[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 188 (Thursday, September 26, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50501-50503]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24688]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs


Final Determination Against Federal Acknowledgment of the Golden 
Hill Paugussett Tribe

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of final determination.

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

SUMMARY: This notice is published in accordance with 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 declines to acknowledge that the Golden Hill 
Paugussett Tribe, P.O. Box 1645, Bridgeport, Connecticut 06601-1645, 
exists as an Indian tribe within the meaning of Federal law. This 
notice is based on the determination that the group does not satisfy 
one of the criteria set forth in 25 CFR 83.7, namely: 83.7(e).

DATES: This determination is final and is effective December 26, 1996, 
pursuant to 25 CFR 83.10(l)(4), unless a request for reconsideration is 
filed pursuant to 25 CFR 83.11.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Holly Reckord, Chief, Branch of 
Acknowledgment and Research, (202) 208-3592.
    A notice of the Proposed Finding to decline to acknowledge the 
Golden Hill Paugussett Tribe (GHP) was published in the Federal 
Register on June 8, 1995 (60 FR 30430, June 8, 1995), pursuant to 25 
CFR 83.10(e) of the revised Federal acknowledgment regulations, which 
became effective March 28, 1994. Under 25 CFR 83.10(e), prior to active 
consideration the Assistant Secretary shall investigate any petitioner 
whose documented petition and response to the technical assistance 
review letter indicate that there is little or no evidence that 
establishes that the group can meet any one of the mandatory criteria 
in paragraphs (e), (f), or (g) of Sec. 83.7.
    The GHP received one obvious deficiency (OD) letter dated August 
26, 1993, and a second technical assistance (TA) letter dated October 
19, 1994. Both OD/TA letters addressed the issue of the undocumented 
parentage of William Sherman, the only ancestor through whom the 
petitioner claimed Golden Hill Paugussett ancestry. They also addressed 
the problem posed under criterion 83.7(e) of the claimed Indian descent 
of the present-day GHP membership through one person, William Sherman, 
rather than descent from a historical tribe. The GHP responded to both 
TA letters and on November 15, 1994, requested the petition be placed 
on active consideration. The GHP petition was not placed on active 
consideration, but on November 21, 1994, was added to the ``ready'' 
list of petitioners waiting to be placed on active consideration.
    The Assistant Secretary concluded after the responses to the TA 
letters that there was little or no evidence that the GHP met criterion 
83.7(e). Preliminary genealogical analysis by the BIA indicated that 
there was little or no evidence that the petitioner could establish 
descent from a historical tribe. Under 25 CFR 83.10(e), the Federal 
acknowledgment regulations call for

[[Page 50502]]

issuance of an expedited Proposed Finding by the Assistant Secretary 
when there is little or no evidence that the petitioner can meet 
criterion 83.7(e). Expedited findings may only be done after the 
petition is complete and before the petition has been placed on active 
consideration. In the regulations themselves, the time frame and the 
requirements for issuing an expedited Proposed Finding are clearly 
delineated:

    (e) Prior to active consideration, the Assistant Secretary shall 
investigate any petitioner whose documented petition and response to 
the technical assistance review letter indicate that there is little 
or no evidence that establishes that the group can meet the 
mandatory criteria in paragraphs (e), (f) or (g) of Sec. 83.7 
(83.10(e)).

    The standard under which the Proposed Finding is made is stated as 
follows:

    83.10(e)(1)  If this review finds that the evidence clearly 
establishes that the group does not meet the mandatory criteria in 
paragraphs (e), (f) or (g) of Sec. 83.7, a full consideration of the 
documented petition under all seven of the mandatory criteria will 
not be undertaken pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section. Rather, 
the Assistant Secretary shall instead decline to acknowledge that 
the petitioner is an Indian tribe and publish a Proposed Finding to 
that effect in the Federal Register. The periods for receipt of 
comments on the Proposed Finding from petitioners, interested 
parties and informed parties, for consideration of comments 
received, and for publication of a final determination regarding the 
petitioner's status shall follow the timetables established in 
paragraphs (h) through (l) of this section (83.10(e)(1)).

    The Proposed Finding was issued in accord with 83.10(e), which 
requires a conclusion that the petitioner clearly does not meet the 
requirements of criterion 83.7(e). To make a Proposed Finding under 
83.10(e), the burden of proof is on the government to show that the 
petitioner clearly does not meet the criterion. The Proposed Finding 
demonstrated that the GHP clearly did not meet criterion 83.7(e), 
descent from a historical tribe, meeting the burden of proof required 
of the government for making a proposed finding under 83.10(e).
    Once a Proposed Finding has been issued, however, the burden of 
proof shifts to the petitioner for rebuttal. The standard of proof 
which must be met in the petitioner's response to the Proposed Finding 
is a lesser one, the ``reasonable likelihood of the validity of the 
facts'' standard described in section 83.6, the same standard used for 
all acknowledgment determinations. If, in its response to the Proposed 
Finding, the petitioner can show that it meets the criterion under 
which the expedited negative Proposed Finding was issued under the 
``reasonable likelihood of the validity of the facts'' standard, then 
the BIA will undertake a review of the petition under all seven 
mandatory criteria before the Assistant Secretary issues the Final 
Determination. The petitioner's response to the Proposed Finding did 
not establish under the ``reasonable likelihood of the validity of the 
facts'' standard that the GHP met criterion 83.7(e). No new evidence 
was submitted or found which rebutted the conclusions of the Proposed 
Finding. Therefore, the GHP response did not trigger a BIA evaluation 
of the GHP petition under all seven mandatory criteria.
    The Associate Solicitor has responded to the petitioners concerning 
legal issues raised by their attorney about the acknowledgment process 
as it operated in this matter and to inquiries from the state of 
Connecticut pertaining to post-comment period meetings between the 
petitioners and their attorney with him and with the Assistant 
Secretary--Indian Affairs.
    This Final Determination is based upon a new analysis of all the 
information in the record. This includes the information available for 
the Proposed Finding, the information submitted by the petitioner in 
its response to the Proposed Finding, evidence and documentation 
submitted by interested and informed parties during the comment period, 
the petitioner's response to the third party comments, and new evidence 
and documentation collected by the BIA staff for evaluation purposes. 
None of the evidence submitted by the petitioner, submitted by 
interested parties, or located by the BIA during the acknowledgment 
process demonstrated that William Sherman was of Paugussett or other 
Indian ancestry.
    The petitioner continued to claim ancestry from the historic 
Paugussett tribe through a single individual, William Sherman, a common 
ancestor of the entire present membership. Extensive research by the 
petitioner, third parties, and the BIA has failed to document, using 
acceptable genealogical methods, that William Sherman was Paugussett or 
Indian. The evidence submitted in the GHP Response focussed on William 
Sherman's ancestry. No document was submitted or located for the Final 
Determination that identified the parents of William Sherman. No 
document was submitted or found for the Final Determination that 
provided sufficient evidence acceptable to the Secretary that William 
Sherman was descended from a historical Indian tribe. Considerable 
circumstantial evidence was submitted and located to indicate that 
William Sherman did not live in tribal relations during his lifetime 
(ca.1825-1886).
    There was insufficient documentation to demonstrate who William 
Sherman's mother was, and thus his maternal lineage remains 
undocumented. William Sherman's paternal lineage is unknown. There was 
no evidence concerning who his father was, nor his earlier ancestors on 
his father's side. The petitioner did not claim that William Sherman 
was Indian, or Paugussett, through his father's family. It was not 
documented that he was the descendant of either Ruby Mansfield or of 
Nancy Sharpe, alias Pease, who were identified in historical records as 
Golden Hill Paugussett Indians and whom the petitioner claims were the 
ancestors of William Sherman.
    By most accounts, William Sherman, the GHP ancestor, was born in 
New York in 1825. On Federal census records, his age varied somewhat. 
He apparently spent his youth as a sailor on whaling ships, and first 
appeared in records relating to Trumbull, Connecticut, in 1857. While 
documentation pertaining to William Sherman's ethnicity in Federal 
census records and state vital records was inconsistent, he was not 
identified as Indian until 1870 or later, nor were his children 
identified as Indian in records predating the 1870 Federal census. The 
documents do not indicate that he interacted with known Paugussett 
descendants who lived elsewhere in Connecticut during the 19th century. 
Most accounts of his supposed Paugussett ancestry have depended upon 
internally inconsistent descriptions provided in books published by two 
local historians, D. Hamilton Hurd in 1881 and Samuel Orcutt in 1886.
    For purposes of this determination, evidence has also been examined 
to determine if the group's membership otherwise meets the requirements 
of criterion 83.7(e) of descent from a historic tribe. The present-day 
membership of the GHP descends from two of William Sherman's nine 
children. Neither William Sherman nor his children married Paugussett 
Indians or other Indians; therefore, the membership does not have 
Indian ancestry through any other possible Indian ancestors.
    A substantial body of documentation was available about the 
petitioning entity and its ancestors. None of the documentation 
demonstrated descent from the historic Paugussett tribe or from any 
other tribe for the GHP. The

[[Page 50503]]

available documentation did not demonstrate any American Indian 
descent, regardless of tribal affiliation. Even if Paugussett or other 
Indian ancestry could be determined for William Sherman, descent 
through one person with Indian ancestry does not meet the requirements 
of criterion 83.7(e) for tribal descent.
    The Golden Hill Paugussett Tribe has not demonstrated that its 
membership is descended from a historic tribe, or tribes that combined 
and functioned as a single autonomous political entity. Therefore, the 
Golden Hill Paugussett Tribe does not meet criterion 83.7(e).
    This determination is final and will become effective 90 days from 
the date of publication, unless a request for reconsideration is filed 
pursuant to Sec. 83.11. The petitioner or any interested party may file 
a request for reconsideration of this determination with the Interior 
Board of Appeals (Sec. 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 (Sec. 83.11(a)(2)).

    Dated: September 16, 1996.
Ada E. Deer,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 96-24688 Filed 9-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-02-P