[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8983-8985]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4837]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
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-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 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 Sec. 83.8 as having unambiguous previous Federal
acknowledgment and has been considered under the modifications of
Sec. 83.7 that are prescribed by Sec. 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 Sec. 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
metis descendants of the Lower Cowlitz, and the Sahaptin-speaking 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 long-standing
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
[[Page 8984]]
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 metis, 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 Sec. 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 federally-recognized 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
Sec. 83.8(d)(3) for the overall membership within the loosely-
integrated community, was supplemented by considerable evidence of
informal leadership exercised within the component subgroups by non-
elected 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 Yakima-enrolled 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 membership-eligibility 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 Sec. 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 metis descendants of Lower Cowlitz women who had married French-
Canadian
[[Page 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 metis 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 metis families became
associated with the Cowlitz Indians was carefully analyzed by the BIA.
It was concluded that descent from such associated metis 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