Section 4 

Environmental Consequences

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Draft EIS 

Oneida Nation of New York Conveyance of Lands Into Trust

4-296

4.10 Environmental Justice 

4.10.1 Overview and Background 

Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations,” issued in 1994, directs Federal agencies to 

make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects 

of its programs, policies and activities on minority and low-income populations. The U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) describes Environmental Justice as the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national 

origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of 

environmental laws, regulations, and policies. “Fair treatment” means that no group of 

people, including racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group should bear a disproportionate 

share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from the execution of federal, 

state, local and tribal programs and policies. The goal of “fair treatment” is not to shift 

risks among populations, but to identify potential disproportionately high and adverse 

effects and identify alternatives that may mitigate these effects. 

This environmental justice assessment follows the guidance and methodologies 

recommended in the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Guidance for 

Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA’s NEPA Compliance Analyses

(April 1998). An environmental justice assessment requires an analysis of whether 

minority and low-income populations and/or Indian tribal resources (i.e., “the populations 

of concern”) would be affected by a land trust alternative and whether they would 

experience adverse effects from any of the proposed alternatives. If there are adverse 

effects, then the severity and proportionality of these effects upon the populations of 

concern must be assessed in comparison to the larger non-minority or non-low income 

populations. At issue, is whether such adverse effects fall disproportionately on minority 

and/or low-income members of the community and/or tribal resources and, if so, whether 

they meet the threshold of “disproportionately high and adverse.” If disproportionately 

high and adverse effects are evident, the EPA Guidance advises that it should trigger 

consideration of alternatives and mitigation actions in coordination with extensive 

community outreach efforts. 

4.10.2 Identify Populations of Concern 

For the purpose of the environmental justice evaluation, the Study Area has been defined 

as those census block groups that contain or are within 0.25 miles of a property owned by 

the Nation. Given the land use patterns in Madison and Oneida County, a quarter mile 

has been determined to be the radius in which those residing could experience effects. The 

Study Area comprises one or more block groups within 15 census tracts in Madison and 

Oneida County. The Study Area reflects the geographic area most likely to experience the 
Section 4 

Environmental Consequences

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Draft EIS 

Oneida Nation of New York Conveyance of Lands Into Trust

4-297

direct effects, and, in most cases, the indirect community, health, and environmental 

effects from placing the lands into federal trust. 

4.10.2.1 Communities and Neighborhoods with Meaningfully Greater Minority 

Populations 

Consistent with the Council on Environmental Quality’s Environmental Justice Guidance 

Under the National Environmental Policy Act, low- income populations in potentially 

affected areas have been identified using the poverty thresholds from the Census Bureau. 

Minorities have been defined by the Census Bureau as members of the following 

population groups: American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian or Pacific Islander; Black, 

not of Hispanic Origin, or Hispanic. Minority populations have been identified whether 

either (a): the minority population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent or (b) the 

minority population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the 

minority population percentage in the general population of other appropriate unit of 

geographic analysis. 

Municipalities within Madison and Oneida County are predominantly White with a small 

number and proportion of minority populations. This pattern of social composition is 

also true for the Study Area. As can be seen in 4.10-1, the Study Area, in most cases, 

contains no greater proportion of minorities than Madison or Oneida County overall. 

With the exception of Hispanic whites in Oneida County, none of the minority groups in 

the Study Area are prevalent in greater percentages than the overall county percentage. In 

Madison and Oneida County overall, Blacks and African Americans make up the largest 

minority group representing 5.2 percent and 5.7 percent of the population, respectively. 

In contrast, in the Madison County Study Area, Blacks and African Americans constitute 

0.6 percent of the population; in the Oneida County Study Area Blacks and African 

Americans constitute 5.2 percent of the population. 

The largest minority group in the Madison County study area is Native Americans and 

Alaska Natives. They constitute 0.8 percent of the population in the Madison County 

Study Area (.25 mile radius from Nation lands) while they represent 0.5 percent of 

Madison County overall. As noted above, Blacks and African Americans are the largest 

minority group in both the Oneida County Study Area and Oneida County. Native 

Americans compose 0.5 percent of people in the Oneida County Study Area, but comprise 

0.2 percent of Oneida County. 

4.10.2.2 Communities and Neighborhoods with Meaningfully Greater Low Income 

Populations

Compared to their respective counties, the Study Area of Madison County has a higher 

poverty rate (10.4%) than the County, while the Study Area of Oneida County has a 

lower poverty rate (6.7%) than the overall County. 
Section 4 

Environmental Consequences

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Draft EIS 

Oneida Nation of New York Conveyance of Lands Into Trust

4-298

Per capita incomes for the Study Area are generally similar to per capita incomes in the 

Counties that surround the Study Areas. With respect to median household incomes, the 

Study Area is quite similar to Madison County; however, the Oneida County Study Area 

median household income ($42,282) is approximately $6,000 more a year than reported 

for Oneida County ($35,909).
Environm

Bureau of Indian Affairs Draft EIS Oneida Nation of New York Conveyance of Lands Into Trust

Table 4.10-1 

Population and Economic Characteristics of Census Blocks within the Project Area 

Census Block Groups of Project 

Area in 

Madison County 

Madison County 

Census Block Groups of Project 

Area in 

Oneida County 

Number of 

Residents 

Percentage 

(%) 

Number of 

Residents 

Percentage 

(%) 

Number of 

Residents 

Percentage 

(%) 

White Alone 29,251 97.3% 67,006 96.5% 24,783 91.8% 

Hispanic White 141 0.5% 442 0.6% 506 1.9% Non-Hispanic White 29,110 96.8% 66,564 95.9% 24,277 90.0% 

Non-White Alone 815 2.7% 2,435 3.5% 2,200 8.2% 

Black or African American 180 0.6% 916 1.3% 1,401 5.2% American Indian and Alaska Native 243 0.8% 358 0.5% 135 0.5% 

Asian 99 0.3% 387 0.6% 131 0.5% 

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 3 0.0% 10 0.0% 2 0.0% 

Other* 290 1.0% 764 1.1% 531 2.0% TOTAL 30,066 100.0% 69,441 100.0% 26,983 100.0% 

Hispanic Origin 219 0.7% 734 1.1% 941 3.5% 

Minority Population** 956 3.2% 2,877 4.1% 2,706 10.0% 

Persons Below Poverty (1999) 3,076 10.4% 6,313 9.8% 1,631 6.7% Per-Capita Income (1999)*** $19,622 $19,105 $18,509 Median Household Income (1999)*** 

$40,464 $40,184 $42,282 

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, Census 2000, SF1 and SF3 data tables. Note: * The Other category includes “some other race alone” and “two or more races.” ** The total minority population includes all those who have classified themselves as Black/African American, Asian, Hispanic, American India

Islander, or Other. *** The per-capita and median incomes were calculated by taking the weighted averages of the median incomes of all the block groups in a giv
Section 4 

Environmental Consequences

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Draft EIS 

Oneida Nation of New York Conveyance of Lands Into Trust

4-300

4.10.2.3 Census Block Groups with High Concentrations of Minority and/or Low 

Income Persons 

Table 4.10-2 identifies the percentage of low income and/or high minority concentrations 

within census block groups of the Study Areas. County averages for minority residents 

and persons living below poverty are the basis for determining areas with higher 

concentrations of minority persons or persons living below poverty. For comparison 

purposes, the NYSDEC’s environmental justice definitions are also included. New York 

State’s criteria set higher threshold levels in their initial screening of populations of 

concern (i.e., higher proportions of low-income or minority populations must be present in 

the Study Area) to warrant a heightened scrutiny of adverse effects for their social 

distributional effects. 

Madison County 

In Madison County, four census block groups have a high minority population; all four 

are located in the City of Oneida. The largest minority population is located in Census 

Tract 301.03, Block Group 3; 11.1 percent of the population is a minority of which 9.6 

percent are categorized as Native Americans or Alaskan Natives. 

Ten of the census block groups in the Madison County portion of the Study Area have a 

greater percentage of residents living below the poverty level than the overall county. Half 

of the block groups are in the City of Oneida. The others are located in Lenox, Lincoln, 

Smithfield, and Stockbridge. Some of the low income block groups have a high level of 

poverty. For instance, in one part of the City of Oneida (Tract 301.02 Group 2) 24.9 

percent of the residents live below the poverty level. This block group also has a high 

minority population, composed primarily of Native Americans or Alaska Natives and 

Other. In Lenox (Tract 303, Group 1) 26.3 percent live below poverty. 

Oneida County 

In Oneida County there is only one block group with a high minority population and one 

with a high poverty level. Tract 228, Group 1, located in the City of Rome is 53.0 percent 

minority. Within the block group the largest minority group is Black and African 

Americans (33.2%) followed by Hispanic whites (10.0%). The Nation does not own land 

in Rome, although they own properties within a quarter mile of the Rome border and as a 

result this census block group is included in the analysis. 

One block group has a greater percentage of residents living below the poverty level than 

average, Tract 246, Group 4, in Vienna. In this group, 20.5 percent of residents live 

below the poverty level. This block group is sparsely populated and actually has the 

smallest number of minorities, eight people, of all the block groups in the Oneida County 

Study Area. 
Section 4 

Environmental Consequences

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Draft EIS 

Oneida Nation of New York Conveyance of Lands Into Trust

4-301

New York State Thresholds 

Based on New York State thresholds, one block group is identified as a community of 

concern based on minority population and two block groups are identified as a 

community of concern based upon income levels.

The above mentioned Census Tract 228, Group 1 located in the City of Rome has a 

minority population that is 19.2 percentage points higher then the New York State 

threshold. Again, the Nation does not own land in Rome, but the census tract reporting 

unit falls within the buffer area. 

Two block groups, both located in Madison County, have a low income population that is 

greater than the New York State threshold. In Census Tract 301.02, Group 2, which is 

located in the City of Oneida, 24.9 percent of the population lives below the poverty level. 

This is 1.3 percentage points higher than the State threshold. Additionally, Lenox 

contains one block group (Census Tract 303, Group 1) which has a greater percentage of 

the population living below the poverty level than the New York State threshold. In this 

block group, 29.8 percent of the population lives below the poverty level. This is 2.7 

percentage points higher than the State threshold. 
Section 4 

Environmental Consequences

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Draft EIS 

Oneida Nation of New York Conveyance of Lands Into Trust

4-302

Table 4.10-2 

County Thresholds and Census Block Groups in the Project Area with 

High Concentrations of Minority or Low-Income Persons 

 Minority Threshold (%) Poverty Threshold (%) 

Madison County 4.1% 9.8% 

Oneida County 11.4% 13.0% 

New York State Thresholds – EJ 33.8%* 23.6% 

Note: New York State identifies two minority thresholds, one for urban areas (51.1%) and one for rural areas (33.8%). A 

rural area is defined as any area not classified as urban by the U.S. Census. 

 

Census 

Tract 

Block 

Group 

Minority 

Persons 

Percent 

Minority 

Percent 

Below 

Poverty 

Median 

Household 

Income 

Per-Capita 

Income 

High 

Minority 

High Below 

Poverty 

Level 

City of Oneida 301.01 1 50 4.0% 19.0% $25,302 $15,073 X 

City of Oneida 301.01 2 41 2.8% 10.5% $32,917 $16,213 X 

City of Oneida 301.02 1 38 3.8% 10.3% $36,276 $14,030 X 

City of Oneida 301.02 2 98 4.5% 24.9% $23,802 $14,088 X X 

City of Oneida 301.02 3 15 1.8% 7.3% $32,778 $22,560 

City of Oneida 301.02 4 20 2.0% 4.8% $57,500 $24,300 

City of Oneida 301.03 1 68 4.8% 10.4% $44,348 $24,757 X X 

City of Oneida 301.03 2 53 5.2% 2.4% $40,208 $20,526 X 

City of Oneida 301.03 3 94 11.1% 4.5% $55,375 $26,500 X 

Lenox 302 1 19 1.7% 8.3% $43,125 $ 19,151 

Lenox 302 2 52 3.6% 5.1% $46,193 $17,562 

Lenox 302 3 17 1.9% 11.8% $38,750 $17,316 X 

Lenox 303 1 59 4.0% 26.3% $26,369 $14,493 X 

Lenox 303 2 37 2.6% 10.8% $33,816 $16,082 X 

Lenox 303 3 23 2.4% 5.8% $44,712 $16,659 

Lenox 303 4 40 2.9% 4.4% $43,872 $20,944 

Sullivan 304.01 4 5 0.8% 6.2% $37,750 $29,788 

Sullivan 304.01 5 13 1.2% 7.9% $46,628 $18,448 

Cazenovia 305.02 1 30 1.5% 1.6% $71,711 $36,537 

Stockbridge, 

Smithfield 306 1 75 3.7% 12.7% $37,440 $15,968 X 

Smithfield, 

Lincoln, 

Stockbridge 306 2 50 3.4% 14.1% $35,625 $14,944 X 

Lincoln, Fenner, 

Smithfield 306 3 31 2.1% 4.6% $48,929 $22,394 

Madison County 

Fenner and 

Smithfield 306 4 28 1.5% 7.9% $43,500 $18,699 

Rome 228 1 2062 53.0% 6.4% $46,507 $16,963 X 

Westmoreland 230 1 85 3.0% 4.5% $51,481 $18,798 

Vienna 246 2 75 3.3% 7.8% $33,145 $16,940 

Vienna 246 3 40 3.5% 6.6% $50,152 $18,230 

Vienna 246 4 8 1.7% 20.5% $28,194 $12,590 X 

Vienna 246 5 12 2.3% 12.8% $35,313 $20,185 

Verona 247 1 45 3.4% 6.6% $37,898 $17,573 

Oneida County 

Verona 247 2 31 1.7% 8.3% $44,667 $20,318 
Section 4 

Environmental Consequences

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Draft EIS 

Oneida Nation of New York Conveyance of Lands Into Trust

4-303

Verona 247 3 34 4.3% 0.0% $51,020 $17,573 

Verona 247 9 60 2.4% 4.9% $41,512 $16,637 

Sherrill 248 1 49 2.4% 2.4% $52,625 $22,024 

Sherrill 248 2 32 2.9% 1.7% $38,365 $22,840 

Vernon 249 1 79 2.7% 9.6% $39,766 $21,017 

Vernon 249 2 65 2.7% 10.0% $37,156 $17,721 

Augusta 256 3 29 3.0% 5.6% $36,641 $15,314 

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000. 

4.10.2.4 Meaningful Public Involvement to Populations of Concern 

The BIA held public scoping meetings in January 2006, conducted a subsequent 

informational meeting to further address public comments, and reviewed and addressed 

comments expressed during the scoping process in advance of the Draft EIS. These 

outreach activities involved the general population but also were successful in attracting 

the participation and comments from Nation Members and other Native Americans. 

Further details pertaining to these events are provided in the Scoping Report. 

4.10.2.5 Summary: Populations of Concern 

Based on a review of the data presented above, there are no minority or low-income 

populations that would be significantly affected by the Proposed Action or any of the 

alternatives. However, there could be potential effects to the resources of the Oneida 

Nation, a local Native American community requiring an environmental justice assessment 

under USEPA Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA’s 

NEPA Compliance Analyses (April 1998). Accordingly, the BIA considers the Oneida 

Nation to be an environmental justice community for the proposed federal action and the 

potential effects of the various alternatives on the Nation are presented in the following 

section. 

4.10.3 Assessment of Environmental Justice Effects 

The conveyance of lands into trust status does not result in direct or indirect adverse 

effects to the physical environment since no ground disturbance occurs and there is no 

change in land use. Therefore, resource categories related to the physical environment, 

such as soils, groundwater, air, noise, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and others are not 

subject to unavoidable adverse effects. Similarly, there are no adverse consequences to 

human health that may be linked to regulatory oversight of these resources. 

On the other hand, the cultural, economic and social resources related to the human 

environment could potentially be more affected by the conveyance of lands into trust. The 

taxation and regulatory jurisdictional scenarios within the respective alternatives may have 

the potential for unavoidable adverse effects whether to New York State, the county and 

local governments, or the Nation. This section assesses whether any adverse effects fall 

disproportionately upon low-income and minority populations and/or tribal resources. 
Section 4 

Environmental Consequences

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Draft EIS 

Oneida Nation of New York Conveyance of Lands Into Trust

4-304

Alternative A. Alternative A would convey Groups 1, 2 and 3 lands into trust. The 

Nation would have control over its reacquired lands and they would be protected by 

Federal laws that apply to tribal land. There would be no adverse effects that fall 

disproportionately on low-income and minority populations under this Proposed Action 

alternative or under any of the other alternatives. 

With regard to the Oneida Nation, it has made significant progress in developing 

programs and services and delivering benefits – job security and member distributions, 

health care facilities and insurance, educational scholarships, housing grants, cultural 

programs – to its members in the past 15 years. Nation members’ social and economic 

conditions have improved dramatically in measurable terms such as educational 

attainment, household income and the percentage of children living in families in poverty 

(see Section 3.7.4, Tribal Demographics and Socioeconomic Conditions for a more 

detailed discussion). 

The Nation’s enterprises and government have created job opportunities that have raised 

the economic circumstances of its members along with other Native Americans in the 

Study Area. Operating surpluses from the Nation’s enterprises’ have been transferred as 

subsidies to the Nation’s government programs and services. These surpluses have also 

served as capital to advance economic diversification strategies in an effort to reduce overdependency on gambling and foster social, cultural and economic development. 

Under Alternative A, the Nation would be provided the taxation and regulatory 

environment to continue to successfully operate its revenue-generating enterprises. The 

revenue generated by Nation enterprises would be used to continue to fund programs 

essential to delivering benefits to Native Americans, including Nation Members, ensuring 

that there is no delay in the receipt of benefits, for housing, education, health care, and 

cultural programs. The Nation’s varied government programs and services are described in 

Section 3.7.5.1; Figure 3.7.10 illustrates the rising spending levels by the Nation for its 

Government Programs and Services. 

Alternative A would also provide more comprehensive protection for the Nation’s 

cultural, historic and archaeological resources. Under this alternative, archaeological 

resources would be provided with the full measure of protection of the Archaeological 

Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) and the Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA). 

Alternative B. Alternative B includes all the parcels in Alternative A and an additional 

17,630 acres resulting in a total trust area of 35,000 acres. The beneficial effects to the 

Oneida Nation would generally be the same under Alternative B as under Alternative A. 

Alternative C. Group 3 lands would not be conveyed into trust under Alternative C. 

The Nation enterprises would continue to generate revenues because they are located on 
Section 4 

Environmental Consequences

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Draft EIS 

Oneida Nation of New York Conveyance of Lands Into Trust

4-305

Group 1 and 2 lands. As a result, the Nation’s governmental programs and services (i.e., 

its social, education, health programs, etc.) would continue to function as described under 

Alternative A. 

However, Group 3 land uses such as cultural, gardening and agricultural crop activities 

would be affected particularly under the Property Taxes Not Paid and Foreclosure 

scenario. Additionally, some hunting and fishing grounds, religious sites, and burial sites, 

would not be conveyed into trust. These parcels are within the Nation’s original 

reservation and have a significant cultural and historical value to the Nation. The 

potential loss of these lands under this scenario would preclude the Nation from 

cultivating traditional crops using traditional methods on lands within its aboriginal 

homeland. 

Alternative C would exclude important cultural, historic and archaeological resources on 

Group 3 lands in several towns in Madison County. Group 3 lands would not be subject 

to the specific protection of artifacts and human remains under ARPA and NAGPRA. The 

effects of reducing the jurisdictional extent of Federal laws for cultural resource protection 

does not fall equally to all populations, but is predominantly borne by Native American 

populations and the Nation’s members. 

Group 3 lands also contain 13 residences of Nation members. If the homeowner’s lands 

are not conveyed into trust, it is unclear what may happen to the 13 households. 

Currently, the Nation owns the lands occupied by these Nation member households. With 

the imposition of the taxation and regulatory authority of New York State and local 

governments on Group 3 lands, Nation members could potentially lose their homes due to 

foreclosure. This type of potential indirect displacement impact would be predominantly 

borne by Native American households rather than any other type of household. 

Alternative D. Under Alternative D, only Group 1 lands would be conveyed to trust 

while the Group 2 and 3 lands would be potentially subject to the regulatory and taxation 

authority of the State and local governments. The effects resulting from Group 3 lands 

not being conveyed to trust would be the same under Alternative D as under Alternative 

C. 

Nation members would be subject to other effects should the Group 2 lands not be 

conveyed into trust. Group 2 contains some revenue-generating properties such as the 12 

SavOn gas stations and convenience stores, retail outlets, marinas, and Four Directions 

Media. If these lands are not conveyed into trust and subjected to local regulation and 

taxation, the net operating surpluses from Group 2 lands that have supported the Nation’s 

governmental programs and services would be adversely affected. As a result, the Nation 

may not be able to fully sustain its past commitments or grow its resource allocation for 

governmental services and programs which benefit Nation members and other Native 

Americans who may be beneficiary recipients of select programs. 
Section 4 

Environmental Consequences

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Draft EIS 

Oneida Nation of New York Conveyance of Lands Into Trust

4-306

Additionally, Group 2 and 3 lands contain the majority of Nation member housing, a total 

of 96 residences. As described in Alternative C, it is unclear what would happen to these 

households in the event that lands are alienated or subject to foreclosure. This indirect 

displacement effect would be appreciably borne by Native Americans and Nation 

members. 

The Nation’s properties were purchased specifically because they are part of the Nation’s 

aboriginal homeland with the purpose of reclaiming and preserving the Oneida culture. 

Alternative D would exclude key lands with cultural facilities owned by the Oneida (e.g., 

the Shako:wi Cultural Center, Ray Elm Children & Elders Center, Village of White Pines, 

Festival Sites, traditional croplands plus their cultural service departments). Without 

federal trust status, under the Property Taxes Not Paid and Foreclosure scenario where 

these lands would be alienated for foreclosed, the Nation owned properties would be 

subject to the authority of local communities that may not place as great a value on the 

preservation of the Nation’s cultural preservation as the Nation itself or the Nation in 

combination with the protections afforded by the Federal government. The consequences 

of this loss of control would be borne predominantly by Native Americans, and more 

specifically, by the Nation and its tribal members. 

Alternative E. Under Alternative E, only the Turning Stone Casino gaming floor tax lot 

would be placed into trust. Specifically, this includes the gaming area, the golf dome, a 

portion of two golf courses, parking areas, and one SavOn gas station and convenience 

store. All other Nation lands would be excluded from conveyance into trust and would be 

subject to regulation by the State and local governments. 

In addition to the revenue-generating properties that would be subject to taxation and 

regulation as discussed in Alternative D, three golf courses and club houses, which include 

6,000 square feet of meeting space and a 400 seat banquet hall, and the Village RV Park 

and Peaceful Pines Campground would not be conveyed into trust. If these lands along 

with those discussed in Alternative D are not conveyed into trust and thereby subject to 

local regulation and taxation, then the revenues they generate for Nation enterprises 

would be greatly diminished. As a result, the Nation may not be able to provide the same 

level of governmental programs and services that it currently provides. The consequences 

to the Nation and the Nation’s members and other Native Americans are as described 

under Alternatives C and D. 

There would be no Nation member housing conveyed into trust under Alternative E. As 

in Alternative C and D, it is unclear what would happen to these households. In the 

Property Taxes Not Paid and Foreclosure scenario, Nation members could potentially lose 

their homes due to foreclosure. 

As with Alternative D, Alternative E conveys virtually none of the Nation’s important 

cultural, historic, or religious properties into trust and none of the Nation’s important 
Section 4 

Environmental Consequences

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Draft EIS 

Oneida Nation of New York Conveyance of Lands Into Trust

4-307

archaeological sites into trust. Lands would be subject to taxation and potentially lost due 

to alienation of foreclosure. Historical artifacts and human remains are awarded a higher 

level of protection when the artifacts and remains are on Federal or Indian lands. The 

effects of loss of the protections such as those afforded by ARPA and NAGPRA would be 

borne predominantly by Nation Members and Native American populations. 

Alternative F. Alternative F combines all of the properties contained in Group 1 with 

additional properties from Groups 2 and 3 to facilitate the formation of a more compact 

and contiguous group of trust lands. Alternative F includes the majority of member 

housing, most of the Nation enterprises, all of the Nation’s government facilities, and all 

of the properties containing members services. The Alternative avoids most adverse effects 

and places lands into trust that sustain the Nation’s government programs and services. 

In contrast to Alternatives D and E, Alternative F would include some of the Nation’s 

important cultural and archeological sites but would exclude others. However, there 

would be unavoidable adverse effects for this Alternative (along with Alternatives C 

through F) where excluded lands containing archaeological or cultural resources would be 

lost due to alienation or foreclosure. These effects would be predominantly borne by 

Native Americans and Nation members. 

Alternative G. Under Alternative G –No Action, no reacquired Nation lands would be 

conveyed to trust. All revenue-generating property, including the Turning Stone Resort & 

Casino would be subject to taxation and regulation by local authorities. Under the Casino 

Closes and All Enterprises Close scenario, it is assumed that the Turning Stone Resort & 

Casino could not legally operate and it along with all the other Nation enterprises would 

cease operations. The closure of the Turning Stone Resort & Casino would terminate the 

means by which the Nation funds its social programs and services. Subject to local 

taxation and regulation, the remaining SavOns and other enterprises would face increasing 

pressures on their profit margin and would not generate sufficient revenue to support the 

Nation’s governmental programs and services at current levels. In this scenario the Nation 

would be unable to meet its tax obligations and all of its reacquired land would be 

alienated or foreclosed. 

Since the Nation began to reacquire lands in 1987, and with the growth of its enterprises, 

it has successfully elevated many of its members out of poverty and provided access to 

education and educational support, which greatly increased the number of members with 

high school and college degrees. With the closure of the Nation’s enterprises, the potential 

support for future growth in the education or income of members, for building affordable 

housing, and providing access to health care would be significantly affected. 

The potential adverse indirect effects to the Nation’s cultural and archaeological resources 

would be more significant under Alternative G than for other alternatives. Under the NoAction Casino Closes and All Enterprises Close scenario, all lands containing 
Section 4 

Environmental Consequences

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Draft EIS 

Oneida Nation of New York Conveyance of Lands Into Trust

4-308

archaeological and cultural resources would be alienated or foreclosed as the Nation 

would lose its most significant source of the revenue which enables the Nation to maintain 

its cultural assets and programs. This scenario would have a significant adverse effect to 

the Nation’s resources and culture. 

Under Alternative G, as with other Alternatives (Alternatives C through F), archaeological 

resources on lands not conveyed into trust would fall outside the protection of ARPA and 

NAGPRA. Loss of these protections would have adverse effects to both the physical 

resources and the Nation’s culture if these lands are alienated or foreclosed and the 

properties or cultural assets are not managed as sensitively by others. The effects of this 

absence of protection would be borne predominantly by Native Americans and Nation 

members.