[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 245 (Thursday, December 22, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-31374]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: December 22, 1994]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part IV





Department of the Interior





_______________________________________________________________________



Bureau of Indian Affairs



_______________________________________________________________________




Proposed Finding Against Federal Acknowledgment of the United Houma 
Nation, Inc.; Notice
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs

 
Proposed Finding Against Federal Acknowledgment of the United 
Houma Nation, Inc.

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 proposes to decline to acknowledge that the United 
Houma Nation, Inc. c/o Mrs. Laura N. Billiot, Star Route, Box 95-A, 
Golden Meadow, Louisiana 70357, exists as an Indian tribe within the 
meaning of Federal law. This notice is based on a determination that 
the tribe does not meet three of the seven mandatory criteria set forth 
in 25 CFR 83.7. Therefore, the United Houma Nation does not meet the 
requirements necessary for a government-to-government 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 factual or legal 
arguments and evidence to 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 new 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 requests for a copy 
of the report of evidence should be addressed to the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs, 1849 C Street, N.W., Washington, 
DC 20240, Attention: Branch of Acknowledgment and Research, Mail Stop 
2611-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--Indian Affairs by 209 DM 8.
    The petitioner maintains that they are the descendants of the 
historical Houma Indian tribe. There is no evidence supporting this 
contention. The historical Houma Indian tribe continued to live near 
present-day Donaldsonville, Louisiana throughout the years the 
petitioner's antecedent community first formed on the lower bayous 
(between 1810 and 1830). There are no documented genealogical, social, 
or political connections between this tribe of Indians and the 
petitioner. There is also no evidence that the petitioner, as a group, 
descends from any other historical tribe, or from historical tribes 
which combined and functioned as a single autonomous entity.
    There is no evidence that the petitioner's ancestors constituted a 
social community, Indian or non-Indian, before 1830. Because of this, 
the petitioner has also failed to meet criterion 83.7(b), maintenance 
of social community, and criterion 83.7(c), exercise of political 
influence, prior to 1830. Lacking the evidence for an ancestral 
community prior to 1830, there is, of course, no evidence for the 
exercise of political influence prior to 1830. The Federal 
acknowledgment criteria 83.7 (b) and (c) require the petitioner to 
provide evidence that they fulfill criteria 83.7 (b) and (c) from the 
time of first sustained contact with Europeans to the present.
    The migration of the UHN ancestors, the majority of whom were non-
Indian (primarily French, Acadian, German, and African) frontiersmen, 
to the founding Bayou Terrebonne settlement (north of present-day 
Montegut) started in the 1790's. Among the settlers on Bayou 
Terrebonne, some of whom became ancestors of the UHN, were the three 
Indian progenitors of the group. They moved there independently of each 
other; there is no indication that they were related to each other 
socially, politically, or genealogically, before moving to the bayou 
settlement. The tribal affiliation of the three Indian progenitors is 
not certain. One was quite possibly a Biloxi medal chief; the other two 
are identified in the earliest historical records only as ``Indian 
women,'' with no specific tribal affiliation mentioned. There is no 
evidence that these three individuals descend from the same historical 
tribe or from historical tribes which combined and functioned as a 
single autonomous entity.
    It is important to note that, for the first two generations that 
the founding UHN community was forming on Bayou Terrebonne (1790 to 
1830), the petitioner's Indian ancestors and their descendants tended 
to marry non-Indians. In spite of this early marital pattern, and the 
fact that there are more non-Indian than Indian progenitors for the 
petitioner, the available evidence indicates that about 84% of the 
UHN's current members have Indian ancestry. The Indian ancestry 
originates from the three individual Indian progenitors mentioned 
above, the result of six generations of group endogamy between 1830 to 
1950. It is not the result of descent, as a group, from a historical 
tribe.
    By 1830, the petitioner's ancestors, the majority of whom were non-
Indian, formed an identifiable separate and distinct community on Bayou 
Terrebonne. From 1830 to 1940, the limited evidence submitted by the 
petitioner indicates that they tended to marry each other more 
frequently than they married outsiders. The strongest evidence for 
social community from 1830 to 1880, however, is that more than half of 
the petitioner's ancestors lived in an isolated, exclusive settlement.
    In the 1840's, the petitioner's ancestors started forming satellite 
settlements further south along Bayou Terrebonne, on Bayou Lafourche, 
and on other bayous toward the west. No contemporary descriptions of 
the petitioner's settlements between 1840 and 1880 were found. But 
based on the geographical isolation of the community on Bayou 
Terrebonne, we conclude that the petitioner did maintain a distinct 
settlement which encompassed 50% or more of its members, from 1830 to 
1880. Under the revised regulations for Federal acknowledgment, this is 
considered sufficient evidence that the petitioner meets both criteria 
83.7 (b) and (c) for that period as a single community.
    By 1880, the limited evidence presented by the petitioner suggests 
that its members' ancestors had divided into several (six or more), 
socially and politically distinct, satellite communities, and no longer 
lived in a single community. From 1880 to 1940, the petitioner's 
ancestors maintained social integrity in these satellite communities, 
based on the evidence that 50% or more of them lived in geographical 
isolation. Within these relatively isolated communities, there is some 
limited evidence that political influence was exercised through the 
extended kinship structure, by elders known as noncs `uncles' and 
tantes `aunts'. This system of political influence may have been used 
effectively to control the behavior of individual community members, 
though the evidence is limited and sketchy.
    From 1880 to 1940, there were some individuals who provided 
leadership on an ad hoc basis for individual communities, but never for 
the petitioner as a whole. One of the issues that brought forth leaders 
was in the fight to establish separate Indian schools for the children 
of UHN ancestors. Because the petitioner appears to have been composed 
of separate communities from 1880 to 1940, each of which may have had 
its own leaders, rather than a single community with a comprehensive 
authority, the petitioner has not met criteria 83.7 (b) and (c) from 
1880 to 1940, as a whole.
    From 1940 to the present, the petitioner's members have emigrated 
from the lower bayou communities in greater numbers, especially to the 
suburbs of New Orleans. There has also been a continuous increase in 
out-marriage from 1940 to the present. Currently, two-thirds of the UHN 
members reside outside of the lower bayou communities. There is no 
evidence that indicates a social or political relationship between 
those who have emigrated and those who continue to reside in the bayou 
communities. There is also no evidence that the emigrants are related 
socially or politically among themselves. There is some limited 
evidence that emigrants from specific bayou communities may maintain 
political and social relations with relatives who remain in their natal 
bayou communities. Therefore, the petitioner has not met criteria 83.7 
(b) and (c) from 1940 to the present as a whole.
    The petitioner has not proven that it descends from a historical 
Indian tribe. In fact, there is no evidence for an antecedent 
community, Indian or non-Indian, prior to 1830. Since the UHN did not 
exist as a community until 1830, they are not a political community 
which is derived from a tribe existing at first sustained contact with 
Europeans until the present, and have not existed as a distinct 
political community derived from such a tribe since first settlement by 
Europeans in the area.
    There is the possibility, though not well-documented at this time, 
that some or all of the component communities on the lower bayous may 
meet criteria 83.7 (b) and (c) from 1880 to the present, as separate 
communities. But the petitioner has not established any connection to a 
historical tribe prior to 1830. Nor did the petitioner submit its 
petition as a confederation, but rather as a single entity. For these 
combined reasons, there is no need to further evaluate the continued 
existence of separate communities from 1880 to the present, at this 
time.
    There remains the possibility, however, that if the required 
connection is made to a historical tribe, the Assistant Secretary may 
wish to investigate further the possibility of acknowledging all or 
several of the component communities that comprise the UHN. This issue 
would only need to be investigated if the connection to a historical 
tribe is proven.
    Since 1900, the petitioner's community has been identified 
consistently by anthropologists, state and Federal government 
representatives, residents of south Louisiana who are not members of 
the petitioning group, missionaries, journalists, and others, as 
``Indian'' or by other terms which indicate at least some Indian 
ancestry. There is no evidence that anyone denied that the UHN were an 
Indian community since 1900. They therefore meet criterion 83.7(a), 
identification by outsiders as an Indian community since 1900.
    The petitioning group has provided a copy of its governing 
document, which describes its membership criteria. Evidence indicates 
that the group is following its membership criteria satisfactorily.
    No evidence was found that any of the members of the UHN are 
members of any federally recognized tribe.
    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.
    Based on this preliminary factual determination, we conclude that 
the UHN does not meet criteria b, c, and e in 25 CFR 83.7. Since the 
UHN does not meet all of the seven mandatory criteria, we conclude that 
the UHN should not 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 other 
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--Indian Affairs, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1849 C 
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240, Attention: Branch of Acknowledgment 
and Research, Mail Stop 2611-MIB.
    After consideration of the written arguments and evidence rebutting 
the proposed finding and within 60 days after the expiration of the 
180-day response period described above, the Assistant Secretary--
Indian Affairs will publish the final determination of the petitioner's 
status in the Federal Register as provided in 25 CFR 83.10(1).
Ada E. Deer,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 94-31374 Filed 12-21-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-02-M