ELDRED, NY — The Highland Planning Board decided in a September 27 meeting to require an Environmental Impact Statement for the Camp FIMFO project.

The decision comes after a year and a half of deliberation by the planning board.
In a 3-2 decision, the board determined that Camp FIMFO could have a significant effect on its environment. The board will now study that impact through the next stage in the New York’s State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) process: the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

In the motion to require an EIS, members Tim McKenna and Jeff Spitz voted in favor, while JT Vogt and Steve Bott voted no. The tie was broken by planning board chair Norm Sutherland.
An EIS is “something that needs to be done,” Sutherland said. “We’re not killing the project by any means.”

He estimated that close to half of the work needed for the EIS is already completed.
Sutherland emphasized that Camp FIMFO is a large project, and said that it is “probably” the longest-running application to a planning board in the county.

Northgate Resorts initially proposed the Camp FIMFO project at a February 2022 meeting of the planning board. The project will, if approved, transform the preexisting Kittatinny Campground in Barryville with $40-plus million in renovations.

Elements of the project have attracted scrutiny from oversight bodies, including the National Park Service and from community activists. Much of this scrutiny has focused on the project’s use of “park-model RVs,” large recreational vehicles with a cabin-like appearance, as well as on the effect of the project’s size on the overall environment and community character.

Delaware Riverkeeper lawyer Michael Sussman leans on the copier and takes notes at the September 27 Highland Planning Board meeting. The room was …

Town attorney Michael Davidoff reads the prepared resolution that lays out reasoning for a negative declaration. In a surprise split 3-2 vote, the …

A number of review letters preceded the planning board’s decision, weighing in for and against the proposed project.

The Upper Delaware Council (UDC) commissioned a letter from planning consultant Tom Shepstone, reviewing the agency’s own earlier work. The UDC and the National Park Service (NPS) issued conflicting determinations about Camp FIMFO’s potential impact: the UDC determined that the project complied with the land and water use guidelines for the Upper Delaware River, and the NPS determined that it did not.

Shepstone backed the UDC’s determination, and said that the NPS “stretch[ed] interpretations of terms to take advantage of ambiguities when zoning law requires precisely the opposite.” (See article above for more on the UDC and the NPS).

The Delaware Riverkeeper Network, a nonprofit that works to protect the Delaware River, commissioned an urban planner to make its own review of Camp FIMFO.

The planner, George Janes, said that the Camp FIMFO applicants likely understated the project’s potential environmental impacts in their filings to the planning board, and that the planning board had in consequence not taken the necessary thorough review of those impacts.

“With a full, the public and the lead agency will be provided complete information on the project proposal and any potential adverse environmental impacts it may have,” Janes concluded.

A process primer

An EIS reviews the potential environmental impacts of a development project in greater specific detail than the preceding parts of the SEQR process.
The lead agency—in this case the Highland Planning Board—works with the project sponsor to “scope” the draft EIS. The scoping process details what environmental impacts may result from the project, and focuses further study toward these elements and away from non-significant elements.

The scoping process also determines what information will be needed for the EIS, and what alternatives need to be discussed.

The applicant—or the lead agency, if the applicant declines to do so—then prepares a draft EIS, following the guidelines established in the scoping process.

The draft EIS evaluates the potential significant adverse environmental impacts from a project, as well as the alternatives and the mitigation strategies that can be employed to lessen that environmental impact.

The lead agency then determines whether the draft EIS is acceptable. If so, it submits that document for public comment.

The public comment period lasts a minimum of 30 days, and may include a public hearing at the lead agency’s discretion.

Once the public comment period concludes, the lead agency finalizes the EIS. The lead agency concludes the process by determining whether the project can go forward given the information covered in the EIS. An approvable project “avoids or minimizes adverse environmental impacts presented in the EIS and weighs and balances them with social, economic and other essential considerations,” according to the DEC. A project that does not meet this mark is not approvable.

For a link to the NYS EIS handbook, click here.