[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 63 (Friday, March 31, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17294-17299]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-8040]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs


Proposed Finding for Federal Acknowledgment of the Paucatuck 
Eastern Pequot Indians of Connecticut

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 25 CFR 83.10(h), notice is hereby given that the 
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs proposes to determine that the 
Paucatuck Eastern Pequot Indians of Connecticut, c/o Ms. Agnes E. 
Cunha, P.O. Box 370, North Stonington, Connecticut 06359, exists as an 
Indian tribe within the meaning of Federal law. This notice is based on 
a determination that the historical Eastern Pequot tribe satisfies 
criteria 83(b) and 83.7(c) through 1973 and that the petitioner 
satisfies the remainder of the criteria set forth in 25 CFR 83.7 and, 
therefore, meets the requirements for a government-to-government 
relationship with the United States. A specific finding concerning 
whether one tribe or two tribes, as successors to the historical 
Eastern Pequot tribe, have occupied the reservation since 1973 will be 
made as part of the final determination, after receipt of comment on 
this proposed finding.

DATES: As provided by 25 CFR 83.10(i), any individual or organization 
wishing to challenge the proposed finding may submit factual or legal 
arguments and evidence to rebut the evidence relied upon. 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.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed finding and/or requests for a copy 
of the report of the summary evaluation of the evidence should be 
addressed to the Office of the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs, 
1849 C Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20240, Attention: Branch of 
Acknowledgment and Research. Mail Stop 4660-MIB.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published in the exercise of 
authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant 
Secretary--Indian Affairs by 209 DM 8.

Introduction

    The Paucatuck Eastern Pequot Indians of Connecticut submitted a 
letter of intent to petition for Federal acknowledgment on June 20, 
1989, and was assigned #113. Both the Paucatuck Eastern Pequot Indians 
of Connecticut and another petitioner, the Eastern Pequot Indians of 
Connecticut, assert descent and tribal continuity from the historical 
Eastern Pequot tribe. Both petitioners are derived from families which 
have been associated with the Lantern Hill reservation since the 19th 
century.
    The Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs (AS-IA) had placed the 
Eastern Pequot Indians of Connecticut (EP, #35) petition on active 
consideration January 1, 1998. After consideration and notification of 
#35 and other petitioners on the ``ready, waiting for active 
consideration'' list, the AS-IA on April 2, 1998, waived the priority 
provisions of 25 CFR Sec. 83.10(d) in order to consider the petition of 
the Paucatuck Eastern Pequot Indians of Connecticut (Petitioner #113) 
simultaneously with the petition of the Eastern Pequot Indians of 
Connecticut (Petitioner #35). This waiver was made under the authority 
granted to the Secretary in 25 CFR Sec. 1.2, and delegated to the 
Assistant Secretary in 290 DM 8.1, based on a finding that the waiver 
was in the best interest of the Indians.
    This finding has been completed under the terms of the AS-IA's 
directive of February 7, 2000, published in the Federal Register on 
February 11, 2000 (65 FR 7052). Under the terms of the directive, this 
finding focuses on evaluating the specific conclusions and description 
of the group presented by the petitioner to show that it has met the 
seven mandatory criteria and maintained a tribal community up until the 
present. Because evaluation of this petition was begun under the 
previous internal procedures, this finding includes some analyses which 
go beyond evaluation of the specific positions of the petitioner. 
Consistent with the directive, draft technical reports, begun under 
previous internal procedures, were not finalized.
    The evaluation of these petitions pertains to Indian groups which 
have had both continuous recognition by the State of Connecticut and 
continuous existence of a state reservation since the colonial period. 
These unique factors provide a defined thread of continuity through 
periods when other forms of documentation are sparse or do not pertain 
directly to a specific criterion. State recognition under these 
circumstances is more than the identification of an entity, because it 
reflects the existence of a tribe. The general body of evidence has 
been interpreted in the context of the tribe's relationship to the 
colony and state.
    The Paucatuck Eastern Pequot and Eastern Pequot petitioners are the 
continuation of a historically state-recognized tribe whose 
relationship with the State of Connecticut goes back to the early 
1600's, possessing a common reservation. Members of the tribe occupied 
a somewhat different status than non-Indians within Connecticut. This 
evidence provides a common backbone and consistent backdrop for 
interpreting the evidence of continued tribal existence. When weighed 
in combination with this historical and continuous existence, evidence 
on community and political influence carries greater weight that would 
be the case under circumstances where there was no evidence of a 
longstanding relationship with the state based on being a distinct 
community. The greater weight is assigned for the following reasons in 
combination:
    The historical Eastern Pequot tribe has maintained a continuous 
historical government-to-government relationship with the State of 
Connecticut since colonial times;
    The historical Eastern Pequot tribe had a state reservation 
established in colonial times, and has retained its land area under the 
protection and administration of the state to the present;
    The historical Eastern Pequot tribe had members enumerated 
specifically as tribal members on the Federal Census,

[[Page 17295]]

Special Indian Population Schedules, for 1900 and 1910.
    Past Federal acknowledgment decisions under 25 CFR Part 83 provide 
no precedents for dealing with a tribe which is presently state 
recognized with a state reservation and has been so continuously since 
early colonial times. The closest parallel is the Penobscot and 
Passmaquoddy Tribes of Maine. The Federal Government in the 
Passmaquoddy case stipulated to tribal existence, based on the 
historical state relationship (Joint Tribal Council of the Passmaquoddy 
Tribe v. Morton 528 F.2d 370 (1st Cir. 1975)). That precedent provides 
guidance in this matter. A different standard of tribal existence is 
not being applied here. Rather, the evidence, when weighed in the 
context of this continuous strong historical relationship, carries 
greater weight.

Evaluation Under the Criteria in 25 CFR 83.7

    Criterion 83.7(a) requires that the petitioner have been identified 
as an American Indian entity on a substantially continuous basis since 
1900. The majority of the external identifications specifically 
included the petitioner's direct or collateral ancestors as members of 
that entity. There were no external identifications of the entity as 
other than Indian or other than Eastern Pequot. From the 1970's through 
the present, almost no external identifications mentioned the existence 
of only one or the other of the two current petitioners. Almost every 
identification mentioned both and described them as rival groups within 
the context of the Lantern Hill reservation and the historical Eastern 
Pequot tribe.
    In this case, identifications of the petitioner exist frequently 
and appear concurrently in multiple forms of evidence. Briefly, 
examples include Federal identifications on the Special Indian 
Population schedules of the 1900 and 1910 census, a 1934 Bureau of 
Indian Affairs report, and two reports in 1947 and 1948 published by 
the Government Printing Office; records generated by a continuous 
relationship with the State including overseer's reports, documents 
generated by the State Parks and Forests Commission, documents 
generated by the Office of the Commissioner of Welfare and Department 
of Environmental Protection, documents generated by the Connecticut 
Indian Affairs Council, and legislation pertaining to Connecticut's 
tribes; descriptions by anthropologists and other scholars; and 
numerous descriptive, feature-type newspaper articles from 1924 to the 
present. A significant example of identification of the Eastern Pequot 
was the June 9, 1933, order from the Superior Court of New London 
County, Connecticut, which defined the tribal membership and regulated 
residency on the Lantern Hill reservation (In re Ledyard Tribe 1933) 
(3/26/1938).
    The combination of the various forms of evidence, taken in 
historical context, provides sufficient external identification of the 
Eastern Pequot as an American Indian entity from 1900 until the 
present, and of the petitioner as a group which has existed within that 
entity. Therefore, the petitioner meets criterion 83.7(a).
    The evidence for 83.7(b) and 83.7(c) have been evaluated in the 
light of the essential requirement of the Federal acknowledgment 
regulations under 83.7 to show tribal continuity. Particular documents 
are evaluated by examination in the context of evidence of continuity 
of existence of community and political processes over time and descent 
from the historical tribe. For earlier historical periods, where the 
nature of the record limits the documentation, the continuity can be 
seen more clearly by looking at combined evidence than by attempting to 
discern whether an individual item provides the level of information to 
show that the petitioner meets a specific criterion at a certain date. 
Between first sustained contact and 1883 much of the specific evidence 
cited is evidence for both community and political influence. Under the 
regulations, evidence about historical political influence can be used 
as evidence to establish historical community (83.7(b)(1)(ix)) and vice 
versa (83.7(c)(1)(iv)). The evaluation is done in accord with the 
provision of the regulations provide that, ``Evaluation of petitions 
shall take into account historical situations and time periods for 
which evidence is demonstrably limited or not available. * * * 
Existence of community and political influence or authority shall be 
demonstrated on a substantially continuous basis, but this 
demonstration does not require meeting these criteria at every point in 
time.'' (83.6(e)).
    This proposed finding and that being issued simultaneously for 
petitioner #35 conclude that both of the petitioners before the 
Department, the Paucatuck Eastern Pequot Indians of Connecticut (#113) 
and the Eastern Pequot Indians of Connecticut (#35), have evolved in 
recent times from the historical Eastern Pequot tribe which has existed 
continuously since first sustained contact with Europeans. Positive 
proposed findings to acknowledge both petitioners are therefore being 
issued. However, for the period from 1973 to the present, with regard 
to criteria 83.7(b) and 83.7(c), the Department finds that the 
petitioners and third parties have not provided sufficient information 
and analysis to enable the Department to determine that there is only 
one tribe with political factions.
    The acknowledgment regulations provide that: ``A petitioner may be 
denied acknowledgment if the evidence available demonstrates that it 
does not meet one or more criteria. A petitioner may also be denied if 
there is insufficient evidence that it meets one or more of the 
criteria'' (83.6(d)). The reason that this provision of the regulations 
is not now resulting in two proposed negative findings is that the 
major question currently remaining to be decided does not pertain to 
the availability of evidence that the petitioners meet the criteria, 
but to the nature of the potentially acknowledgeable entity for the 
period from 1973 to the present. Following an evaluation of evidence 
and argument submitted during the comment period, the Department, as 
part of the final determination, will complete the analysis from 1973 
to the present under criteria 83.7(b) and (c).
    There is no serious dispute as to the existence of the historical 
Pequot tribe at the time of first contact, so the proposed finding has 
discussed and analyzed early colonial developments only insofar as they 
provide context for the development of the current petitioners. The 
division of the historical Pequot tribe into the modern Eastern and 
Western groups stemmed from the establishment of separate reservations, 
in close (less than two miles from one another) geographic proximity, 
during the later 17th century. There is no question that the Eastern 
Pequot, or Lantern Hill reservation, purchased by the Colony of 
Connecticut for the use of the Pequots under the leadership of Mamoho 
in 1683, has continued to exist under Connecticut state supervision and 
jurisdiction, and to be inhabited, until the present day.
    Criterion 83.7(b) requires that a predominant portion of the 
petitioning community comprise a distinct community and have existed as 
a community from historical times until the present.
    Records of colony actions and actions of other tribes from first 
contact through 1637 clearly identify a distinct Pequot tribal body, 
which occupied a defined territory acted in concert in opposing or 
making alliances with other tribes and the English through the end of 
the Pequot War. Under precedents for

[[Page 17296]]

evaluating tribes in early years of contact with Europeans, before 
substantial cultural and political changes had occurred (Narragansett 
PF 1982, 1; Mohegan PF 1989, 2; Miami PF 1990, 3-4, 7-8), this is 
sufficient evidence to demonstrate that 83.7(b) is met for the 
undifferentiated historical Pequot tribe as a whole, predecessor group 
to the later historical Eastern Pequot tribe, for the period prior to 
1637.
    From 1638 through 1654, the records of the United Colonies referred 
to the Pequots frequently and specifically referred to the Pequots 
assigned to the custody of the Eastern Niantic sachem Ninigret. The 
Commissioners of the United Colonies removed them from Ninigret as a 
body in 1654 and assigned Harmon Garret as governor over that body in 
1655. After the death of Harmon Garret, colonial authorities appointed 
Momoho as his successor over a specific, named, group, ``Momohoe [sic] 
and the Pequots with him in those parts,'' which then undertook efforts 
to have a specific piece of land set aside for its use (Hurd 1882, 32; 
Wheeler 1887, 16; Trumbull 1859, 8n, 81-82 117n, 809). Under precedents 
for evaluating tribes in early years of contact with Europeans, before 
substantial cultural changes had occurred, even after tribes had become 
politically subject to colonial authorities, the material cited is 
sufficient evidence to show that criterion 83.7(b) is met.
    From the establishment of the Lantern Hill reservation in 1685 to 
the end of the Civil War, the documents show a continuous reservation 
community, with a distinct land base. There was an essentially 
continuous population, allowing for normal processes of inmarriage, 
outmarriage, off-reservation work, and interaction with neighboring 
tribes.
    Petitions in 1723 and 1749 reflected both the existence of an 
ongoing residential community of Eastern Pequot Indians on the Lantern 
Hill reservation and a broader community of off-reservation Eastern 
Pequot. Descriptions in 1749-1751 indicate specifically that the tribal 
affiliation of these individuals was recognized by the tribe itself. 
That off-reservation residency does not negate the existence of 
community has been established by precedent in prior findings 
(Narragansett PF 1982, 9; Gay Head PF 1985, 2).
    Community in the late 18th and 19th centuries is shown by a variety 
of evidence. This included petitions from the group to the overseers, 
the consistency of membership in the tribe, descriptions of a distinct 
community at several points and other data which taken together show a 
distinct community which self-identified as Pequot. A portion of the 
group occupied the reservation continuously. Occupation of a distinct 
territory by a portion of a group provides evidence for community, even 
where it is not demonstrated that more than 50 percent of the total 
group resides thereon (Snoqualmie PF). By comparing a wide variety of 
documents, it does not appear that in the colonial and early Federal 
period the Eastern Pequot tribe, or its overseers, added to the 
membership lists any persons who were not qualified to be included and 
who were not accepted by the continuing tribal population. 
Documentation throughout this period contributes to a showing of 
community under 83.7(b)(1)(vii), ``The persistence of a named, 
collective Indian identity continuously over a period of more than 50 
years, notwithstanding changes of name,'' whether they are called 
Momoho's band, or the Pequots at Stonington, or by other phrases.
    From the end of the Civil War through the early 1880's, the 
overseers' reports were highly consistent in their listing of Eastern 
Pequot individuals associated with the Lantern Hill reservation. 
Consistency of membership by itself does not demonstrate community but 
provides supporting evidence when weighed together, as here, with other 
factors.
    At a number of points from 1763 through 1883, the Eastern Pequot 
presented petitions to the state, indicating a coordinated group 
action. Because the community as a whole, throughout this period, had a 
residential focus on the reservation, and maintained a very high rate 
of intermarriage and patterned outmarriage, particularly with the 
Western Pequot and with the Narragansett, the Eastern Pequot tribe 
meets criterion 83.7(b) for the period through 1883.
    Additional evidence for community until the 1930's is found in the 
overseers' reports, although these were not available for the years 
between 1891 and 1910. The overseers were knowledgeable observers of 
the group, because of their interaction with it. Allegations by 
petitioner #113 and the third parties that the overseers were not 
knowledgeable, or were corrupt, were not sustained by the body of data 
in the record. Although their reports provide few details, they are 
premised, particularly the identification of who was and who was not a 
member, on knowledge that a social group existed.
    The Eastern Pequot tribe as a whole, including the ancestors of 
petitioner #113 as well as petitioner #35, meets the requirements of 
criterion 83.7(b) between 1883 and 1920. Important evidence for this is 
the kinship based social ties which derive from the substantial number 
of marriages in existence in this time period which linked the several 
family lines. Between 1880 and 1920 the Pequot family lines were linked 
together both by extant marriages and by ties from marriages in the 
preceding two generations. They formed a set of families linked by many 
different kinship ties. In addition, because marriages occurred between 
Eastern Pequot individuals who were not living in the same town, this 
provides evidence that social contact was being maintained, and was the 
basis for locating marriage partners. The documentation throughout the 
period from 1883 to the 1920's shows ``The persistence of a named, 
collective Indian identity continuously over a period of more than 50 
years, notwithstanding changes of name'' evidence for community under 
83.7(b)(1)(vii).
    Supporting evidence to that based on kinship is the geographical 
concentration of much of the membership on or near the reservation at 
Lantern Hill. While not forming a distinct settlement, except for the 
small proportion living on the reservation, much of the membership was 
close enough that, consistent with past decisions, social interaction 
was easily possible. This geographical pattern thus supports more 
direct evidence of social ties.
    The Eastern Pequot meet the requirements of criterion 83.7(b) for 
the time period between 1920 and 1940. There continued to be kinship 
based social ties which derived from the number of marriages in 
existence in this time period which linked the several family lines and 
from marriages in the previous generations. In this period also, that 
evidence is supplemented by the substantial number of marriages with 
neighboring tribes, particularly the Narragansett. These provide 
additional evidence that the group was part of the Indian society of 
the region.
    Important additional evidence for community were the ``Fourth 
Sunday'' gatherings on the reservation. These were held regularly, and 
drew a substantial number of members, from different parts of the 
several family lines. They were both social and political gatherings, 
and were claimed as activities by both petitioners.
    Supporting evidence to that based on kinship and the ``Fourth 
Sunday''

[[Page 17297]]

gatherings for this time period is that there continued to be a 
geographical concentration of much of the membership on or near the 
reservation at Lantern Hill. While not forming a distinct settlement, 
except for the small proportion living on the reservation, much of the 
membership was still close enough that, consistent with precedents of 
past decisions, social interaction was easily possible. This 
geographical pattern thus supports more direct evidence of social ties.
    Additional evidence for community is found in the overseers' 
reports, which was useful evidence until 1936, when the overseer system 
ended, and to a lesser extent through the end of the 1930's, as the 
former overseer continued to act as agent for the State Park and 
Forests Commission. Although their reports provide few details, they 
are premised, particularly the identification of who was and who was 
not a member, on knowledge that a social group existed.
    As evaluated under the standard articulated for a historical state 
recognized tribe, the petitioner meets criterion 83.7(b) from 1940 to 
1973, based on the conclusion that there was a single community, 
including the Sebastians. Although there is evidence of divisions, 
there was not evidence to show whether and, if so, when, the historical 
tribe separated into two communities.
    There is insufficient evidence in the record to enable the 
Department to determine that the petitioners formed a single tribe 
after 1973. The Department consequently makes no specific finding for 
the period 1973 to the present because there were not sufficient 
analysis and information provided by the petitioners or third parties 
to determine if there is only one tribe with political factions (see 
for example, Paucatuck Eastern Pequot Indians of Connecticut et al. v. 
Connecticut Indian Affairs Council et al. 555 A.2d 1003 (App. Ct. 
1989), decided March 28, 1989, which describes each current petitioner 
as a ``faction of the tribe''). This question reflects in part the 
apparent recentness of the political alignments reflected in the 
petitioners after their formal organization in the early 1970's.
    The historical Eastern Pequot tribe, which includes the petitioner 
as one of its component subgroups, meets criterion 83.7(b) through 
1973. A specific finding concerning community from 1973 until the 
present will be presented in the final determination after receipt of 
comments from the petitioner and interested parties.
    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.
    Throughout its history, the context for administration of the 
Lantern Hill reservation has been set by the legislation passed by 
Connecticut and the administrative systems established by that 
legislation. The documents generated showed tribe's external 
relationship with the non-Indian administrative authorities, providing 
evidence that there was a political relationship between an Indian 
political entity and the non-Indian government, although they provided 
little information about internal political processes. These individual 
political documents have been interpreted in light of the general 
continuity of the reservation population as shown by a wide variety of 
other documents. The major specific evidence for political authority or 
influence between first sustained contact and 1883 is to be read 
together with the overall evidence of tribal existence and the 
discussion of the evidence for criterion 83.7(b).
    The evidence submitted for the early contact period, 1620-1637, 
consisted primarily of historical narratives, written mainly by modern 
anthropologists based in part on colonial era documents which described 
dealings with the tribe by the colonial authorities and listed some 
leaders. Precedent does not required detailed information concerning 
the internal political processes of the historical tribes which were 
predecessors of New England petitioners in the early contact period 
(Narragansett PF 1982, 11; Gay Head PF 1987, 10; Mohegan PF 1989, 5). 
This material meets 83.7(c) for the undifferentiated historical Pequot 
tribe as a whole, predecessor group to the later historical Eastern 
Pequot tribe, for the period prior to 1637.
    The evidence indicates that the modern Eastern Pequot evolved 
primarily from those Pequot subject neither to the Mohegan nor the 
Narragansett after the Pequot War, but rather those who were placed in 
charge of the Eastern Niantic. The precedents clearly indicate that the 
acknowledgment process allows for the historical combination and 
division of tribal subgroups and bands, and that temporary subjection 
to another Indian tribe does not result in a permanent cessation of 
tribal autonomy (Mohegan PF 1989, 26-27; Narragansett FD, 48 Federal 
Register 29 2/10/1983, 6177; Narragansett PF 1982, 2). The events of 
this period do not indicate that the petitioner fails to meet the 
``autonomous entity'' requirement under 83.7(c).
    Historical records and narratives indicate that for approximately 
330 years, the predecessors of the Eastern Pequot tribe antecedent to 
the current petitioners were under supervision of non-Indian 
authorities, appointed Indian governors from 1655 to 1695 and under 
colony-appointed and state-appointed non-Indian overseers through much 
of the 18th through the 20th centuries. From its establishment in 1683 
until 1989, the Eastern Pequot reservation was under the direct 
administration of Connecticut, first as a British colony and then, 
after the American Revolution, as a state. The AS-IA concluded in the 
Mohegan case that: ``[T]he autonomy requirement is solely concerned 
with autonomy from other Indian tribes, not non-Indian systems of 
government that were imposed on the Mohegan by the State of 
Connecticut.'' (Mohegan PF 1989, 26-27; for related precedents, see 
Narragansett PF 1982, 11; Narragansett PF 1982, 2; Gay Head PF, 4). The 
petitioners meet the ``autonomy'' requirement of 83.7(c) as long as the 
state was dealing with a group as a group which had named leaders or 
the evidence shows that the group was acting in concert and thus was 
exercising political influence internally.
    Documents from the period through 1751 named the leaders with whom 
the colony of Connecticut was dealing and provided limited information 
concerning internal political processes identifying both a leader and 
the existence of a group actively defending its land base.
    Precedents also indicate that the defense of a tribe's economic 
position is a significant indicator of political processes (Snoqualmie 
PF 1993, 25; Tunica-Biloxi PF 1980, 4). On the basis of precedent, this 
material is adequate to meet 83.7(c) during the colonial period.
    After 1751, there is no evidence in Eastern Pequot petitions that 
any one individual held the position of sachem, or a comparable office. 
Precedent indicates no requirement under the regulations that such a 
formal office has been maintained (Mohegan PF 1989, 5), and the 
petitions from the tribe to the colony and stated indicate that the 
tribe did maintain some type of political structure capable of 
representing its wishes in dealing with colonial authorities. The 
appointment of overseers for the Eastern Pequot reservation by the 
colony of Connecticut in itself provides data about the continuous 
existence of the tribal entity, but no specific information about 
internal political leadership or

[[Page 17298]]

influence. However, the initiative of the Eastern Pequot Indians in 
requesting particular persons as overseers in 1763 and 1788, combined 
with the signatures on the petitions, indicates that the Indians on the 
Lantern Hill reservation at this time did have internal political 
processes and that they utilized the overseers appointed by the state 
to serve certain purposes which they themselves desired. On the basis 
of precedent, this material is adequate to meet 83.7(c) for a tribe 
during the second half of the 18th century.
    The evidence of petitions from overseers for group purposes, 
together with accounts which identified ``principal men'' and a 
religious leader, in the context of a group with a distinct territory, 
is adequate to show that the petitioner meets criterion 83.7(c) for the 
period from 1800 to 1822.
    Petitions from the group in 1839 and 1841, sought the appointment 
of a new overseer and objected to the actions of the existing one. The 
1839 initiative of the Indians in requesting the replacement of an 
inadequate overseer indicated that the Indians themselves still, as in 
the later 18th century, expected the state-appointed overseers as 
agents to carry out their wishes in some matters. Of the four men who 
signed, two (Cyrus Shelly and Samuel Shuntaup) had been identified as 
``principal men'' of the Eastern Pequot by Jedediah Morse nearly 20 
years earlier. The regulations do not require that in order to 
demonstrate political process, a petition must be signed by the entire 
tribe. Petitions which show a portion of the tribe expressing an 
opinion or preference are also evidence of political process (Mohegan 
PF 1989, 6).
    Petitions and lists generated by a proposed sale of reservation 
land are evidence indicating that from 1873 through 1883 the tribe was 
able to generate organized protests against a governmental initiative 
which they regarded as contrary to its economic interests, and to 
present documents to this effect to the non-Indian authorities. This 
evidence shows that the petitioner meets 83.7(c) for the period from 
1873-1883.
    There was no information in the record which specifically named or 
identified formal or informal leaders between 1883 and 1920 with the 
single exception of a 1913 obituary of Calvin Williams, a petition 
signer from the 1870's and early 1880's, who continued to serve as 
reservation preacher until his death in 1913. There is evidence from 
oral history and some records that he may have continued as tribal 
preacher, holding religious and social meetings on the reservation in 
the first decade of the 20th century. Under the regulations, evidence 
about community may be used as supporting evidence to demonstrate 
political processes, especially where a community is closely knit and 
distinct (see 83.7(c)(1)(iv)). Given the extensive intermarriage within 
the tribe and with neighboring tribes, the petitioner has strong 
evidence demonstrating community in this time period. The evidence is 
sufficient to demonstrate that criterion 83.7(c) is met between 1883 
and 1920 as evaluated under the principle that it is entitled to 
greater weight because the petitioners are, singly and together, a 
continuously existing state-recognized tribe and with a continuous land 
base since colonial times.
    The amount of data concerning political authority and influence in 
the record overall, including conflicts between the two groups, is 
considerably more extensive than that relating to internal political 
processes within petitioner #113 alone. As evaluated under the standard 
articulated for a historical state recognized tribe, the petitioner 
meets criterion 83.7(c) from 1883 to 1973, based on the conclusion that 
there was a single tribe, the entirety of whose actions reflected 
political influence, including the Gardners as one subgroup.
    Because the two petitioners derive from a single historical tribe 
with a continuous state relationship since colonial times, the 
conflicts between the two, which have focused on their relationship 
with the State of Connecticut, are relevant evidence for political 
influence. However, it is unclear if the conflict is within one tribe, 
or between two. Both groups derive from the historical Eastern Pequot 
tribe which was recognized by the State of Connecticut. The State 
continues to recognize a successor to the historical Eastern Pequot 
tribe, but has not taken a position as to the present leaders of that 
successor. The petitioners and third parties have failed to provide 
adequate evidence and analysis to permit the Department to determine if 
the political processes since 1973 are those of factions of one tribe.
    There are insufficient evidence and analysis in the record to 
enable the Department to determine that the petitioners formed a single 
tribe in this time period. The Department consequently makes no 
specific finding for the period 1973 to the present because there was 
not sufficient information to determine if there is only one tribe with 
political factions (see for example, Paucatuck Eastern Pequot Indians 
of Connecticut et al. v. Connecticut Indian Affairs Council et al. 555 
A.2d 1003 (App. Ct. 1989), decided March 28, 1989, which describes each 
current petitioner as a ``faction of the tribe''). This question 
reflects in part the apparent recentness of the political alignments 
reflected in the petitioners after their formal organization in the 
early 1970's.
    The historical Eastern Pequot tribe, which includes the petitioner 
as one of its component subgroups, meets criterion 83.7(c) through 
1973. A specific finding concerning political influence from 1973 until 
the present will be presented in the final determination after receipt 
of comments from the petitioner and interested parties.
    Criterion 83.7(d) requires that the petitioner provide copies of 
the group's current constitution and by-laws. The Paucatuck Eastern 
Pequot petitioner meets criterion 83.7(d).
    Criterion 83.7(e) states that the petitioner's membership must 
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. Extensive genealogical material submitted 
by the petitioner, by petitioner #35, and by the third parties 
indicates that the petitioner's current members are descendants of 
Marlboro and Eunice (Wheeler) Gardner and of Rachel (Hoxie) Jackson. As 
those individuals were, during their lives, members of the Eastern 
Pequot tribe as ascertained by evidence acceptable to the Secretary, 
the descendants of these individuals descend from the historical tribe.
    The lines of descent for individual families have been verified 
through Federal census records from 1850 through 1920; public vital 
records of births, marriages, and deaths; and to a lesser extent 
through church records of baptisms, marriages, and burials, as well as 
through use of state records concerning the Lantern Hill reservation. 
These are the same types of records which have been used to verify 
descent for prior Federal acknowledgment decisions. Therefore, the 
petitioner meets criterion 83.7(e).
    Criterion 83.7(f) states that the petitioner's membership must be 
composed principally of persons who are not members of any acknowledged 
North American Indian tribe. The Paucatuck Eastern Pequot petitioner 
meets criterion 83.7(f).
    Criterion 83.7(g) states that neither the petitioner nor its 
members can have been the subject of congressional legislation that has 
expressly terminated

[[Page 17299]]

or forbidden the Federal relationship. The Paucatuck Eastern Pequot 
petitioner meets criterion 83.7(g).
    Based on this preliminary factual determination, the Paucatuck 
Eastern Pequot Indians of Connecticut, should be granted Federal 
acknowledgment under 25 CFR Part 83.
    This positive proposed finding for the Paucatuck Eastern Pequot and 
the positive proposed finding for the Eastern Pequot petitioner which 
is being issued simultaneously do not prevent the Department, in the 
final determination stage, from recognizing a combined entity, or both 
petitioners, or either one of the current petitioners but not the 
other, or neither of the current petitioners, depending upon the 
evidence and analysis developed during the comment periods by both 
petitioners and all interested and informed parties, as verified and 
evaluated by Bureau of Indian Affairs staff.
    As provided by 25 CFR 83.10(h) of the regulations, 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. Under the Assistant Secretary's directive, the technical 
report prepared in addition to this summary evaluation report of the 
evidence will not be completed but will remain in draft.
    Comments on the proposed finding and/or requests for a copy of the 
report of evidence should be addressed to the Office of the Assistant 
Secretary--Indian Affairs, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1849 C Street, 
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20240, Attention: Branch of Acknowledgment and 
Research, Mail Stop 4660-MIB. Comments on the proposed finding should 
be submitted within 180 calendar days from the date of publication of 
this notice. The period for comment on a proposed finding may be 
extended for up to an additional 180 days at the Assistant Secretary's 
discretion upon a finding of good cause (83.10(i)). Comments by 
interested and informed parties must be provided to the petitioner as 
well as to the Federal Government (83.10(h)). After the close of the 
180-day comment period, and any extensions, the petitioner has 60 
calendar days to respond to third-party comments (83.10(k)). This 
period may be extended at the Assistant Secretary's discretion if 
warranted by the extent and nature of the comments.
    The proposed finding takes into consideration only materials from 
the petitioner and all interested parties submitted through April 5, 
1999. Subsequent submissions have been held by the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs and will be considered during preparation of the final 
determination.
    In addition to evidence and argument on the proposed findings in 
general, petitioners, interested parties and informed parties may 
submit comments as to the Secretary's authority, under the 
circumstances of recent separation of the two petitioners, to 
acknowledge two tribes or only one tribe which encompasses them both as 
the continuation of the historical tribe.
    After the expiration of the comment and response periods described 
above, the Bureau of Indian Affairs will consult with the petitioner 
concerning establishment of a time frame for preparation of the final 
determination. After consideration of the written arguments and 
evidence rebutting the proposed finding and within 60 days after 
beginning preparation of the final determination, the Assistant 
Secretary--Indian Affairs will publish the final determination of the 
petitioner's status in the Federal Register as provided in 25 CFR 
83.10(1).

    Dated: March 24, 2000.
Kevin Gover,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 00-8040 Filed 3-30-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-02-P