BIA to release Cowlitz casino EIS

The Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Cowlitz casino will be published tomorrow in the Federal Register, according to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).

Publication of the document will be followed by a 30-day comment period ending July 1, 2008. A decision on the project could come as soon as July 1, although that is not expected. The preferred alternative described in the Final EIS is the outcome sought by the tribe: to acquire 152 acres owned by Salishan-Mohegan at the Interstate 5 La Center interchange, declare it a reservation and establish a Las Vegas-style gambling center.

The release of the Final EIS is only a procedural step and the project remains far from approval.

The EIS is part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, but that is not the only process involved in a tribal casino application. For example, a parcel would need to be declared "Indian lands" before the project could commence, and BIA has yet to accept the "restored lands" recommendation issued by the National Indian Gaming Commission in November 2005.

Unless the Final EIS has undergone a tremendous amount of new research and revision, the document will remain a liability for the Cowlitz casino proposal. The preliminary Final EIS, released in March 2007 to the county, local cities and other cooperating agencies, was excoriated by local agencies. Officials familiar with these kinds of environmental reviews were unanimous in their criticism of the Cowlitz EIS. Their comments, submitted in April 2007, include:

• The City of Vancouver's criticism that the Final EIS "remains fatally flawed from the start because of its failure to consider alternative sites to the north for Cowlitz gaming which are closer to the center of the tribal population."
• The City of La Center's indignation that the document said the proposed casino would have a "less than significant" impact on the city's socioeconomics -- despite the fact that it would cause a 66 percent loss in revenue to the city.
• Clark County's observation that transportation models used to draw conclusions in the preliminary Final EIS were not provided and that models used in the Draft EIS were "found to have significant errors in model inputs, and model methodology."

CARS Chairman, Ed Lynch is taking a wait-and-see attitude. "Unless there has been a total overhaul of this work since we last saw it," he said, "the EIS remains in serious trouble."

***

Read the BIA notice, including information on where to get the Final EIS and how to comment on it.

***

Read Vancouver's comments on the preliminary Final EIS (April 23, 2007).

Read La Center's comments on the preliminary Final EIS (April 23, 2007).

Read Clark County's comments on the preliminary Final EIS (April 19, 2007).

County consults feds on MOU

When CARS spoke in December with George Skibine in the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs, he told us that the Cowlitz Tribe's lack of a valid Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Clark County concerned his department. He added that the lack of an MOU "could potentially be a deal breaker" for the tribe's casino application.

That is one of the reasons CARS has encouraged the county commissioners to: a) not resurrect the 2004 MOU, which was twice declared invalid; and b) not negotiate a new one.

We're pleased to hear the commissioners have decided to write Skibine and ask him about the importance of an MOU with the county and whether its absence could kill this deal. It is quite likely they will not receive a cut and dried response, but at least they are pursuing the answer to an important question.

Read the Columbian article "Commissioners: Can we kill casino?" and editorial "In our view: Maybe, probably."

WA tribe torn apart -- banished chairman cites 'casino greed'

As the Cowlitz Tribe attempts to locate a casino in Clark County, another Washington tribe is being torn apart by what its recently banished chairman calls "casino greed."

A recent Seattle Times article portrays the Snoqualmie Tribe as having broken down into "battling factions." It says, "At stake are control of the tribal government and what promises to be one of the most lucrative casinos in the state, scheduled to open in November."

The now-banished vice chairwoman of the Snoqualmie Tribe is quoted as saying, "We have reduced the Native American tribes to social clubs where they can just eliminate members at will. If they can't show they have due process, I don't think they should be allowed to have these casinos."

Some governments in Clark County have been asked to negotiate agreements with the Cowlitz Tribe. The stability of tribal governments -- and their agreements -- should be given careful consideration.

Read the story, "Snoqualmies banish eight, disenroll 60."

Next week: Help put a stop to the Cowlitz casino!

Tell your Clark County commissioners to stop trying to renegotiate the county's old Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Cowlitz Tribe.

The county has scheduled three public hearings on the MOU -- April 7, 10 and 15 -- but the only input they should hear is: "Let the MOU die."

The MOU was signed in March 2004 -- before the county knew the tribe was planning the largest casino on the West Coast. The MOU's provisions are weak at best, and it was invalidated twice last year due to the lack of public process. There currently is no MOU in force.

The U.S. Department of the Interior has strongly indicated that no land will be taken into trust without an MOU between the Cowlitz Tribe and the county. And our commissioners have said they do not want this mega-casino and resort here.

Plus, the Cowlitz Tribe has informed Clark County that it has no intention of renegotiating an MOU beyond what it calls "refinements."

So why are the commissioners wasting their constituents' time and money with hearings seeking ways to "improve" the 2004 document? Let it die a natural death.

Renegotiating the MOU contradicts their assertions that they don't want a casino in Clark County. If they mean what they say about not wanting this casino, they should be looking for ways to stop the project rather than facilitating its approval.

Please join us for one of these public hearings and let your voice be heard!

Monday, 6 p.m.
La Center High School Commons
725 Highland Road, La Center

Thursday, 6 p.m.
Maple Grove Middle School
12500 NE 199th St., Battle Ground

April 15, 10 a.m.
Public Service Center
1300 Franklin St., 6th floor, Vancouver

Cowlitz casino partner hits tough times

When Clark County commissioners signed the now-invalid 2004 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Cowlitz Tribe, they did not know a casino was in the works, although one suspected it.

They did not know the tribe would apply to make 152 acres of Clark County into a reservation and restored lands—taking away local control of land use and removing it from the tax rolls.

And they certainly did not anticipate that a wealthy East Coast tribe—owner of the second-largest casino in the country—would parachute in and throw its massive financial and legal muscle behind the Cowlitz Tribe’s goals, which mushroomed into a proposal to build the largest casino on the West Coast.

What the Cowlitz Tribe failed to anticipate is that its not-at-all-silent partner, the Mohegan Tribe of Connecticut, would fall on tough times: Earnings at its behemoth Connecticut casino were down 23.2 percent last quarter from the same quarter a year earlier,[1] Moody’s is threatening to downgrade its bonds, and some of their business partners have served them poorly.

With the chief financer of the Cowlitz casino under siege, the old MOU defunct, the EIS incomplete, and local governments—and public opinion—lining up against the project, there is no reason for the county to rush into a new MOU that would signal its tacit approval of a Clark County casino.

An article in the March 24 issue of Forbes, titled “With Friends Like These,” examines several of the Mohegan Tribe’s recent travails, caused largely by poor choices in business partners. (We would argue that the reporters overlooked at least one.) The subtitle is, “The Mohegan tribe wants to expand its casinos nationally. Maybe it shoulda stayed home.”

We agree.

Lynch urges county casino resolution

CARS Chairman Ed Lynch today asked the Clark County Commission to approve a resolution opposing an Indian casino in Clark County. Lynch asked the three commissioners, Betty Sue Morris, Marc Boldt and Steve Stuart, to join officials from five other elected bodies in Clark County who have already voted to oppose the casino proposed by the Cowlitz Indian Tribe at the La Center I-5 junction.

For the first time, Morris and Stuart this year stated their opposition the casino in Clark County -- Morris in her recent "state of the county" address and Stuart in a Jan. 29 Columbian opinion piece. Boldt has registered his opposition to a casino many times before.

In an accompanying letter, Lynch asked for a resolution to be signed so county constituents "can be certain you agree that a casino as proposed by the Cowlitz Tribe has no place here."

A resolution would place the three on record opposing the casino as they prepare for hearings prior to negotiating a new Memorandum of Understanding with the tribal developers. Hearings dates have been set for: 6 p.m. April 7 at the La Center Commons, 4:15 p.m. April 10 at Maple Grove Elementary School and 10 a.m. April 15 at the Clark County Services Building.

If you would like to share your thoughts with the commissioners, you can reach them at (360) 397-2232, or:

bettysue.morris@clark.wa.gov
marc.boldt@clark.wa.gov
steve.stuart@clark.wa.gov

Deals, deals and more deals

Clark County is revving up to make a new deal with the Cowlitz gambling syndicate.

County Commission Chairwoman Betty Sue Morris acknowledged Jan. 29 that the 2004 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which was struck before the syndicate had revealed its plans for a casino at the La Center junction, is “pretty much shot.” (It has twice been declared invalid.)

The syndicate has been working hard to mollify the county. It got the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) to approve tribal ordinances containing stipulations similar to the MOU, although the NIGC then wrote that it could not vouch for their enforceability. Last week, Cowlitz Chairman John Barnett sent Morris a letter attempting to assure the county: Rest easy, the ordinances are irrevocable. Many legal minds disagree.

A few weeks earlier, though, Barnett had sent the commissioners a letter with a different tone. He insisted that the MOU is alive and well, and that the county had better not terminate it. He also said the tribe would be unwilling to negotiate a new agreement.

The fact is, the syndicate needs an MOU. Desperately. A Jan. 3 memorandum released by the Department of the Interior regarding some tribal land/casino requests says that federal decision-makers are taking note of “jurisdictional problems.” The memo says applications should include copies of intergovernmental agreements (MOUs), and, “Failure to achieve such agreements should weigh heavily against the approval of the application.”

Quick recap: The 2004 MOU is not in force. Section 16 of the document says it does not go into effect till the land is taken into trust—a federal action that is still a long way off. Secondly, the MOU is dead. It should stay that way. As CARS has written many times, the terms of the old MOU would not mitigate all of the damage this casino would do.

Our county commissioners are free to do the right thing for their constituents. In our view, that means leave the MOU in its grave. Commissioners Marc Boldt and Steve Stuart have already declared their opposition to the casino. Now they need to act on that. Letting go of the MOU would help ensure that the casino-resort never comes to Clark County.