[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 93 (Friday, May 13, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29910-29912]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11301]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
[167A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900]
Proposed Finding Against Acknowledgment of the Georgia Tribe of
Eastern Cherokee, Inc.
AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of proposed finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of the Interior (Department) gives notice that
the Acting Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs (AS-IA) proposes to
determine that the petitioner known as the Georgia Tribe of Eastern
Cherokee, Inc. is not an Indian tribe within the meaning of Federal
law. This notice is based on a determination that the petitioner has
not submitted sufficient evidence to satisfy all seven of the criteria
set forth in the applicable regulations and, therefore, does not meet
the requirements for a government-to-government relationship with the
United States.
[[Page 29911]]
DATES: Comments on this proposed finding (PF) are due on or before
November 9, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Comments and requests for a copy of the summary evaluation
of the evidence should be addressed to the Office of the Assistant
Secretary--Indian Affairs, Attention: Office of Federal Acknowledgment,
1951 Constitution Avenue NW., Mail Stop 34B-SIB, Washington, DC 20240.
Interested or informed parties who make submissions to the AS-IA must
also provide copies of their comments to the petitioner at Georgia
Tribe of Eastern Cherokee c/o Thomas Mote, P.O. Box 1411, Dahlonega,
Georgia 30533.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Alycon T. Pierce, Acting Director,
Office of Federal Acknowledgment, (202) 513-7650.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to 25 CFR 83.10(h), the Department
gives notice that the AS-IA proposes to determine that the Georgia
Tribe of Eastern Cherokee (GTEC, Petitioner #41), c/o Thomas Mote, P.O.
Box 1411, Dahlonega, Georgia 30533, is not an Indian tribe within the
meaning of Federal law. This notice is based on a determination that
the petitioner does not satisfy all seven criteria in Part 83 of Title
25 of the Code of Federal Regulations (25 CFR part 83), specifically
criteria 83.7(a), 83.7(b), and 83.7(c). Therefore, it does not meet the
requirements for a government-to-government relationship with the
United States.
The Department publishes this notice in the exercise of authority
that the Secretary of the Interior delegated to the AS-IA by 209 DM 8.
The Principal Deputy AS-IA assumed these duties as acting AS-IA on
January 1, 2016.
On December 3, 1978, Chairman Thomas B. Mote, and nine board
members of the ``Georgia Tribe of Cherokees, Inc.'' signed resolution
``No. 2-78'' to apply for Federal acknowledgment. The Department
received it on January 1, 1979, and designated GTEC as Petitioner #41.
The petitioner submitted petition materials on February 5, 1980. The
Department conducted an initial review of the petition on August 22,
1980, and issued a letter providing technical assistance (TA).
The petitioner claims to have evolved from the pre-Removal Cherokee
Nation and to represent a specific Cherokee family that did not remove
westward with the Tribe in the 19th century. The vast majority of the
petitioner's members identify descent from Rachel Martin, a Cherokee
woman, her husband Daniel Davis, and primarily their three children who
remained near Dahlonega, Georgia, after the Cherokee Nation removed to
Indian Territory in the 1830s. The petitioner also stated that the
Cherokee who remained near Dahlonega ``clustered around the Davis
Plantation'' and that the ``Davis family played a central leadership
role in the tribe.'' The petitioner claims to connect historically to
the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma more than to the Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians in North Carolina. The GTEC's petition narrative
maintains that its ancestors were part of the Cherokee Nation into the
early 20th century.
On August 10, 1998, Thomas B. Mote and other leaders of GTEC
delivered the petitioner's response to the Department's 1980 letter and
asked the Department to review the petition under the 1994 regulations.
On January 19, 1999, the Department issued a TA review letter. The GTEC
provided additional materials to the Department on February 14, 2002,
September 11, 2006, and October 3, 2006, including a new membership
list certified and dated September 1, 2006. On October 23, 2006, the
Department placed GTEC (Petitioner #41) on the ``Ready, Waiting for
Active Consideration'' list.
On May 31, 2013, the Department offered ``ready'' petitioners the
option of suspending evaluation of their petitions as the Department
was proposing to revise the acknowledgment regulations. On June 21,
2013, GTEC waived its option to suspend evaluation and elected ``to
proceed under the current standards and criteria.''
In July 2014, the Office of Federal Acknowledgment (OFA) notified
GTEC that its sampling of birth or similar records submitted in 2013
was insufficient for analysis, gave GTEC an additional 180 days to
submit the necessary documentation, and noted that the evaluation team
was diverted to another petition and litigation. As a result, the AS-IA
found good cause to suspend active consideration under Sec. 83.10(g)
for 180 days to January 27, 2015, and extend active consideration under
Sec. 83.10(h) for up to 180 additional days, or until July 27, 2015.
The OFA provided GTEC a list of members and ancestors lacking evidence
demonstrating the child-to-parent link and a list of individuals with
missing or incomplete addresses. Review of the GTEC petition was
extended further until January 22, 2016, allowing the research team to
make visits to the GTEC offices to review records and conduct
interviews.
In response to a letter under Sec. 83.7(b) of the current
regulations, effective July 31, 2015, all members of GTEC's governing
body requested evaluation of its petition under the 1994 regulations,
declining the option to be evaluated under the current regulations. The
projected January 22, 2016, date for issuing the proposed finding was
subsequently extended to May 6, 2016. This evaluation is under the 1994
regulations as requested by the petitioner.
The evidence submitted by the GTEC petitioner and evidence
Department staff obtained through its research does not meet three of
the seven mandatory criteria for Federal acknowledgment: Criteria
83.7(a), 83.7(b), and 83.7(c). The petitioner has submitted evidence
sufficient to meet: Criteria 83.7(d), 83.7(e), 83.7(f), and 83.7(g). In
accordance with the regulations 25 CFR part 83, the failure to provide
evidence sufficient to meet all seven criteria requires a proposed
finding that the petitioning group is not an Indian tribe within the
meaning of Federal law. An explanation of the Department's evaluation
of each criterion follows below.
Criterion (a) requires that external observers have identified the
petitioner as an American Indian entity on a substantially continuous
basis since 1900. The records show the petitioner is a recently
organized group almost entirely composed of descendants of the Davis
family. There are no contemporary identifications of an Indian entity
in Lumpkin County, although a few records identify individuals as
Indian. Many of the documents submitted relate the Cherokee Nation's
history leading up to and through the Removal Era in the 1830s and
identify Cherokee individuals on various historical lists. There are
few original, contemporary documents for 1900 to the present. This PF
finds insufficient evidence of substantially continuous identifications
of the GTEC petitioner from 1900 to the present. Therefore, the GTEC
petitioner does not meet the requirements of criterion 83.7(a).
Criterion (b) requires that a predominant portion of the
petitioning group comprise a distinct community from historical times
to the present. The evidence demonstrates that petitioner's ancestors
were active participants in Cherokee society before 1838. There is no
evidence, however, that after the Cherokee Removal the petitioner's
ancestors established a separate and distinct community of other
Cherokee who did not remove, but remained in Georgia, and there is no
evidence that they continued to participate in Cherokee society in
Indian Territory. The Davises and their non-Indian neighbors lived
together in a rural
[[Page 29912]]
neighborhood, called Davis District, west of Dahlonega, Georgia. Only
one of these families--``the Davises''--were Cherokee descendants and
only their descendants are enrolled in GTEC. Therefore, the GTEC
petitioner does not meet criterion 83.7(b).
Criterion (c) requires that the petitioner has maintained political
influence or authority over its members as an autonomous entity from
historical times until the present. The petitioner's ancestors were
from a politically influential Cherokee family and part of a political
network that advanced interests within the Cherokee Nation when it was
in Georgia. After the Removal, the petitioner's ancestors--the Davis
family in Georgia--did not establish an autonomous political
organization composed of Cherokee who remained in Georgia, nor did they
continue to participate in Cherokee political activities in Indian
Territory. The petitioner submitted evidence dating between the 1880s
and 1925 about the neighborhood church and school, but these
institutions were not Indian institutions. Rather, they served Davis
descendants and non-Indians, and do not provide evidence of political
influence or authority within the petitioner. Although the petitioner
named specific individuals as leaders between 1870 and 1950, it did not
support these claims with documentation showing political processes
within an Indian group. Between 1838 and 1976--138 years-- the
petitioner has not provided any evidence that the petitioner's
ancestors maintained formal or informal political relationships that
advanced issues of interest to a distinct group of Cherokee
descendants. From 1976 to the present, the petitioner submitted almost
no evidence showing how the petitioner organized activities, dealt with
conflict and threats to Indian descendants, or represented the
interests of its members other than by seeking acknowledgment and
protecting GTEC's name in court. Therefore, the petitioner does not
meet criterion 83.7(c).
Criterion (d) requires a copy of the group's present governing
document, including its membership criteria. The petitioner provided
two versions of its 2002 constitution and bylaws, which describe how
the group determines its membership and how it governs itself. The GTEC
petitioner provided evidence that satisfies the requirements of
criterion 83.7(d).
Criterion (e) requires that the petitioner's membership consist of
individuals who descend from a historical Indian tribe or from
historical Indian tribes, which combined and functioned as a single
autonomous political entity. The current membership list, dated August
10, 2013, which the governing body separately certified, has the
required elements. The petitioner has demonstrated that about 90
percent of its members (413 of 458) descend from the historical
Cherokee Nation as it existed before the 1838 Removal. Therefore, the
GTEC petitioner satisfies the requirements of criterion 83.7(e).
Criterion (f) requires that the membership of the petitioner be
composed principally of persons who are not members of any acknowledged
North American Indian tribe. The OFA found no members of GTEC enrolled
with the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, a federally recognized
Indian tribe. The OFA found that 13 members of GTEC are enrolled with
the Cherokee Nation, a federally recognized Indian tribe. The
membership of the GTEC petitioner is composed principally of persons
who are not members of any North American Indian tribe. Thus, the GTEC
petitioner satisfies the requirements of criterion 83.7(f).
Criterion (g) requires that neither the petitioner nor its members
are the subject of congressional legislation that has expressly
terminated or forbidden the Federal relationship. No evidence has been
found to indicate that the petitioner was subject of congressional
legislation to terminate or prohibit a Federal relationship as an
Indian tribe. Therefore, the petitioner meets the requirements of
criterion 83.7(g).
Based on this preliminary factual determination, the Department
proposes to decline to acknowledge the GTEC petitioner as an Indian
tribe within the meaning of Federal law.
A report summarizing the evidence, reasoning, and analyses for the
PF will be provided to the petitioner and interested parties. The PF is
available to other parties upon written request as provided by 25 CFR
83.10(h) or available on the Department of the Interior's Web site at
http://www.doi.gov. Requests for a copy of the summary evaluation of
the evidence should be addressed to the Federal Government as
instructed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.
Publication of this notice of the PF in the Federal Register
initiates a 180-day comment period during which the petitioner and
interested and informed parties may submit arguments and evidence to
support or rebut the evidence relied upon in the PF. Comments on the PF
should be addressed to both the petitioner and the Federal Government
as required by 25 CFR 83.10(i) and as instructed in the ADDRESSES
section of this notice by the date listed in the DATES section of this
notice.
The regulations, 25 CFR 83.10(k), provide the petitioner a minimum
of 60 days to respond to any submissions on the PF received from
interested and informed parties during the comment period. After the
expiration of the comment and response periods described above, the
Department will consult with the petitioner concerning establishment of
a schedule for preparation of the FD. The AS-IA will publish the FD of
the petitioner's status in the Federal Register as provided in 25 CFR
83.10(l), at a time that is consistent with that schedule.
Dated: May 6, 2016.
Lawrence S. Roberts,
Acting Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2016-11301 Filed 5-12-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4337-15-P