[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 141 (Friday, July 21, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45394-45396]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-18490]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs


Proposed Finding for Federal Acknowledgment of the Little Shell 
Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana

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 proposes to acknowledge that the 
Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana, P.O. Box 1384, Great 
Falls, Montana 59403, exists as an Indian tribe within the meaning of 
Federal law. This notice is based on a determination that the 
petitioner 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 comment on the proposed finding may submit arguments and 
evidence to support or rebut the proposed finding. 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. The names and addresses of commenters on the proposed 
finding will be available for public review. Commenters wishing to have 
their name and/or address withheld must state this request prominently 
at the beginning of their comments. Such a request will be honored to 
the extent allowable by law.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed finding or requests for a copy of 
the report which summarizes the evidence and analyses that are the 
basis for this proposed finding should be addressed to the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs, Branch of Acknowledgment and Research, 1849 C Street 
NW, Mailstop 4660-MIB, Washington, D.C. 20240.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R. Lee Fleming, Chief, Branch of 
Acknowledgment and Research, (202) 208-3592.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published in accordance with 
authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant 
Secretary by 209 DM 8.
    Documentation for this proposed finding was submitted by the Little 
Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana (Little Shell, or 
petitioner) or obtained by the independent research of the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs (BIA), Branch of Acknowledgment and Research (BAR).
    The evidence shows that a substantial portion of the petitioner's 
members have ancestry from either the historical Pembina Band of 
Chippewa Indians prior to a treaty of 1863, or from a successor, the 
Turtle Mountain Band. The petitioner asserts to have its origins in a 
Chippewa band which had been led by a succession of three hereditary 
chiefs, all known as Little Shell. The petitioner is a combination of 
historical Metis, or ``mixed blood,'' groups. Before 1870, many of the 
petitioner's ancestors were part of the Metis populations along the Red 
River of the north at the Red River Settlement (now Winnipeg) in Canada 
and at Pembina and St. Joseph in North Dakota. These Metis populations 
of the mid-19th century were described by contemporary observers as 
socially and culturally distinct from both the European settlers and 
tribal Indians in the same area, but also as being related to and 
sometimes acting together with Indian tribes. In the early 1890's, some 
ancestors were listed on censuses of the Turtle Mountain Band.
    In Montana, the petitioner's ancestors settled originally in two 
regions, migrating there by different routes between the 1860's and 
1930's. One settlement region was north-central Montana, including both 
the Lewistown area and the Highline, the area along the railroad line 
from Wolf Point to Havre. Some ancestors of the petitioner's members 
began settling this region as early as the late 1860's and early 
1870's. The other settlement region was the Front Range, the area along 
the eastern edge of the northern Rocky Mountains. Those ancestors of 
the petitioner who settled in this region arrived mostly after the 
failure of the Metis rebellion led by Louis Riel in Saskatchewan in 
1885. The petitioner's ancestors settled originally in rural areas of 
Montana. Beginning in the 1910's and continuing into the depression of 
the 1930's, some of them began moving into neighborhoods on the fringes 
of the rural towns on the Front Range and along the Highline, or into 
Great Falls and Helena. Many of the petitioner's ancestors lived in 
segregated areas of these towns at some time before the mid-1950's or 
early 1960's. Those areas were not limited to the petitioner's 
ancestors, except on the Front Range, and other Metis and Indians also 
lived in these neighborhoods.
    An organization was formed in 1927 in Hays, the petitioner's first 
formally organized predecessor in Montana. Joseph Dussome was elected 
in 1927 to lead the organization formed that year, and to lead 
organizations of different names in 1935, 1939, and 1949. The 
consistent leadership of Dussome and the consistent geographical region 
represented by his officers and area representatives demonstrate 
continuity from these organizations to the petitioning group. From the 
mid-1930's until the mid-1950's, two organizations advocated on behalf 
of the Montana Metis. Dussome's organization, known as the Landless 
Indians of Montana after 1939, largely drew support from the Highline 
and Lewistown area, while the Montana Landless Indians largely drew its 
support from urban areas and the Front Range. Since approximately 1955, 
the petitioner's members and ancestors have been part of the common 
political process of a single organization.
    The Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana adopted its 
current organizational name and its current constitution in 1977. Its 
membership requirements provide membership eligibility to individuals 
who can trace their ancestry to the Roe Cloud Roll, a list of 
unenrolled Indians in Montana which was prepared by the Office of 
Indian Affairs about 1938. The Little Shell petitioner had 3,893 
members as of 1992. Its members are now geographically dispersed, 
mostly within Montana. The petitioner currently maintains an office in 
Great Falls, Montana.
    The petitioner has not provided substantial evidence of unambiguous 
previous Federal acknowledgment. The evidence available for this 
finding does

[[Page 45395]]

not demonstrate that the petitioner meets the requirements of previous 
Federal acknowledgment in sections 83.1 and 83.8 of the regulations. 
Therefore, the petitioner was not evaluated under the provisions of 
section 83.8(d) which modify the mandatory criteria for Federal 
acknowledgment.
    This proposed finding departs from practice in previous 
acknowledgment decisions in certain respects, principally in giving 
different amounts of weight to various types of evidence than had been 
done in prior determinations. Precedent from earlier decisions are not 
binding on Department conclusions, but are useful as guidance for 
interpreting the regulations. This finding departs from prior decisions 
for meeting criteria (b) and (c) which depended upon specific evidence 
showing the continuity of tribal existence substantially without 
interruption. This finding departs from prior decisions for meeting 
criterion (a) which required evidence of specific identification of the 
petitioner as an Indian entity during each decade. This finding departs 
from prior decisions in which all previous petitioners who met 
criterion (e) demonstrated that at least 80 percent of their members 
descended from a historical tribe.
    We believe such departures from previous practice on these matters 
are permissible and within the scope of the existing acknowledgment 
regulations. Those regulations do not specifically address these 
questions. Public comment is invited on these various matters, 
including the consistency of these proposed findings with the existing 
regulations. The petitioner and third parties may respond by submitting 
additional evidence or arguments relating to these matters during the 
comment period on this proposed finding. Such supplementary evidence 
may create a different record and a more complete factual basis for the 
final determination, and thus eliminate or reduce the scope of these 
contemplated departures from precedent.
    Based on a review of the technical report, the charts prepared for 
each criterion, and some primary documents and background materials, 
and after consideration of the historical situations faced by this 
petitioner, the Department proposes to find that, although there is no 
specific evidence in the documentary record in this case for every time 
period, the evidence as a whole indicates that the Little Shell 
petitioner is a tribe.
    The available documentation permits a proposed finding that the 
petitioner meets criterion (a). There are several examples of the 
identification of a group led by Joseph Dussome during the late 1930's 
and the decade of the 1940's as an Indian entity. Since 1949, the 
Little Shell petitioner has been consistently identified by various 
external observers as an Indian entity. It is noteworthy that several 
nearby tribes support the recognition of the Little Shell. There is 
limited evidence that the petitioner's ancestors were identified 
between 1900 and 1935 by external observers as Indians. This proposed 
finding accepts as a reasonable likelihood that references to the 
petitioner's individual ancestors as Indians and references to portions 
of their ancestors as residents of Indian settlements before the 1930's 
are consistent with the identifications of these and other ancestors of 
the petitioner as Indian groups after 1935. In order to have this 
proposed finding affirmed in the final determination, it would be in 
the petitioner's interest to provide during the comment period further 
evidence that external observers identified it as an Indian entity at 
various times between 1900 and 1935.
    The available documentation permits a proposed finding that the 
petitioner meets criterion (b). The evidence indicates that at present 
there are portions of the petitioner's members residing within each of 
the two traditional rural regions of settlement in Montana who have 
been demonstrated to have social cohesion among themselves, and to have 
their respective ties to the members residing within the two 
traditional urban centers of settlement in the state. There is evidence 
that, after their migration to Montana, the petitioner's ancestors 
married other ethnic Metis individuals almost exclusively, and that 
those early intermarriages in Montana formed kinship ties that created 
social cohesion among the petitioner's ancestors. The available 
evidence does not show clearly that immigrants to Montana from Dakota 
or Canada necessarily moved together as a community or in a pattern of 
migration that maintained old community ties. This proposed finding 
accepts as a reasonable likelihood that patterns of social 
relationships among the Metis residents of settlements in North Dakota 
and Canada during the mid-19th century persisted among their 
descendants who migrated to Montana and appeared on the Federal census 
records of Montana for 1910 and 1920. The petitioner is encouraged to 
provide during the comment period further evidence that their ancestors 
continuously existed as social communities between the 1860's and 
1930's.
    The available documentation permits a proposed finding that the 
petitioner meets criterion (c). The attempt of the Little Shell group 
in Montana to achieve IRA status during the 1930's indicates its desire 
to obtain recognized status when the ``landless'' policies of the 
Federal Government were prohibitive. Many of the petitioner's ancestors 
participated in the activities of one or the other of two political 
organizations of ``landless Indians'' between the mid-1930's and the 
early 1950's. Since the mid-1950's the petitioner's members and 
ancestors have been part of the common political process of a single 
organization. The political processes of the petitioner's organization 
at present draw interest and support from both geographical regions of 
traditional settlement as well as the two main cities where members 
reside. Area representatives communicate political information and 
concerns between the council and the general membership. Several recent 
internal political conflicts indicate that current members are aware of 
the actions of the council and officers, and consider those actions to 
be important. This proposed finding concludes that evidence of some 
local leadership among a minority of the petitioner's ancestors in the 
past demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that patterns of political 
influence existed among many of the petitioner's ancestors before the 
1930's. The petitioner is encouraged to provide during the comment 
period additional evidence to demonstrate more fully its political 
influence or authority over its members from historical times until the 
1930's.
    The petitioner meets criterion (d). The petitioner has a 
constitution, dated September 10, 1977, and resolutions which define 
its membership criteria and the procedures by which it governs its 
affairs and its members.
    The available documentation permits a proposed finding that the 
petitioner meets criterion (e). A minority of the petitioner's members 
descend from individuals who received land scrip as ``mixed-blood'' 
relatives of the Pembina Band under the provisions of the treaties of 
1863 and 1864, and therefore descend from a member of the band in a 
generation earlier than the treaty. A minority of the petitioner's 
members were on the judgment roll prepared by the Government in 1994 
for the distribution of an Indian Claims Commission award for the 
taking of Indian territory in North Dakota. The available evidence 
indicates that about 48 percent of the petitioner's members trace their 
ancestry back to the historical Pembina Band of Chippewa or to its 
successor the Turtle Mountain Band. An additional 14 percent of the 
petitioner's members descend from a member of

[[Page 45396]]

Rocky Boy's Band with Chippewa ancestry. If Pembina ancestry is assumed 
for the Chippewa element of the Rocky Boy's Band, as was done by the 
Indian Claims Commission and by the BIA in preparing the 1994 judgment 
roll, then possibly 62 percent of the petitioner's members have Pembina 
Chippewa descent. Genealogical information is missing for many of the 
petitioner's newest members, and it would be in the petitioner's 
interest to provide during the comment period further evidence that 
additional members descend from ancestors with established Pembina 
Chippewa descent.
    The petitioner meets criterion (f). The evidence shows that less 
than 1 percent of the members of the petitioning group are members of a 
federally recognized tribe. Therefore, its membership is composed 
principally of persons who are not members of any acknowledged Indian 
tribe.
    The petitioner meets criterion (g). There is no evidence that the 
petitioning group was the subject of congressional legislation that 
prohibited or terminated a relationship between it and the Federal 
Government.
    For these reasons, the petitioner should be acknowledged to exist 
as an Indian tribe.
    This proposed finding is based on the available evidence and does 
not preclude the submission of other evidence to the contrary. Such new 
evidence may result in a change in the conclusions reached in the 
proposed finding.
    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 (83.10(h)).
    During the 180-day comment period (83.10(i)), 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 comment 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 extent and nature of the comments 
(83.10(k)).
    At the end of the comment and response periods, the Assistant 
Secretary shall consult with the petitioner and interested parties to 
determine an equitable time frame for consideration of written 
arguments and evidence submitted during the comment and response 
periods, and notify the petitioner and interested parties of the date 
such consideration begins (83.10(l)). The Assistant Secretary has the 
discretion to request additional information from the petitioner or 
commenting parties, and to conduct additional research (83.10(l)(1)). 
After consideration of the written arguments and evidence submitted 
during the comment period and the petitioner's response to the 
comments, the Assistant Secretary shall make a final determination 
regarding the petitioner's status. A summary of the final determination 
will be published in the Federal Register (83.10(l)(2)).

    Dated: July 14, 2000.
Kevin Gover,
Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 00-18490 Filed 7-20-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-02-P