[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