STAFF REPORT

Proposer: Pilgrim Point Shores, LLC

Project: Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Pilgrim Point Shores Residential

Development Project.

Location: On pt of G. Lot 5 ex 2.4 AND G. Lot 1 ex: 3 ac & 5.9 ac. Section 13 and 24 (Ida
Township). Zoning RS(GDS) Lake Ida.

Figure 1. Aerial photo of proposed development project location.

Background: Pilgrim Point Shores is a combined lot and block/PUD residential subdivision located on
approximately 35.5 acres on the east shore of Lake Ida in Douglas County. Initial activities will include
roadway construction, public sanitary sewer installation, and construction of permanent stormwater
management facilities, followed by individual lot construction. No public water supply is available
private wells will be used. Twenty-eight riparian lots, four non-riparian lots, and fourteen single-family
townhome lots will be developed.
The proposed project includes an initial phase consisting of a residential lot subdivision with 28
riparian lots and 2 non-riparian lots, and a future phase consisting of a residential Planned Unit
Development (PUD) with 14 single family units, along with two additional non-riparian residential lots.
The total area of the site is approximately 35.5 acres. Of the total site area, riparian lots will comprise
approximately 16.9 acres, non-riparian lots (1st phase) will comprise approximately 2.7 acres, and the
PUD with the two additional non-riparian lots will comprise approximately 9.4 acres. Roads and rights
of way will comprise approximately 6.4 acres.
 The County determined that the proposed development project falls under MN Statutes
4410.43000 subpart 19a: Residential Development in Shoreland Outside of the Twin Cities Metropolitan
Area. According to this section, a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) must be
completed for any permanent residential development located in Non-sensitive Shoreland when the
number of proposed units (attached or unattached) is 25 or greater and any of three listed conditions
exist. The project as proposed consists of more than 25 lots (31 residential lots) and presents the
condition that less than 50% of the area of the subdivision located within the shoreland area can be
defined as common open space. Minnesota law requires that when environmental review is being
conducted, a project may not proceed and permits authorizing the project may not be issued. Once all
review is complete, governmental units with permitting authority or other authority over the project may
proceed to make final decisions on the project.

Staff Recommendation: The Planning Advisory Commission may make a recommendation to

table a decision on the EAW for additional information, recommend further environmental study
through an EIS, or recommend that no further environmental study is necessary, thereby making
a negative declaration for an EIS.
The purpose of environmental review is to gather information that can be useful to the RGU in
the permitting process. It reveals information that may aid in establishing conditions to a
permit, or whether or not a permit may be appropriate given the facts and circumstances
surrounding any proposed project. The sufficiency of environmental review, and whether it
involves an EAW or an additional EIS, does not determine, in and of itself, if a project will be
permitted.
Based on the criteria and factors specified in MN Rules Chapter 4410, the findings of fact,
comments received and answers provided, information included in the EAW and all other
findings and conclusions included in the Record, staff believes that there are no elements of the
project that pose the potential for significant environmental effects that cannot be addressed
through the permit and regulatory process.
Staff finds that the potential environmental effects identified within the EAW document or
comments received to be of a type or extent whereby the potential impact 1) is not as significant
as presumed, 2) can be stopped or reversed, and/or 3) can be controlled or mitigated. The
Environmental Quality Board (EQB) defines mitigation as:
• avoiding impacts altogether by not undertaking parts of a project;
• minimizing impacts by limiting the degree of magnitude of a project;
• rectifying impacts by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment;
• reducing or eliminating impacts over time by preservation and maintenance;
• compensating impacts by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments; or
• reducing or avoiding impacts by implementation of pollution prevention measures.

In reviewing aspects of the proposed project and providing responses to the comments received,
staff, where possible, identified ways that the project could be modified, aspects eliminated, or
measures implemented to eliminate or decrease potential impacts. For these reasons, staff finds
that further environmental review of the project will not significantly enhance the county’s
ability to evaluate the project and execute a decision on a permit application.
Staff, therefore, recommends that the PAC recommend to the County Board that there be a
negative declaration on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Comments received and responses by RGU:

Douglas County, MN Responses to Comment Letters for the Pilgrim Point Shores
Residential Development Project EAW
Deadline for submission: July 8, 2021 at 4:30 pm

The written substantive comments received for the above project, and the
Responsible Government Unit (RGU) responses to those comments are
summarized below.

Minnesota Department of Agriculture: The MDA has no comments to make on the

EAW.

RGU Response: The RGU notes the comment of the MDA.

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency:

Water Resources (Item 11):
• The proposed riparian residential development will result in removal of 14 acres of
existing forested land, replaced with lawns and new impervious surfaces, which will
result in increased stormwater runoff to Lake Ida. The Project proposer is strongly
encouraged to preserve mature trees to the greatest extent possible or replant trees
to absorb stormwater runoff from the development and help protect the lake water
quality.
• An infiltration basin is planned to collect runoff from the development as required by
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System General
Construction Stormwater permit (CSW Permit). Native vegetation should be planted
for bioinfiltration to enhance absorption of stormwater and provide pollinator habitat
as well.
• The EAW does not specify erosion and sediment controls to be implemented during
construction. Redundant (double) downgradient sediment controls will be required if
construction encroaches within 50 feet of the lake or the wetland at the site.
Temporarily or permanently exposed and unworked soils on any portion of the site
must be stabilized within 14 days even if construction is not complete. Disturbance
of steep slopes at the site should be avoided and efforts should be made to protect
and/or replace the natural shoreline vegetation to prevent erosion.
• The Project proposer or permittee will be required to maintain CSW Permit coverage
until all portions of the phased development are complete, including construction by
individual lot owners. Individual lot owners must submit a permit modification
(registration) form to the MPCA to receive permit coverage for construction on their
lot(s). The owner of the site is required to supply a Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) to new owners that specifically addresses erosion and sediment
control requirements for construction on their portion of the site.

RGU Response: The RGU acknowledges the comments from the MPCA and has
anticipated that the proposed development project will change the vegetation type and
density of the land area and add impervious surface coverage that will result in an
increase in runoff from the developed portion of the property. Runoff from
developments, both before and after development, will contain sediment, nutrients and
other traces of contaminants. The primary concerns from development related runoff,
as it pertains to surface water quality, are sediment and nutrients, which can reduce
water clarity, lower dissolved oxygen levels and smother aquatic habitat including
spawning sites. Nutrients, especially phosphorus since the lakes in Central Minnesota
tend to be phosphorus limited, can lead to additional plant and algae growth, or
eutrophication of the lake. The size of this development and the land area proposed to
be disturbed by construction activity triggers regulation by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA), whereby the developer is required to apply for and receive
coverage under Phase II of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Construction Stormwater (CSW) program. Under the NPDES CWS permit, a
site-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be developed that
specifies the location and type of erosion and sediment control techniques and best
management practices (BMPs) that will be employed to limit erosion and eliminate
sediment from leaving construction sites. As this project will result in the replacement of
pervious surfaces with more than one acre of new impervious surface, the permittees
must design and construct a permanent stormwater treatment system to treat the water
quality volume (Vwq) on the site. The Vwq is defined as the volume equal to one-inch
times the net increase in impervious surface created by the project. Infiltration, as a
volume reduction as well as treatment, must be the first option for treatment. If
infiltration is not possible, other permanent stormwater treatment options, such as wet
sedimentation basins or filtration systems, must be used. This site is conducive to
infiltration so the permittee will be required to use infiltration to both treat the Vwq and
reduce the volume of stormwater discharge.

In addition to State regulations, Section V. R of the Douglas County Zoning Ordinance

addresses erosion control and stormwater management from construction activities
ranging from small construction activities that disturb an acre of land or more to
construction related to a common plan of development. NPDES CSW standards are
included in the ordinance by reference and can be enforced by the County. Stormwater
Pollution Prevent Plans (SWPPP) are required to be submitted to the County prior to
permits being issued for land disturbing activities. Provisions of the SWPPP related to
CSW best management practices for individual lot development are conveyed to the lot
owners and/or developers at the time land use permits are issued by the County for
development of, and construction on, individual lots. Standards more stringent than
those imposed by NPDES CSW regulations could be included as conditions of approval
of the platted subdivision by the County.

Douglas County also enforces MN Rules Chapter 6120 within shoreland areas (areas
within 1000 ft of a lake and 300 ft of river or stream) of the County. Section V.L includes
regulations and standards to limit and control land disturbance and construction
activities within shore and bluff impact zones. Permits issued by the RGU are required
for construction work within shoreland areas to limit disturbance of steep slopes and
alteration of natural shoreline vegetation to prevent erosion. This section of the County
ordinance also includes more restrictive standards for erosion control, which are
required to be implemented for permitted land disturbance activities within the shoreland
areas of the County.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources:

Water Resource Concerns
…the proposed development does not provide significant protections for water quality.
Without further restrictions, the majority of lots are likely to be cleared to the maximum
extent and converted to lawns. Additional lawn and landscaping results in additional
nutrient run-off into Lake Ida.

Conservation Design
The Conservation Design Scorecard recommends open spaces be permanently
protected through legal measures. Creating the County Park just to the west of the
proposed development appears to meet Conservation Design intentions, but there is
little legal protection offered for this space. We frequently see county lakeshore parks
become highly developed and manicured with large parking lots and imported sand
covering native vegetation for beaches. For future water quality protections, MDNR
recommends providing additional legal protections on this area through means of a
conservation easement that limits clearing and development.

Forest Protection
Subdivision of lots and development left for the individual landowners would likely result
in excessive clearing of forested areas. Retaining existing trees is one of the best ways
to protect water quality. MDNR recommends creating a tree protection plan for the
development, allowing for tree removal in the development of a house, driveway, and
yard, but limited on clearing and lawn development throughout the lot with set tree
preservation requirements.

Rare Species
Retaining as much of the existing vegetation and using native plants for landscaping
common areas would minimize potential impacts to both the RPBB and the Red
Shouldered Hawk. Incorporating the requirement of tree preservation, raingardens, and
filter strips into the landuse permitting process would also ensure these practices occur
on individual lot developments.

RGU Response: The concerns raised in this letter are noted by the RGU and may be
able to be eliminated or substantially mitigated through on-going regulatory oversite and
approvals. Additionally, as mentioned by the agency, requirements by the RGU
implemented through permitting of individual lot development activities may provide
mitigation of potential impacts listed by the agency.

The RGU acknowledges that the proposed development of single-family residential lots
will lead to additional runoff from cleared and impervious surfaces into Lake Ida. The
size of this development and the land area proposed to be disturbed by construction
activity triggers regulation by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), whereby
the developer is required to apply for and receive coverage under Phase II of the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater
(CSW) program. Under the NPDES CWS permit, a site-specific Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be developed that specifies the location and type of
erosion and sediment control techniques and best management practices (BMPs) that
will be employed to limit erosion and eliminate sediment from leaving construction sites.
As this project will result in the replacement of pervious surfaces with more than one
acre of new impervious surface, the permittees must design and construct a permanent
stormwater treatment system to treat the water quality volume (Vwq) on the site. The
Vwq is defined as the volume equal to one-inch times the net increase in impervious
surface created by the project. Infiltration, as a volume reduction as well as treatment,
must be the first option for treatment. If infiltration is not possible, other permanent
stormwater treatment options, such as wet sedimentation basins or filtration systems,
must be used. This site is conducive to infiltration so the permittee will be required to
use infiltration to both treat the Vwq and reduce the volume of stormwater discharge.
The RGU also finds that standards more stringent than those imposed by NPDES CSW
regulations could be included as conditions of approval of the platted subdivision by the
County to mitigate potential impacts from increased runoff. Such measures could
include requiring treatment of stormwater on properties where impervious surface
coverage exceeds 15% of the lot area (current impervious coverage is limited to 25% of
the lot area), controlling stormwater discharge to pre-construction rates, and limiting
clearing and alteration of steep slopes and highly erodible soils.

The RGU concurs with the agency’s observation that a “majority of the [single-family
residential] lots are likely to be cleared…and converted to lawns,” potentially leading to
increased runoff and lack of open-space preservation. However, the RGU notes that
the 8.37 acres acquired by the County for a public lakeshore recreation area and the
proposed 9.42 ac planned unit development to be implemented at some future date
account for over 17 acres of the original 43.85 ac property. A recently approved plan for
the County public lakeshore recreational area specifies limited development of the land
with an emphasis on maintaining the natural lakeshore for public use. The County has
removed all but one of the former buildings, sidewalks, and roadways from the property,
and cleaned up concrete and other foreign materials from the shoreline. The primary
management goal of the County for this property is to maintain the point in as natural a
condition as possible. Hard-scaped amenities such as a 75-vehicle parking lot, a
walking/biking trail, and picnic shelter/restrooms will amount to approximately 1.5 acres
of impervious surface cover. Considering the removal of built and hard-scaped areas
on the property and the limited proposed development of facilities, the county park will
provide approximately 6.5 to 7 acres of preserved open space. The RGU also notes that
the proposed PUD will be required to maintain fifty percent of the land area as
permanently protected open space (approximately 4.7 acres). Within this area, the
County could require the preservation of trees and native vegetation to maintain habitat
for rare species, to improve infiltration of runoff from developed spaces, and to visually
buffer the developed areas. The combined acreage of the proposed open space to be
preserved within the county park and the future planned unit development (11.5 acres)
accounts for approximately 25% of the original parcel (43 acres). The RGU considers
this to be a significant measure that will assist in mitigating potential impacts from runoff
while providing habitat for species in the area that may be displaced by development.
David Geddes:
Setbacks, lot coverage, and building heights:
The following conditions and specifications should apply to all residential lots and to the
townhouses covered in the PUD:

• Strict adherence to lake setback

• No use of “stringline” setback for structures
• Strict adherence to 25% impervious surface lot coverage limitations
• Strict enforcement of the shore impact zone ordinances.
• Strict adherence to building height limits, including for the townhouses
• Review and monitoring of construction activities before and during construction to
ensure compliance with ordinances, regulations, and permits.
• Sanctions for violations should be sufficiently strong to dissuade violations.

Construction:
The EAW asserts that “development on individual [residential] is expected to be
intermittent.” The developers have no reason to make this statement, and have no
control over the pace of construction on residential lots. Given the high sale prices, it is
equally likely that property owners will want to build quickly. This could result in
construction activities concentrated in just a few years, causing disturbances for the
county park and for residents of the county road leading into the park and the
development.

Stormwater:
The EAW is deficient in providing any specifics about the water quality volume and
stormwater treatment. The EAW completely ignores water quantity. What will be the
capacity of the infiltration basins? This section should be rejected completely as
submitted.

What standards are used in calculating stormwater runoff for the infiltration basins? I
submit that calculations based on past rainfall patterns are not valid. Calculations
should be based on worst-case future projections.

Who will be responsible if the stormwater mitigation systems prove to be in sufficient in,
say, 5 years,10 years or 20 years? Will this be the individual property owners? The
homeowner’s association? The county?

Maintaining tree coverage:

Extensive removal of trees will put the shoreline at risk of erosion, especially on the
south side of the property. Disturbance of the tree cover will create a situation of
potential erosion.

The EAW indicates that property owners may remove trees on up to 25 feet of
shoreline. What could be done to provide an incentive to property owners to maintain
tree cover?

Who will approve plans for tree removal? Who will monitor tree removal? And what will
be sanctions for violations. I have seen several cases where a property owner removed
trees without a permit. Once the tree is gone, the damage is done. Will there be
monitoring to ensure that only “approved”? Will there be …restoration of the property
with new trees to replace the trees removed
improperly?

I recommend that tree services be required to remove trees only after the tree
service has reviewed a plan approved by Land and Resources. If a tree service
removes trees outside of an approved plan, sanctions should apply to the tree services
as well as the property owner.

Shoreline buffers and rip rap:

What steps will be taken to ensure the stability of the shoreline using trees, shrubs, and
pollinators (forbs) and grasses in a shoreline buffer? There is no erosion now.

What steps will be taken to dissuade landowners from jumping to using rip rap, given
that the shoreline has survived without erosion for a very long time? If property owners
(i) maintain trees and (ii) create shoreline buffers, they can minimize potential erosion
without recourse to rip rap.

What steps will be taken to avoid a “lawn-to-lake” landscape that would have a negative
effect on the shoreline, on runoff into the lake, and runoff of lawn chemicals into the
lake?

Properties on the south side have a small bluff at the edge of the lake. Climbing up and
down this bluff is likely to cause erosion. Should landowners be required to install a stair
immediately, in order to avoid human activity that might cause erosion?

Exterior lighting:
I do request that the developers and property owners be required to the
outdoor lighting standards of the International Dark-Sky Association (www.darksky.org).
The Model Lighting Ordinance (MLO) of the International Dark-Sky Association
available at https://www.darksky.org/our-work/lighting/public-policy/mlo/.

RGU Response: The concerns raised in this letter are noted by the RGU and may be
able to be eliminated or substantially mitigated through on-going regulatory oversite and
approvals.

Development of individual lots and construction activities associated with building are
regulated by the County through implementation of the Zoning Ordinance. The
ordinance establishes standards for construction and land alteration for each
designated district. The proposed development of Pilgrim Point Shores is located in the
residential shoreland zoning district, where additional standards found in the State
Shoreland Rules apply for most land disturbing activities. The Zoning Ordinance
includes permitting requirements for these types of activities and it is through the
issuance and monitoring of these permits that the County would ensure that the
standards for setbacks, impervious surface coverage, and shoreland alterations are
followed. Permitted activities are monitored by Douglas County Land & Resource
Management staff as necessary to ensure compliance. Violations are enforced
following procedures and with penalties as authorized by the administrative section of
the Zoning Ordinance. Any sanctions stronger than those listed in the ordinance would
need to be included in a revision of the document.

The RGU acknowledges that the proposed development of single-family residential lots
will lead to additional runoff from cleared and impervious surfaces into Lake Ida. It is
further acknowledged that the EAW document does not provide specifics on the volume
of runoff that may be discharged by the proposed development. This is likely due to the
inability of the developer to predict the extent of development for each lot and the
resulting contribution to runoff volume. Rather than focusing on modeling potential
changes to runoff from various scenarios of development, the EAW acknowledges that
runoff rates and volumes will increase with development and provides information on
the requirements for collection and treatment.

It is noted by the RGU that the size of this development and the land area proposed to
be disturbed by construction activity triggers regulation by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA), whereby the developer is required to apply for and receive
coverage under Phase II of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Construction Stormwater (CSW) program. Under the NPDES CWS permit, a
site-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be developed that
specifies the location and type of erosion and sediment control techniques and best
management practices (BMPs) that will be employed to limit erosion and eliminate
sediment from leaving construction sites. As this project will result in the replacement of
pervious surfaces with more than one acre of new impervious surface, the permittees
must design and construct a permanent stormwater treatment system to treat the water
quality volume (Vwq) on the site. The Vwq is defined as the volume equal to one-inch
times the net increase in impervious surface created by the project. Infiltration, as a
volume reduction as well as treatment, must be the first option for treatment. If
infiltration is not possible, other permanent stormwater treatment options, such as wet
sedimentation basins or filtration systems, must be used. This site is conducive to
infiltration so the permittee will be required to use infiltration to both treat the Vwq and
reduce the volume of stormwater discharge. The RGU also finds that standards more
stringent than those imposed by NPDES CSW regulations could be included as
conditions of approval of the platted subdivision by the County to mitigate potential
impacts from increased runoff. Such measures could include requiring treatment of
stormwater on properties where impervious surface coverage exceeds 15% of the lot
area (current impervious coverage is limited to 25% of the lot area), controlling
stormwater discharge to pre-construction rates, and limiting clearing and alteration of
steep slopes and highly erodible soils.

Stormwater collection and treatment systems are designed based on a compilation of

stormwater events classified by period of recurrence. It is acknowledged by the RGU
that years of studies suggest that climate is changing resulting in more frequent and
intense storm events. Climatological data that is used by engineers to design
stormwater collection and treatment systems is periodically adjusted to reflect these
changes, resulting in systems that are designed based on the best available scientific
data. Currently, best available information used for design of stormwater collection and
treatment systems is found in NOAA’s National Weather Service Hydrometeorological
Design Studies Center’s Atlas 14, which was released in 2013. The maintenance of
stormwater collection and treatment systems will either be the responsibility of a
homeowner’s association, or more likely the responsibility of the township, which
maintains the road infrastructure for the development.

The clearing of vegetation on individual lots, especially in shore and bluff impact zones
is regulated by the County following the standards in the zoning ordinance. Vegetation
alteration, including the removal of trees within these important areas (shore and bluff
impact zones) is greatly limited, as noted by the commenter. Additional limitations could
be placed on the removal of trees in sensitive areas to ensure stability of steep slopes
and shorelines as conditions of the approval of the plat by the County. Such conditions
would be monitored by the staff from the Land & Resource Department and violations
would be enforced as permitted by the ordinance.

Protection of shorelines from activities that can cause erosion is one of the key
objectives of the State’s shoreland rules (MN Rules Chapter 6120) enforced by the
County through Section V.L of the zoning ordinance. Performance standards of this
ordinance section prevent the clearing of vegetation from more than 25% of the shore
impact zone. More restrictive clearing and alteration standards are applied to bluff
impact zones and areas with steep slopes (greater than 12%), where there is increased
potential for erosion. This section also regulates alteration of the shoreline for the
placement of steps, patios, and other amenities. Currently, the use of rip rap to stabilize
shorelines where there is active erosion is not restricted by State rule or County
ordinance. However, guidance from the MN Department of Natural Resources
encourages the use of natural shoreline buffers and shoreline restoration techniques to
stem active erosion. The County has also recently been engaged in an effort to
establish more robust standards related to limiting the use of rip rap only to situations
that warrant it’s use where other methods may not be successful in stopping active
shoreline erosion.

Comments related to limiting and/or eliminating light pollution from outdoor lighting is
acknowledged by the RGU. Similar comments have been submitted for other land use
applications in recent years. The County does not have any standards or restrictions for
outdoor lighting in the zoning ordinance, but has included conditions such as those
suggested by the commenter in the approval of permit for land uses where outdoor
lighting may interfere with rural resident’s enjoyment of their property.

Comment letters received: