[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 118 (Monday, June 21, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34388-34393]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-13871]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Final Determination Against Federal Acknowledgement of the Golden
Hill Paugussett Tribe
AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of final determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to 25 CFR 83.10(m), notice is hereby given that the
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs (PD AS-IA)
declines to acknowledge a group known as the Golden Hill Paugussett
Tribe (GHP), c/o Mr. Aurelius H. Piper, Jr., Suite 236, 1440 Whalley
Avenue, New Haven, Connecticut 06515, as an Indian tribe within the
meaning of Federal law. This notice is based on a final determination
that the petitioning group does not satisfy all seven of the criteria
set forth in part 83 of title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations (25
CFR part 83), specifically criteria 83.7(a), (b), (c), and (e), and
therefore does not meet the requirements for a government-to-government
relationship with the United States.
DATES: This determination is final and will become effective 90 days
from 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, Director, Office of
Federal Acknowledgment, (202) 513-7650.
[[Page 34389]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under delegated authority, the Secretary of
the Department of the Interior (Secretary) ordered, through the
Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs (AS-IA), the PD AS-IA ``to execute
all documents, including regulations and other Federal Register
notices, and perform all other duties relating to Federal recognition
of Native American tribes.'' Pursuant to this order, the PD AS-IA makes
the determination regarding the petitioner's status, as defined in the
acknowledgment regulations as one of the duties delegated by the
Secretary to the AS-IA (209 Department Manual 8), and from the AS-IA to
the PD AS-IA (Secretarial Order No. 3252).
A notice of a proposed finding (PF) to decline to acknowledge the
GHP was published in the Federal Register January 29, 2003 (68 FR
4507). That notice was based on a determination that the GHP petitioner
did not satisfy all seven of the mandatory criteria set forth in 25 CFR
83.7, specifically criteria 83.7(b), (c), and (e), and, therefore, did
not meet the requirements for a government-to-government relationship
with the United States.
The available evidence for the PF showed that the GHP petitioner
and its antecedents met criteria 83.7(a) for identification since 1900,
83.7(d) for providing a governing document, 83.7(f) for not being
members of an acknowledged Indian tribe, and 83.7(g) for not being the
subject of legislation terminating or forbidding the Federal
relationship.
The PF concluded that the petitioner did not meet the requirements
for criterion 83.7(b), that community continuously exist from
historical times to the present because there was insufficient evidence
provided that community existed for the GHP since 1823. The PF also
concluded that the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that the
GHP met criterion 83.7(c), that the petitioner did not demonstrate
political influence within the group since 1802. Further, the PF
concluded that the State of Connecticut (State) had recognized a Golden
Hill entity from colonial times to the present, but found that the
particular State recognition of the GHP group combined with limited
direct evidence for community and political process was not sufficient
to demonstrate that criteria 83.7(b) and (c). Finally, the PF concluded
there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate the petitioner met
criterion 83.7(e), descent from a historical tribe or from tribes that
had combined and functioned as a single autonomous political entity.
This final determination (FD) follows a review of the petitioner
and third-party comments on the PF. The GHP petitioner submitted no
response to the third-party public comments. This FD reviewed the
evidence considered for the PF, and evaluated that evidence in the
light of the new documentation and arguments received from the
petitioner and third parties.
Criterion 83.7(a) requires that the petitioner demonstrate that it
has been identified as an American Indian entity on a substantially
continuous basis since 1900. The PF concluded that from 1900 to the
present, the petitioner and its claimed antecedent group, generally
called the ``Golden Hill Indians'' until the mid-1970's, and the
``Golden Hill Paugussett'' since that time, had regularly been
identified as an Indian entity. The PF, however, determined that the
identifications applied only to the Golden Hill entity that the State
recognized, which comprises a small portion (33 percent) of the
petitioner's current membership. The available identifications did not
pertain to the portion (63 percent) of the group, added in 1999, which
claims descent from a historical Turkey Hill entity and that the
petitioner contends was always a part of the historical Golden Hill
entity. Four percent of the group's membership is of unknown ancestry.
For criteria 83.7(b) and 83.7(c), the available record for the PF did
not demonstrate that a Golden Hill group and a Turkey Hill group had
ever combined and functioned as a single autonomous political entity.
For the purposes of criterion 83.7(a), none of the available evidence
for the PF showed that any outside observer at any time since 1900
identified a combined group of Golden Hill and Turkey Hill Indians as a
single Indian entity. Also, the available evidence for the PF did not
identify the existence of a separate Turkey Hill group as an American
Indian entity on a substantially continuous basis since 1900.
The GHP petitioner and third parties submitted no new evidence of
identifications for criterion 83.7(a). In its comments, the petitioner
asserts that the historical Turkey Hill Indians and the petitioner's
claimed Golden Hill antecedents were one entity since colonial times,
and that, therefore, identifications of the State-recognized Golden
Hill entity apply to the portion of the group, added in 1999, claiming
descent from a Turkey Hill entity. In its comments, the State argues
that there is no evidence of identifications for a combined Turkey Hill
and Golden Hill entity since 1900.
As previously stated, since 1900, one of the petitioner's claimed
antecedent groups, the State-recognized Golden Hill entity, has
regularly been identified as an Indian entity. Yet, these available
identifications apply only to the State-recognized Golden Hill entity,
which comprises only a small portion (33 percent) of the petitioner's
current membership. The available identifications do not pertain to the
now predominant part (63 percent) of the group, the Tinney line added
in 1999, which claims descent from a historical Turkey Hill entity. The
available evidence does not show that external observers identified a
separate Turkey Hill entity, or a Turkey Hill group that amalgamated
with the State-recognized Golden Hill entity, on a substantially
continuous basis since 1900. More specifically, no available evidence
is found in the records that external sources identified the Tinney
line as part of the State-recognized Golden Hill entity between 1900
and 1998.
These facts, which call into question the nature of the GHP
petitioner's current makeup, require the reevaluation of the PF's
conclusion for criterion 83.7(a). The GHP petitioner has not
demonstrated the external identifications of a State-recognized Golden
Hill entity applied to the petitioner's components as a whole on a
substantially continuous basis since 1900. Thus, this FD reverses the
conclusion of the PF, and now finds that the GHP petitioner does not
meet the requirements of criterion 83.7(a).
Criterion 83.7(b) requires the GHP petitioner to demonstrate 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 PF concluded that only the portion of the petitioner's
membership claiming descent from the historical Golden Hill Indians,
and not the portion claiming descent from the historical Turkey Hill,
had met criterion 83.7(b) up to 1823, when the State-appointed overseer
took the last known census of the historical Golden Hill group. For the
time since, GHP did not provide for the PF sufficient evidence to
establish that a predominant portion of the group comprised a distinct,
continuous community. Between 1824 and around 1850, the historical
group lost its social cohesion and ceased to exist as a distinct
community. For the period roughly from 1850 to 1973, the available
evidence for the PF indicated the group was little more than a small
family composed of individuals who claimed descent from the historical
Golden Hill group. For the period since 1973, when the group expanded
somewhat in membership, there was insufficient
[[Page 34390]]
evidence for the PF that a predominant portion of its membership had
significant social interaction. Most evidence of social community for
the modern period was limited to a small group of members, at times
only a few individuals, who were closely related.
Regarding the portion of the GHP petitioner that claimed descent
from a Turkey Hill entity, the PF concluded that the families at the
Turkey Hill reservation evolved from the historical Paugussett proper,
while those living at the Golden Hill reservation were originally part
of the historical Pequannock, a separate tribe. The colonial (and later
State) authorities viewed and identified the historical Turkey Hill as
a separate entity from the Golden Hill reservation. There was
insufficient evidence for the PF of consistent interactions and
significant social relationships between the historical Turkey Hill and
Golden Hill groups after the establishment of their reservations in the
1600's. The PF encouraged the petitioner to submit evidence that
demonstrated such interactions and relationships, or to demonstrate the
amalgamation of the two groups. Similarly, the evidence for the PF did
not demonstrate that the historical Golden Hill exercised any political
influence or authority over the historical Turkey Hill group, or vice
versa. The evidence did not show the two groups functioning as a single
autonomous political entity. The PF encouraged the petitioner to submit
evidence of political amalgamation.
In its comments, the GHP petitioner submitted a report that claims
the tribes of the lower Housatonic River were part of a ``Greater
Wappinger Confederacy'' during the colonial period. The petitioner
contends that the membership of these tribes in this confederacy
demonstrated that the historical Golden Hill Indians and the historical
Turkey Hill Indians were one entity. The FD finds that the available
evidence does not demonstrate that this ``Greater Wappinger
Confederacy'' containing the lower Housatonic River tribes existed or
that the historical Golden Hill Indians of Fairfield County and the
historical Turkey Hill Indians of New Haven County existed together as
one tribe during the colonial period. Nor does the evidence indicate
the Golden Hill and Turkey Hill were part of a ``Paugussett''
confederacy or single nation or tribe. Further, the evidence presented
for the existence of this ``Greater Wappinger Confederacy'' does not
demonstrate the existence of significant social interaction between the
historical Golden Hill and the historical Turkey Hill during the
colonial period following the creation of their separate reservations
in the 17th century. This FD affirms the conclusions of the PF that
there was insufficient evidence that the historical Golden Hill and
Turkey Hill were a community or separate communities that amalgamated.
An analysis of the evidence for both the PF and the FD,
particularly various State documents dating from 1791 to 1910,
indicates that the historical, State-recognized Turkey Hill Indians
ceased to exist socially and politically around 1825-1826, after the
sale of their reservation in Orange (New Haven County), Connecticut.
The available evidence indicates that Connecticut did not maintain a
continuous relationship or a State-recognized reservation with a Turkey
Hill group after that time. Afterwards, the State dealt only
sporadically with individuals identified in State documents as Turkey
Hill descendants. There is no available evidence to show that after
1825 the historical Turkey Hill had any significant social interaction
with itself, or a Golden Hill group, or that the State ever recognized
a combined Turkey Hill and Golden Hill entity. Thus, the activities of
individuals identified as Turkey Hill Indians in State documents from
1791 to 1910 do not demonstrate community during those years.
The GHP petitioner submitted a report that asserts to demonstrate
the existence of a ``tribal society'' of ``Paugussett Indians'' called
``Little Liberia'' in the south end of Bridgeport, Connecticut, during
the 19th century, to show the continued existence of a distinct
community among its claimed antecedents during the 19th century. The
available evidence does not support this claim. The available evidence
does not demonstrate the ``Little Liberia'' neighborhood of 19th
century Bridgeport was a Golden Hill, Turkey Hill, ``Paugussett,'' or
Indian community, or that it contained such an entity within its
boundaries. The evidence shows it was a community of African Americans,
composed mainly of former slaves and migrants from rural Connecticut or
the southern states, a few of whom might have had Indian ancestry. The
available evidence shows that this community was established in the
1820's largely by and for African Americans and not Native Americans.
The Federal acknowledgement regulations require that the evidence
for criterion 83.7(b) demonstrate that a predominant portion of the
petitioning group comprises a distinct community and has existed as a
community since historical times. Under 83.1, the regulations define
community as ``any group of people which can demonstrate that
consistent interactions and significant social relationships exist
within its membership and that its members are differentiated from and
identified as distinct from nonmembers.'' The evidence submitted is
insufficient to demonstrate that ``Little Liberia'' was a community
antecedent to the GHP petitioner. Therefore, evidence of social
relationships interaction in Bridgeport's ``Little Liberia'' in the
19th century and later does not demonstrate community for the GHP
petitioner.
The GHP petitioner submitted information on a man named Joel
Freeman, a prominent member of the ``Little Liberia'' community. The
petitioner maintains that this man links the Bridgeport community and
the Turkey Hill Indians of Derby. However, the petitioner has submitted
no evidence to demonstrate that the ``Joel Freeman'' of the ``Little
Liberia'' community was the same ``Joel Freeman'' listed as an heir-at-
law of the Indian John Howd (an Indian associated with the Naugatuck
reservation in Derby, Connecticut). No other documentation has been
presented to link ``Joel Freeman'' to any other Turkey Hill, Naugatuck
or Paugussett Indians.
The GHP petitioner also has not been able to demonstrate that the
claimed Tinney family descends from either the Turkey Hill Indians or
the descendants of John Howd, or that the Tinney descendants were a
separate Indian entity that amalgamated with the Golden Hill or were
part of the GHP prior to 1999. Further, the GHP petitioner has not
demonstrated that this family interacted with or maintained contact
with the Golden Hill descendants throughout the 20th century. With the
exception of one Tinney descendant mentioned in the organization's
documents during the early 1970's (who identified himself at the time
as a ``Pequot'' rather than as a ``Golden Hill Paugussett''), there is
no evidence that any other members of the Tinney family associated with
the GHP group until 1999. Finally, the documentation submitted by the
State in its comments regarding the Turkey Hill descendants provides
evidence contrary to the arguments advanced by the GHP petitioner
regarding the descent of the Tinney family. The GHP petitioner did not
submit any response to the State's documentation, although some of the
archival material contradicts the claims made in the GHP petitioner's
submission.
The GHP petitioner has not addressed specific concerns raised in
the PF regarding community during the 19th
[[Page 34391]]
and 20th centuries with sufficient evidence. The petitioner submitted a
number of Oral History Questionnaires to OFA without context,
explanation, or analysis. The petitioner also did not include any new
probative interviews in this submission.
The GHP petitioner submitted documentation for criterion 83.7(b)
that does not demonstrate community among the portion of the group
claiming descent from the historic Golden Hill Indians after 1823, or
the portion claiming descent from the historic Turkey Hill Indians at
any time after 1825. The GHP petitioner did not provide evidence that
shows community among a combined Golden Hill/Turkey Hill entity at any
time. The evidence submitted regarding the ``Little Liberia'' community
is not supported with acceptable evidence and does not demonstrate
community for ``Paugussett'' or other Indians antecedent to the
petitioner. The evidence submitted for the 20th century does not show
community among either group of descendants until the 1970's, and then
only for the Sherman descendants (the portion of the petitioner
claiming descent from the Golden Hill Indians). With the exception of
one person (Fred Tinney), the two portions of the petitioner did not
demonstrate any interaction until 1999, when the Tinney descendants
enrolled with the GHP. Even for the period after their enrollment in
1999, the petitioner has provided insufficient evidence of significant
levels of interaction with to demonstrate community. This FD affirms
the conclusion of the PF that the petitioner does not meet criterion
83.7(b) since 1823. Thus, the GHP petitioner does not meet criterion
83.7(b) from historical times to the present.
Criterion 83.7(c) requires the petitioner to demonstrate that it
has maintained political influence or authority over its members as an
autonomous entity from historical times until the present. The PF
concluded that only the portion of the GHP petitioner claiming descent
from the historical Golden Hill, and not the portion claiming decent
from the Turkey Hill, met criterion 83.7(c) up to 1802, when the
overseer sold the last sections of the State reservation with the
historical Golden Hill group's approval. The GHP petitioner did not
provide sufficient evidence to meet the criterion since 1802. Further,
from 1824 to around 1850, the available evidence for the PF indicated
the historical Golden Hill's known survivors lost political influence.
From the early 1850's to around 1973, the available evidence for the PF
did not indicate there was an Indian entity or individuals who
functioned as leaders within a group political process. Since 1973, the
available evidence for the PF indicated the leadership was limited to a
small number of family-appointed leaders, or part of a small family
group, but that evidence was not sufficient to demonstrate bilateral
relationships with the rest of the membership.
The GHP petitioner's comments objecting to the PF's findings that
the Golden Hill and Turkey Hill were separate political and social
entities are discussed under criterion 83.7(b). In summary, since the
historical Turkey Hill and historical Golden Hill were separate
entities, evidence of political influence within one entity does not
provide evidence for the other.
The petitioner has submitted very little documentation in its
comments in support of criterion 83.7(c). Some of the new assertions
regarding leadership, such as those concerning Joel Freeman and the
``Little Liberia'' community, are based on incomplete or invalid
documentation. Other contentions, such as the ``chieftainships'' of two
men named Rensselaer Pease and George Freeman, are not supported by
documentation. However, documentation submitted by the State has
provided evidence that negates claims made by the petitioner that the
Turkey Hill Indians and/or the John Howd descendents were subject to
any leadership from the Golden Hill descendants; in fact, two of the
three named and documented Turkey Hill descendants stated in 1910 that
the Turkey Hill tribe had long since ceased to exist as a political
entity and made no mention of the Golden Hill descendants.
The GHP petitioner presented additional evidence for the 20th
century that is not sufficient to answer the questions posed by the PF.
The GHP petitioner has reiterated that a woman named Ethel Sherman
acted as a ``tribal'' leader, but has not submitted any evidence in its
comments demonstrating that she advocated for any members of the group
other than her own children or grandchildren. The GHP petitioner has
not submitted evidence to demonstrate that the GHP group supported or
was aware of a 1933 ``ceremony'' where Ethel Sherman is reported to
have assumed the title of ``chieftess.'' The 1934 notice of a
``meeting'' held by Ethel Sherman is insufficient to demonstrate any
political authority because it gives no additional information about
what may have occurred or who may have attended.
The GHP petitioner submitted other documentation regarding
leadership under Aurelius Piper Sr. after 1973 and Aurelius Piper Jr.
after 1993. This evidence is insufficient also to indicate a bilateral
relationship between the group's members. Little indication of input
from the group's membership on issues of importance to the group is
found in this evidence. The GHP petitioner submitted documentation that
is substantively the same as it had included in previous submissions,
and contained little new information regarding this time period.
The GHP petitioner also has not provided any new information
regarding the Tinney descendants. There is little to no information for
any Tinney descendants other than one member's brief period of
involvement with the group during the 1970's, which was described in
the PF. Further, the available evidence does not demonstrate
involvement of the Tinney family in the political processes of the
group since their enrollment in 1999. Finally, the petitioner has not
been able to explain with the available evidence the absence of the
Tinney descendants in the group prior to the late 1990's. For the above
reasons, this FD affirms the conclusion of the PF that the petitioner
does not meet criterion 83.7(c) since 1802.
The PF concluded that the Colony and later State recognized a
Golden Hill entity from colonial times to the present. Yet, the PF also
concluded that the particular relationship of the State to the GHP
group, in combination with the limited direct evidence for community
and political process that was still so limited, was not sufficient
evidence to demonstrate that criteria 83.7(b) and (c) were met. The
Department has issued two decisions that have significant bearing on
the role of continuous State recognition and its use as evidence with
regard to political influence to satisfy the requirements of criterion
83.7(c). In the Historical Eastern Pequot (HEP) FD, issued in June
2002, the Department determined that the existence of a continuous
relationship between the State and the HEP provided evidence, when
considered with other available evidence for a historical time period,
to satisfy the requirements of criteria 83.7(b) and (c).
In the Schaghticoke (STN) FD, issued January 28, 2004, the
Department further defined the evidentiary value of continuous State
recognition. In STN, the petitioner presented substantial evidence of
political influence and social community. However, the STN petitioner
did not have direct documentary evidence regarding political influence
for two significant time periods (1820-1840 and 1892-1936). The STN
petitioner did have a continuous relationship with the State,
[[Page 34392]]
and met criterion 83.7(b). In the STN FD, the Department determined
that an active, continuous relationship between a State and a
petitioning group could itself constitute evidence sufficient to
satisfy the requirements of criterion 83.7(c) under these
circumstances.
Whether a State's continuous recognition of a tribe and the
resulting political relationship constitute evidence sufficient to
satisfy the requirements of section 83.7(c) depends on the specific
facts presented by the petitioner. In the case of GHP, the petitioner
has enjoyed a continuous relationship with the State from colonial
times to the present. The historical Golden Hill tribe first occupied
one reservation set aside by the State in 1639, which was sold in 1802.
GHP later occupied another reservation set aside by the State in 1933,
which was quit-claimed to the State by William Sherman in 1886.
Overseers have been appointed by the State to manage Golden Hill
accounts.
The existence of a continuous State relationship can constitute
evidence because it is at its core a recognition that a group exists as
a political entity. But the nature of the State's recognition is as
important as the historical, factual basis of a petition submitted by a
group. Here, the continuous State relationship with the GHP is not as
vigorous as the relationships documented in the FD's for the HEP and
STN. Here also, the documentary evidence is not sufficient for a
significantly longer period of time than in either the HEP or STN case.
In fact, there is little evidence of political influence since 1802, or
social community since 1823 to the present. Without more evidence of
social and or political influence, a finding that the continuous State
relationship itself is sufficient to satisfy criterion 83.7(c) from
1802 to the present, a period of 202 years cannot be supported.
This is not to say that a continuous State relationship cannot be
evidence in itself for criterion 83.7(c). As in STN, where significant
documentary records acted as evidentiary bookends, the State's
relationship can be sufficient evidence of the petitioning group's
political existence when criterion 83.7(b) is met. Thus, the State's
continuous recognition of a group can mean that the group is a
political entity. However, at some point, a political entity must exist
and function on its own, through its membership. Where an entity
exercises political influence some autonomous political activity over
its members must exist. In the case of GHP, there is scant evidence of
autonomous political influence over its members after 1802. Without
more substantial evidence of political activity since then, the
continuous State relationship cannot substitute.
Criterion 83.7(d) requires the petitioner to provide a copy of the
group's present governing document including its membership criteria.
In the absence of a written document, the petitioner must provide a
statement describing in full its membership criteria and current
governing procedures. The GHP meets the requirements of criterion
83.7(d) because it submitted a copy of its 2003 constitution that
included a description of its membership criteria.
Criterion 83.7(e) requires the petitioner to demonstrate that its
membership consists of individuals who descend from a historical Indian
tribe or from historical Indian tribes that combined and functioned as
a single autonomous political entity, and that the petitioner submit a
complete list of its membership. The GHP petitioner submitted a
membership list dated January 2004 containing the names, birth dates,
residential addresses, and maiden names of 108 individuals (one name
was duplicated, making 109 on the original list). The list was
separately certified by four of the five GHP council members on January
23, 2004. This list comprises the GHP's base membership roll and its
present membership for Federal purposes.
Twenty-seven individuals (25 percent of the membership) descend
from William Sherman (1825-1886) and his wife Nancy Hopkins (1832-
1903): including 4 members (4 percent) who descend from their daughter
Caroline (Sherman) Bosley (1865-1927), and 23 members (21 percent) who
descend from their granddaughter Ethel (Sherman) Piper Baldwin (1893-
1993), daughter of George William Sherman (1862-1938). The petitioner
claims that William Sherman was a descendant of the historical Golden
Hill Indians. The GHP has not submitted sufficient evidence to
demonstrate by a reasonable likelihood of the validity of the facts
that William Sherman, his wife, or any of his descendants descend from
a member or members of the historical Golden Hill tribe or from
historical tribes that combined and functioned as a single autonomous
political entity. The petitioner has not submitted sufficient
documentation to connect William Sherman to the historical Golden Hill
Indians listed on the State overseer's 1823 census or any other State
documents in the available evidence that identified the Golden Hill
group.
Nine individuals (8 percent of the membership) descend from John
Henry Burnie (a.k.a. Ernest H. Sherman) (1907-1945) and his wife
Florence Irene Loper (1908-1985). The GHP petitioner claims that John
Henry Burnie (a.k.a. Ernest H. Sherman) was a great-grandson of William
Sherman and his wife Nancy Hopkins, through their son George William
Sherman (1862-1938) and his wife Harriet Curtis (?-1904), and through
George's son Edward L. Sherman (1888-1974) and his wife Eva Hungerford
(dates unknown). However, the available evidence indicates that John
Henry Burnie (a.k.a. Ernest H. Sherman) was the son of Eva Hungerford
and another man, possibly James Hubbard, and was not the son of Edward
L. Sherman. The petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to
demonstrate by a reasonable likelihood of the facts that John Henry
Burnie (a.k.a. Ernest H. Sherman), his wife, or any of his descendants
descend from William Sherman, from George William Sherman, from Edward
L. Sherman, or from a member or members of the historical Golden Hill
tribe or from historical tribes which combined and functioned as a
single autonomous political entity.
Sixty-eight individuals (63 percent of the membership) descend from
Mary Louise Allen (1870-1965) and her husband Charles William Tinney
(1866-1926). The petitioner asserted that Mary Louise Allen was a
descendant of the historical Turkey Hill Indians. However, the GHP has
not submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate by a reasonable
likelihood of the validity of the facts that Mary Louise Allen descends
from the historical Turkey Hill Indians. In its comments, the State
submitted court documents from 1909-1910 indicating that neither of
Mary Louise Allen's parents, Levi Allen (1795-1865) and Delia (Myrick/
Merrick) Phillips (1797-1890), was a descendant of the historical
Turkey Hill tribe. In addition, the available evidence does not
demonstrate that the historical Golden Hill Indians and the historical
Turkey Hill Indians ever combined and functioned as a single autonomous
political entity.
Finally, four individuals (4 percent of the membership) are of
unknown ancestry. The petitioner did not submit evidence to connect
these individuals genealogically with any of the above-named groups of
descendants.
The GHP did not provide evidence acceptable to the Secretary to
demonstrate the reasonable likelihood of the validity of the facts that
any of the 108 individuals on the January 2004 GHP membership list
descend from the historical Golden Hill Tribe or from historical Indian
tribes that combined and functioned as a single autonomous
[[Page 34393]]
political entity. Therefore, the conclusion in the PF, that the GHP do
not meet criterion 83.7(e), is affirmed.
Criterion 83.7(f) requires the petitioner demonstrate that the
membership of the petitioning group is composed principally of persons
who are not members of any acknowledged North American Indian tribe.
The available evidence does not demonstrate that any members of the GHP
are enrolled with any federally acknowledged North American Indian
tribe. Neither the petitioner nor the interested parties provided
further comments or evidence pertaining to this criterion. Therefore,
the conclusion in the PF that the GHP meets criterion 83.7(f) is
confirmed.
Criterion 83.7(g) requires the petitioner demonstrate that it is
not the subject of congressional legislation expressly terminating or
forbidding the Federal relationship. There has been no Federal
termination legislation regarding the GHP. Neither the GHP nor the
interested parties provided further comments or evidence pertaining to
this criterion. Therefore, the conclusion in the PF that the GHP meets
criterion 83.7(g) is affirmed.
Under Section 83.10(m), the PD AS-IA is required to decline to
acknowledge that a petitioner is an Indian tribe if the petitioner
fails to satisfy any one of the seven mandatory criteria for Federal
acknowledgment. The GHP petitioner did not submit evidence sufficient
to meet criteria 83.7(a), (b), (c), and (e), and, therefore, does not
satisfy the requirements to be acknowledged as an Indian tribe in order
to establish a government-to-government relationship with the United
States.
This determination is final and will become effective 90 days from
publication of this notice, unless a request for reconsideration is
filed pursuant to section 83.11. The petitioner or any interested party
may file a request for reconsideration of this determination with the
Interior Board of Indian Appeals (section 83.11(a)(1)). These requests
must be received no later than 90 days after publication of the PD AS-
IA's determination in the Federal Register (section 83.11(a)(2)).
Dated: June 14, 2004.
Aurene M. Martin,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 04-13871 Filed 6-18-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-4J-P