
group and the dispersed ancestors did not form DTO until 1925.
Therefore, the DTO does not qualify for evaluation under 83.8 of the
1994 regulations, for previously acknowledged tribes. Since DTO
ancestors were not part of the D'Wamish and other allied tribes, the
evidence of government-to-government relations between the reservation
tribes and the United States cannot be used to demonstrate the DTO
meets either the 1978 or the 1994 regulations.
Based on the evaluation of the evidence, the AS-IA concludes that
the Duwamish Tribal Organization should not be granted Federal
acknowledgment as an Indian tribe under 25 CFR part 83.
A report summarizing the evidence, reasoning, and analyses that are
the basis for the FD on Remand will be provided to the petitioner and
interested parties, will be available to other parties upon written
request, and will be available on the Department of the Interior's Web
site at https://www.doi.gov. Requests for a copy of the summary
evaluation of the evidence should be addressed to the Federal
Government as instructed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.
This decision is final for the Department on publication of this
notice in the Federal Register.
Dated: July 2, 2015.
Kevin K. Washburn,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2015-16710 Filed 7-2-15; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4337-15-P
