[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 19 (Wednesday, January 29, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4507-4511]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-2044]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs


Proposed Finding Against Federal Acknowledgment of the Golden 
Hill Paugussett Tribe

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of proposed finding.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 25 CFR 83.10(h), notice is hereby given that the 
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs (AS-IA) proposes to decline to 
acknowledge that the Golden Hill Paugussett Tribe (GHP), c/o Mr. 
Aurelius H. Piper, Jr., Suite 236, 1440 Whalley Avenue, New Haven, 
Connecticut, 06515, is an Indian tribe within the meaning of Federal 
law. This notice is based on a determination that the petitioner does 
not satisfy all seven of the criteria set forth in 25 CFR Part 83.7, 
specifically criteria (b), (c), and (e), and therefore does not meet 
the requirements for a government-to-government relationship with the 
United States.

DATES: Publication of the AS-IA's notice of the proposed finding in the 
Federal Register initiates a 180-day comment period during which the 
petitioner, interested parties, informed parties, and the public may 
submit arguments and evidence to support or rebut the evidence relied 
upon in the proposed finding. Interested or informed parties must 
provide a copy of their comments to the petitioner. The regulations, 25 
CFR 83.10(k), provide petitioners a minimum of 60 days to respond to 
any submissions on the proposed findings received from interested and 
informed parties during the comment period.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed finding or requests for a copy of 
the report which summarizes the evidence, reasoning, and analyses that 
are the basis for this proposed finding, or a list of parties in the 
litigation, should be addressed to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Branch 
of Acknowledgment and Research, 1849 C Street, NW., Mailstop 4660-MIB, 
Washington, DC 20240.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published in accordance with 
authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to the 
AS-IA by 209 DM 8.
    The GHP group's petition 81 is being considered under a 
court-approved negotiated agreement in pending litigation. This 
agreement, entered December 14, 2001, established time lines for the 
submission of materials to the Department of the Interior (Department) 
and deadlines for submitting comments, and issuing a proposed finding. 
The agreement neither modifies the regulatory time periods following 
the issuance of the proposed finding, nor modifies the criteria or the 
standards required to demonstrate that the criteria are met.
    The GHP group submitted a letter of intent to the Department on 
April 13, 1982, to petition for Federal acknowledgment as an Indian 
tribe, a documented petition on April 12, 1993, and the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs (BIA) placed them on the ``Ready, Waiting for Active 
Consideration'' list on November 21, 1994. The BIA processed the GHP 
petition under 25 CFR 83.10(e), which permits an evaluation on only one 
criterion if the petition and response to the technical assistance 
review indicates that there is little or no evidence to demonstrate 
that a group can meet the criteria in 83.7(e), (f), or (g).
    The Department published a notice of the proposed finding on June 
8, 1995, in the Federal Register that declined to acknowledge that the 
GHP existed as an Indian tribe (60 FR 30430). The Department found the 
evidence clearly established that the GHP group did not meet the 
mandatory criterion 83.7(e), descent from a historical Indian tribe. 
Following an evaluation of the evidence submitted during the comment 
periods, the AS-IA issued a final determination on September 16, 1996 
(61 FR 50501). The AS-IA concluded that the evidence did not establish 
a reasonable likelihood of the validity of the facts (see 25 CFR 
83.6(d)) that the petitioner descended from a historic tribe, or that 
William Sherman, the ancestor through whom the GHP claimed tribal 
descent, had ancestry either from the historical Golden Hill tribe or 
from any other identified historical Indian tribe.
    The GHP petitioner filed a request for reconsideration of the final 
determination with the Interior Board of Indian Appeals (IBIA) on 
December 26, 1996, pursuant to 25 CFR 83.11(b)(2). Another group, the 
Golden Hill Paugeesukg Tribal Nation, also requested reconsideration, 
claiming to be the actual governing body of the petitioning group. On 
September 8, 1998, the IBIA affirmed the decision not to acknowledge 
the GHP group as an Indian tribe, but referred five allegations of 
error to the Secretary (33 IBIA 4, 1998).
    On December 22, 1998, the Secretary, without evaluating the merits, 
requested the AS-IA to address the five issues and provide a 
reconsidered determination in accordance with the applicable 
regulations. The AS-IA recused himself of this decision, and, on May 
24, 1999, the Deputy AS-IA issued a reconsidered decision and an order 
that the GHP petition be considered under all seven mandatory criteria 
of the acknowledgment regulations. The Deputy AS-IA also ordered active 
consideration of the petition be suspended until the GHP petitioner 
made additional submissions, which it did, whereupon the BIA resumed 
active consideration.

[[Page 4508]]

    On April 3, 2001, the GHP petitioner filed a complaint pursuant to 
the Administrative Procedure Act requesting the court to compel the 
Department to establish a date by which it would issue the new proposed 
finding under all seven mandatory criteria. The parties reached an 
agreement in December 2001, whereby the Department agreed to issue a 
proposed finding on or before January 21, 2003, after which 
consideration of the petition would be governed by the regulations. The 
Department began consideration of the evidence for the proposed finding 
on July 22, 2002.
    The GHP petitioner meets criterion 83.7(a), which requires that the 
petitioner has been identified as an American Indian entity on a 
substantially continuous basis since 1900. The available 
identifications apply to a historical, state-recognized, Golden Hill 
entity, from which a portion of the petitioner's current membership 
claims descent. The available identifications do not pertain to the 
portion of the group, added in 1999, which claims descent from a 
historical Turkey Hill entity, and which the petitioner now contends 
was always a part of the historical Golden Hill entity. For criteria 
83.7(b) and 83.7(c), the record provided does not demonstrate that a 
Golden Hill group and a Turkey Hill group ever combined and functioned 
as a single autonomous political entity. For the purposes of criterion 
83.7(a), none of the available evidence shows that any outside 
observers at any time since 1900 identified such a combined group of 
Golden Hill and Turkey Hill Indians as a single Indian entity. Also, 
the available evidence does not identify the existence of a separate 
Turkey Hill group as an American Indian entity on a substantially 
continuous basis since 1900.
    From 1900 onwards, the Golden Hill antecedents of the GHP 
petitioner have been identified on a substantially continuous basis as 
an American Indian entity in Federal and State documents, by academics, 
and newspaper articles. Identifications included two reports compiled 
in the 1940's by a Library of Congress researcher, William H. Gilbert, 
and published by the Government Printing Office. There was an 
identification from 1971 in a BIA publication. The State of Connecticut 
(State) generated documents that included legislative acts, official 
correspondence, minutes, and correspondence of State and local 
agencies, and the assignment of a seat on the Connecticut Indian 
Affairs Council to the Golden Hill in 1974. Identifications by 
academics during the 20th century included Theodore Taylor (1972), Neal 
Salisbury (1982), Alvin Josephy (1982), and Franz Laurens Wojciechowski 
(1992). Multiple newspaper articles appeared in every decade from the 
1930's to the present.
    The GHP does not meet criterion 83.7(b), which requires that a 
predominant portion of the petitioning group comprises a distinct 
community and has existed as a community from historical times until 
the present. The petitioner claims that a portion of its membership 
descends from the historical Golden Hill Indians, which evolved from a 
portion of the historical Pequannock tribe. During first sustained 
contact with non-Indians in the 1630's, the Pequannock tribe lived 
along the Pequonnock River in modern-day Bridgeport, Connecticut. The 
Colony of Connecticut set aside a reservation for the historical Golden 
Hill as early as 1639, on which the group resided until 1802, when the 
last portions of the reservation were sold by a State-appointed 
overseer with the approval of the historical Golden Hill and the 
Connecticut General Assembly.
    In 1999, the petitioner's membership more than doubled. The new 
members, 68 percent of the named individuals on the 1999 membership 
list, claim descent from two individuals whom they believe to descend 
from the historical Turkey Hill Indians, a group which evolved from the 
historical Paugussett, one of the Indian tribes that resided in 
southwestern Connecticut in the Housatonic River valley at the time of 
first sustained contact with non-Indians.
    The families at the Turkey Hill reservation, established by the 
Colony of Connecticut in 1680, evolved from the historical Paugussett, 
while those living at the Golden Hill reservation were originally part 
of the historical Pequannock, a separate tribe. The colonial (and later 
State) authorities consistently viewed and identified the historical 
Turkey Hill group as separate from the historical Golden Hill group. 
Both groups had separate colonial (later State) appointed guardians and 
were treated in the colonial and later state records as distinct and 
separate groups of people. The available record does not demonstrate 
that any continuous government-to-government relationship between the 
State and a Turkey Hill Indian entity existed after 1871, when the 
overseer sold the last of the Turkey Hill State reservation.
    The evidence in the record does not demonstrate consistent 
interactions or significant social relationships between the historical 
Turkey Hill and historical Golden Hill groups after the establishment 
of their reservations. In order to demonstrate the existence of 
historical community, the petitioner would need to submit evidence that 
demonstrates such interactions and relationships existed. Nor does the 
documentary record demonstrate the historical Golden Hill exercised any 
political influence or authority over the historical Turkey Hill group, 
or vice versa. The available evidence does not demonstrate that the two 
groups functioned as a single autonomous political entity. In order to 
demonstrate an assertion of descent from two historical tribes that 
amalgamated and functioned as a single entity, the petitioner would 
need to submit evidence of political amalgamation.
    In addition, the portion of the petitioning group presently 
claiming descent from the historical Turkey Hill has not demonstrated 
ancestry from that entity. The available record also does not 
demonstrate that this portion of the GHP ever functioned as a group, or 
had any significant interaction with a Golden Hill entity. Because a 
separate historical social community among the Turkey Hill Indians is 
not linked to the historical Golden Hill, it does not demonstrate 
criterion 83.7(b) for the GHP petitioner or its antecedents. 
Accordingly, this proposed finding focuses on the historical Golden 
Hill for evidence of community under criterion 83.7(b).
    For the period from 1637 to the 1730's, there is sufficient 
evidence that the historical Golden Hill comprised a distinct 
community. The petitioner provided evidence, including population 
statistics, of the occupation of a distinct area, of land disputes with 
colonial settlers, and of some religious ceremonies and missionary 
activities. When evaluating tribes in the early years of contact with 
non-Indians, before substantial cultural and political changes 
occurred, this combined evidence is sufficient to demonstrate criterion 
83.7(b) from 1637 to the 1730's for the historical Golden Hill.
    For the period from the 1730's to 1802, there is also sufficient 
evidence that the historical Golden Hill comprised a distinct 
community. Population statistics demonstrate a rapidly declining but 
generally distinct community. The petitioner submitted evidence that 
demonstrates the historical Golden Hill resisted land infringements by 
non-Indians, particularly for the period from 1763 to 1802. These 
documents included petitions to the General Court (later General 
Assembly) and Colonial and State reports. The petitioner also provided 
a set of overseer records from

[[Page 4509]]

1763 to 1780 that present good evidence of continued community for a 
very small group of people. Such combined evidence is sufficient to 
demonstrate criterion 83.7(b) from the 1730's to 1802 for the 
historical Golden Hill.
    There is sufficient evidence that the historical Golden Hill 
comprised a distinct community until approximately 1823. Overseers' 
reports after the sale of the historical Golden Hill's Bridgeport 
reservation in 1802 gave good insight into the composition of the group 
at the time, including interaction among Golden Hill members and their 
relatives living in Woodbridge, Connecticut. In 1823, the overseer also 
took a census, which named six adults and the unnamed daughters of 
three of the women. Some individuals on this census appeared in 
subsequent reports until 1826, when detailed overseers' reports ceased. 
Taken together, the evidence is sufficient to demonstrate criterion 
83.7(b) for the portion of the group claiming descent from the 
historical Golden Hill group up to 1823.
    After the 1823 census, the historical Golden Hill community ceased 
to appear as a group in the documented record. Several members died, 
left the area, or otherwise disappeared from the historical record for 
this period. The overseers paid more attention to the Golden Hill fund 
than to any group that may have continued, and their sporadic reports 
after 1826 contained little detail of who constituted the survivors. 
Smallpox was reported to have killed several members of related Indians 
in the 1830's in (what was then the town of) Derby, and there is no 
evidence presented of further interaction among the named Golden Hill 
fund claimants.
    By 1841, the documented claimants to the benefits of the fund were 
two women, Ruby Mansfield and Nancy Sharpe and their unnamed children, 
for whom the State purchased land using money from the Golden Hill 
fund. Petitions filed with the State by these two women in 1841 and 
1846 do not demonstrate sufficient communal activity or provide 
acceptable evidence of the continuation of a group. An overseer's 
reference in 1846 to the existence of other possible claimants neither 
named them nor described a community. After 1849, these two women do 
not appear in the record. The historical group fragmented by 1849, and 
by that time appears to have ceased to exist. Therefore, the petitioner 
does not meet criterion 83.7(b) from the period 1824 to 1849.
    For 1849 to 1887, the evidence submitted is not sufficient to 
demonstrate that the historical Golden Hill group maintained a distinct 
community. Most of the available evidence for this period concerned 
William Sherman, an individual who resided in Trumbull, Connecticut, 
after 1857, who the petitioner claims provided leadership for a Golden 
Hill group at this time. William Sherman was not identified as an 
Indian in any records before 1870. There is nothing in the available 
record to indicate that William Sherman was part of an identifiable 
Golden Hill entity, nor is there evidence that he provided leadership 
or had followers.
    The petitioner maintains that Sherman's leadership efforts during 
this period included establishing an ``Indian'' portion of a cemetery 
in Trumbull and arranging for land he purchased to be held in trust by 
the State for the benefit of a Golden Hill group after his death. The 
available evidence does not support these claims. Many non-Indians were 
buried in the ``Indian'' portion of the cemetery, and a number of 
William Sherman's own children, who died before he did, were not buried 
there. William Sherman, in 1875, purchased \1/4\ of an acre in Trumbull 
and built a house on the property using the land as collateral on an 
$800 mortgage received from the Golden Hill fund. Sherman's activities 
were similar to other non-Indians who also received mortgages from the 
Golden Hill fund. He was not identified as a beneficiary of the Golden 
Hill fund or as a member of any Golden Hill group on any of these 
transactions or any other official records. There is no evidence that 
this property functioned during his lifetime as land belonging to any 
identifiable group, or on which group activities occurred. Further, the 
activities in which Sherman engaged during his lifetime do not 
demonstrate any type of group activity. Therefore, the evidence 
presented for this period does not demonstrate the existence of 
community.
    There is insufficient evidence presented to meet criterion 83.7(b) 
for 1887 to 1933. Most of the evidence submitted during this time 
period dealt with just two members of the Sherman family, George 
Sherman and his daughter, Ethel Sherman. Much of the evidence concerned 
an ongoing conflict over claims by Ethel Sherman to the \1/4\ acre 
property in Trumbull, Connecticut. However, there is insufficient 
evidence to indicate that these claims were made at the behest or for 
the benefit of anyone but Ethel Sherman. There are no available 
documents or letters signed by or attested to by a group to demonstrate 
that this property was of importance to a wider group of members. The 
property, declared a State reservation in 1933, would continue to be a 
point of contention for years to come, but until the 1970's, it does 
not appear that its fate concerned anyone except the direct descendants 
of George (and later Ethel) Sherman.
    In summary, for the 47-year period from the death of William 
Sherman in 1886 and the establishment of the Trumbull property as a 
reservation in 1933, the petitioner has not demonstrated significant 
social interaction among members of an antecedent group. This lack of 
evidence for interaction is compounded by the unclear definition of who 
constituted the group during this period. Some Sherman family members 
continued to reside on the Trumbull property, but this fact is not 
evidence of a ``group'' interacting during these years. There is no 
submitted documentary evidence demonstrating the composition of a group 
that extended beyond some Sherman family members. Therefore, the 
materials submitted for 1897 to 1933 are not sufficient evidence of 
community for the portion of the petitioner claiming descent from the 
historical Golden Hill Indians.
    The petitioner does not meet criterion 83.7(b) for the period 1933 
to 1973. The petitioner has not submitted documentation that 
demonstrates any interaction occurring between the Sherman family 
siblings and any other larger group. The petitioner argues that 
knowledge was communicated orally among group members at regular 
gatherings, yet failed to provide specific evidence that such 
gatherings occurred. Abstracts from some interviews with members of the 
group contend that visiting among the various individuals and families 
occurred. However, the petitioner did not provide any specific evidence 
identifying the location, frequency, or content of such visiting. 
Therefore, the evidence presented by the petitioner is insufficient to 
demonstrate the existence of a distinct community for the period 1933 
to 1973.
    The petitioning group appears as an identifiable entity around 1973 
under the leadership of Aurelius Piper, Sr, when it is now possible to 
see the participation of members in an identifiable organization. 
However, the organization appears to have been made up mostly of 
individuals who were closely related to Aurelius Piper, Sr. (i.e., his 
children, siblings, or nieces and nephews). There are no records of a 
group of GHP members interacting through attendance at social 
gatherings or at significant events. Although Aurelius Piper, Sr. and 
some of his children were active in trying to establish the social life 
of the GHP, they

[[Page 4510]]

do not seem to have met with much success. Aurelius Piper, Sr. even 
voiced numerous complaints in the 1970's and 1980's about the inability 
of the group's members to act together in any significant fashion.
    Since the mid-1990's, none of the documentation demonstrates that 
the petitioner has maintained a distinct community. The evidence 
presented by the petitioner, therefore, is insufficient to meet 
criterion 83.7(b) for the period 1972 to the present. In summary, the 
evidence shows that the historical Golden Hill dwindled from a viable 
community last identified in a 1823 overseer's census to two women who 
had petitioned the State in 1841 and 1846. The evidence for William 
Sherman and subsequent generations of GHP descendants does not 
demonstrate that this small family was part of a distinct community. 
Therefore, the GHP does not meet criterion 83.7(b) for any time since 
1823.
    The petitioner does not meet criterion 83.7(c), which requires a 
petitioner and its antecedents to have maintained political influence 
over its members as an autonomous entity from historical times to the 
present. The historical Golden Hill Indians and the historical Turkey 
Hill Indians were separate tribes that shared a similar culture and 
language. Land purchase documents for the 17th and 18th centuries show 
two separate entities. The Colony and later the State treated the 
historical Golden Hill and historical Turkey Hill as distinct political 
and legal entities evidence by separate reservations and overseers 
during this period. Therefore, evidence of political authority for the 
historical Turkey Hill Indians does not demonstrate the same for the 
historical Golden Hill Indians, and vice versa. The available evidence 
does not show that the two groups ever formed a single autonomous 
political entity. If the petitioner asserts that a historical 
amalgamation of the two groups occurred, it needs to submit specific 
evidence to demonstrate this amalgamation. Accordingly, the following 
summary focuses on the political influence of the historical Golden 
Hill and its predecessors.
    For the period from the 1630's to 1761, there is sufficient 
evidence to demonstrate that the historical Golden Hill maintained 
political influence over their members as an autonomous entity. Deeds 
from the 17th century suggest the Pequannock sachems exercised 
political influence through consensus and consultation with other 
tribal members. Land transactions between the tribe and colonial 
authorities listed leaders and provided some information, from an 
external point of view, concerning the aboriginal political structure.
    In 1761, the historical Golden Hill still had a sachem whom the 
Colony recognized as a leader. Since the Colony dealt with a group that 
had recognized leaders and the evidence documents the group acting in 
concert to exercise political influence, the petitioner meets 83.7(c) 
from 1637 to 1761 for the historical Golden Hill.
    For the period from 1761 to 1802, the petitioner presented 
sufficient evidence that the historical Golden Hill Indians maintained 
political influence over the group's members as an autonomous entity. 
The last sachem, John Shoran, died in 1761. There is sufficient 
evidence in the form of protests against encroachments on the Golden 
Hill reservation by non-Indians to demonstrate that a very small group 
of Indians continued to display some measure of political influence or 
authority. The evidence consists mainly of petitions to the General 
Court (later General Assembly) and official government reports from 
1763 to 1765, 1774 to 1780, and 1797 to 1802. The set of petitions from 
1797 to 1802 documented the historical Golden Hill's approval of the 
sale of the last portions of the historical Golden Hill reservation, 
located in modern-day Bridgeport. Similar petitions have been accepted 
in previous acknowledgment decisions as sufficient evidence regarding 
political influence. Therefore, this evidence is sufficient to meet 
83.7(c) from 1761 to 1802 for the historical Golden Hill.
    The evidence does not demonstrate that there was an identifiable 
Golden Hill entity that maintained political influence among its 
members from 1802 to 1933. After the sale of the Bridgeport reservation 
in 1802, there were no further actions taken by a group as a political 
entity. There is no person identified in any official State reports as 
a sachem or leader after the death of John Shoran in 1761. After 1802, 
there were no further group petitions. The two petitions filed by Ruby 
Mansfield and Nancy Sharp alias Pease do not demonstrate influence or 
authority over a group because the two women petitioned as individuals 
and as ``sole surviving heirs'' of the Golden Hill Indians, not as 
representatives of a group or tribe. The petitioner maintains that 
William Sherman functioned as a leader during his lifetime (1825-1886). 
The evidence, however, does not demonstrate that he actually functioned 
as a leader of an identifiable Golden Hill group. The petitioner also 
claims that William Sherman's son, George Sherman, functioned as a 
leader in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. While George Sherman 
was referred to in some newspaper articles as a ``chief,'' there is no 
documentation available to show that any identifiable group 
acknowledged his authority or that he acted on any group's behalf. 
Therefore, the petitioner has not demonstrated political influence and 
authority for 1802 to 1933.
    The material submitted to demonstrate political influence or 
authority from 1933 until 1972 does not meet the requirements of 
criterion 83.7(c). In 1933, George Sherman's daughter, Ethel Sherman, 
began referring to herself as a ``Chieftess.'' However, there is no 
available evidence to support the claim as anything more than self-
identification. There is no evidence to indicate that Ethel Sherman was 
able to gather a number of people together or access any money or 
resources from them for group purposes. There is also no evidence 
submitted to demonstrate that her position came about as part of any 
group consensus. An analysis of the early and mid-20th century 
documents indicates that the individuals whom the petitioner now 
credits as political leaders were acting to guarantee individual 
interests, not those of any wider group. In order to overcome this 
deficiency, the petitioner must produce evidence of leaders acting in 
the interests of an identifiable group that extends beyond an 
individual or one branch of one family.
    For the period 1972 to the present, the petitioner submitted a 
considerable amount of evidence relating to the activities of Aurelius 
Piper, Sr. The record indicates that he was the first person since 1761 
acknowledged by the State as exercising political leadership within a 
group of individuals claiming to be Golden Hill group members.
    The petitioner submitted notices of group meetings for the late 
1970's and early 1980's, informing members of upcoming events and 
requesting their participation. The minutes of these meetings indicate 
there were low levels of participation by the group's members. The 
available evidence does not demonstrate that the issues important to 
Aurelius Piper, Sr. concerned or involved a predominant portion of the 
group. Much of the evidence for political influence for the late 1980's 
and early 1990's focused mostly on leadership disputes between Aurelius 
Piper, Sr. and his two sons, with occasional references to the 
involvement of two of his half-nephews. Even during the 1970's and 
1980's when the GHP was most active, the actions taken were by a small 
number of individuals without broad representation across any family 
lines. It

[[Page 4511]]

is not demonstrated that the actions of the leaders, who were either 
self-appointed or appointed by close family members, reflected the 
concerns of a significant number of the group's members. To demonstrate 
political influence or authority, the petitioner must demonstrate more 
than a minimal level of involvement from most members of the group. 
Therefore, the petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to 
demonstrate political influence or authority for the period from 1972 
to the present. Accordingly, the petitioner has not met the 
requirements of criterion 83.7(c) from 1637 to the present.
    The State has recognized a Golden Hill entity from colonial times 
to the present. Within the general parameters of Connecticut's laws 
regarding State-recognized tribes, the specifics of its tribal dealings 
differed from group to group. The historical Golden Hill had a State 
reservation from colonial times to 1802. The State established the 
group's present 1/4 acre reservation, located in Trumbull, not the 
original reservation land area of Bridgeport, in 1933. From the early 
1800's to the 1970's, however, the State did not identify or deal with 
specific leaders of the group.
    While State recognition and the existence of a State reservation 
can provide additional evidence to be weighed in combination with other 
specific evidence, State recognition in itself is not sufficient 
evidence to meet criteria 83.7(b) and (c). The particular relationship 
of the State to the GHP group, in combination with existing direct 
evidence for community and political process is so limited, that is not 
sufficient evidence to demonstrate that these two criteria are met.
    The petitioner meets the requirements of criterion 83.7(d) because 
it has submitted a governing document, including a description of its 
membership criteria.
    The petitioner does not meet criterion 83.7(e)(1) because the 
petitioner has not submitted evidence acceptable to the Secretary that 
its membership consists of individuals who descend from a historical 
Indian tribe or tribes that combined. There is no evidence in the 
record that the petitioner's claimed ancestors, William Sherman, Levi 
Allen and Delia Merrick, descended from a historical Indian tribe or 
tribes that amalgamated and functioned as a single entity. The evidence 
does not show that William Sherman descended from any person identified 
on the 1823 Census of the historical Golden Hill, or from either Ruby 
Mansfield or from Nancy Sharpe alias Pease, who were identified in 
historical State records in 1841, 1846, and 1849 as Golden Hill Indians 
and whom the petitioner claims were the ancestors of William Sherman.
    There is no documentation in the record to verify that William 
Sherman or any of his children married Golden Hill, Pequannock, 
Paugussett, Turkey Hill, or other Indians; therefore, that portion of 
the membership claiming descent from William Sherman does not 
demonstrate Indian ancestry through any other possible Indian 
ancestors. Neither is there documentation in the record to verify that 
names recently added to the GHP membership list, who claim descent from 
Levi Allen and Delia Merrick, have Indian ancestry linked to any of 
these tribes.
    The petitioner does not meet criterion 83.7(e)(2). The October 1, 
1999, membership list of 214 names was used for this report. However, 
it was not separately certified by the governing body, and did not 
include each member's full name (and maiden name), date of birth, and 
residential address, as required by the regulations. Although the GHP 
group submitted several membership lists, none are sufficient to meet 
the criterion. The petitioner may correct this deficiency by 
resubmitting a properly completed membership list that is certified by 
the entire governing body of the group. None of the persons listed on 
petitioner's most recent membership list (October 1, 1999) have 
demonstrated descent from members of the historical tribe(s) listed in 
petitioner's membership criteria.
    The petitioner meets criterion 83.7(f) because its members are not 
enrolled in other Federally recognized tribes, and criterion 83.7(g) 
because the group or its members have not been the subject of 
congressional legislation that has expressly terminated or forbidden 
the Federal relationship.
    The evidence available for this proposed finding demonstrates that 
the GHP group does not meet all seven criteria required for Federal 
acknowledgment. In accordance with the regulations, failure to meet any 
one of the seven criteria requires a determination that the group does 
not exist as an Indian tribe within the meaning of Federal law 
(83.6(c), 83.10(m)).
    A copy of this proposed finding, which summarizes the evidence, 
reasoning, and analyses that are the basis for decision, is available 
upon written request (83.10(h)).
    During the 180-day comment period (83.10(i)), the AS-IA shall 
provide technical advice concerning the proposed finding and shall make 
available to the petitioner in a timely fashion any records used for 
the proposed finding not already held by the petitioner, to the extent 
allowable by Federal law (83.10(j)(1)). In addition, the AS-IA shall, 
if requested by the petitioner or any interested party, hold a formal 
meeting for the purpose of inquiring into the reasoning, analyses, and 
factual bases for the proposed finding. The proceedings of this meeting 
shall be on the record. The meeting record shall be available to any 
participating party and become part of the record considered by the AS-
IA in reaching a final determination (83.10(j)(2)).
    If third party comments are received during the comment period, the 
petitioner shall have a minimum of 60 days to respond to these 
comments. This period may be extended at the AS-IA's discretion if 
warranted by the extent and nature of the comments (83.10(k)).
    At the end of the comment and response periods, the AS-IA shall 
consult with the petitioner and interested parties to determine an 
equitable time frame for consideration of written arguments and 
evidence submitted during the comment and response periods, and notify 
the petitioner and interested parties of the date such consideration 
begins (83.10(l)). The AS-IA has the discretion to request additional 
information from the petitioner or commenting parties, and to conduct 
additional research (83.10(l)(1)). After consideration of the written 
arguments and evidence submitted during the comment period and the 
petitioner's response to the comments, the AS-IA shall make a final 
determination regarding the petitioner's status. A summary of the final 
determination will be published in the Federal Register (83.10(l)(2)).

    Dated: January 21, 2003.
Aurene M. Martin,
Acting Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 03-2044 Filed 1-28-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-4J-P