59
FR
12140­
01
Page
1
1994
WL
76297
(
F.
R.)
(
Cite
as
:
59
FR
12140)

NOTICES
DEPARTMENT
OF
THE
INTERIOR
Bureau
of
Indian
Affairs
Final
Determination
That
the
Mohegan
Indian
Tribe
of
Connecticut,
Inc
.,
Does
Exist
as
an
Indian
Tribe
Tuesday,
March
15,
1994
*
12140
March
7,
1994
.

AGENCY
:
Bureau
of
Indian
Affairs,
Interior
.

ACTION
:
Notice
of
final
determination
.

SUMMARY:
Pursuant
to
25
CFR
83
.9(
h),
notice
is
hereby
given
that
the
Assistant
Secretary­­
Indian
Affairs
has
determined
that
the
Mohegan
Indian
Tribe
of
Connecticut,
Inc.,
(
Mohegan)
27
Church
Lane,
Uncasville,
Connecticut
06382
does
exist
as
an
Indian
tribe
within
the
meaning
of
Federal
law.

This
notice
is
based
on
a
determination,
following
a
review
of
public
comments
on
the
proposed
finding,
that
the
Mohegan
satisfies
all
of
the
criteria
set
forth
in
25
CFR
83
.7,
and,
therefore,
meets
the
requirements
for
a
government­

to­
government
relationship
with
the
United
States
.

DATES
:
This
notice
is
final
and
will
become
effective
60
days
after
the
date
on
which
this
notice
appears
in
the
Federal
Register
unless
the
Secretary
of
the
Interior
requests
a
reconsideration
by
the
Assistant
Secretary­­
Indian
Affairs
pursuant
to
25
CFR
83
.10(
a)­(
c)
.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Holly
Reckord,
(
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
.

Notice
of
the
proposed
finding
to
decline
to
acknowledge
the
tribe
was
published
in
Vol.
54,
No
.
216,
pages
47136­
47137,
of
the
Federal
Register
on
November
9,

1989
.
This
finding
was
based
on
a
determination
that
the
tribe
met
criteria
a,
d,

e,
f,
and
g,
but
did
not
meet
criteria
b
and
c
of
part
83
.7
of
the
Acknowledgment
regulations
(
25
CFR
Part
83)
.
In
accordance
with
25
CFR
83
.9(
g),
interested
parties
were
given
120
days
in
which
to
submit
factual
or
legal
arguments
and
Copr.
©
West
2003
No
Claim
to
Orig.
U.
S.
Govt.
Works
59
FR
12140­
01
1994
WL
76297
(
F.
R
.)
(
Cite
as
:
59
FR
12140)
Page
2
evidence
to
rebut
or
support
the
evidence
relied
upon
in
the
finding.
Pursuant
to
a
request
by
the
Mohegan
and
the
Connecticut
Attorney
General's
Office
(
CTAG),
the
Department
of
the
Interior
(
Department)
extended
the
comment
period
from
March
9,

1990,
until
October
30,
1990
.

During
the
comment
period,
a
rebuttal
containing
substantive
new
evidence
and
arguments
challenging
the
proposed
finding
was
submitted
by
the
Mohegan
and
another
was
submitted
on
behalf
of
the
Mohegan
by
Mr
.
Robert
B.
Cohen
.
Comments
were
also
received
from
June
Hatstat,
also
known
as
"
Princess
Chikara,"
of
the
Mohegan
Tribe
and
Nation
;
Laurie
Weinstein­
Farson,
Ph
.
D
.,
Assistant
Professor
of
Anthropology
at
western
Connecticut
State
University,
Danbury,
Connecticut
;
and
Ann
McMullen,
Department
of
Anthropology,
Brown
University,
Providence,
Rhode
Island
.
The
comments
of
Weinstein­
Farson
and
McMullen
were
critical
of
the
proposed
finding
from
an
anthropological
and
historical
standpoint
.

Short
comments
were
submitted
by
Kevin
A.
McBride,
Assistant
Professor,

Department
of
Anthropology,
University
of
Connecticut,
Storrs,
Connecticut
;
Trudie
Lamb
Richmond,
Director
of
Education,
American
Indian
Archaeological
Institute,

Washington,
Connecticut
;
James
D.
Wherry,
Socio­
Economic
Development,
Mashantucket
Pequot
Tribe
;
and
Joan
Lester,
Chief
Curator,
Boston
Children's
Museum,
Boston,

Massachusetts
.
The
CTAG
submitted
extensive
evidence
opposing
the
Mohegan's
response,
and
the
Mohegan
submitted
a
final
reply.

All
submissions
were
carefully
considered,
the
new
evidence
was
evaluated,
and
data
and
conclusions
in
both
the
tribe's
original
petition
and
the
proposed
finding
were
reconsidered
in
light
of
the
arguments
presented
.
The
tribe's
response
and
the
response
submitted
by
Mr
.
Cohen
presented
substantive
new
evidence
and
arguments
which
served
to
greatly
strengthen
the
petition
.
It
has
been
found
that
this
evidence,
when
considered
along
with
the
arguments
and
observations
presented
by
the
other
interested
parties
and
a
reconsideration
of
the
evidence
presented
in
the
proposed
finding,
warrants
a
final
determination
that
the
tribe
does
meet
criteria
§
83
.7
(
b)
and
(
c)
of
the
Acknowledgment
regulations
.

The
proposed
finding
concluded
that
the
Mohegan
did
not
meet
criterion
83
.7(
b)

because
the
presence
of
extensive
social
contact
within
the
extended­
Mohegan
community
since
1941
had
not
been
documented
.
The
finding
noted
that
a
substantial
portion
of
the
Mohegan
did
live
within
an
area
that
comprised
the
Mohegan
aboriginal
territory,
that
they
are
descendants
of
an
Indian
tribe
which
historically
inhabited
the
area,
and
that
they
had
retained
a
minimal
cultural
distinction
from
the
surrounding
population
.
Yet,
at
the
time
the
finding
was
being
prepared,
evidence
to
support
a
positive
determination
for
social
interaction
and
social
cohesion
was
insufficient
.

The
Mohegan's
response
to
the
proposed
finding,
along
with
responses
received
from
other
interested
parties,
has
provided
information
previously
lacking
and
documentation
demonstrating
social
interaction
and
social
cohesion,
as
well
as
political
communication,
linking
the
major
family
lines
and
the
tribal
officers
.

Extensive
new
information
was
supplied
about
the,
importance
of
the
Mohegan
Congregational
Church
as
a
focus
of
tribal
activity
and
community
in
the
modern
period
.
This
evidence
demonstrated
that
the
period
when
the
church
was
closed
was
Copr.
©
West
2003
No
Claim
to
Orig.
U.
S.
Govt.
Works
59
FR
12140­
01
1994
WL
76297
(
F.
R
.)
(
Cite
as
:
59
FR
12140)

much
shorter
than
assumed
in
the
proposed
finding,
that
some
activities
had
continued
during
the
period
when
the
building
itself
was
not
usable,
and
that
the
restoration
and
reopening
had
the
support
of
the
wider
Mohegan
community,

including
members
who
belonged
to
other
religious
faiths
.
Page
3
The
Mohegan
also
supplied
additional
information
about
the
tribe's
interaction
at
such
significant
events
as
funerals,
focusing
particularly
upon
the
continued
usage,
until
the
present
day,
of
the
traditional
burial
ground
at
Fort
Shantok
by
all
but
one
of
the
major
family
lines
.
The
proposed
finding
concluded
that
interaction
at
such
times
had
not
been
documented,
but
the
new
evidence
submitted
demonstrates
that
it
was
substantial
.

These
new
data,
when
taken
collectively
and
conjoined
with
those
originally
provided
by
the
Mohegan
and
those
obtained
by
the
Acknowledgment
staff
in
the
course
of
their
research,
are
deemed
sufficient
to
conclude
that
the
Mohegan
maintain
the
requisite
degree
of
social
interaction
to
meet
criterion
(
b)
.

The
proposed
finding
concluded
that
the
tribe
did
not
meet
criterion
83
.7(
c)

because
it
could
not
demonstrate
that
it
had
maintained
political
influence
or
other
authority
over
all
of
its
members
since
1941
.
The
proposed
finding
concentrated
on
the
role
of
those
men
identified
as
"
chiefs"
in
the
documentation
.

New
evidence
submitted
in
response
to
the
proposed
finding
indicated
that
the
Mohegan
leadership
structure
was
much
more
complex
.
The
office
of
chief,
while
largely
representational,
was
supported
by
various
working
officials
such
as
the
president
of
the
League
of
the
Descendants
and
the
president
of
the
Mohegan
Ladies
Sewing
Society
.
The
proposed
finding
also
focused
upon
the
formal,
male,

leadership
of
the
tribe,
and
ignored
the
traditional
importance
of
its
informal,

female,
leadership
.

Additionally,
analysis
of
the
new
evidence
submitted
indicated
that
the
influence
of
the
chief
could
be
exerted
without
the
formality
of
holding
*
12141
meetings
at
which
a
vote
was
taken
.
This
was
particularly
demonstrated
by
the
fact
that
the
tribe
undertook
no
claims
activity
from
1952
to
1966
because
Harold
Tantaquidgeon,

the
chief
recognized
by
most
Mohegan,
opposed
it
.
Under
the
leadership
of
John
E
.

Hamilton,
who
returned
from
the
west
in
1966,
the
majority
of
Mohegan
adults
from
all
of
the
major
family
groups
became
involved
with
land
claims
once
again
.
The
lack
of
claims
activities
from
1952
to
1966
is
a
demonstration
of
the
exercise
of
political
authority
by
Tantaquidgeon
from
1952
to
1966,
since
the
other
two
most
influential
leaders
of
the
tribe
during
this
period
were
interested
in
pursuing
claims
.
The
focus
of
the
group
on
non­
land
claims
activity
under
Tantaquidgeon
was
a
purposeful
action
taken
by
a
widely
respected
leader
and
supported
by
the
membership
.

After
the
Mohegan's
repudiation
of
Hamilton
and
election
of
Courtland
Fowler
to
replace
him
in
1970,
Fowler
continued
to
defer
to
Tantaquidgeon
on
the
claims
issue
.
No
claims
work
was
undertaken
by
the
tribal
leadership
until
a
97%

favorable
membership
vote
required
it
in
1980
.
Therefore,
land
claims
as
a
political
issue
also
demonstrates
there
is
a
bilateral
relationship
between
the
Mohegan
tribe
and
their
leaders
.

The
Mohegan's
response
to
the
proposed
finding
presented
convincing
new
evidence
that
the
Council
of
the
Descendants
did
not
die
for
lack
of
interest
in
1970
.

Copr.
0
West
2003
No
Claim
to
Orig.
U.
S.
Govt.
Works
59
FR
12140­
01
Page
4
1994
WL
76297
(
F
.
R
.)
(
Cite
as
:
59
FR
12140)

Rather,
it
was
dissolved
after
a
leadership
dispute
.
Until
1970,
both
John
Hamilton
and
Harold
Tantaquidgeon
were
supported
by
the
Mohegan
in
their
roles
as
land
claims
representative
and
chief,
respectively
.
In
1970,
there
was
a
dispute
over
the
leadership
of
the
Council
of
the
Descendants
which
resulted
in
the
repudiation
of
John
Hamilton
as
a
Mohegan
leader
and
the
election
of
Courtland
E.

Fowler
as
council
president
and
chief
by
the
Mohegan
majority
.
The
Council
of
the
Descendants
was
dissolved
soon
thereafter
and
Hamilton
started
a
new
organization,

which
only
a
very
small
minority
of
the
Mohegan
followed
.
By
1973,
Native
Mohegans,
Inc
.
began
functioning
as
a
tribal
council
for
the
majority
of
the
Mohegan.
Native
Mohegans,
Inc
.
continued
in
this
capacity
until
the
incorporation
of
the
Mohegan
Tribe
of
Connecticut
in
1980
.

We
find
the
contention
of
the
CTAG,
that
the
Mohegan
do
not
qualify
for
Federal
recognition
under
25
CFR
Part
83
on
the
grounds
that
the
Mohegan
were
subject
to
the
Pequot
for
a
period
prior
to
the
year
1650,
is
not
grounds
for
rejection
within
the
meaning
of
the
regulations
.
Therefore,
we
conclude
that
the
tribe
has
maintained
political
influence
or
other
authority
over
its
members,
independent
of
the
control
of
any
other
Indian
governing
body,
throughout
history
until
the
present
.

There
was
a
fluctuation
in
social
and
political
activity
among
the
Mohegan
from
1941
to
1966,
compared
to
the
eras
before
1941
and
after
1966
.
The
Mohegan
response
to
the
proposed
finding
provided
more
data
on
the
exercise
of
political
authority
from
the
late
1930'
s
to
the
present
.
The
level
of
data
submitted
on
social
community,
political
process,
the
exercise
of
leadership,
and
the
bilateral
political
relationship
during
the
late
1930'
s
and
from
1966
to
the
present
was
high
.
The
evidence
for
the
period
from
1941
to
1966
remains
thin
and
uneven
.
We
find
that
two
factors
caused
the
fluctuation
from
1941
to
1966
:
A
temporary
migration
from
Mohegan
Hill
to
perform
military
service,
and
the
dying
out
of
three
family
lines
that
had
been
central
to
Mohegan
social
and
political
life
through
the
1940'
s
and
1950'
s
.
Even
during
the
fluctuation
period
there
is
evidence
for
some
social
and
political
activities
and
exercise
of
authority
by
individual
leaders
.
With
a
better
understanding
of
the
causes
of
the
fluctuation,

and
the
strengthening
of
evidence
for
the
period
before
1941
and
after
1966,
we
conclude
that
the
Mohegan
Tribe
of
Connecticut
meets
criteria
b
and
c
of
83
.7
of
the
Acknowledgment
regulations
.
Consequently,
the
petitioner
satisfied
all
of
the
mandatory
criteria
for
Federal
acknowledgment
and,
therefore,
meets
all
of
the
requirements
for
a
government­
to­
government
relationship
with
the
United
States
.

A
report
summarizing
the
Department's
response
to
the
evidence
and
arguments
submitted
to
refute
the
proposed
finding
is
available
to
interested
parties
upon
request
.
Requests
for
copies
of
this
supplement
report
or
the
proposed
finding
published
earlier
should
be
addressed
to
the
Assistant
Secretary­­
Indian
Affairs
.

Requests
to
the
Secretary
for
reconsideration
may
be
made
by
any
party
and
must
be
received
within
60
days
of
the
publication
of
this
notice
.
Requests
should
be
accompanied
by
a
detailed
statement
of
the
grounds
for
the
request
and
should
include
any
new
evidence
to
be
considered
.
If
necessary,
the
60­
day
time
limit
in
83
.10(
a)
may
be
extended
to
allow
the
Secretary
a
period
of
90
days
from
the
receipt
of
a
request
in
which
to
review
and
act,
on
any
requests
.

Under
the
regulations,
the
Secretary
may
request
reconsideration
of
any
decision
Copr.
0
West
2003
No
Claim
to
Orig.
U.
S
.
Govt.
Works
59
FR
12140­
01
1994
WL
76297
(
F
.
R
.)
(
Cite
as
:
59
FR
12140)
Page
5
but
shall
request
reconsideration
of
any
decision
which
in
his
opinion
meets
the
requirements
of
25
CFR
83
.10(
c)(
1­
3)
.
If
the
Secretary
receives
a
request
for
reconsideration,
the
Assistant
Secretary­­
Indian
Affairs
will
recommend
that
such
a
request
be
referred
to
the
Interior
Board
of
Indian
Appeals
(
IBIA)
and
that
the
IBIA
be
authorized
(
pursuant
to
43
CFR
part
4)
to
determine
whether
reconsideration
is
merited
on
the
grounds
stated
in
83
.10(
c)(
1­
3)
of
the
Acknowledgment
regulations
(
25
CFR
83)
.
The
IBIA
will
be
further
authorized
to
either
affirm
this
determination
or,
if
the
reconsideration
request
is
merited,

vacate
the
decision
and
return
it
to
the
Assistant
Secretary
for
reconsideration
.

The
IBIA
will
be
authorized
to
request
comments
or
technical
assistance
from
the
Assistant
Secretary
concerning
the
final
determination
and
may,
at
its
discretion,

require
a
hearing
conducted
by
an
administrative
law
judge
of
the
Office
of
Hearings
and
Appeals
if
the
IBIA
determines
that
further
inquiry
is
necessary
to
resolve
a
genuine
issue
of
material
fact
concerning
the
final
determination
.

This
determination
will
become
final
and
effective
upon
receipt
by
the
Assistant
Secretary­­
Indian
Affairs
of
a
decision
by
the
IBIA
to
affirm
the
determination
unless
the
Secretary
in
his
discretion
has
otherwise
requested
reconsideration
.

If
the
determination
is
vacated
by
IBIA
and
returned
to
the
Assistant
Secretary
for
reconsideration
and/
or
if
the
Secretary
has
requested
reconsideration,
the
Assistant
Secretary
shall,
in
accord
with
83
.10(
a),
issue
a
reconsidered
determination
within
60
days
of
receipt
of
the
IBIA's
decision
or
the
Secretary's
request,
whichever
is
later
.
The
reconsidered
determination
shall
be
final
and
effective
upon
publication
in
the
Federal
Register
.

Ada
E.
Deer,

Assistant
Secretary­­
Indian
Affairs
.

(
FR
Doc.
94­
5901
Filed
3­
14­
94
;
8
:
45
am)

BILLING
CODE
4310­
02­
P
59
FR
12140­
01,
1994
WL
76297
(
F
.
R
.)

END
OF
DOCUMENT
Copr.
0
West
2003
No
Claim
to
Orig.
U.
S.
Govt.
Works
