STR’s cover letter for expert comments on EAW
26th August 2021
Rochester Township Board of Supervisors
c/o Randy Staver, Township Clerk and Roger Ihrke, TCPA, Township Zoning Administrator 4111-11th Avenue SW, Room 10
Rochester, MN 55902
RE: Save the Rookery
Comments to Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and Request for Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
Pavilion Estates Subdivision, Rochester Township, Olmsted County, MN
Dear Board of Supervisors,
Save the Rookery (STR) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Pavillions Estate (“the Project”). This is an opportunity to continue the conversation regarding conservation of natural resources and reduction of climate impacts as part of the EAW process for roads and residential developments in Rochester Township (“the Township”).
While STR appreciates the work that the Township has done to create a comprehensive EAW for the Project, the EAW omits a potentially significant environmental impact: climate change. In order to comply with Minnesota law and policy, the EAW must analyze the greenhouse gas emissions that the development will emit, possible mitigation measures to reduce those emissions, and the impacts of climate change on the Project. Revising the EAW to include this analysis will also enable the Township to promote smarter, cleaner, and more resilient growth. For this reason, STR respectfully requests that the Township revise the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (“EAW”) to include this vital information.
According to the MN EQB’s “A Citizen’s Guide: An Introduction to Environmental Review”, the EAW is meant to be a “brief analysis and overview of the potential environmental impacts for a specific project and to help the RGU determine whether an EIS is necessary... EAWs are usually the shortest at 15-50 pages in length.” It should be clear, concise, and understandable to the common layperson who may possess an 8th grade level of knowledge of science and ecology.
The EAW provided by Pavillion Estates is 188 pages -- which is four to twelve times the suggested length. It’s poorly organized, lacks an executive summary, repeatedly fails the “clear, concise and understandable” test, and includes superfluous and irrelevant information and appendices. Further, in multiple instances data that was collected for diagnosing an ecosystem or as a management tool is misapplied to bolster their case for development. This sort of misuse of data is bad science that leads to false conclusions.
Given the overall lack of clarity, misinformation and incompleteness of the EAW, including but not limited to the omission of any climate impacts via GHG emissions, multiple cumulative impact omissions, and the missing Natural Heritage letter from the DNR, STR respectfully requests that the Township require that the EAW be redone to address all of these omissions and all the insufficiencies and inaccuracies noted in the public comments, or order an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that will give them the comprehensive, unbiased, respected expert analysis that is vital to their ability to make a wise and fully informed decision regarding the future of this property.
* * * * *
Before your analysis of the EAW and public comments begins, we would like to correct -- for the public record -- several false statements made at the Monday, August 23rd special township meeting.
1. Mr. Broberg stated that no one from STR has reached out to his client, the developer -- “not even once.”
This is untrue. We did reach out to Dr. Mordi in March 2021 to discuss our concerns with her regarding her plans and the potential impacts upon the rookery and the woodland corridor. We had drafted an alternate plan that would have enabled her to make a profit from developing the land while preserving the rookery. She did not respond.
One of our members, Brett Ostby, also attempted to reach out to Mr. Broberg early in March 2021 to discuss science and management and see if there might be room for compromise with his client. He flat out avoided Ostby, then refused. All Ostby wanted was to have a better understanding of the situation at the time.
Ostby had had a collegial relationship with Broberg in the past, having chaired a nonprofit allied with MNWOO where he helped direct funding to his non-profit. Since Broberg knew how to contact Ostby, had he believed that a discussion with us would have been conducive to finding a resolution regarding his client, then he would have returned calls and emails. Broberg’s statement is disingenuous.
2. Mr. Broberg asked: "Why invest in land that is ephemeral as a priority for birds?"
Mr. Broberg is trying to categorize the land as already in jeopardy from future development. This is false. Because the land is part of a contiguous 120-acre wildlife corridor, one of the last in our township; and because the rookery spans three properties, with the owners of two of the three properties willing to put their rookery land into a DNR-sponsored Science and Natural Area (SNA); and because STR is not against the property owner making a profit on his land -- this forested land with its wildlife treasures has very high probability -- with the support of the Township board -- of being preserved in perpetuity.
3. JoAnn Wegman misquotes what Carrol Henderson stated under oath at the TRO trial. He never said that "the profesional expert of birding, habitat, nesting of SE Minnesota was Jeff Broberg".
This statement is demonstrably false. A review of the court transcript will show that Carrol Henderson actually said Broberg is an expert on trout streams in SE MN.
4. Mr. Broberg said: "Property rights at play here vs. birds that are not protected or listed as being a concern."
The property rights of one person are at play here, vs. the needs and desires of a flood of township residents who are seeking, through civic participation, to influence local government to preserve from fragmentation the last remaining 100-120 acres of contiguous forest left in our 22+ square mile township - the presence of the rookery only adds to its value.
The mission of local government and the purpose of government-made zoning and land use decisions is simple and clear —to choose the path forward in land use decisions that most benefits the current and future residents of the township. Zoning is the process that allows local governments to control the development of land specifically so that they can ensure that the public is satisfied with their community.
At the same time, we are respectful of the property owner’s rights. It should be noted here that those who want to preserve the rookery and forest land believe the property owner is entitled to profit from the sale of his land, whether he sells it to a developer or to those who want to preserve its natural state in perpetuity as a Scientific and Natural Area.
Therefore -- we believe that the Township board has the power to both preserve this wildlife treasure and upland forest for current and future generations and protect the property rights of the owner.
We ask the Township to order an EIS that will give them comprehensive, unbiased, expert information so that they can make the wisest and most fully informed decision regarding the future of this land.
Sincerely,
Save the Rookery
Photo by William Welke