[Federal Register: July 2, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 126)]
[Notices]
[Page 36022-36025]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02jy07-63]
[[Page 36022]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Final Determination against Federal Acknowledgment of the St.
Francis / Sokoki Band of Abenakis of Vermont
AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of Final Determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to 25 CFR 83.10(l)(2), notice is hereby given that
the Department of the Interior (Department) declines to acknowledge the
group known as the St. Francis/Sokoki Band of Abenakis of Vermont
(SSA), P.O. Box 276, Swanton, Vermont 05488, c/o Ms. April Merrill, as
an Indian tribe within the meaning of Federal law. This notice is based
on a determination that the petitioner does not satisfy four of the
seven mandatory criteria for acknowledgment, specifically 83.7(a),
83.7(b), 83.7(c), and 83.7(e), as defined in 25 CFR part 83.
Consequently, the SSA petitioner does not meet the requirements for a
government-to-government relationship with the United States.
DATES: This determination is final and will become effective 90 days
from publication of this notice in the Federal Register on October 1,
2007 pursuant to section 83.10(l)(4), unless a request for
reconsideration is filed pursuant to section 83.11.
ADDRESSES: Requests for a copy of the Summary Evaluation under the
Criteria should be addressed to the Office of the Assistant Secretary--
Indian Affairs, Attention: Office of Federal Acknowledgment, 1951
Constitution Avenue, NW., MS: 34B-SIB, Washington, DC 20240.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R. Lee Fleming, Director, Office of
Federal Acknowledgment, (202) 513-7650.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 9, 2005, the Department issued a
proposed finding (PF) that the SSA petitioner was not an Indian tribe
within the meaning of Federal law because the petitioner did not meet
four of the seven mandatory criteria for Federal acknowledgment as an
Indian tribe. The Department published a notice of the PF in the
Federal Register on November 17, 2005 (70 FR 69776). Publishing notice
of the PF initiated a 180-day comment period during which time the
petitioner, interested and informed parties, and the general public,
could submit arguments and evidence to support or rebut the PF. This
initial comment period ended on May 16, 2006. The petitioner requested
that the Department extend the comment period, and the Department
extended it for an additional 90 days. The comment period closed on
August, 14, 2006. The petitioner again requested an extension of the
comment period. In reply, the Department stated that it would consider
doing so if the petitioner submitted, as soon as possible, a more
thorough work plan and justification for the extension. The Department
noted that pending the receipt of such a request, the 60-day response
period, described in the regulations, would close on October 13, 2006.
On October 13, 2006, the response period closed, without the Department
receiving a response from the petitioner.
During the comment period, the petitioner, several individuals
associated with the petitioner, and an informed party submitted
materials to the Department. During both the original comment period
and the extended comment period, the petitioner did not submit critical
materials that the PF requested. In particular, the petitioner did not
submit any of the materials that would help the petitioner establish
descent from a historical Indian tribe. Overall, given the petition's
deficiencies in meeting criteria 83.7(a), (b), (c), and (e), together
with the explicit requests in the PF, the petitioner's comments were
few in number and did not substantively address the PF. None of the
material submitted changed the conclusions of the PF.
The SSA petitioner claims descend as a group mainly from a Western
Abenaki Indian tribe, most specifically, the Missisquoi Indians. During
the colonial period (approximately 1600-1800), the Missisquoi Indians
lived in northwestern Vermont, near the present-day town of Swanton.
The available evidence indicates that by 1800 the disruption caused by
colonial wars and non-Indian settlement had forced almost all the
Western Abenakis in northern New England (including Vermont) to
relocate to the Saint Francis River area of Quebec, Canada, and become
part of the St. Francis, or Odanak, village of Canadian Western Abenaki
Indians. The petitioner, however, contends that its ancestors remained
behind in northwestern Vermont after 1800, or moved to Canada until it
was ``safe'' to return. The petitioner also maintains that its
ancestors lived ``underground,'' hiding their Indian identity to avoid
drawing the attention of their non-Indian neighbors, until the 1970's.
Some of the available documentation indicates that, over the course of
the 19th century, a few of the group's ancestors moved from various
locations in Quebec, Canada, to the United States, but not as a group.
Of the petitioner's 1,171 members with enrollment files completed
to the petitioner's satisfaction, only 8 (less than 1 percent)
demonstrated descent from a Missisquoi Abenaki Indian ancestor. By
1800, most of the historical Missisquoi Abenaki Indian tribe had
migrated to St. Francis, or Odanak, in Quebec, Canada. The available
evidence demonstrates that these eight members descend from Simon
Obomsawin, who once belonged to the St. Francis, or Odanak, Indian
community, and who can be traced to the historical Missisquoi Abenaki
Indian tribe through lists of Indians belonging to St. Francis, or
Odanak. The available evidence does not demonstrate that these eight
members were associated with the SSA petitioner before the 1990's.
Furthermore, the available evidence does not demonstrate that the other
remaining 1,163 members, or their claimed ancestors, descend from an
earlier Missisquoi Abenaki entity in Vermont or any other historical
Indian tribe. Instead, the available evidence indicates that the
petitioner is a collection of individuals of claimed but mostly
undemonstrated Indian ancestry with little or no social or historical
connection with each other before the early 1970's.
Criterion 83.7(a) requires that external observers identify the
petitioner as an American Indian entity on a substantially continuous
basis since 1900. The PF found that for the period from 1900 to 1975,
no external observers identified either the SSA petitioner group or a
group of the petitioner's ancestors as an American Indian entity on a
substantially continuous basis. From 1976 afterward, however, the PF
found sufficient evidence that external observers identified the
petitioning group as an American Indian entity.
The Department received three sets of comments on the PF's
conclusions that pertain to criterion 83.7(a). The petitioner submitted
the first set of comments using a DVD video presentation entitled
``Against the Darkness'' that contained two interviews discussing
Indians in Vermont in the 20th century. A second set of comments came
from several individuals associated with the petitioning group. A third
set of comments came from an informed party who contested the PF's
analysis of a document in a Vermont Eugenics Survey ``Pedigree'' file
compiled around 1927 to 1930.
None of the comments submitted during the comment period supplied
new evidence that an external observer
[[Page 36023]]
identified the petitioner or an antecedent group before 1975 as an
American Indian entity. The two interviews on the ``Against the
Darkness'' video provide secondhand accounts of Indian individuals
living in, or at least traveling through, Vermont in the first third of
the 20th century. However, they are not first-hand observations of
American Indian entity, and the evidence does not demonstrate that the
observed Indians were either the petitioner or an antecedent group. The
second set of documents contained material that relates to the
petitioner's activities after 1975. This material does not affect the
FD because the PF concluded that the petitioner met criterion 83.7(a)
for the period following 1975. The informed party's comments disputing
the PF's interpretation of the Vermont Eugenics Survey are plausible,
especially if further corroborating evidence were available. The
informed party argued, without providing additional corroborating
evidence, that ``the St. Francis Indians'' identified in the survey
were a family in Vermont, as opposed to an Indian group in Canada, as
the PF concluded. However, the informed party's argument does not
satisfy criterion 83.7(a) because the Department does not accept
references to individual Indian descendents or Indian families as
satisfactory evidence for criterion 83.7(a).
The FD concludes, as the PF did, that external observers identified
the petitioner as an as Indian entity only after 1975. The evidence
does not demonstrate substantially continuous identification of the
petitioner as an American Indian entity from 1900 to the present;
therefore, the petitioner does not meet the requirements of criterion
83.7(a).
Criterion 83.7(b) requires that a predominant portion of the
petitioning group comprises a distinct community and has existed as a
community from historical times until the present. The PF found, based
on the available evidence, that the petitioner did not meet criterion
83.7(b) at any point in time. The PF noted that much of the available
evidence from the 19th century demonstrated that the Abenakis of
northern Vermont left the state by around 1800, rather than supporting
the petitioner's claims about the existence of a 19th-century
community. Based on the available evidence, the PF concluded that the
petitioner is a collection of individuals with little or no social
connection with each other before the early 1970's. The PF also
concluded that these claimed ancestors did not maintain at least a
minimal distinction from the population of northwestern Vermont and the
surrounding area from historical times until the present.
As comments, the petitioner submitted a video presentation entitled
``Against the Darkness,'' four essays that are principally about 20th
century material culture, four Internet essays entitled ``Abenaki
History,'' an unannotated map, membership lists from 1975 and 1983, and
a collection of meeting minutes from the 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's. An
informed party also submitted comments on two 18th-century document
sets that are allegedly ``missing,'' an 1835 newspaper article from the
Green Mountain Democrat, and the Vermont Eugenics Survey of the early
20th century.
The ``Against the Darkness'' video presentation and the four essays
on material culture argued that the existence of woven baskets, a
pocket watch on which the phrase ``from Abenaki tribe'' was inscribed,
a century-old postcard of a ``chief'' in a canoe, and some handmade
fish-spears demonstrated the existence of an Abenaki community. The PF
discussed the difficulties in inferring the existence of a community
from a few pieces of material culture, and the FD concludes that these
objects have unknown provenances and questionable relevancy and do not
demonstrate the existence of a distinct community comprised of the
petitioner or its ancestors. The available evidence does not show that
the Internet essays discuss the petitioner's ancestors. The petitioner
submitted an unannotated black and white map that had numbers assigned
to various houses; however, the materials did not explain the meaning
of the numbers, or what the numbers are supposed to indicate. The map
did not provide evidence of a distinct community within Swanton
consisting of the claimed ancestors of the group.
The membership lists from 1975 and 1983 and the meeting minutes
from the 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's provide evidence that the group
first created and organized itself in the 1970's, and established its
membership rules after that period. They also show the group lacked a
clear understanding of its membership or knowledge of who its members
were. Generally, the petitioner was able to document some activities of
the petitioner's council and the Abenaki Self-Help Association,
Incorporated (ASHAI), but did not document the existence of an
interacting social community composed of its members.
The informed party discussed two sets of 18th-century documents
that are, at present, not locatable or do not exist. The informed party
speculated that, if found, these documents might help describe Abenaki
community in northwestern Vermont. These speculations, however, cannot
be verified and thus do not provide evidence for purposes of 83.7(b).
The Department makes its decisions based on available evidence. The
informed party also contested the PF's interpretation of an 1835
article from the Green Mountain Democrat newspaper. The PF noted
several problems with using this article as evidence in support of
criterion 83.7(b). However, the informed party's comments do not
address those problems, and the comments do not help the petitioner
satisfy the criterion. The informed party asserted that the Vermont
Eugenics Survey identified a few of the petitioner's claimed ancestors
as Abenaki Indians. No party, however, submitted any additional
documentation during the comment period to support this claim.
Based on the available record, the FD concludes, as the PF did,
that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that, at any point
in time, a predominant portion of the petitioning group comprised a
distinct community or has existed as a community from historical times
until the present. Therefore, the petitioner does not meet criterion
83.7(b).
Criterion 83.7(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 PF found, based on
the available evidence, that the petitioner did not meet criterion
83.7(c) at any point in time.
The PF concluded that there was an Abenaki entity in or around
northwestern Vermont through the late 18th century but that the
available evidence did not show that the petitioner's ancestors had a
historical connection to these Abenaki Indians. The petitioner did not
submit evidence to demonstrate what its claimed ancestors were doing as
a group from 1800 to 1875 to exercise political influence or authority.
For the period from 1875 to 1900, the petitioner named an ancestor who
provided food and clothes to children and another who was a midwife,
arguing that these two ancestors served as informal community leaders.
The PF concluded, however, that these activities did not constitute an
exercise of political authority, but encouraged the petitioner to
investigate the activities of these individuals further. For the period
from 1900 to 1975, the PF concluded the petitioner presented little
evidence demonstrating informal leadership among any group of
[[Page 36024]]
the petitioner's claimed ancestors. For the period since 1975, the PF
noted the creation of the SSA as a political organization. However, the
PF concluded that there was not sufficient evidence showing widespread
participation by the group's members in these political processes;
instead, the evidence suggested the ``political influence is limited to
the actions of a few group members pursuing an agenda with little input
from the membership'' (Abenaki PF 2005, 108).
In its comments on the FD, the petitioner submitted an essay about
a souvenir postcard of a ``chief'' in a canoe, a set of photocopied
treaty documents, four Internet essays entitled ``Abenaki History,''
and a collection of meeting minutes from the 1970's, 1980's, and
1990's. Several individuals associated with the petitioner submitted
several other pages of information, including two photographs and some
Internet printouts. An informed party submitted several pages of
comments together with some photocopies of primary sources.
The essay on the 100-year old souvenir postcard of a ``chief'' in a
canoe does not provide evidence of political influence for the
petitioner during this time, especially since the petitioner did not
include a name for him or describe any actions carried out under his
leadership. The treaty documents generally refer Indians in non-
specific, generic terms and do not link the petitioner to any specific
Abenaki Indians from northwestern Vermont. The Internet essays support
the PF's conclusions that there was an Abenaki entity in or around
northern Vermont before 1800 that exercised political authority.
However, the available evidence does not show that the Internet essays
discuss the petitioner's ancestors. The meeting minutes that the
petitioner submitted show that a small number of the petitioner's
members engaged in political activity and that the rest of the claimed
members had little or no awareness of or participation in the council's
actions. Thus, the group's leaders were not interacting bilaterally
with the group's members. The submission from the individuals
associated with the petitioner included a letter referring to oral
tradition materials, but during an extended comment period, the
individuals did not submit these materials, and their comments
generally lacked supporting documentation and explanation of the
political processes of the petitioner as defined under criterion
83.7(c). Comments from the informed party discussed two sets of 18th-
century documents that are, at present, either not locatable or do not
exist; this party speculated that, if found, these documents might help
describe Abenaki leadership in northwestern Vermont. These
speculations, however, cannot be verified and thus do not provide
evidence for the purposes of criterion 83.7(c). The Department makes
its decisions based on available evidence. In sum, the commenting
parties did not submit any evidence that allowed the petitioner to
satisfy the criterion.
Criterion 83.7(d) requires that the petitioning group submit a copy
of the group's present governing document that includes its membership
criteria. The PF found that the petitioner satisfied criterion 83.7(d)
by submitting a copy of its governing document that described the
group's membership criteria and current governing procedures. The
Department received no comments, from either the petitioner or any
other party, on the PF's conclusions under criterion 83.7(d).
Therefore, based on the available evidence, the FD affirms the PF's
conclusion that the petitioner meets criterion 83.7(d).
Criterion 83.7(e) requires that the petitioner's membership consist
of individuals who descend from a historical Indian tribe or from
historical Indian tribes that combined and functioned as a single
autonomous political entity. To satisfy this criterion, the petitioner
must (1) properly identify its current members, and (2) provide
evidence that those members descend from a historical Indian tribe. The
PF concluded that the petitioner did not properly identify its current
members as required by the regulations because its membership list was
incomplete and was not certified by the group's governing body. The PF
also concluded that although the petitioner claimed descent from the
historical ``Western Abenaki'' Indian tribe, the petitioner did not
document descent from that historical Indian tribe or any other
historical Indian tribe, except possibly for the eight members
mentioned above.
On November 1, 2005, just before the November 9, 2005, issuance of
the PF, the Department received a submission from the petitioner that
properly certified the petitioner's 2005 membership list. The
Department evaluated this list for the PF, despite its not being
certified. This submission arrived too late to evaluate in the PF.
Instead, the Department's FD notes that the petitioner's current
membership list has been properly certified.
During the comment period, the petitioner submitted a copy of the
video presentation entitled ``Against the Darkness'' which makes the
argument that seven generations of Abenaki Indians have survived in
northern Vermont, from the late 18th century to the present. However,
``Against the Darkness'' does not properly attribute its alleged
sources, thus effectively shielding the video's evidence from
independent evaluation and verification. Furthermore, because it uses
aliases and approximate birth dates for its subjects, the video
presents no real genealogy that the Department can evaluate.
Several individuals associated with the petitioning group submitted
an undated proposed amendment to the State of Vermont's bill regarding
state recognition of the ``Abenaki People.'' The proposed legislation
states that, ``[a]t least 1,700 Vermonters claim to be direct
descendents of the several indigenous Native American peoples, now
known as Western Abenaki tribes.'' The bill states that 1,700 unnamed
Vermonters claim to be direct descendents of ``several indigenous
Native American peoples,'' not that 1,700 Vermonters are direct
descendents of a specific Abenaki Indian tribe in northwestern Vermont.
An assertion that is not supported by relevant documentation, about the
ancestry of a group, by a contemporary state legislature or other
source, is not a form of evidence that is acceptable to the Secretary
to meet the requirements of the regulations. More specifically, the
acknowledgment regulations in section 83.7(e)(1) generally expect
``evidence identifying present members or ancestors of present members
as being descendents of a historical Indian tribe.'' The assertion
expressed in the Vermont bill does not identify present members or name
the ancestors of the ``1,700 Vermonters.'' It only asserts that at
least 1,700 unnamed, unspecified Vermonters ``claim'' to descend from
``several indigenous Native American peoples.''
An informed party claimed that two ``missing'' document sets from
the late 18th century might provide names of specific historical
Abenaki Indians from whom the petitioner can claim descent. There is no
reason to believe that the two alleged ``missing'' document sets from
the late 18th century would demonstrate that the petitioner's
membership descends from a historical Indian tribe. The informed
party's speculations cannot be verified and thus do not provide
evidence for the purposes of 83.7(e), and the Department makes its
decisions based on available evidence.
The petitioner did certify its current membership list; however,
neither the
[[Page 36025]]
petitioner nor any other party submitted new evidence that demonstrates
that the group's membership descends from a historical Indian tribe.
The FD affirms the PF's conclusion that the petitioner did not meet
criterion 83.7(e).
Criterion 83.7(f) requires that the membership of the petitioning
group be composed principally of persons who are not members of any
acknowledged North American Indian tribe. A review of the available
documentation for the PF and the FD shows that the SSA petitioner is
composed principally of persons who are not members of any acknowledged
North American Indian tribe. Therefore, the petitioner meets the
requirements of criterion 83.7(f).
Criterion 83.7(g) requires that neither the petitioner nor its
members be the subject of congressional legislation that has expressly
terminated or forbidden the Federal relationship. The available
documentation for the PF and the FD provided no evidence that the
petitioning group was the 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).
A report summarizing the evidence, reasoning, and analyses that are
the bases for the FD will be provided to the petitioner and interested
parties, and is available to other parties upon written request.
After the publication of notice of the FD, the petitioner or any
interested party may file a request for reconsideration with the
Interior Board of Indian Appeals (IBIA) under the procedures set forth
in section 83.11 of the regulations. The IBIA must receive this request
no later than 90 days after the publication of the FD in the Federal
Register. The FD will become effective as provided in the regulations
90 days from the Federal Register publication, unless a request for
reconsideration is received within that time.
Dated: June 22, 2007.
Carl J. Artman,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. E7-12727 Filed 6-29-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-G1-P
