Read the articles:
"Casino concerns soundly rejected"
"Report weighs in on competition, relocation, addiction"

Report contradicts other studies
The report allegedly also discounts the impact the proposed casino would have on the city of La Center, which relies heavily on revenues from its four non-tribal cardrooms. It says putting the casino in Lewis County?as CARS and others have suggested, because it is in the tribe?s adjudicated homeland?would not provide enough funding to meet the tribe?s needs. An analysis by the economics consulting firm ECONorthwest found just the opposite

Outcome was expected
The fact that this report dismissed local concerns is not surprising. The Draft EIS produced by Analytical Environmental Services (AES) of Sacramento, Calif., and released in spring 2006 by the Portland regional office of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) included bad data and poorly drawn conclusions. It was roundly criticized by area governments and opposition groups. AES lists on its Web site 45 tribal clients, many of whom have worked with the company on land acquisition and casino proposals. The company doesn?t get these contracts by producing reports that do not support the tribes? desired outcome.

Regional BIA has made no secret of its support for the project either. When CARS dropped off comments last summer on the Draft EIS, the BIA staff member receiving them was wearing a Cowlitz Casino baseball cap.

The good news is that regional BIA does not have the final say on the Final EIS. The BIA Central Office in Washington, D.C., will evaluate it before any decisions are made.

What you can do
Federal decision-makers are monitoring local sentiment toward the project. It is outrageous that BIA would dismiss so easily the serious comments generated by local governments and stakeholder groups. If you are concerned about the direction of the EIS or the possibility of a Cowlitz casino at the La Center junction, please see our suggested talking points below and take a few minutes to send a letter or e-mail to:

Carl Artman, Department of the Interior (DOI) assistant secretary for Indian Affairs (head of the BIA): Carl_Artman@ios.doi.gov
Department of the Interior
1849 C Street NW, Room 6511
Washington, DC 20240

James Cason, DOI associate deputy secretary: James_Cason@ios.doi.gov
Department of the Interior
1849 C Street NW, Mail Stop 7229
Washington, DC 20240

The Columbian Letters to the Editor

CARS would like to hear what you have to say. Please copy us on your letters: information@NotHerePlease.org

Suggested talking points

According to The Columbian, the preliminary report says:

1. ?the Cowlitz casino would have only a ?minor? effect on the two Columbia River bridges, as well on freeways in Vancouver.? But the I-5 bridge is already near capacity several times a day with stop-and-go traffic. According to the Draft EIS, the presence of a casino at the La Center/I-5 junction would add an additional 13,616 weekday trips and an additional 17,820 Saturday trips to the transportation network. How can this be a ?minor? impact?

2. Clark and Cowlitz counties are home to 7,893 people with gambling problems that need treatment, and the proposed casino would add another 1,716. It says the tribe?s commitment to provide $50,000 for problem gambling treatment is enough mitigation. This is in part because ?only 3 percent of people with severe gambling problems will seek treatment??a caseload that one counselor earning $47,500 a year could handle. That means, though, that 97 percent of people who develop problems and need help will not get it. Is this mitigation?

3. The tribe?s commitment to put money in a mitigation fund for La Center ?appears to have been removed? from the report. If the casino goes in, La Center could lose up to two-thirds of its gambling taxes from the four non-tribal cardrooms, which The Columbian writes, ?largely are being placed in a ?rainy day fund? or are spent on road and other construction projects instead of ... day-to-day services.? The report says, ?As cardroom revenue would be in excess of the amount currently diverted to the city?s general fund, this impact is considered less than significant. No mitigation is required.? Is it not a significant impact when a development changes the way a community funds its services and projects?