have been addressed by the Tribe's application, in the Finding of No Significant Impact, by the local governments of Hudson, or in other areas of our findings. Many of the arguments advanced by people opposed to the proposal are also political in nature and raise policy issues for the Department of the Interior. It is our determination that none of these issues form a basis to reject the proposal. (b) Public Support: One letter, written by Wisconsin State Legislature, Doni Burns, was sent expressing support for the proposal. He stated that the majority of people in Hudson were in support of this proposal. To support his position he referred to a referendum passed in 1992 in regard to the possibility of a casino at St. Croix Meadows. The referendum voted on in 1992 asked the following question:" Do you support the Transfer of St. Croix Meadows to an Results: 1,351 people voted "yes", (51.2%); 1,288 voted "no" (48.8%) The survey results were provided by the City of Hudson and referred to in a number of the responses by people in favor as well as people opposed to the casino. This referendum differs from the April 1993 statewide referendum in that it is site specific. The 1993 statewide referendum (Volume II, Tab 8) which has been cited by people opposed to the proposal, asked: "Do you favor a constitutional amendment that would restrict gambling casinos in this state?" St. Croix County results: 6,328 voted "yes" (65.4%) 3,352 voted "no" (34.6%) While the Hudson Proposal may be an expansion of a type of gaming in Hudson, it will not be an expansion of a gaming facility. Additionally, since the Tribes have agreed to a limited number of Class III facilities with the State of Wisconsin, it will also not be an expansion of gaming in Wisconsin. It may also be argued (indeed, the Tribes have done so) that this is not an expansion of gaming even in Hudson since the building is already 1 The question and results where obtained from the City of Hudson (Volume III, Tab 1, page 11). .... 18 At any in place and the dog track is currently in operation. rate, it is our determination that the 1993 referendum, standing alone, does not preclude the Secretary of the Interior from making a determination the Hudson proposal would not be detrimental to the surrounding community. No Approximately 800 people signed a petition supporting the Hudson proposal. They did not provide any supporting reasons. evidence has been provided to show that these signatures are not legitimate. However, we have not verified the residency of these supporters or determined whether or not they are registered voters in the State of Wisconsin or elsewhere. 6. Consultation with Neighboring Tribes: 18 Tribes in the State of Minnesota and Wisconsin were informed of the proposal (Volume III, Tabs 5 - 16). We requested that these Tribes provide input on the impact the proposal would have on their respective reservations by letter, all dated December 30, 1993. Nine of the eleven responses that we received were emphatically against the proposed Hudson project. However, none of the Tribes that responded provided reliable or scientific data to support their views. The following are the Tribes and Tribal Organizations that responded as a result of our inquires and a summation of their comments and our response: (a) St. Croix Band of Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin: St. Croix is strongly opposed to the project (Volume III, Tab 12). They stated, the proposed Hudson fee to trust acquisition will have an extreme detrimental and crippling impact on the St. Croix Casino located in Turtle Lake, Wisconsin. They supported this position by providing a detailed response to the seven questions and an Impact Statement. This material focused heavily on the probable loss of revenue at the Tribe's Turtle Lake Casino. The St. Croix Tribe stated that the Hudson proposal would cut into the revenue generated at their Turtle Lake Casino because the Hudson proposal is larger, in a better location and has a better highway system. St. Croix also stated that the gaming market is already saturated and as a result, they would have to increase marketing expenditures just to survive and would lose current qualified employees to the Hudson project. The Tribe did not provide any data to support their position. St. Croix provided a casino density illustration to show that "the market is becoming saturated. However, they did not provide any financial studies to back up this or any other claim dealing with a loss of income. We question St. Croix's opposition to this project since initially, they were the first Tribe to consider purchasing the St. Croix Meadows Dog Track for gaming purposes. We also find that their economic position is overstated since they have two EOP 064527 casinos currently in operation and may also be working to purchase the Lake Geneva Dog Track to add a casino. (b) Wisconsin Winnebago Nation: The Wisconsin Winnebago Business Committee responded by stating that they do not want this proposal to even be considered until the State of Wisconsin has fulfilled its commitment under the Tribal/State Compact to agree to a fourth Class III gaming site for the Wisconsin Winnebago Nation (Volume III, Tab 13). We find that the conflict over the Gaming Compact between the Wisconsin Winnebago Nation and the State of Wisconsin provides no legal basis to reject the Hudson's proposal. (c) Leech Lake Band of Chippewa Indians: The Leech Lake Tribal Council passed a resolution against the proposal (Volume III, Tab 6). They stated that numerous problems will arise for the State and the gaming Tribes in Minnesota if gaming is expanded to offreservation locations. According to the Tribe, the problems would not only be a monetary loss to the surrounding Tribes but also political in nature due to the unfair use of the "special trust and tax status of the Tribes. However, they did not elaborate as to what the political ramifications would be. Nor did the Leech Lake Band provide any justification for limiting the expansion of gaming to "off-reservation" locations. (d) Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community: The Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community's Business Council passed a resolution stating their opposition to the proposed Hudson Venture (Volume III, Tab 11, page 3). Their objections were based on loss of income for the surrounding gaming Tribes and the political ramifications. Specifically, the Business Council stated the proposed casino would have a detrimental political impact in Minnesota since Minnesota Tribes have agreed by formal tribal/state compacts to not expand Tribal gaming offreservation..." The Community also argued that the proposed area is actually Mdewakanton Sioux territory Id. As a result, they feel that approval of an off-reservation gaming facility in Hudson should be reserved for the Mdewakanton Sioux Tribe. We have found no legal basis for this argument. Our Fee to Trust review under 25 C.F.R. Part 151 will identify any interest this Tribe may hold in the land at Hudson. The Chairman and CEO of the Little Six, Inc., also responded on behalf of the Mdewakanton Dakota Community (Volume III, Tab ii, pages 8 11). He stated that the Community vehemently opposes the proposal for the following reasons: 1) This is only an off-reservation gaming experiment which could have devastating impacts on the negotiation process 20 among the National Indian Gaming Association, Congress, 2) This proposal could damage the national efforts to protect gaming and could have severe political ramifications in Minnesota. They did not elaborate or provide any scientific information to support this claim. 3) The proposal could cause the State of Minnesota to open up gaming around the State thereby diminishing the beneficial economic impact of Indian Gaming. The Tribe has not provided any legal justification to show why gaming should not be expanded by Wisconsin Tribes in Wisconsin. 4) The market is at or very near the saturation point and cannot absorb another casino in the Twin Cities area without having a negative impact on jobs. A market study has not been provided by the Shakopee Mdewakanton. 5) The proposal could damage the current cooperative government to government relationship between the State of Minnesota and the Tribes. The Tribe has yet to explain how this will happen. (e) Prairie Island Dakota Community: The Prairie Island DakotaCommunity passed a resolution voicing their opposition to the proposal (Volume III, Tab 10). They stated that the Hudson Casino would "saturate the already extremely competitive Minneapolis-St. Paul market area. In addition, the Tribe contends that they would not be able to compete due to the advantages the Hudson site offers. Specifically, the Tribe stated that they would suffer a severe loss of revenue (they estimate a 30%-50% reduction in customers) due to the following reasons: the proximity of Hudson to the metro area, the proximity of the proposed casino to an interstate highway and because the dog track is already an existing "first-class facility". (f) Lower Sioux Community The Lower Sioux Community did not pass a resolution opposing the proposal. However, the Chairman did write a letter indicating his opposition (Volume III, Tab 7). He stated that the Lower Sioux Community would be severely and unfairly damaged economically. He also indicated that the Community would be damaged politically since all of the Minnesota Tribes have not sought to locate a gaming establishment away from the reservations and to do so would cause a region-wide and probably a nation-wide race by other Tribes to do the same. No data was provided to validate his arguments. (a) Minnesota Chippewa Tribe The Minnesota Chippewa Tribe passed a resolution opposing the Hudson Project (Volume III, Tab 14). They stated this proposal could set a dangerous precedent by creating an open market for expansion by other Tribes. 21 48-493 98-4 EOP 064529 (h) Mille Lace Band of Chippewa Indians: Although the Mille Lacs Band did not pass a resolution to declare their opposition to the proposal, the Chief Executive did write a letter stating the Tribe's opposition and referred to letters written by the Minnesota Indian Gaming Association (Volume III, Tab 8). She also asserted that the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act was designed to act as a reservation based economic development tool and that the Hudson proposal is inconsistent with that intent. She said that reservation based gaming has allowed Mille Lacs to take a 45% unemployment rate to "effectively zero". She feels this number would increase should the proposal go through. No studies or data was provided to support these claims. (1) Minnesota Indian Gaming Association: The Minnesota Indian Gaming Association passed a resolution and wrote a number of letters expressing their opposition to the Hudson Proposal (Volume III, Tab 15). They stated that since Minnesota Tribes oppose off-reservation gaming activity and have promised not to expand tribal gaming off-reservation, the Hudson proposal is an infringement upon their own inherent sovereign rights. In addition, the following reasons were given for their opposition: (1) 1) Other gaming Tribes would suffer economically due to the Hudson proposal's close proximity to the metro area. In particular, the more remote casinos would be hurt. 2) The St. Croix area has historically been considered to 3) An off-reservation expansion of this magnitude would Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians: The Lac du Flambeau Band stated that they do not oppose the Hudson project (Volume III, Tab 1). They also stated that their experience in gaming indicates that there would be a beneficial 22 |