PACIT (#56b)—Proposed Finding TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS UNDER THE CRITERIA.............................................................9 Criterion 83.7(a).................................................................................................................11 Criterion 83.7(b) ................................................................................................................14 Criterion 83.7(c).................................................................................................................32 Criterion 83.7(d) ................................................................................................................48 Criterion 83.7(e).................................................................................................................48 Criterion 83.7(f) .................................................................................................................53 Criterion 83.7(g) ................................................................................................................54 FIGURES APPENDICES BIBLIOGRAPHY Summary under the Criteria for the Amended Proposed Finding on the POINTE-AU-CHIEN INDIAN TRIBE INTRODUCTION The Office of the Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs (AS-IA) within the Department of the Interior (Department) issues this proposed finding in response to the petition the Department received from the group known as the Pointe-au-Chien Indian Tribe (PACIT) of Louisiana. The petitioner seeks Federal acknowledgment as an Indian tribe under Part 83 of Title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations (25 CFR Part 83), “Procedures for Establishing that an American Indian Group Exists as an Indian Tribe.” The evidence in the administrative record, submitted by the PACIT petitioner and third parties and obtained by Department staff through its verification research, is insufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner meets all seven mandatory criteria required for Federal acknowledgment. Specifically, the petitioner does not meet criteria 83.7(b), 83.7(c), or 83.7(e). The petitioner meets criteria 83.7(a), 83.7(d), 83.7(f) and 83.7(g). An explanation of the Department’s evaluation of each criterion is presented in sections that follow this introduction. In accordance with the regulations set forth in 25 CFR 83.10(m), failure to meet any one of the criteria in section 83.7 requires a determination that the petitioning group is not an Indian tribe within the meaning of Federal law. Therefore, the Department proposes to decline to acknowledge that the PACIT petitioner is an Indian tribe. Regulatory Procedures The acknowledgment regulations under 25 CFR Part 83 establish procedures by which an Indian group may seek Federal acknowledgment as an Indian tribe with a government-to-government relationship with the United States. To be entitled to such a political relationship with the United States, the petitioner must submit evidence demonstrating that it meets the seven mandatory criteria set forth in section 83.7 of the regulations. Failure to meet any one of the mandatory criteria will result in a determination that the group is not an Indian tribe within the meaning of Federal law. The Office of Federal Acknowledgment (OFA) within the Office of the AS-IA has responsibility for administering the Federal acknowledgment regulations and evaluating petitions based on the evidence in the administrative record. PACIT (#56b): Proposed Finding The time periods for the evaluation of documented petitions are set forth in the acknowledgment regulations in section 83.10. Publication of the notice of a proposed finding 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 proposed finding. Such comments should be submitted in writing to the Office of the Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs, 1951 Constitution Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20240, Attention: Office of Federal Acknowledgment, Mail Stop 34B-SIB. Interested and informed parties must provide a copy of their comments to the petitioner. The regulations, at 25 CFR 83.10(k), provide petitioners a minimum of 60 days to respond to any comments on the proposed finding submitted during the comment period. At the end of the response period for the proposed finding, OFA shall consult with the petitioner and interested parties to determine an equitable time frame for consideration of the arguments and evidence submitted during the comment and response periods. OFA shall notify the petitioner and interested parties of the date such consideration begins. After consideration of all arguments and evidence received during the comment and response periods, the AS-IA will issue a final determination regarding the petitioner’s status. The Department will publish a notice of this final determination in the Federal Register. The Petitioner The Pointe-au-Chien Indian Tribe (PACIT), Petitioner #56b, claims to be the continuation of a historical Indian community on a bayou in south-central Louisiana that was originally settled in the mid-19th century. PACIT’s membership criteria require its members to descend from an individual living in the Bayou “Pointe-au-Chien” Indian settlement in 1900. PACIT has described its members as descendants of the historical Chitimacha, Acolapissa, Atakapa, Choctaw, and Biloxi Indian tribes. It does not claim to descend from the historical Houma tribe, although its members and their ancestors have been called “Houma” Indians since at least 1907. The petitioner’s current organization was incorporated under Louisiana law in 1993 as the “Documented Houma Tribe” and adopted the name “Pointe au Chien Indian Tribe” in 1995, adding hyphens to its name in 2005. Most of PACIT’s members previously had been members of the United Houma Nation (UHN), Petitioner #56, which received a negative proposed finding in 1994. PACIT submitted a letter of intent to petition for Federal acknowledgment in 1996. It has a written constitution as its governing document. PACIT has 682 members. Administrative History The Department received a letter of intent to petition for acknowledgment as the “Point au Chien Indian Tribe” on July 22, 1996. This letter followed a letter in 1995 from the chairman of the Biloxi, Chitimacha Confederation of Muskogees (BCCM) that stated various “Indian communities,” including “Pointe aux Chene” [sic] had withdrawn from the UHN petitioner, which had received a negative proposed finding in December 1994 (59 F.R. 66118). The BCCM group claimed ownership of the petition submitted by UHN. In 1996, BCCM advised the - 2 - PACIT (#56b): Proposed Finding Department that “the Pointe aux Chene Indian Tribe [sic] has decided to seek federal recognition independently and should not be considered a member community of this confederation.” After receiving letters of intent to petition for Federal acknowledgment from the PACIT petitioner as well as the BCCM petitioner, the Department took the position that the PACIT, BCCM, and UHN petitioners would be treated as “three separate, independent petitioners sharing a common original petition....” The Department advised the PACIT petitioner in 1997 of its decision to issue an “amended Proposed Finding” for PACIT, saying that, “[p]rocedurally, PACIT is being treated as a petitioner with a proposed finding....” The Department set a time period for PACIT to comment on the UHN proposed finding and submit its own petition documentation. The Department informed the PACIT petitioner that it would treat the petitioner as being “covered by the documented petition which was previously submitted” by the UHN petitioner. The Department also advised the petitioner that it should submit its governing document, its membership list, and a narrative responding to the UHN proposed finding. Based on this combination of new evidence and the original UHN petition documentation, the Department indicated it would issue “an amended Proposed Finding” that would “pertain specifically to the PACIT.” The amended proposed finding would also give the public an opportunity to comment on the PACIT petition. On November 10, 1997, the Department received petition documentation from the PACIT petitioner. The PACIT petition has been considered to be in “active consideration” status, together with the original UHN petition, since filing its letter of intent. The Department notified PACIT that evaluation of its petition began on February 4, 2005, and a period to submit additional materials would close on April 15. The PACIT petitioner submitted petition documentation to the Department by April 15, 2005. PACIT’s submission in 1997 consisted of approximately 900 pages of documentation: a historical overview, organizational manual, maps of southern Louisiana, a narrative entitled “Marie Gregoire,” and a collection of PACIT-designed UHN resignation forms accompanied by ancestry charts for its members. PACIT did not then submit a current membership list. PACIT’s submission in 2005 included more than 20,000 pages of narratives, meeting minutes, a membership list, folders, forms, genealogical printouts, historical documents, and maps. This submission also included electronic media, in the form of videotape recordings of a meeting, a news broadcast, and member interviews. For the purpose of evaluating and verifying