Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 39 / Thursday, February 27, 1997 / Notices 8983

Muskogees, Inc. in the Federal Register.

Any information submitted will be

made available on the same basis as

other information in the BIA’s files.

Such submissions must be provided to

the petitioner and the BIA

simultaneously. The petitioner will

have a 60-day period in which to

respond to such submissions prior to a

final determination regarding the

petitioner’s status.

Under § 83.10(h), a report

summarizing the evidence upon which

the UHN proposed finding was based is

available upon written request to the

BIA. The petition may be examined by

appointment in the Department of the

Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs,

Branch of Acknowledgment and

Research, MS–4603–MIB, 1849 C Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20240. Phone:

(202) 208–3592.

Dated: February 11, 1997.

Ada E. Deer,

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.

[FR Doc. 97–4838 Filed 2–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–02–P

Proposed Finding for Federal

Acknowledgment of the Cowlitz Indian

Tribe

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of proposed finding.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 25 CFR 83.10(h),

notice is hereby given that the Assistant

Secretary—Indian Affairs (Assistant

Secretary) proposes to acknowledge that

the Cowlitz Indian Tribe, PO Box 2547,

1417 15th Avenue No. 5, Longview, WA

98632–8594, exists as an Indian tribe

within the meaning of Federal law. This

notice is based on a determination that

the tribe satisfies all of the criteria set

forth in 25 CFR 83.7 as modified by 25

CFR 83.8, and, therefore, meets the

requirements for a government-togovernment relationship with the

United States.

DATES: As provided by 25 CFR 83.10(i),

any individual or organization wishing

to challenge the proposed finding may

submit arguments and evidence to

support or rebut the evidence relied

upon. This material must be submitted

within 180 calendar days from the date

of publication of this notice. As stated

in the regulations, 25 CFR 83.10(i),

interested and informed parties who

submit arguments and evidence to the

Assistant Secretary must also provide

copies of their submissions to the

petitioner.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed

finding and/or request for a copy of the

report of evidence should be addressed

to the Office of the Assistant Secretary,

1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC

20240, Attention: Branch of

Acknowledgment and Research.

Mailstop 4603—MIB.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Holly Reckord, Chief, Branch of

Acknowledgment and Research, (202)

208–3592.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

notice is published in the exercise of

authority delegated by the Secretary of

the Interior to the Assistant Secretary by

209 DM 8.

The petitioner consists of descendants

of the historical Lower Cowlitz Indians

and Upper Cowlitz, or Cowlitz Klickitat,

Indians of southwestern Washington. Its

members are descendants specifically of

the Lower Cowlitz Indians who were

represented in 1855 at the Chehalis

River Treaty negotiations held between

several American Indian tribes of

southwest Washington and Federal

officials, and of the Upper Cowlitz band

which was subsequently amalgamated

with the Lower Cowlitz band. Although

the Lower Cowlitz refused to sign the

Chehalis River Treaty, their

participation in the negotiations

constitutes unambiguous Federal

acknowledgment of the tribe’s

sovereignty. The petitioner thus meets

the requirements of § 83.8 as having

unambiguous previous Federal

acknowledgment and has been

considered under the modifications of

§ 83.7 that are prescribed by § 83.8. The

date of the treaty negotiations, March 2,

1855, has been used as the date of latest

Federal acknowledgment for purposes

of this finding to enable the petitioner

to proceed under the provisions of

§ 83.8. Because the petitioner had

already completed documentation of the

petition before the present regulations

became effective, it was not necessary to

determine if there was a later date of

unambiguous Federal acknowledgment

for purposes of this evaluation under

the 1994 regulations.

The Federal acknowledgment

regulations confirm that it is historically

valid for tribes to have combined and

functioned together as a unit. Under the

regulations in 25 CFR part 83, tribes

which combined because of historical

circumstances may be acknowledged in

so far as the group resulting from the

amalgamation continued to function as

a single tribal unit. The petitioner is an

example of a group which has evolved

from linguistically distinct and

politically independent bands which

combined. In reaching this

determination, the Assistant Secretary—

Indian Affairs took fully into account

the historical circumstances

surrounding the petitioner’s

development and the impact of Federal

policy in combining the Salish-speaking

Lower Cowlitz, the me ́tis descendants of

the Lower Cowlitz, and the Sahaptinspeaking Upper Cowlitz into a single

entity for administrative purposes

between the 1860’s and the 1920’s.

Since 1855, the Cowlitz Indians have

continued to reside in a traditionally

dispersed residential pattern along the

Cowlitz River valley. The residential

locations of the individual subgroups

today remain similar to those described

by observers in the mid-19th century

and by BIA Special Agent Charles

Roblin’s 1919 Schedule of Unenrolled

Indians in western Washington. The

tribal entity as defined by Federal policy

was identified in BIA documents from

the 1860’s through the 1880’s, from

1904 through the 1930’s, and since

1950. The umbrella tribal organization

was also regularly identified as an

American Indian entity by newspaper

accounts from the period 1912–1939,

and 1950 to the present. The component

settlements comprising the umbrella

tribal organization were described by

local residents and local historians from

the 1890’s through the 1960’s.

Additionally, throughout this period,

county vital records and articles in local

newspapers regularly described

individuals, families, and component

settlements as ‘‘of the Cowlitz Tribe.’’

Therefore, we conclude that the

petitioner meets criterion 83.7(a) as

modified by criterion 83.8(d).

As a result of the historical

circumstances surrounding the

petitioner’s development, the modern

Cowlitz Indian Tribe (CIT) is a two-level

tribal community in which there is

comparatively intense community

within defined subgroups and a looser

community encompassing the overall

membership. It is significant that the

modern situation does not represent a

post-World War II dispersal of a once

tightly-knit and more closely related

group, but the continuation of a longstanding historical pattern. The

subgroups have interacted in consistent

ways and similar patterns at least since

the formation of the formal Cowlitz

Tribal Organization in 1912.

Genealogical relationships within the

subgroups remain comparatively close:

Within each subgroup, today’s adults

ordinarily share a set of grandparents.

Within the Cowlitz as a whole, the

majority of the adult membership shares

at least one set of great-grandparents.

Throughout the late 19th and early 20th

centuries large proportions of people

known as Cowlitz married non-Indians,

and assimilated into the dominant
8984 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 39 / Thursday, February 27, 1997 / Notices

society. However, more than half of

those who remained continued until the

1920’s a pattern of matrimonial

endogamy among Upper Cowlitz, Lower

Cowlitz, and Cowlitz me ́tis, and

patterned out-marriages with other

Indian groups. It is this group who

remained who constitute the ancestry of

today’s petitioner.

The active involvement of individuals

in the CIT tribal entity has traditionally

been, and still is, connected to, and in

some cases subordinate to, involvement

in subgroup activities. There is also

evidence that some individuals, with

either the active or tacit support of other

family members, became involved in the

CIT’s Tribal Council activities to ensure

that the Tribal Council addressed the

interests of their own subgroup.

Viewed in the light of the requirement

in 83.1 that the criterion for community

be ‘‘understood in the context of the

history, geography, culture, and social

organization of the group,’’ we find that

the historical development of the

Cowlitz Indian Tribe (CIT) has resulted

in a two-level community structure, in

which community is stronger at the

level of the subgroup and looser, but

still extant, at the level of the tribe as

a whole. The BIA found social

interaction indicative of community

through a combination of evidence of

weak but consistent interaction among

subgroups, and strong interaction

within all of the subgroups of the

Cowlitz Indian Tribe. There is thus

sufficient evidence of community

among all subgroups within the Cowlitz

Indian Tribe. Thus, we conclude that

the petitioner meets criterion 83.7(b) as

modified by § 83.8(d), which requires a

showing that the group constitutes a

distinct, cohesive community at present.

As a consequence of the nature of the

historical development of the Cowlitz

entity, the interaction among the

Cowlitz subgroups at the tribal level is

primarily political in nature: the

subgroups do not have separate formal

leadership, while there is

communication and interaction between

members of the different subgroups.

People within one subgroup know who

within another subgroup is an effective

political contact or communications

liaison. The subgroups form a single

political system, with no signs of

considering breaking away, despite the

presence of conflicts.

The evidence presented indicated that

the Cowlitz Indians have had an

unbroken sequence of named leadership

since the Chehalis River Treaty Council

in 1855. Leaders came from both the

Lower Cowlitz band and Upper Cowlitz

bands until 1912, and after that from the

combined Cowlitz Tribal Organization

(now CIT). From 1904 through 1934,

evidence of continuous political

leadership includes the smooth shifting

of leadership from the federallyrecognized chieftainship and political

influence of Atwin Stockum and

Captain Peter, to a council of elected offi

cers. This organization held meetings

attended by a significant portion of the

voting members of the tribe almost

annually from 1912 through 1939, and

from 1950 through the present.

The Cowlitz Tribal Organization was

not exclusively a claims organization,

although it pursued claims. It did not

develop in response external events

such as the movement to enroll

outsiders at Quinault or Thomas

Bishop’s Northwestern Indian

Federation. Neither did it result from

the making of the Roblin Roll by the

BIA. Rather, the Cowlitz tribe existed

prior to these events and the formal

Cowlitz tribal organization operated

independently of these external events.

In fact, Roblin’s 1919 Report showed

that the Cowlitz were one of only two

unenrolled Washington Indian groups

whom he identified as a tribe.

Additionally, for the period from 1912

through 1950, the existence of an

externally named leadership, along with

evidence for the continuation of

structured political activity and

influence under § 83.8(d)(3) for the

overall membership within the looselyintegrated community, was

supplemented by considerable evidence

of informal leadership exercised within

the component subgroups by nonelected elders.

The evidence also indicated that

throughout the period since 1855, the

named leaders were identified by

knowledgeable external authorities,

primarily Federal officials, as exercising

a sufficient amount of political

influence or authority within the overall

membership to meet criterion 83.7(c),

which is intended to establish

continuous tribal political existence.

Evidence from BIA documentation was

ample for this purpose for the period

through the late 1930’s, and there was

also sufficient evidence for the more

recent period. In 1953, the BIA notified

the Cowlitz Tribe of Indians (CTI),

through its elected leader, of the

pending western Washington

termination legislation. In 1964, the

council and some of the general

membership became involved in a

dispute concerning the approval of an

attorney contract for pursuing claims

litigation under the 1946 Indian Claims

Commission (ICC) Act. While there is no

evidence that the dispu tants aligned

themselves along factional lines, the

disputes were perceived by Federal

officials as a threat to the leadership’s

stability, indicating that the

membership exerted influence on the

formally elected leadership.

In 1967, an informally functioning

executive committee which had

developed under the 1950 constitution

of the CTI was expanded by resolution

of the general membership at the annual

meeting into a formal tribal council. The

Tribal Council was then incorporated

into the 1974 constitutional revision,

which also was adopted by vote of the

general membership. However, the

annual membership, or General Council,

meetings have remained the primary

political center. There are political

strains over its role vis-a-vis that of the

Tribal Council and rivalries between the

elected leadership of the General

Council and that of the Tribal Council.

In addition, there was considerable

evidence of informal leadership during

the period 1950–1973 by community

elders.

The 1973/1974 decisions concerning

enrollment qualifications have

continued to have political impact until

the present day.

Some family groups with Yakimaenrolled close relatives maintain that

they remain active in the Tribal Council

to protect their membership status. The

1/16 Cowlitz blood-quantum provision

continued to provoke membershipeligibility disputes within the general

membership and within the Tribal

Council as recently as the early 1990’s.

The Tribal and General Councils have

responded to demands from the general

membership to broaden the focus of

Cowlitz Indian Tribe activities beyond

claims and Federal acknowledgment,

and to intervene in other matters of

concern to the general membership, or

of concern to particular extended

families or socially-defined categories

within the general membership. This

process provided evidence for

continuous functioning by leaders,

leaders’ influence on the membership,

members’ influence on the policies of

the governing body, and

acknowledgment of leaders by followers

under § 83.8(d)(3). Therefore, we

conclude that the petitioner meets

criterion 83.7(c) as modified by criterion

83.8(d).

The petitioning group has provided a

copy of its governing document, which

describes its membership criteria. Thus,

we conclude that the petitioner meets

criterion 83.7(d).

The petitioner’s members descend

from the Lower Cowlitz band as it

existed at the time of the Chehalis River

treaty negotiations in 1855, from me ́tis

descendants of Lower Cowlitz women

who had married French-Canadian
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 39 / Thursday, February 27, 1997 / Notices 8985

employees of the Hudson’s Bay

Company prior to 1855, from the Upper

Cowlitz and Lower Cowlitz bands as

enumerated by the Federal

Government’s Office of Indian Affairs

(OIA) in 1878, and from persons

enumerated as Cowlitz Indians on the

BIA’s 1919 Schedule of Unenrolled

Indians in Western Washington

prepared by special agent Charles

Roblin.

The present membership also

descends from individuals identified as

Cowlitz Indians in pre-1855 Roman

Catholic Church records, persons

identified as Cowlitz Indians in public

vital records, and from individuals

identified as Cowlitz Indians on BIA

allotment records (for Indian

homesteads, public domain allotments,

and Yakima Reservation allotments) and

in affidavits filed with the BIA between

1911 and 1918 in connection with

applications for adoption and allotment

on the Quinault Reservation.

Previous acknowledgment decisions

have allowed for the movement of

families between bands and tribes, as

well as the formal or informal merger of

bands and tribes. The amalgamation of

the Lower Cowlitz and Upper Cowlitz,

and the association of non-Cowlitz

me ́tis families with the Cowlitz Indians

in the society which developed at the

Hudson’s Bay Company settlement on

Cowlitz Prairie prior to the 1855 date of

prior unambiguous Federal

acknowledgment, fall within these

parameters. The process by which a

limited number of non-Cowlitz me ́tis

families became associated with the

Cowlitz Indians was carefully analyzed

by the BIA. It was concluded that

descent from such associated me ́tis

families constituted descent from the

historical tribe within the meaning of

criterion 83.7(e) Thus we conclude that

the petitioner meets criterion 83.7(e).

The constitution of the Cowlitz Indian

Tribe prohibits dual enrollment. This

provision is enforced. The BIA found no

evidence that a substantial proportion of

the petitioner’s membership was

enrolled in any other Federally

acknowledged tribe. Therefore, we find

that the petitioner meets criterion

83.7(f).

No evidence was found that the

petitioner or its members are the subject

of congressional legislation which has

expressly terminated or forbidden the

Federal relationship. Therefore, we find

that the petitioner meets criterion

83.7(g).

Based on this preliminary factual

determination, we conclude that the

Cowlitz Indian Tribe should be granted

Federal acknowledgment under 25 CFR

part 83.

As provided by 25 CFR 83.10(h) of the

revised regulations, a report

summarizing the evidence, reasoning,

and analyses that are the basis for the

proposed decision will be provided to

the petitioner and interested parties,

and is available to other parties upon

written request. Comments on the

proposed finding and/or requests for a

copy of the report of evidence should be

addressed to the Office of the Assistant

Secretary, Bureau of Indian Affairs,

1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC

20240, Attention; Branch of

Acknowledgment and Research,

Mailstop 4603—MIB. Third parties must

simultaneously supply copies of their

comments to the petitioner in order for

them to be considered by the

Department of the Interior.

During the response period, the

Assistant Secretary shall provide

technical advice concerning the

proposed finding and shall make

available to the petitioner in a timely

fashion any records used for the

proposed finding not already held by

the petitioner, to the extent allowable by

Federal law (83.10(j)(1)). In addition, the

Assistant Secretary shall, if requested by

the petitioner or any interested party,

hold a formal meeting for the purpose

of inquiring into the reasoning,

analyses, and factual bases for the

proposed finding. The proceedings of

this meeting shall be on the record. The

meeting record shall be available to any

participating party and become part of

the record considered by the Assistant

Secretary in reaching a final

determination (83.10(j)(2)).

If third party comments are received

during the regular response period, the

petitioner shall have a minimum of 60

days to respond to these comments.

This period may be extended at the

Assistant Secretary’s discretion if

warranted by the nature and extent of

the comments (83.10(k)).

At the end of the response periods the

Assistant Secretary shall consider the

written arguments and evidence

submitted during the response periods

and issue a final determination. The

Assistant Secretary shall consult with

the petitioner and interested parties to

determine an equitable time frame for

preparation of the final determination

and notify the petitioner and interested

parties of the date such consideration

begins. The Assistant Secretary may

conduct any necessary additional

research and may request additional

information from the petitioner and

third parties. A summary of the final

determination will be published in the

Federal Register within 60 days from

the date on which the consideration of

the written arguments and evidence

rebutting or supporting the proposed

finding begins, as provided in 25 CFR

83.10(l)(2).

Dated: February 12, 1997.

Ada E. Deer,

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.

[FR Doc. 97–4837 Filed 2–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–02–P

Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri Liquor

and Beer Act

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice is published in

accordance with authority delegated by

the Secretary of the Interior to the

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs by

209 DM 8, and in accordance with the

Act of August 15, 1953, 67 Stat. 586, 18

U.S.C. § 1161, as interpreted by the

Supreme Court in Rice v. Rehner, 463

U.S. 713 (1983). I certify that the Sac

and Fox Nation of Missouri Liquor and

Beer Act was duly adopted by

Resolution R–53–96 of the Sac and Fox

Nation of Missouri Tribal Council on

September 27, 1996. The ordinance

provides for the regulation, sale,

possession and use of alcoholic liquor

and beer within the Tribe’s jurisdiction.

DATES: This ordinance is effective as of

February 27, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry

Cordova, Office of Tribal Services, 1849

C Street, N.W., MS 4603 MIB,

Washington, D.C. 20240–4001;

telephone (202) 208–4401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Sac

and Fox Nation of Missouri Liquor and

Beer Ordinance shall read as follows:

Sac and Fox Liquor and Beer Act

Section 1. Title and Purpose

This Title shall be known as the Sac

and Fox Liquor and Beer Act (‘‘Act’’).

This law is enacted to regulate the sale

and distribution of liquor and beer

products on all properties under the

jurisdiction of the Sac and Fox Nation

of Missouri, and to generate revenue to

fund needed tribal programs and

services.

Section 2. Authority

This Act is enacted pursuant to

Article V (f) and (i) of the Constitution

of the Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri

in Kansas and Nebraska and the Act of

August 15, 1953 (Pub. L. 83–277, 67

Stat. 588, 18 U.S.C. § 1161).

Section 3. Definitions

Unless otherwise required by the

context, the following words and