[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 126 (Monday, July 1, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44234-44240]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-16625]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs


Final Determination To Acknowledge the Historical Eastern Pequot 
Tribe

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

[[Page 44235]]

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Assistant Secretary 
acknowledges that the historical Eastern Pequot tribe, represented by 
two petitioners, the Eastern Pequot Indians of Connecticut and the 
Paucatuck Eastern Pequot Indians of Connecticut, satisfies all seven 
criteria for acknowledgment as a tribe in 25 CFR 83.7. This notice 
covers the final determination concerning both petitioners.

DATES: This determination is final and is effective 90 days from the 
date of publication of this notice, 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: 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.
    This notice is based on a determination that the historical Eastern 
Pequot tribe, represented by two petitioners, the Eastern Pequot 
Indians of Connecticut and the Paucatuck Eastern Pequot Indians of 
Connecticut, satisfies the seven criteria for acknowledgment in 25 CFR 
83.7.
    A notice of the proposed finding to acknowledge the Eastern Pequot 
Indians of Connecticut (EP) was published in the Federal Register on 
March 31, 2000, simultaneously with a notice of the proposed finding to 
acknowledge the Paucatuck Eastern Pequot of Connecticut (PEP) (65 FR 
17294-17304). The original 180 day comment period on these proposed 
findings, which would have ended September 27, 2000, was extended at 
the request of the State of Connecticut to March 26, 2001, and a second 
extension was made at the request of the State until June 1, 2001. The 
actual closing of the comment period, August 2, 2001, was established 
as part of a scheduling order entered by the Federal District Court for 
Connecticut in Connecticut v. Dept. of the Interior, (D. Conn. 2001) 
(No. 3:01-CV-88-AVC).
    The proposed findings to acknowledge both petitioners concluded 
that both of the petitioners before the Department, the EP (petitioner 
35) and the PEP (petitioner 113), had derived in 
recent times from the historical Eastern Pequot tribe which had existed 
continuously since first sustained contact with Europeans. However, for 
the period from 1973 to the present, with regard to criteria 83.7(b) 
and 83.7(c), the Department found that the petitioners and third 
parties had not provided sufficient information and analysis to enable 
the Department to determine whether there was only one tribe with 
political factions or two tribes and provided that this question would 
be resolved after receipt of comment on the proposed findings. The 
proposed finding stated that a specific finding concerning whether one 
tribe or two tribes, as successors to the historical Eastern Pequot 
tribe, have occupied the reservation since 1973 would be made as part 
of the final determination, after receipt of comment on the proposed 
findings.
    This determination is made following a review of the responses to 
the proposed findings on both petitioners, the public comments on the 
proposed findings and the EP and PEP responses to the public comments. 
This final determination has reviewed the evidence considered for the 
proposed findings, and evaluated that evidence in the light of the new 
documentation and argument received from third parties and the 
petitioners.
    This final determination concludes that the evidence shows the 
existence of only a single tribe, the historical Eastern Pequot tribe, 
including the ancestors of both petitioners. This tribe was 
continuously recognized as a single tribe by the State of Connecticut 
since early colonial times and occupied a single state reservation. 
Although there are internal conflicts, and divisions which date from as 
early as the beginning of the 20th century, there is only one tribe 
within the meaning of the regulations. This final determination rejects 
the arguments presented by the PEP petitioner that it was not and had 
never historically been part of the same tribe as the families included 
in the present EP petitioner.
    The evidence in the record for the final determinations 
demonstrates that the two petitioners comprise a single tribe and 
together meet the requirements for Federal acknowledgment as the 
historical Eastern Pequot tribe from first sustained contact with 
Europeans until the present. This final determination therefore 
acknowledges that the historical Eastern Pequot tribe comprising the 
membership of the two petitioners, the EP (petitioner 35) and 
the PEP (petitioner 113), exists as a tribe entitled to a 
government-to-government relationship with the United States.
    Although the two petitioners represent portions of the historical 
tribe which have grown somewhat separate socially in recent decades, 
this partial separation resulted from political conflicts which 
provided some of the strongest evidence in much of the 20th century 
that the group as a whole continued to have significant political 
processes which concerned issues of great importance to the entire body 
of Eastern Pequots.
    This determination acknowledges the Eastern Pequot tribe, which has 
existed continuously since first sustained contact with non-Indians. 
The Department takes this action of acknowledging two petitioners as a 
single tribe because that is what the evidence demonstrates concerning 
the circumstances of these petitioners. This determination does not 
merge two tribes, but determines that only a single tribe exists which 
is represented by two petitioners.
    The petitioners are two organizations which were established in 
recent times from the membership of a single historically and 
continuously existing state recognized tribe resident on a state 
reservation which it has occupied since 1683. Although the regulations 
call for the presentation of petitions from groups seeking 
acknowledgment as a tribe, and for the Department to evaluate those 
petitions, the fundamental purpose of the regulations is to acknowledge 
the existence of tribes. The Secretary does not have the authority to 
acknowledge portions of tribes, where that portion does not 
substantially encompass the body of the tribe. The Secretary does have 
the authority to recognize a single tribe in the circumstance where the 
tribe is represented by more than one petitioner.
    The State of Connecticut has since early colonial times 
continuously recognized the Eastern Pequot as a distinct tribe with a 
separate land base provided by and maintained by the State. The 
continuous State relationship manifested itself in the distinct, non-
citizen status of the tribe's members until 1973. There is implicit in 
the relationship between the State and the historical Eastern Pequot a 
recognition of a distinct political body, in part because the 
relationship originates with and derives from the Colony's relationship 
with a distinct political body at the time the relationship was first 
established. Colony and State laws and policies directly reflected this 
political relationship until the early 1800's. The distinct political 
underpinning of the laws is less explicit from the early 1800's until 
the 1970's, but the Eastern Pequot remained non-citizens of the State 
until 1973. The State continued the main elements of the earlier 
relationship (legislation that determined oversight, established and 
protected land holdings, and exempted

[[Page 44236]]

tribal lands from taxation) essentially without change or substantial 
questioning throughout this time period.
    The historically continuous State relationship provides additional 
evidence which exists throughout the time span but is most important 
during specific periods where the other evidence in the record 
concerning community and political influence would be insufficient by 
itself. The continuous State relationship, although its nature varied 
from time to time, provides additional evidence in part because of its 
continuity throughout the entire history of the Eastern Pequot tribe. 
The continuous State relationship with a reservation is not evidence 
sufficient in itself to meet the criteria and is not a substitute for 
direct evidence at a given point in time or over a period of time. 
Instead this longstanding State relationship and reservation are 
additional evidence which, when added to the existing evidence, 
demonstrates that the criteria are met at specific periods in time.
    Criterion 83.7(a): External identifications by the State of 
Connecticut and others have identified a single Eastern Pequot tribe 
from 1900 until the present. There are no identifications of a separate 
EP or PEP entity until the creation of the now-existing organizations 
during the 1970's. Before 1973, the antecedents of the current 
petitioners were mentioned, if they were distinguished at all, as 
subgroups, with conflicts, within the Eastern Pequot tribe. Since the 
1973-1976 period, the majority of external identifications, 
particularly by the State of Connecticut, have continued to be 
identifications of a single Eastern Pequot tribe, with internal 
conflicts. Therefore the historical Eastern Pequot tribe, comprising 
both petitioners, meets the requirements of criterion 83.7(a).
    Criterion 83.7(b): The proposed finding concluded that the 
historical Eastern Pequot tribe met criterion 83.7(b) from the colonial 
period through 1873. No significant new evidence or arguments were 
submitted in regard to the nature of the historical Eastern Pequot 
community in the colonial period or from the era of the American 
revolution into the third quarter of the 19th century. Throughout this 
time period there remained a reservation community with a majority of 
the tribal members resident in it, if not continuously, at least 
regularly, with the remainder of the group maintaining contact. Such 
evidence is sufficient under Sec. 83.7(b)(2)(i). There is additional 
evidence, specifically petitions and overseers' reports, that the 
direct antecedents of both petitioners were a part of that single 
historical community in the 19th century. The proposed finding for this 
period is affirmed.
    From the assignment of Harmon Garrett in 1654 as governor of the 
Pequots who were removed from Ninigret's responsibility to the present, 
the Eastern Pequot tribe as a whole has maintained a named, collective 
Indian identity continuously over periods of more than 50 years, 
notwithstanding changes in name (83.7(b)(1)(viii)). This form of 
evidence is used throughout the evaluation under criterion 83.7(b) in 
combination with the evidence of community analyzed for each period 
from colonial times until the present.
    The proposed findings concluded that evidence demonstrated that the 
Eastern Pequot existed as a tribe for the period between 1873 and 1920 
and had demonstrated community for that period. Significant new 
evidence was submitted for the final determination to affirm this 
conclusion. The new data included a better copy of a June 26, 1873, 
petition in which the ``members of the Pequot tribe of Indians of North 
Stonington'' remonstrated against sale of lands and requested removal 
of Leonard C. Williams as overseer. The list of signers shows a 
connection between Tamar (Brushell) Sebastian and her children and 
other members of the historical Eastern Pequot tribe. Additional 
overseers' reports were submitted which further filled in the time span 
from the 1880's through the early 20th century with evidence that there 
was a distinct Eastern Pequot community and that this included the 
antecedent families of both petitioners.
    This final determination affirms the conclusions of the proposed 
finding that there was a high degree of marriage among the Eastern 
Pequot and in culturally patterned marriages of Eastern Pequots with 
Narragansetts, Western Pequots, and other local Indians during this 
time period, which provided substantial evidence of community. The 
resulting kinship ties linked all of the component family lines which 
are represented in the current membership today. Additional data 
submitted in response to the proposed finding confirmed the conclusion 
that the geographical concentration of the membership during this time 
period was close enough to facilitate social interaction.
    Substantial evidence showing patterns of social association within 
the Eastern Pequot was presented in new analyses submitted in response 
to the proposed finding. New evidence in the form of data from personal 
journals was submitted which provided contemporary data concerning 
social interactions which supported and was consistent with data from 
interviews. The evidence submitted in response to the proposed findings 
confirmed that the social alignment of the various families antecedent 
to the formation of the current petitioners was not strictly divided in 
the pattern that the current petitions indicate.
    In the following period, from 1920 to 1940, there continued to be 
strong evidence of community, with additional evidence submitted. The 
high degree of marriage among the Eastern Pequot and in culturally 
patterned marriages between other Indians in the region provided strong 
evidence of community in this period. Additional evidence was submitted 
to demonstrate visiting patterns among the Sebastians during this time 
period, which confirms the existence of social cohesion among that 
portion of the Eastern Pequot tribe. A review of documentary and 
interview evidence also clearly indicates social ties between the 
Sebastians and other major family lines, the Jacksons and the Fagins/
Randall lines, during this period.
    Substantial additional evidence concerning Fourth Sunday meetings, 
prayer and social gatherings, was submitted in response to the proposed 
findings. This evidence demonstrated that the meetings occurred 
regularly and involved a cross section of the Eastern Pequot tribe. The 
Fourth Sunday meetings were held from the mid 1910's through at least 
the later 1930's. They are probably a continuance of religious meetings 
of a similar character which had been held for some time previously, 
organized by leader Calvin Williams who died in 1913. Although these 
meetings were not strictly limited to Eastern Pequot tribal members, 
they were essentially meetings of Eastern Pequot, and Western Pequot 
and Narragansett to whom they were related or otherwise socially 
affiliated. The Eastern Pequots who attended included Sebastians, 
Randalls, and to some extent Jacksons, though by all evidence not the 
other major family line, the Gardners. Thus, the proposed finding's 
conclusion that Fourth Sunday meetings were evidence of community is 
affirmed.
    Community from 1940 to 1973 is demonstrated more strongly than for 
the proposed findings because of the submission of new evidence. There 
was a strong demonstration of social cohesion among the families 
antecedent to the EP petitioner because substantial new data was 
presented which demonstrates visiting patterns and small scale 
gatherings which crossed family sublines. Interview and documentary 
data demonstrate that social interaction occurred between the 1920's 
and on into

[[Page 44237]]

the 1960's which drew in and occurred between residents of the 
reservation and those within the orbit defined by New London, Norwich, 
Mystic and Westerly around the Lantern Hill reservation, with 
substantial long term connections with Hartford and Providence.
    The main antecedent family of the PEP petitioner, the Gardners, was 
a very small social unit during this time period, and closely related 
enough to assume social cohesion among them, In addition, gatherings 
among the Gardners, organized by Atwood I. Williams, Sr., and Helen 
LeGault, were also shown for this small kinship group.
    In the 1970's, because there was still a body of adult Jacksons in 
the tribe, there was not the same separation within the Eastern Pequot 
tribe that the present division into two petitioners suggests. The 
Jackson line, as it had since at least the early 1900's, played the 
role of bridge or connector between the two lines that today are 
numerically predominant in the two petitioners, the Sebastians (for EP) 
and Gardners (for PEP). The evidence reviewed for this final 
determination demonstrated substantial social links between the 
Sebastians and the Jacksons, and for the Jacksons with the Gardners 
continuing from the beginning of the 20th century into the 1970's, 
indicating one community.
    Better and more detailed geographical data on residence patterns 
confirmed the patterns identified in the proposed finding as providing 
supporting evidence for community among the EP and PEP memberships 
individually and thus for the Eastern Pequot as a whole. Additional 
evidence for community before 1973 is found in the political events of 
the subsequent decade. These events, in reaction to the formation of 
the Connecticut Indian Affairs Commission (CIAC) and changes in 
Connecticut policies beginning in 1973, provide substantial evidence 
that community existed before that time. The social connections, social 
distinctions, and political issues, shown by events from 1973 through 
1983, are of a strength and character that indicate they were already 
in existence before that time.
    From 1973 to the present, the evidence as presented to the 
Department by the two petitioners reflects increasing polarization of 
social ties. However, the overall picture demonstrated by the evidence 
is that there continues to be one tribe, albeit now with two demarcated 
subgroups.
    The geographic pattern of residence past and present among the EP 
petitioner's portion of the tribe is sufficiently close to be 
supporting evidence of more direct evidence of social connections. This 
determination also concludes that the evidence of control and 
allocation of the Lantern Hill reservation resources by the EP and the 
PEP organizations among their respective memberships is evidence for 
the existence of political processes and therefore strong supporting 
evidence for the existence of community. The PEP membership is small 
and fairly closely related, with 90 percent drawn from the two Gardner 
family sublines. There is direct evidence that kinship relations are 
recognized within and between its two main subdivisions, the Gardner/
Edwards and the Gardner/Williams. The present geographic pattern of 
residence of the PEP portion of the Eastern Pequot, the Gardner family 
lines, is close enough that significant social interaction is feasible 
but is not so concentrated as to provide supporting evidence of 
community in itself. The interview evidence for the proposed finding 
indicated that there were social contacts maintained between the most 
socially connected portion of the PEP membership and those living at a 
distance. PEP also presented an analysis of relationships within the 
overall Gardner line, based on defining a core social group with which 
approximately 90 percent had demonstrable close kinship ties and/or 
social contacts. This analysis was generally consistent with available 
interview information about social contacts.
    Because the political processes of the entire Eastern Pequot bridge 
the two petitioning groups in that their crucial focus is on 
controlling and maintaining access rights to a single historical 
reservation established for a single historical tribe, this final 
determination concludes that there is one group encompassing both 
current petitioners. The evidence presented is sufficient to meet the 
requirements for demonstrating social community from 1973 to the 
present, even though, from 1973 to the present, the petitioners have 
developed into increasingly separate social segments. Each of the major 
segments, EP and PEP, has significant internal social cohesion. The 
segments are united by the overall political processes, even when these 
are illustrated primarily by political disagreements over the Lantern 
Hill reservation. There is no requirement in the regulations that 
social relationships be distributed uniformly throughout a community 
nor that they be amicable. Rather, community is to be interpreted in 
accord with the history and culture of a particular group (25 CFR 
83.1).
    The evidence demonstrates that the historical Eastern Pequot tribe 
maintained a distinct social community within which significant social 
ties existed historically since first sustained contact with non-
Indians and which has continued through the present. These ties within 
the membership encompass the members of both petitioning groups, even 
after the development of their separate formal organizations. The 
historical Eastern Pequot tribe, comprising both current petitioners, 
meets the requirements of criterion 83.7(b).
    Criterion 83.7(c): The proposed findings' conclusion that the 
historical Eastern Pequot tribe, which included the antecedents of both 
current petitioners, met criterion 83.7(c) from the colonial period 
through 1873 is affirmed. No significant new evidence or arguments in 
regard to this early period was presented for the final determination 
by either petitioner or by the third parties.
    Political influence from 1873 to 1920 was shown in part by a 
sequence of Eastern Pequot petitions from June 1873 through 1883 which 
were presented to the Superior Court by the ``members of the Pequot 
tribe of Indians of North Stonington.'' In petitions in 1874 and 1883, 
the Gardner and Jackson families (antecedent to PEP) appear in common 
with Calvin Williams and the members of the Fagins/Randall and Fagins/
Watson families (antecedent to EP), signing the same document for the 
same purpose. The Sebastians appear in another petition in this decade, 
together with the Jacksons and Fagins/Randalls and Fagins/Watsons.
    The proposed finding noted that there was no clear evidence of 
political processes or leadership between 1880 and 1920, although the 
evidence of community was strong enough to be good supporting evidence. 
New evidence submitted for the final determination shows that during 
the first decade of the 20th century Calvin Williams functioned as a 
leader who was dealt with by the overseer, represented the Eastern 
Pequots to the overseer, and consulted with the membership on 
decisions. Supporting evidence of his leadership came from an analysis 
of kinship patterns which showed that Williams was related by marriage 
and through collateral links to many of the Eastern Pequot families.
    The strong character of the community, especially based on 
intermarriage ties, provides strong supporting evidence for the 
existence of significant political processes during the period from 
1913 to 1940.
    Atwood I. Williams, Sr. was the state-recognized leader for all of 
the Eastern Pequots from 1933 until his death in

[[Page 44238]]

1955. There is limited evidence, from documents and interviews, that he 
was elected, by a portion of the membership at least, and that the 
State took notice of this election. Even though Williams took a stance 
against the membership of the Brushell/Sebastian portion of the Eastern 
Pequots, he was recognized by and dealt with by the State as leader of 
the entire group. He continued to be consulted by State representatives 
of the Park and Forest Commission, which at that point had 
responsibility for dealing with the Connecticut tribes, on matters 
concerning the tribe and its reservation through the late 1930's.
    For the time period between 1913 and 1940, particularly from 1913 
to 1929, between the death of Calvin Williams and the appearance of 
Atwood I. Williams, Sr., as an influential leader, the continuous State 
relationship with the Eastern Pequot as an Indian tribe provides 
additional evidence which, in combination with the limited direct 
evidence, demonstrates continuity of political processes throughout 
periods in which there is not sufficient positive evidence by itself, 
but in which positive evidence exists. That evidence includes the role 
of Tamar Emeline (Sebastian) Swan Williams, the widow of Calvin 
Williams. Although this final determination does not affirm the 
proposed finding's conclusion that she was an informal political leader 
for the EP antecedent families, the evidence supports a conclusion that 
she was a social leader whose religious activities were well-known and 
that these activities, especially hosting the Fourth Sunday meetings, 
provided a focal point for the tribe's members to interact with one 
another (see criterion 83.7(b)). The few pieces of evidence that might 
directly indicate the exercise of political influence on her part are 
not present in sufficient numbers to show that this was the case.
    The evidence for political influence between 1940 and 1973 includes 
the continuance of Atwood Williams, Sr., as the state-recognized leader 
for all of the Eastern Pequots until his death in 1955, although there 
was no documentation of his activity between 1941 and 1947. Even though 
Williams took a position against a portion of the Eastern Pequots, he 
was recognized by and dealt with by the State as leader of the entire 
tribe. Although State implementation of his status was inconsistent and 
varied, it existed throughout the time span from 1933 to 1955.
    Additional evidence of political processes in this period is 
provided by a 1953 expedition of Eastern Pequots, mainly Lantern Hill 
reservation residents, to Hartford to oppose a bill to ``detribalize'' 
Connecticut's Indians. This group was led by Catherine (Sebastian) 
Carpenter Harris and included Jacksons as well as Sebastians.
    The evidence is not entirely clear whether the frequent actions by 
Helen LeGault (a Gardner) in complaining to the State authorities about 
the presence and activities of the Sebastians on the reservation during 
the 1950's and 1960's, and her appearance as a witness in 1961 State 
legislative hearings to seek amendments which would have limited their 
residence, represented only her opinions or also those of a body of 
public opinion among a portion of the Eastern Pequots. There is good 
evidence that she had the support of the Gardner/Edwards portion of the 
Gardners and there is some interview evidence to indicate that her 
opinions exerted influence on the other portion of the Gardners, among 
the children of the late Atwood I. Williams (the Gardner/Jackson 
subline). There is also some evidence of opposition to her by both 
Jacksons and Sebastians, evidence which shows political processes.
    This final determination does not find sufficient evidence to 
support the EP and PEP proposed findings' conclusion that Alden Wilson, 
Roy Sebastian, Sr., Arthur Sebastian, Jr., Catherine Harris, and Atwood 
Williams, Jr., taken singly, were informal leaders of various portions 
of the Eastern Pequot tribe between 1940 and 1973. Neither is there 
clear indication that during this period Paul Spellman of the Hoxie/
Jackson line served as an informal leader as asserted by PEP, although 
he was well known to outsiders and there is documentation of some 
limited communication between him and the State in regard to the 
management of the Lantern Hill reservation.
    The political events of the subsequent era, from 1973 through the 
early 1980's, provide substantial evidence that political processes and 
community existed before that time. The form the political processes 
took in response to the State's legal and policy changes and the 
intensity of actions in response to these changes indicate preexisting 
political issues and opinions as well as preexisting social 
connections, distinctions, and alignments. Rather than being newly 
created, they indicate preexisting community and political processes.
    For this time period, and particularly from 1955 to the early 
1970's, compiled together, the whole complex of individual leaders' 
activities, sometimes formal, sometimes informal, coming from the 
antecedent family lines of both petitioners, with fluctuating alliances 
of the different family lines supporting them, provides some evidence 
to demonstrate political influence. The activities of Helen LeGault 
provide part of the thread connecting the 1970's and the immediately 
preceding period. There is no question that social community, in part 
defined by significant social divisions based on family lines and 
disputes with considerable historical depth, existed throughout the 
period from 1940 to 1973.
    The continuous state relationship with the Eastern Pequot as an 
Indian tribe and continuing existence of the Lantern Hill reservation 
with tribal members resident on it under state supervision is 
additional evidence which, in combination with the other evidence, 
demonstrates continuity of political processes throughout the period, 
from 1940 to 1973, in which there is not otherwise sufficient positive 
evidence, but in which positive evidence does exist.
    The political events of the 1970's clearly demonstrate that a 
single Eastern Pequot tribe with political processes existed. In the 
conflict from 1973 onward, three different subgroups sought to obtain 
official approval as representing the Eastern Pequot tribe, or as being 
the Eastern Pequot tribe. However, the alignments were not strictly 
along family lines, since the Jacksons had the support of Alton Smith, 
a leading Sebastian. At the same time, the conflicts of this period 
were a continuation of the distinctions and political issues that 
structured the tribe before 1973.
    Because there was still a body of adult Jacksons in the tribe in 
the 1970's, there was not then the same separation that appears today. 
Instead, since this line played a bridge or connecting role between the 
two lines that today are numerically predominant in the two petitioners 
(Sebastian for EP and Gardner for PEP), and had done so since at least 
the early 1900's, their presence demonstrates that there was a single 
political field in the 1970's within which the conflict was played out, 
rather than a conflict between two completely separate groups. It was 
not until 1989 that PEP asked the Jacksons to join them. The recentness 
of this request indicates that the alignments among the Eastern Pequot 
subgroups were still being adjusted in 1989. At the same time, the 
Sebastians initially presented themselves as representing the interests 
of part of a tribe, the descendants of Tamar (Brushell) Sebastian, 
which was being threatened by the activities of Helen LeGault's 
Authentic Eastern Pequots organization in regard to CIAC 
representation, rather

[[Page 44239]]

than as a separate tribe. In the late 1970's, the antecedents of the 
two current organizations were in fact organizations of two of the 
family lines of the Eastern Pequot tribe (Gardner and Sebastian)--
neither the Hoxie/Jacksons who were not also Gardner descendants nor 
the Fagins descendants were initially included in either one. The 
Sebastians in particular viewed the initial conflict as one in which 
they needed to have their own family's interests represented--
demonstrating that the conflict was one of interest groups within a 
particular political system.
    The events of the 1970's which led to the formation of the two 
organizations demonstrate a high level of political processes within 
the tribe which involved the main kinship segments, the Sebastians, 
Jacksons and Gardner/Edwards. The events reflect the on-going political 
issues of access to and control of the reservation lands and the 
internal dispute over the legitimacy of the Sebastians as members. The 
formation of the CIAC and the beginnings of transfer of power over the 
reservation to the Eastern Pequot tribe triggered this high level of 
political conflict because it provided an opportunity, not previously 
existent, for one of the contending Eastern Pequot subgroups to seek to 
obtain designation as the Eastern Pequot tribe or status as the Eastern 
Pequot tribe's sole representative. These events mobilized large 
portions of the relatively small number of adult individuals then 
alive. The events were clearly a contest for power, resting on the 
preexisting social context and conflicts, and by definition show 
political process.
    Both EP and PEP, in the modern period since 1973, demonstrate 
substantial political processes within their own membership. Each deals 
with the same issues--control over portions of the reservation and 
whether the Sebastians are part of the tribe. These issues have existed 
as an unbroken continuity from at least as early as the 1920's, a point 
in time for which there is strong evidence for the existence of a 
single community. The division into two political organizations is a 
recent development, and the evidence demonstrates a single political 
entity with strong internal divisions. The alignment in its present 
form, which did not exist in the 1970's, represents the results of a 
historical political process which is not now complete.
    The EP as a separate organization and PEP as a separate 
organization each demonstrates substantial political processes through 
dealing with political issues of importance to its own membership. Each 
petitioner has shown political involvement, beyond mere attendance at 
meetings, by a substantial portion of its adult membership, both by 
percentage and by distribution across family sublines, throughout the 
entire time period from 1973 to the present.
    The importance of reservation access and residency rights to the 
membership of both EP and PEP is supported by the history of visiting 
with reservation residents and association with the reservation which 
was widespread among the non-resident Eastern Pequots (both EP and PEP) 
past and present and is not limited to a small group of reservation 
residents. These are issues of importance because they involve the loss 
or potential loss of significant resources, membership, and access to 
the reservation, which are current for the membership. There is more 
than sufficient evidence of visiting the reservation, residence there 
by close relatives, hunting, and social gatherings on the reservation 
in the lifetimes of the present membership to conclude these are 
political issues of importance.
    In addition, the EP council has exercised effective control over 
much of the reservation, regulating residence and land use, from the 
early 1980's to the present. This function was exercised regularly and 
consistently, and was followed by the membership. There was evidence of 
political communication because of regular membership meetings which 
voted on key issues, rather such issues being simply voted on by the 
council group itself, although there was not strong evidence about 
communication from membership to the leadership except for the past 
several years. This is supporting evidence for political influence.
    In the PEP, political processes were shown by dealing with the 
issues of importance to the membership--the same issues as in EP to a 
considerable extent, and also the issue of whether the two 
organizations should merge. There were also internal conflicts over 
other issues, specifically the method of governance, which mobilized 
political support and opposition along the lines of family 
subdivisions. The PEP organization also controls and allocates a 
portion of the reservation land, on a more limited basis than EP, among 
its membership.
    Each petitioner has controlled allocation of reservation resources, 
among their respective memberships. This allocation is not sufficient 
evidence of political processes in itself under Sec. 83.7(c)(2)(i), 
because the processes are parallel rather than a single process, but is 
strong evidence of political processes.
    The Eastern Pequot tribe, comprising both petitioners, demonstrates 
political processes in which the same political issues and conflicts 
that occurred earlier continue today. In this context, the evidence for 
each petitioner, in combination, demonstrates that only a single tribe, 
a tribe with significant political processes, exists today, 
notwithstanding the present organization of those processes into two 
distinct segments. One petitioner, the EP, has supported the creation 
of a single tribal organization encompassing the membership of both. 
The PEP from time to time has negotiated with the EP on this issue, 
manifesting an internal division of political opinion within its own 
membership as to whether PEP should organize together with the EP as a 
single tribe.
    The continuous historical State recognition and relationship are 
based on the existence of a single Eastern Pequot tribe, resident on a 
single land base which the tribe has occupied since colonial times and 
continues to occupy jointly. These facts provide added evidence that 
the petitioners meet the regulations as a single political body, 
notwithstanding current divisions and organization.
    The Eastern Pequot have existed as a distinct community within 
which political influence has been exercised since first sustained 
contact with Europeans. The historical Eastern Pequot tribe, comprising 
both current petitioners, meets the requirements of criterion 83.7(c).
    Criterion 83.7(d): Each petitioner met the requirements for 
criterion 83.7(d) separately by submitting a governing document which 
described its membership eligibility provisions. Given the present 
division into two organizations, the historical Eastern Pequot tribe 
does not presently have an overarching governing document, although all 
members are covered by the two documents presented. The presentation of 
two governing documents is sufficient to meet the requirements of this 
section of the regulations to submit copies of the governing documents 
of the group. The historical Eastern Pequot tribe meets the 
requirements of criterion 83.7(d).
    Criterion 83.7(e): The proposed findings examined the evidence and 
concluded, on the basis of evidence acceptable to the Secretary, that 
the Brushell/Sebastian, Fagins/Watson, Hoxie/Jackson, and Gardner lines 
descend from the historical Eastern Pequot tribe within the meaning of 
the regulations. The EP proposed finding did not examine the evidence 
in regard to the Fagins/Randall line. The EP

[[Page 44240]]

identified such descendants on its revised membership list submitted 
for the final determination. Examination of the evidence in regard to 
Abby (Fagins) Randall and her sons leads to the conclusion that on the 
basis of evidence acceptable to the Secretary, the members of this 
family line descend from the historical Eastern Pequot tribe within the 
meaning of the regulations.
    Therefore, this final determination concludes that all the current 
members of both petitioners descend from the historical Eastern Pequot 
tribe. The historical Eastern Pequot tribe, comprising the membership 
of both petitioners, meets criterion 83.7(e).
    Criterion 83.7(f): The final determination affirms the proposed 
findings' conclusions that a predominant portion of neither 
petitioner's members were enrolled with any federally acknowledged 
tribe. The same conclusion is applicable to the Eastern Pequot tribe as 
a whole. Therefore, the historical Eastern Pequot tribe meets criterion 
83.7(f).
    Criterion 83.7(g): This final determination affirms the proposed 
findings' conclusion that neither petitioner had been the subject of 
legislation terminating a Federal relationship. The same conclusion is 
applicable to the Eastern Pequot tribe as a whole. Therefore, the 
historical Eastern Pequot tribe meets criterion 83.7(g).
    The historical Eastern Pequot tribe, represented by two 
petitioners, EP and PEP, meets all of the criteria for Federal 
acknowledgment as a tribe stated in 25 CFR Sec. 83.7 and therefore 
meets the requirements to be acknowledged as tribe with a government-
to-government relationship with the United States.
    Because this final determination recognizes a single historical 
tribe represented by two petitioners, the Assistant Secretary will deal 
with both petitioners in the process of developing a governing document 
for the historical Eastern Pequot tribe. Pursuant to 25 CFR 83.12(b), 
the base roll for determining future membership of the tribe shall 
consist of the combined membership lists of the two petitioners 
submitted for these final determinations.
    This determination is final and will become effective 90 days from 
the date of publication, unless a request for reconsideration is filed 
pursuant to 25 CFR 83.11. The petitioners or any interested party may 
file a request for reconsideration of this determination with the 
Interior Board of Indian Appeals (83.11(a)(1)). A petitioner's or 
interested party's request must be received no later than 90 days after 
publication of this notice of the Assistant Secretary's determination 
in the Federal Register (83.11(a)(2)).

    Dated: June 24, 2002.
Neal A. McCaleb,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 02-16625 Filed 6-28-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-02-P