The Minnesota Court of Appeals has upheld an Itasca County decision that no environmental impact statement is required to build a proposed summer camp and retreat on Deer Lake.
After taking what it called a “hard look at environmental issues surrounding the project,” the court said there was sufficient evidence to support the county’s decision.
The unanimous ruling doesn’t resolve the controversy, however, according to both sides in the case.
Here’s the background, according to the appeals court: In 2000, Living Word Bible Camp bought 253 acres on the lake’s eastern shore. Its project would be clustered on 5.72 acres and would include a lodge with a chapel, meeting space, kitchen and dining room; activity building; office building; five dormitory cabins; storm shelter; boathouse; gazebo and trail system; the existing beach and dock; and another dock.
It would accommodate up to 150 people overnight, operate primarily as a youth camp in the summer and would host adult retreats other times of the year.
Paul Reuvers, a lawyer for Itasca County, said the county gave final approval for the project in May, so the camp is now legally authorized to move forward. But even without a further appeal, he said the ruling doesn’t end court activity because the permits “are currently on appeal right now — representing appeals 6 and 7 in this saga.”
Camp lawyer Jake Grassel said, “The construction timeline has not yet been finalized as ongoing litigation from project opponents makes that unrealistic at this time.”
And James Peters, an attorney for the challengers, said a further appeal on the environmental review issue is under consideration but the permits are under a separate appeal. Meanwhile, the project is “cleared to go.”
In its decision, the three-judge appeals court said, “From its inception, the project has prompted numerous environmental concerns,” especially potential disturbance of wildlife in Kocemba Bay, which borders the northern part of the site and includes islands in the Balsam—Deer Islands Wildlife Management Area.
“Deer Lake is one of approximately 40 Minnesota lakes with a naturally reproducing and self-sustaining muskellunge population, and Kocemba Bay has been identified as an important spawning and nursery area for those fish,” and critics worry that camp activities would disturb the spawning area, the court said in a unanimous opinion by Judge Michelle Larkin.
It also cited the challengers’ concerns about degradation of water quality due to phosphorus loading from the project’s septic systems, surface-water runoff and disturbance of the lake bottom.
The new Court of Appeals ruling is the latest in a series of judicial reviews of the controversial project. After early litigation, the county board approved rezoning for the project.
When the camp then applied for a conditional use permit, neighboring property owners petitioned for an environmental impact worksheet.
Under Minnesota law, a worksheet is a brief document that assesses the environmental aspects of a proposed project to determine the need for an environmental impact statement, which is mandatory if a project has potentially significant environmental effects.
The county determined that no worksheet was required and issued the permits.
But another bout of litigation forced the county to prepare a worksheet.
It then decided that an environmental impact statement is necessary as well. And that triggered yet another round of litigation, this time by the camp.
The county started the worksheet process over again, receiving 55 written comments and five oral comments at a public meeting. In written comments, the state Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and county Soil and Water Conservation District didn’t advocate a full environmental impact statement, although DNR asked for more information.
Ultimately, the county board determined that an environmental impact statement was unnecessary.
So it was back to court for the dissatisfied neighbors and other project opponents.
They alleged that the county made multiple procedural errors and they portrayed the county environmental services administrator as a “biased advocate” for the camp, the court said.
Rejecting those arguments, the court said, “We find no support for these inflammatory allegations,” adding that the administrator’s “recommendations to the county board based on his environmental expertise did not show bias but rather the fulfilment of his job functions.”
The court noted that limits were added to the project design and camp operation to mitigate potential adverse environmental effects. They include best-management practices to prevent erosion during construction; a stormwater management plan to reduce surface water runoff into Deer Lake; and advanced treatment technologies to ensure proper pretreatment of septic system wastewaters.
The camp promised to instruct staff and guests to stay out of Kocemba Bay, limit the swimming area and boat use, and follow DNR recommendations to limit excursions in the Balsam—Deer Islands Wildlife Management Area.
The court acknowledged the challengers’ “genuinely held concerns for the Deer Lake environment,” but said that when a county follows proper legal procedures and makes decisions backed by substantial evidence, “the courts must uphold that decision though there be heartfelt opposition to it.”
Grassel, the camp’s lawyer, said, “In the end, a conscientious developer that has consistently gone above and beyond to protect the environment rightfully prevailed.”
But Peters said he was disappointed that both the county and the court didn’t follow the recommendations of national experts to conduct a detailed environmental review of a critical natural resource.
Reuvers, who represents Itasca County, said, “The county worked diligently to process this matter, including engaging all of the governmental agencies to ensure all legitimate environmental concerns were properly addressed. The county staff, in particular, should be commended for their hard work in the face of endless criticism by project opponents — criticism the court soundly rejected.”
Reuvers also said the court’s opinion offers a good outline of the process for local governments completing an environmental impact worksheet.
“An environmental impact statement is not commonly ordered and typically involves major projects, such as power plants, gravel mines, significant development, or things of that nature,” he said. “Public opposition should not enter into the analysis, but all too often the environmental rules are subverted to stop a project — not because of any real environmental concerns.”