[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 34 (Friday, February 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8436-8438]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-4012]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs


Final Determination To Acknowledge the Cowlitz Indian Tribe

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice is published in the exercise of authority 
delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary--
Indian Affairs (Assistant Secretary) by 209 DM 8. Pursuant to 25 CFR 
83.10(m), notice is hereby given that the Assistant Secretary 
acknowledges that the Cowlitz Indian Tribe, c/o Mr. John Barnett, 1417 
15th Avenue, P.O. Box 2547, Longview, Washington 98632-8594 exists as 
an Indian tribe within the meaning of Federal law. This notice is based 
on a determination that the group satisfies all seven criteria for 
acknowledgment in 25 CFR 83.7.

DATES: This determination is final and will become effective on May 18, 
2000, pursuant to 25 CFR 83.10(l)(4), unless a request for 
reconsideration is filed pursuant to 25 CFR 83.11.
    A notice of the Proposed Finding to acknowledge the Cowlitz Indian 
Tribe (CIT) was published in the Federal Register on February 27, 1997 
(62 FR 8983). The original 180-day comment period provided under the 
regulations closed August 26, 1997, but was extended to November 19, 
1997, at the request of the Quinault Indian Nation (Quinault). Then, as 
a result of a Stipulated Order entered on the docket in Quinault Indian 
Nation v. Gover (Civ. No. C97-5625RJB, D. W.D. Wash.), a case involving 
Quinault's FOIA request for CIT materials, the public comment period 
was reopened for 75 days. A formal meeting was held under 25 CFR 
83.10(j)(2). Quinault submitted additional comments December 12, 1998, 
and the CIT submitted its reply February 9, 1999.
    This determination is made following a review of the Cowlitz Indian 
Tribe's response to the Proposed Finding, the public comments on the 
Proposed Finding, and the Cowlitz response to the public comments. This 
notice is based on a determination that the group satisfies the seven 
criteria for acknowledgment in 25 CFR 83.7, as modified by 25 CFR 83.8.
    This final determination incorporates the evidence considered for 
the proposed finding, new documentation and argument received from 
third parties and the petitioner, including that in the formal meeting, 
and interview and documentary evidence collected by the BIA during the 
final evaluation. The final determination reaches factual conclusions 
based on a review and reanalysis of the existing record in light of 
this new evidence.
    The proposed finding evaluated this case under Sec. 83.8 of the 
regulations and concluded that the CIT was Federally acknowledged in 
1855 when its leaders represented the tribe at the Chehalis River 
Treaty negotiations. This final determination now extends the date of 
previous Federal acknowledgment to 1878-1880 to when Federal Indian 
agents appointed Atwin Stockum chief in 1878 and included both the 
Lower Cowlitz and Upper Cowlitz bands in Office of Indian Affairs 
censuses taken in 1878 and 1880. The proposed finding found that the 
government administratively joined the Lower Cowlitz, which included 
the Lower Cowlitz metis, and the Upper Cowlitz. Although Government 
documents of the 1860's and 1870's noted separate groups, they handled 
them together. The Quinault Nation submitted substantial comment, 
disagreeing both with the finding that different Cowlitz populations 
amalgamated and with the application of 83.8 to the amalgamated entity. 
First, the Cowlitz metis were always part of the Lower Cowlitz. Second, 
the regulations allow for amalgamations of historical tribes at 
Sec. 83.6(f). Because both the Upper and Lower Cowlitz bands had prior 
recognition in 1880, and because the regulations do not require that 
the amalgamated entity have separate Federal recognition when made up 
of two recognized entities, Quinault's arguments against the 
applicability of 83.8 is rejected.
    The CIT meets criterion 83.7(a), as modified by the application of 
Sec. 83.8(d)(1), which requires external sources to identify the 
petitioner from the date of last Federal acknowledgment until the 
present not only as an Indian entity, but also as the same entity, 
which was previously acknowledged. The proposed finding found that 
certain Federal records, ethnographers, local historians and newspapers 
have identified the CIT as an Indian entity on a substantially 
continuous basis since 1855. The Quinault Nation's comments disputed 
the analysis but did so by confusing the concepts of ``recognition'' 
which refers to an actual government-to-government relationship between 
an Indian tribe and the Federal Government, and ``identification'' as 
required under 83.7(a) which refers to naming or identifying the 
petitioner as an Indian entity, without regard to the actual political 
character, social organization or origins of the entity or the 
political relationships that entity may or may not maintain with other 
governments. Quinault's comments did not require a change in the 
proposed finding for 83.7(a) as modified by 83.8(d)(1).
    Under 83.8(d)(2), the regulations require petitioners to 
demonstrate that they meet the criterion for community at 83.7(b). They 
do not need to demonstrate that they meet the criterion for community 
from 1878-80, the last point of unambiguous Federal acknowledgment, to 
the present. The proposed finding and final determination define the 
period for the modern community as 1981 to the present, starting some 
ten years before the documented petition and the response to the 
technical assistance letters were submitted. Quinault argues that the 
Government used this earlier data as evidence for community at a later 
date. The Department disagrees. The pre-1981 activities only provide 
background for evaluating community at present and do not constitute 
actual evidence for meeting 83.7(b) at present; other evidence 
demonstrates community at present.
    Quinault comments extensively on the period between 1878 and 1981 
and attempts to demonstrate that CIT did not meet the requirements of 
Sec. 83.7(b). They often compared the evidence in other cases to 
evidence in this case in an attempt to show that the criteria were 
applied arbitrarily. However, under 83.8(d)(2), the petitioner need not 
demonstrate existence as a community historically. Further, as the 
preamble to the regulations explains, evidence submitted by previously 
acknowledged petitioners concerning their continued existence is 
entitled to greater weight. The reduced burden is in part accomplished 
by the requirement to show continued existence under criterion 83.7(c), 
not 83.7(b). To evaluate the evidence submitted under 83.7(b) for all 
time periods as Quinault suggests the Government should have been done, 
is contrary to the regulations. Therefore, this final determination 
finds Quinault's comments on historic community are irrelevant because 
they discuss evidence for community during time periods when the 
petitioner is not required to demonstrate that they meet criterion

[[Page 8437]]

83.7(b). Therefore, such arguments and evidence do not change the 
proposed finding that CIT meets Sec. 83.7(b) as modified by 
Sec. 83.8(d)(2).
    For the final determination, additional evidence and analysis shows 
that interaction by members in the present-day community was extensive 
and involved people in all subgroups in proportion to the group's size 
in the overall CIT membership. This additional evidence and analysis 
supports and strengthens the evaluation of actual social interaction 
among the petitioner's members made in the proposed finding. BIA 
researchers performed a quantitative analysis on the data available for 
the final determination, and it demonstrated that a predominant 
proportion of members of CIT are documented as either actually 
participating in CIT affairs or closely related as a parent, child or 
sibling to an individual who actually participated in CIT affairs, 
including taking part in the council or executive committee, social 
events, committees, information and food sharing, welfare activities, 
and so forth. Because a predominant proportion of the membership 
actually participates in formal and informal tribal activities, the 
proposed finding that actual interaction occurs at a significant level 
is confirmed. Subgroup activities discussed in the proposed finding 
reinforce the interactions occurring at the tribal level.
    The CIT meets the requirements of 83.7(c) as modified by 83.8(d) to 
demonstrate that political influence or authority is exercised at 
present. The proposed finding listed a sequence of leaders of CIT and 
one form of other evidence under 83.7(c) from the point of last Federal 
acknowledgment (1855) to find that they met this criteria as modified 
by 83.8(d)(3). Because this determination now finds that CIT was 
acknowledged until 1878-1880, the sequence of leaders must now be shown 
only from that point, when Atwin Stockum was appointed chief of the 
Cowlitz tribe by an Indian agent, through an uneventful shift from 
traditional chiefs to an elected executive council in 1910-1912, until 
the current CIT chairman John Barnett. From 1912 to 1938, the Cowlitz 
leaders came from both the Upper and Lower Cowlitz Bands, including 
several of the Lower Cowlitz metis families.
    Quinault's response to these findings fall under two main 
categories: (1) The named leaders were only leaders of separate tribes 
or subgroups and not of a unified tribal entity, and (2) the named 
leaders were only officials of a claims organization not a tribe. In 
respect to issue (1), evidence of political activity and named leaders 
within the separate bands prior to their amalgamation is sufficient 
under 83.8(d)(3). Significant data indicates that the Upper and Lower 
Cowlitz and their leaders cooperated in filing claims in 1910-12 and in 
litigating fishing rights in 1927-34. The subsequent leaders in the 
unified Cowlitz alternated between the Upper and Lower Cowlitz Bands. 
Concerning issue (2), non-claims issues, such as fishing rights 
discussed above, were of immediate and significant interest to Cowlitz 
members during the claims period. Further, the CIT's predecessor group 
did not form in response to claims activities and operated 
independently of claims groups. Quinault's response is factually 
incorrect and does not require a change in the proposed finding.
    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 no longer 
have separate formal leadership or decision making processes; however, 
the active communication and interaction among members of subgroups 
promotes informal leaders and political activity within each group and 
supports participation of individuals from each subgroup in the larger 
political arena of the tribe. New field work by the BIA added to the 
information utilized for the proposed finding and confirms that 
arguments, issues and behind the scenes coalition building were 
widespread and information about such topics was widely dispersed 
throughout the membership. Members held strong opinions, and they based 
their political positions on knowledge they gained not only from formal 
meetings and CIT publications but also from communications and rumors 
they heard during informal discussions in everyday social situations. 
News about tribal affairs is filtered through a lens of general 
knowledge which members have about each other gained through lifetimes 
of association.
    The proposed finding found that CIT was not merely a claims 
organization, and that it operated independently of claims events 
originating outside the tribe. CIT existed before and after 
Northwestern Indian Federation efforts to form claims organizations, 
the push to enroll at Quinault and the compiling of the Roblin Roll. 
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), demonstrated that 
the Cowlitz leaders undertook activities in addition to claims which 
demonstrated a bilateral relationship between them and tribal members. 
At present, arguments concerning resources and land use, the direction 
of the tribe, priorities, the acknowledgment petition, the membership 
requirements and elections clearly illustrate that the tribe is 
involved in a number of activities. Politically active CIT members 
utilize this knowledge to advance their programs or points of view.
    The CIT generally has made a smooth transition from one leader to 
another without even minor breaks. Clearly, through the changes from a 
hereditary chief, to an appointed chief, to a democratically elected 
council, the membership remained unchanged in its basic character. This 
clear identification of the Cowlitz entity and the consistency of its 
large core membership since 1870 contrasts significantly with some 
other western Washington petitioners whose histories show ten year and 
longer periods without leadership and whose memberships (and the 
related social and political character of the group) change radically 
from one leader to the next. In contrast, the Cowlitz petitioner can 
trace an unbroken line of leaders and a relatively unchanging 
membership.
    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. Quinault argued that the 12 
year hiatus constituted a significant interruption of continuous tribal 
existence. Documents in the record show that activity during the war 
years was extremely low but individuals continued to communicate and 
leaders met at an individual's home. When regular meetings commenced 
again in 1950, the same general population attended as before the war 
and the same group of leaders presided. New analyses comparing lists of 
participants and of the leaders before the war with lists from after 
the war found that individuals and subgroups were basically of the same 
social and political character during both periods. This 12-year 
fluctuation in activity is not a cause for denial of acknowledgment. 
See, 83.6(e).
    Outside events such as the introduction of residency requirements 
and dual enrollment prohibitions in Yakima enrollment procedures in the 
late 1940's, and changes in membership rules within the tribe to 
prohibit dual enrollment and to establish a \1/16\th blood-degree 
requirement have defined more strictly the tribe's boundaries during 
the 20th century, but have not changed the distinct characteristics of

[[Page 8438]]

the Cowlitz core population. Quinault questioned an apparent 
discrepancy between the anthropologist's and historian's technical 
reports on the topic of the 1973-74 CIT enrollment changes and language 
is included in the final determination to clarify the proposed finding. 
Although a few active individuals were removed from the membership as a 
result of these changes in the membership rules, the general membership 
was knowledgeable about the effect the vote for these changes would 
have, and they were able to enforce them. The genealogical makeup of 
the tribe was not drastically altered by these changes; the membership 
still descended from the same historical groupings in roughly the same 
proportions.
    The Quinault presented extensive specific arguments together with 
documentary and affidavit evidence to support their fundamental 
argument that CIT, and the predecessor organization called by other 
names, was only a voluntary organization formed solely for the purposes 
of pursuing land and other claims against the Government. A careful 
review of their comments and evidence found that Quinault's argument, 
based in part on the content of the council minutes, ignored other 
evidence concerning not only activities outside of council meetings but 
also the purpose and character of the minutes themselves, which were 
not transcripts of everything that went on at the meetings but were 
focused on actions taken. While the tribe was very involved in dealing 
with these claims activities, it also performed other welfare, 
economic, governmental and cultural functions that were significant to 
members. Quinault also cited descriptions of acculturated Cowlitz as 
``negative'' evidence. Degree of cultural acculturation does not 
prohibit acknowledgment if other evidence demonstrates that the tribe 
continues to exist.
    The annual General Council meeting continues to be the primary 
political event of each year. Supplementary meetings are sometimes 
held. There are political strains over the General Council's role vis-
a-vis the Tribal Council and rivalries between the elected leadership 
of the General Council and that of the Tribal Council continue to 
display publicly the larger controversies within the tribe. The 1973/
1974 decisions concerning enrollment qualifications have continued to 
have political impact to the present. 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 continues to provoke membership-eligibility disputes 
within the general membership and within the Tribal Council. As 
recently as 1999, individuals stepped down from the tribal council 
because of problems they had meeting the membership requirements. 
Quinault's arguments do not require a change in the proposed finding 
and additional information confirms that the petitioner meets criterion 
83.7(c) as modified by criterion 83.8(d).
    Quinault Nation's comments challenge the conclusion in the proposed 
finding that the CIT membership is descended from the historical 
Cowlitz bands which amalgamated and therefore met the requirements of 
criterion Sec. 83.7(e). Their analysis mixed previous acknowledgment 
with their discussion of Sec. 83.7(e). Their comment, based on a 
misinterpretation of the proposed finding, questioned the inclusion of 
m deg.tis descendants in the tribe. Quinault interpreted the proposed 
finding as treating the Cowlitz metis as a separate Indian entity which 
amalgamated with the Lower Cowlitz and the Upper Cowlitz. However, the 
proposed finding explained that the Cowlitz metis were descendants of 
Lower Cowlitz Indians and French Canadians, such ``half bloods'' being 
often referred to in documents as ``metis.'' The ``Cowlitz metis'' 
included the mixed-blood descendants of individual Indian women from 
other tribes, who had been accepted into the tribe before treaty times. 
These women and their children functioned as members of the Cowlitz 
tribe prior to the latest date of previous unambiguous Federal 
acknowledgment. The proposed finding did not state that there was a 
metis entity which had amalgamated with the Lower Cowlitz. Rather the 
Cowlitz metis or metis descendants were always part of the Cowlitz 
tribe. Because Quinault misstated the Proposed Finding's treatment of 
the Cowlitz metis, their conclusions based on their misunderstanding 
are also not valid, and CIT meets 83.7(e).
    The CIT met criteria 83.7(d), (f), and (g) for the proposed 
finding. Quinault argues that CIT did not actually follow their 
constitution or that some provisions within the document indicated that 
its tribal existence had not been continuous. Criticisms of statements 
in constitutions have not been viewed as significant in past 
determinations and are not weighed as significant here. The requirement 
for 83.7(d) is to submit the group's governing document including its 
membership criteria. The document submitted reflects the CIT governing 
and membership practices. The CIT satisfied 83.7(d). Significant 
comment or evidence was not submitted to refute the finding concerning 
criteria Sec. 83.7(f) and (g). Consequently, this final determination 
confirms that CIT meets these criteria.
    In concluding that the CIT is a tribe within the meaning of 25 CFR 
part 83, the Department is not rendering any conclusions concerning 
treaty rights or matters pertaining to rights in, or the governance of, 
the Quinault Reservation. The Federal acknowledgment process does not 
require a decision on such issues.
    This determination is final and will become effective 90 days from 
the date of publication, unless a request for reconsideration is filed 
pursuant to 83.11. The petitioner or any interested party may file a 
request for reconsideration of this determination with the Interior 
Board of Appeals (83.11(a)(1)). The petitioner's or interested party's 
request must be received no later than 90 days after publication of the 
Assistant Secretary's determination in the Federal Register 
(83.11(a)(2)).

    Dated: February 14, 2000.
Kevin Gover,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 00-4012 Filed 2-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-02-P