gm! at 10 I'll be live-tweeting the emergency TRO hearing in Judge Reyes's "courtroom" (this is on Zoom) in D.C. Preservation League v. Department of Interior, otherwise known as the golf course case plaintiffs assert that NPS removed 529 trees on Saturday, including healthy, mature maples and oaks. the government was supposed to refrain from doing anything irreversible without providing enough notice for the court to act, but Judge Reyes hadn't entered a formal order until this morning now, she has imposed a temporary pause on tree removal til tomorrow morning, making clear that "routine maintenance" (how NPS has characterized all removals so far) isn't exempt today, she wants Dr. Kevin Griess, Superintendent of National Mall and Memorial Parks, to testify under oath to: 1. who ordered the tree removal and when? 2. exact time preparations began for removal 3. full chronology and steps preparation 4. when gov. counsel was first informed plaintiffs, per the motion for a TRO, will argue that NPS is engaging in National Environmment Policy Act "segmentation": "undertaking elements of a larger project piecemeal and insisting that they are independent and therefore need not be evaluated in a single NEPA review" "I am thoroughly unamused," says Judge Reyes JR: I don't know how I could have made it any plainer that I did not want what has happened to happen. I have given the government every single benefit of the doubt that it would not do precisely what it has done (pararphrasing) "what has happened has cost the government every ounce of its credibility with me in this case" now going through the timeline of previous hearings, reading the transcripts to make clear that she demanded notice that she did not get in order to avoid a "fait accompli" Asks when government counsel was aware. Counsel says learned Oct. 7. Judge says no one thought to tell anyone? I don't care if you don't have details. "Ignorance is not an excuse here." JR: When did you learn it was definitely going to happen on Saturday? DOJ: Either late Oct. 8 or morning of Oct. 9 JR: Why on Earth would nobody give a notice until Friday at 4:55 p.m.?...I don't care about the details, ma'am...You call the court Do you have email? Yes. Do you have cell phones? Yes. I don't care about a filing. You can absolutely call them and say this is what's planned. Now JR asking who was final decisionmaker who decided no heads up "You know why I'm furious right now? I was hearing from everybody on plaintiffs' side that this was going to happen and I said repeatedly, no, I trust the government. I trusted you all not to do precisely what you have done." I am just at a total loss to understand what has happened here, other than -- Occam's Razor time -- that the government intended to do precisely what it has done. (that being, cause delay so it could clear hundreds of trees -- DOJ says approx 430 trees) JR: On what universe did anyone in your office think that was acceptable? DOJ: Your honor, we did our best -- JR: No, you did not do your best. You did your absolute worst. Plaintiffs saying DOJ wasn't available til Sunday at 11. DOJ says they were asked for earliest availability. "More than being upset and furious right now, I am just beyond disappointed in the government. I have done everything humanly possible to give the government the benefit of the doubt in this case. I have done it repeatedly. I have done it for months." JR: What are the plans moving forward? DOJ: Today, NPS go w/ contractor to see whether grounds are wet...I understand nothing can happen JR: "Is everyone else aware of that? Because I promise you if that order is violated by two seconds, there are gonna be contempt proceedings." DOJ: Idea would be move next zone, finish up Zone B, 29 trees, Zone C has 39 trees, then rest of area. Moving the trees and/or chipping wood, couple of weeks, then the project would be completed JR: So how many more trees are we talking about? DOJ: Around 299 more (I think I heard correctly) JR: This is program from 2019. Why did it have to happen Saturday? DOJ: Have to ask Dr. Griess. Understanding is an approval made in funding but the details I'm not sure of JR: Anything else planned or in anyone's thought bubble about further plans for golf course or NEPA review for new course? DOJ: Not aware of any additional activities on golf course that would require NEPA review JR: Any other plans being contemplated for the golf course? DOJ: Not that I'm aware JR: Mr. Bardwell (Will Bardwell for plaintiffs), what would you like right now? WB: Chicken and egg problem. Which pleading we're traveling under. Ask motion TRO granted, then file motion for PI The ubiquitous Abbe Lowell jumps in. Series of questions need to be answered. JR says, "Oh, we're going to have some questions answered." Dr. Kevin Griess now being put under oath. Looks like Abbe Lowell is going to do the cross. Or, rather, sounds. AL: Your declaration says indicates as far as you know nothing proceeding on 7 year plan til recently. True? KG: True from NPS perspective. AL: Recently new resources and personnel? Where come from and when? KG: Funding and workforce. Park doesn't have internal capability to do large-scale tree removal or funding but during America's 250 NPS brought in surge workforce. Paint benches, trim trees, clean things up. Include tree removal. KG: Contracting is funding to do projects in consolidated manner. AL: This workforce of 20-40 ppl already in existence for some period of time? KG: Surged earlier this year. Main focus 4th of July/grand prix race. End of Aug., released back to larger-scale projects. NPS personnel from entire NPS. AL: Group in existence to do other projects prior to being assigned to this, when were they contacted, by whom, to start this new project Saturday? KG: Can't tell exactly. Helped do original back in May. JR: Who would have notified to start on Saturday? KG: Washington office of NPS. Judge Reyes ordering the identified party, Frank Lands, at NPS to appear at the hearing AL: When did you, Dr. Griess, first get notice of 7-year-old plan? KG: On the 8th. AL: From whom? KG: My staff, from Mr. Lands. AL: When is it that you were contacted to create the declaration that you filed on Friday? KG: Almost simultaneously. JR: Discussions before Oct 8. How long? KG: On Tuesday the 6th when I received the approval that the plan was approved. I had submitted (Monday the 5th) a tree management plan to NPS director. JR: Include getting down hundreds of trees? KG: Absolutely, your honor. KG: Approval came from NPS Director Jessica Bowron. (He pulls up the email). 5:39 p.m. on the 6th. JR: When did you first inform gov. counsel possibility? KG: I didn't talk to gov. counsel til we did the declaration. AG: What prompted you to submit the plan on Monday Oct. 5 following recommendation for a plan that was 7 years old? KG: Several of the authors work for me. Certified landscape architect, arborist/urban forester. When golf course lease done, part of contract was complete same exact plan. KG: Thought wasn't my jurisdiction. When lease dropped, it was. Focused on America's 250 for prioritization at first. When came out of Grand Prix, workforce/funding available, asked my architect to update/map/mark every tree that could be cut to return to historic nature. Here's Frank Lands, the guy they want to testify: nps.gov AL: Do you have the communications for all the things you're testifying about? KG: Mostly staff in physical proximity so not written down. But plan was written down based on CLR. Regardless of 5 years or 7 years old, still a valid CLR. AL: CLR doesn't itself call for removal of 700 trees. AL: Where is formulation that led you to submit on Oct. 5 what you submitted? Where is antecedent planning? KG: Asked landscape architects week before. AL: Now at end of September plan being formulated. First time you woke up and said, I've got this CLR, now I'm going to start attending to it? KG: Discussions several months to understand CLR, understand what links-style golf course is, understand how trees compatible or not compatible with that kind of thing. AL: Discussions include how that did or did not also coordinate with litigation, president's plan to do what he wants done? KG: I'm not aware of what the president's plan for the golf course is. AL: You're saying not aware of what president has been saying? KG: No, aware of what's on social media etc., but professionally haven't been briefed. AL: Where in CLR you'll find support consistent with cutting down that number of trees? KG: Very clear answers. 1) Cultural landscape inventory, done in 2017/2018. 2) Cultural landscape report, vegetation treatment, sightlines. Goes back to 1917-1941, historical period of significance. Three maps. CLR says return it back to the 1920s. Go back to stated intent of original course, very few trees on it at all. Original state of a links-style golf course. Look at intent, doesn't go tree by tree by tree but reflects survey. AL: You declared conditions talking about based on lack of maintenance resulted in critical safety issues needing immediate maintenance and repair. Address safety issue. Nowhere in this declaration make any mention of the 7-year-old program? KG: True. AL: Moment or two ago you said your plan developed on Oct. 5 was in the making over a period of time where aware of what CLR dictated but couldn't get to it. If that's true, why was that not part of your understanding/presentation in this litigation as to what would be the tree removal plan? KG: In May I was being asked about set amount of trees that we ID'd as hazardous trees. At the time, plan was already in the CLR, and I had not "firmed it up with anybody." I was in the educational process. I was walking the golf course. I did not have a formulated plan. KG: Didn't think I had personnel and resources. I was unclear about the status of the lease and who was responsible, NLT or myself. Although I was in discussions, learning and being educated, I had not developed a plan and it wasn't relevant to my declaration in May in my opinion. JR: Precisely, when did you get funding authorization? KG: When we submit a plan, the plan gets approved and then the finding follows. JR: NPS has a budget. Budgetary line items. As I understand it, 2027 budget, WH proposed at least 20 percent to NPS budget. Where would this come from, line item? JR: Not that budgetary resources became available; you could have asked for them at any point in time. We need to make that correction to paragraph six of your declaration. Fair? KG: (Eventually) yes JR: Resources available after July 4 and the race thingamajig (yes she said thingamajig)? JR: You proposed plan Oct. 5. When did you start creating that plan? KG: Started discussing w/ architects/foresters in May after we finished the hazardous trees. If we moved from hazardous trees to full accomplishment of CLR. JR: When picture sufficient for pen to paper? KG: End/mid of Sept. JR: What page of CLR will I go to to assess whether or not what has happened is consistent with the CLR? KG: There is a map that shows the period of significance and then what is current today, and you can see the difference visually. JR: If I wanted to compare what has happened to the plan. how? KG: Connection to CLR, narratively ID'd, visual map shows exactly what original park was and what it is now. Why we picked the zones, why we picked the trees that we have picked. AL: Resource question. May declaration, safety and similar issues having to have priority. Not attended to in May, June, July. Why resouces not used for immediate safety issues as opposed to oh, there's this plan from 7 years ago that I can now start? AL: I get the trees can be part of what you have to do to make parts of the course safer. Probably not 700+ trees. But other than those trees which pose the safety issue, paragraph after paragraph of declaration talking about other needs? Why not attend to those beyond safety? Why all on trees? KG: Some of it is structures I was told responsibility of leasee. Only thing in my purview I already had a plan for was the CLR. Capital infrastructure funding different from ground maintenance funding. KG: At time I was told to address trees bc some obvious dead/hazardous trees. JR: Passive tense. Who asked to focus on trees/not structure? KG: Didn't say exactly that. The White House -- excuse me, the Washington Office NPS. Mr. Frank Lands. JR: Saturday not hazardous, not invasive. KG: No ID'd hazardous/safety. JR: This was just, we're getting rid of trees. KG: One was trash area size of football field, rest was clearing trees back to historic nature of the course. JR: Who told you after hazardous trees to continue focusing on vegetation? KG: No one. That was me. AL: You had could have asked whomever you're talking with to say I understand that you want trees done, but we have emergency safety issues, could you have not? KG: Yes. AL: You claim not aware of how whatever it is you're doing might or might not conform to plan of president to deal with this course. In declaration, say aware NPS evaluating golf course/planning Section 106 consultation. KG: Social media. AL: Only info you have as to plan we're litigating about you're telling us comes from social media? Nobody at NPS, nobody in government? Solely you reading of social media? KG: This plan that I submitted was to restore to links style golf course. I was aware NPS evaluating other plans. I don't know what those plans are, that's above my level, and I haven't seen them. AL: Did Washington field office give any explanation why trees? Or about coordination with anyone at WH? KG: Not conversations I am part of. AL: Who's giving directive as to which trees stay/leave? KG: I did. Plan I approved based on my input from my architects/arborists/urban foresters. AL: You said some oral. But some in writing? KG: They conducted staff-level coordinations/professional assessments, provided me with tree-management plan which I reviewed and approved and forwarded. AL: When did you reach out to them? KG: September. After not preoccupied with A250. KG: Conversations oral, face-to-face with staff. Gave direction to landscape architect, my deputy, he contacted. All of those people are my staff. AL: Every single one is oral? KG: My comms to my deputy were oral. His comms to subordinate staff I'm not aware of. JR: Report from architect. Tree-management plan. You have that in writing. KG: Yes. I received week before, Oct. 2. Final draft shared w/ Director Bowron on Oct. 5. JR: Before that, any written comms w/ staff? KG: Not that I recall. Go do it and provide a plan. JR: "Go do it" was oral. KG: Yes. JR: Ordering you and your staff to maintain all communications relating to tree-management plan or golf course whether by email, hard copy or whatever. Any automatic anything, you need to turn that off. Inform staff to turn off auto-deletes and not delete. AL: Oct. 5 submitted plan. Approval Oct. 6 w/ funding. How many plans for release of funding submitted in your time? Handful? 20? KG: Handful. AL: Ordinary timeline? Not 24h, is it? KG: Normally immediate or w/in 1-2 workdays. JR: How much was request? KG: I don't know. Don't submit invoice. JR: You have an idea of how much this is gonna cost? KG: I do not. AL: That confuses me. If you don't have idea of how much cost, and you're not done with project you indicated, how do you know sufficient funds? KG: If get told to go, we go, and it's funded when project is complete. JR: Is there any urgency of continuing with the tree removal? KG: Not that I'm aware of. JR: Tomorrow, month from now, basically the same from government's perspective. KG: Yes. Kevin Griess now explaining his jurisdiction. A little over 1k acres. The golf course is about 315 acres. Judge Reyes asking when he decided to focus on that (he has been around since Dec. 2024). He says it's next to his headquarters and he walked/ran it and was dismayed. KG: Asked staff what authorities do I have to tell the leasee what to do, and they said it's in the contract, and I left it at that, didn't pursue. JR: When was next time you pursued? KG: May or June, got clarity lease had been stopped. After A250, trying to get something done before snow. KG: Asked staff to bring CLR, did research to understand links-style golf course. I said prepare a plan to move forward with restoring historically. JR: Who was in charge of negotiating ending the lease? KG: Idk who that exact person is. AL: Who are you talking about who directed you? KG: Mr. Lands/assistant. AL: Your declaration was submitted to the court and to us on the same Friday that we got the notice from the gov, timestamped at 4:37 p.m. 18 minutes before gov made filing in court. You testified to your knowing plan in works at least 4 days before. KG: Yes. AL: When did you start working on dec? DOJ: Privilege issues. Close to line. AL: Date as to when. Not where, etc. Dr. Griess and gov probably had something 4 days to know when started. JR: Time and day, date, nothing else as to when you began working with the gov on a declaration. KG: The 8th, afternoon. Idk what time exactly. JR: Date/time counsel sent draft to you? KG: Look at email. I misspoke, 10:43 in morning on Friday. JR: When first time talked to counsel about Sat. plan? KG: Don't have easily brought up on email. But iirc, the 8th when contractor affirmed could begin. AL: Oct. 9 declaration make statement that no healthy trees that are historical features of the golf course will be removed. We've said however many hundred to go. Who is making the tree by tree decision that is reflected by your declaration on the 20th as to which trees will be able to stay? KG: I make final decision but delegate to my deputy who is a certified landscape architect. Going a break, then the government will ask Dr. Griess questions. Back at 11:45. We're back! DOJ: Any dead trees right now on golf course area? KG: Not aware of any. Should have been grabbed up this weekend. DOJ: Walk me through what seasons you'd be engaged in this kind of project. KG: Spring or fall. Usually not middle of summmer -- court used at maximum, all the different events. DOJ: In winter? KG: Only if storm knocks trees down. More damage to ground w/ equipment. Unsafe work conditions. DOJ: Talking about tremoval compatible/not compatible. With what? KG: Period of significance: foundation period. As a whole, 1917-1941. Compatible = species, viewline, size of tree. Views and vistas identified in CLR. DOJ: Compatibility is broad things discussed in CLR. Right? KG: Yes. DOJ: Whose idea to engage in tree-management project? KG: Mine. DOJ: No one told you to engage? KG: Correct. DOJ: Communicate w/ DOJ counsel? KG: No. JR: I don't understand. When you say you communicated with counsel, don't want to hear what. Who? KG: Parks counsel. JR: Who is that? KG: Sheriff Porsia. JR: Any other? KG: Haninah Levine. DOJ: NEPA compliance documents broadly asked questions about. Categorical exclusion, "cat ex." Does it discuss the CLR? KG: Yes. DOJ: Talk about treatment chapter of CLR? What is that, in broad strokes? KG: Overgrown vegetation, impasse to visuals, invasive trees. DOJ: Helpful for court/opposing counsel to look at to understand NPS decisions? KG: Yes. DOJ: Foundation of analysis used to determine which trees to cut. KG: Yes. DOJ: Larger golf course plan. Assume nothing else happens to golf course. Any point to doing tree removal now? KG: Yes, absolutely. Whoever ran golf course, would begin with foundation of being a links-style golf course. This is the exact plan we would have wanted the leasee before the implement. DOJ: When was idea of tree-management first conceptualized? KG: CLR, then integrated into lease agreement with National Links Trust as part of their work plan. DOJ done questioning. Now Judge Reyes. JR: Why is golf course historic? Just in layperson's terms. What's historic about the layout that we're trying to get back? KG: Built early 20s. Very famous person, Travis. For city, for park, intended to be links-style. JR: Assume I know nothing about golf and explain. KG: Usually found near bodies of water with very few trees that are strategically placed. Lower vegetation, brush grasses, lower-level waist-high grasses that make up boundaries. Usually a little windy. Sweeping vistas of water. KG: Parkland golf-course more tree-bounded. Slowly evolved over time. Different leasees allowed different types of trees: cherry trees. That's fine. But there was no coherent adherence to the original design or even an end-state design it was moving toward; it would change. KG: Do for all monuments, Lincoln Memorial. What was intent of original designers? Stay historically true to that as much as possible. East Potomac out of control, slowly evolved to not true to design. Many people in D.C. want it to be back to links-style. KG: When originally desegregated, wanted regular person to be able to go out and use it. Result of dredging. Built land. Every tree here put there after the fact. JR: One of objectives is accessible to everyone, however much money you have/whatever skill level? Acceptable to all D.C. residents. KG: Place in city where everyone can come experience golf. Golfing just kicking off to becoming everyman's, every person's sport. JR: Page 188 of CLR (looks like she may have studied up during the break). Tell me if I read correctly. Guidelines to bring to 1920s, 1930s. Page 190. Last paragraph, grove of cherry trees from Japan in 1910, need to be preserved thru any changes. Agree? KG: Absolutely. JR: Why? KG: Original gifts, from 1910. Original grove, only a few left. JR: 191. Maintain links-style, teaching course. Beginning golfers similar style of play as other two courses. Original intent is place beginners can play golf. Agree important? KG: Yes. JR is done. AL: Declaration Friday. When you referred to counsel, coming from your own internal at NPS? Not anybody representing gov? When NPS counsel if at all had conversations w/ DOJ counsel? KG: I do not. AL: Counsel for NPS would know? KG: Assume so. Judge Reyes says Dr. Griess is free to go but should remain available. Frank Lands from NPS is now being let into the Zoom call. He's put under oath.Judge Reyes gives him the rundown on what we're doing here. Asks for background info: deputy director of operations for NPS, provide oversight and execution of operations for the 433 park units in NPS system and support (acting) Dir. Bowron. JR: Aware ongoing litigation about East Potomac golf course? (I am.) Aware process of tearing down hundreds of trees on course? (I am.) Pursuant to plan. FL: Understand result of cultural landscape inventory/plan put in place around 2019. JR: First time aware plan to tear down trees Sat.? FL: Oct. 5. Up til that point, removing dying, invasive, hazardous trees around golf course and cleaning it up. JR: Who told you to do that? FL: Discussions w/ Greg Wischer. (All this in response to questions.) Deputy chief of staff for DOI. We had a meeting. If I recall, Oct. 5. Greg called mtg. FL: Purpose was begin implementing CLR. Phasing out CLR. Implement report that had been in place, what could be managed over next few weeks. JR: Wrt which golf courses in report? FL: Specifically East Potomac. I do not recall discussing any of the other golf courses. JR: Why was there a need? FL: Unsure what prompted meeting. Just asked to implement report. By Mr. Wischer. JR: All right, we're getting Mr. Wischer on the phone. DOJ now trying to get Mr. Wischer. JR: Who else meeting? FL: Solicitor. Noah Hoggatt. Rachel Daniels assisting me, taking notes. JR: Do you still have the notes? FL: I do not. JR: Did you ever have? FL: Negative. FL: Began cultural landscape inventory/report. All necessary NEPA, endangered species, NHPA. Find time done safely w/o interruption to golf play. JR: All week of Oct 5. What was the urgency? FL: Normal course of business. Do w/ other phases of EO related to D.C. Safe and Beautiful. JR: Consistent w/ EO? FL: That's my understanding. JR: Aware of plan to redesign E. Po? FL: Aware. JR: Discussed at this meeting? FL: Not that I recall. JR: Have you had discussions? FL: Yes. With Mr. Wischer. Do not recall with Dr. Griess. With solicitor. JR: Last time talked to Mr. Wischer. FL: Don't recall. Not any time in recent couple of weeks. JR: Current status of plan? FL: Unknown. JR: Last conversation, understanding hypothetically? FL: Discussions about implementations. Not aware of plans to execute final plan. JR: Did NEPA for Saturday trees? FL: Categorical exclusion. JR: What was exclusion? What docs prepared? (he says he'll have to look) Who would have prepared? FL: Region/park put NEPA documents together JR: Access? FL: Not right now. Could get. I've perused, didn't read in depth JR: How many docs? 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 100 FL: Can't recall. Not 100. Not in position to estimate at this point. JR: How many did you peruse? FL: Don't recall. JR: When? FL: Earlier this week. JR: Oct. 6, 7? FL: Sounds generally that timeframe. JR: How did you peruse? FL: Electronic format JR: Emailed to you? FL: Email or teams. Do not have access right here in this vehicle, in a parking lot. If I were in more office I would most likely be able to get them. JR: Did you instruct Griess to move forward to cut down trees? FL: When? JR: After NEPA/environmental docs and contract FL: Looking off CLR. Provided to me and I gave direction to execute. JR: 2019 report doesn't have plan that says cut down trees ABCDE and F. Another plan specific trees FL: Informed by report. Experts at park/region JR: I'm going to call it the Tree Report. Not the 2019 report. When did you see? FL: After asked to implement CLR landscape. Done in collaboration once NEPA completed. Wed. or Thurs. NEPA review also last week. JR: Categorical exclsuion. What was the category/basis? FL: Don't recall JR: Who signs off? FL: Have to go back and see. Someone within NPS. DOJ doesn't want to ask any questions. Abbe Lowell for plaintiffs now. AL: 2019 plan in existence for every day that you have been in your position (3 yrs). When first hear that CLR needed to be dealt with in 2026? FL: Sometime after D.C. Safe and Beautiful EO. AL: Many months ago. Place reference to CLR as part of D.C. EO. Report been in report 7 yrs, known at some pt. in tenure, link to EO on D.C. Why no attempt to implement until last week? FL: Looking at clean up golf course/dead trees AL: Phasing out CLR. When phasing out, to phase something out and something in. What did you mean phasing out? FL: If I used word phasing out, probably misrepresented. It was implementation of the CLR. Not aware of phasing anything in. Executing/implementing CLR. AL: Exactly phrase you used. AL: Chronology. Meeting called by Deputy CoS Wischer. When did you hear mtg on that date? That very day? Week before? FL: My calendar is very busy. Basically saw invite and went to the meeting. AL: On Oct. 5, happened to look at cal and had invite? That's testimony? FL: Testimony is my calender was populated with a meeting and I attended AL: Other attendees DOJ: Mr. Hoggatt is an attorney, comms with him are privileged AL: I know what a solicitor means. Wanted to figure out who at mtg AL: Deputy CoS to Secretary Burgum? (Yes.) Conversations directly w/ Burgum abt tree-management or CLR? FL: Do not recall any. AL: One and only time conversations w/ Wischer abt CLR? FL: Discussed in past. Over period of weeks and months. Potential implementation of CLR JR: What golf courses discussions of? FL: Generally East Potomac JR: CLR covers a number of golf courses. How many abt CLR wrt any other golf course? FL: Do not recall any specific on any other JR: Any general? Any at all? FL: Numerous on other. Nothing on CLR AL: Conversations w/ Wischer about CLR. Also included how CLR plan needed to be considered w/ overall plan announced by Pres Trump about renovating golf course? FL: Discussions specifically about implementing the CLR were just that AL: Wasn't my question. Indicated know about other plan. In what way did discussions about other plan interact with how happen in conjunction with CLR? FL: Don't recall discussions about CLR w/ larger plan AL: Telling me in no conversations did both CLR and admin's golf plan come up? FL: Do not remember having a direct conversation that said implement the CLR then implement some other plan. Not aware of any specific plan. Understand multiple proposals out there AL: When you were having conversations w/ Mr. Wischer abt dif kind of renovation, dif kind of golf course, doesn't have to be final plan/written plan. Did also come up talking abt concept that would be somewhere, someplace, somehow another set of renovations on that course for smthg other than CLR? FL: There was discussion. I was not privy to another plan, timelines. On 5th, directed to execute CLR. DOJ: Your Honor, want to confirm no conversations w/ solicitor or attorney AL: Ever conversation w/ Mr. Wischer abt CLR or other possible proposal when not atty in room? FL: Negative, always atty in room AL: Topics. Implement CLR, with awareness involving this other proposal. FL: Correct. FL: On the 5th, we were asked to implement the CLR. JR: Timeline? FL: Make sure those 3 things in place (safety etc.) and implement as soon as practical. JR: Told why? FL: Negative. JR: Were you curious as to why the urgency all of a sudden? FL: Interest in cleaning up golf course for a while AL: Fine point on last set of questions. What did you hear that indicated after all 7 yrs of plan and 3 yrs of your job and 1.5 yrs of admin, urgency to accomplish CLR? FL: Told to implement plan ensuring compliance/safety/not interrupt play. Those are the things I was asked to do fast as possible AL: When did you first have any conversation w/ Dr. Griess abt ability to start implementing CLR? FL: Last week, earlier AL: Meeting on the 5th where? FL: DOI, Mr. Wischer's office. Same floor as secretary's offices AL: Interaction w/ Dr. Griess phone, writing, in person? FL: Assume phone AL: What exchange abt what supposed to be done by him and what you were doing? FL: Most discussions w/ deputy and regional director (naming them). Multiple conversations AL: Was it you/your folks or Griess/his folks coming up w/ implementation to execute? FL: Didn't give direction to just 1 indiv AL: Did you/your office or Dr. Griess/his come up w/ specifics of plan that became operational process for removing trees? FL: Collaboration/coordination with region and park staff AL: Hard to follow. Who did first draft? FL: Dr. Griess's office one actually came up w/ how implement plan AL: So, Dr. Griess created plan as to how specifically implemented. They submitted to you? FL: Correct. AL: When did you receive? FL: Preliminary drafts earlier in week. Friday when came up w/ final plan AL: Conversations between Monday/Fri? Working docs? FL: Correct JR: NPS NEPA handbook indicates authority for categorically excluding an action rests w/ superintendent. That's Griess, signed off on categorical exclusion? FL: Correct JR: Any conversations w/ him abt categorical exclusion? FL: Multiple working conversations on type of NEPA necessary FL: Don't remember any specifically w/ Dr. Griess DOJ: Privileged comms again JR: I get it. Was about to ask who had conversations w/ about NEPA? FL: Staff supporting me. Region staff. Probably park staff. Multiple entities over course of week JR: Email comms about what NEPA was required? FL: Correct. JR: Gov counsel on all comms? FL: I do not recall JR: Ordering maintain any comms you've had relating to golf course and renovation, CLR, East Potomac GC, drop all auto-deletes etc. JR: Please ensure Ms. Daniels does not destroy Oct. 5 meeting notes AL: Bowron's role? FL: Involved in NEPA compliance path AL: Role in approving implementation plan for tree removal? FL: She as I understand it after counsel/guidance went forward w/ implementation of NEPA necessary. As far as tree removal specific trees, wasn't involved AL: Was asking because of approval process, trying to figure out what role everybody had. Who other than individuals just said involved in getting to point this could be implemented Oct. 10? FL: Contracting. Regional/park staff. Can't list all individuals JR: Over a dozen gov employees have been involved in last wk in an emergency effort to chop down hundreds of trees because of plan from 2019? JR: Trying to understand what required so many people to be working on this on such an urgent basis. Is it typical that everyone from director to head of parks in D.C. to lawyers to you, your staff, everybody? I can tell you that as a D.C. resident this seems fast to me. FL: D.C. Safe and Beautiful we've really worked hard to turn this city around. JR: Name me another project within a week FL: Have to go back and think JR: I've got all the time in the world. Why don't you sit back and think about it JR: You would grant me that in your 3 yrs in NPS moving from Oct. 5 to Oct. 9 w/ a plan that involved making major changes to a D.C. nat'l park involving we don't know yet how much budget involving reviewing NEPA that a week is fast? FL: Proud of the fact we were able to move so quickly. We've done that with all the fountains and -- JR: Well, you haven't done that. JR: Estimate of how much cost American taxpayer FL: Can't even ballpark. not privacy JR: Who in U.S. gov can I call to get an estimate of how much this is costing? Work undertaken without assessment of how much it's going to cost? JR: Who can I call for costs associated at this juncture? FL: Idk that anyone has JR: Any kind of budget before work was undertaken or no? FL: General contract estimate put together to remove the trees JR: How much? FL: I do not recall JR: Who would? FL: No one I know you cld call immediately JR: Objection for appellate record. Beyond scope of TRO hearing. Whoops, obviously that was DOJ not Judge Reyes! JR: Any order given out to contracting staff to speed up approval of contract? FL: Have to go back and look JR: Currently aware of reason has to be done urgency other than express preference? FL: Not aware of any reason AL: Recall any conversation w/ Griess or anybody else in last week about once decision to move ahead/get done there were any resources or personnel available to do it? FL: Once given word to execute, applied appropriate resources/personnel AL: We = Dr. Griess? You? FL: I coordinated w/ staff AL: Where get resources? FL: Existing staff AL: In existence prior to last wk. Weeks, months? Who made decision to take from wherever they were and say these ppl can get this done bc I was told to get done as quickly as poss? You? FL: I made decision to execute directive, pulled to get wk done AL: What were personnel doing before decided to employ in this operation? FL: Projects very similar. Keep D.C. Safe and Beautiful. Could have been working on making sure fountains continuing to work AL: Already deployed, you told them stop that and let's put you on getting this done on Sat? FL: Yes, typical AL: What caused them to now be shifted is that this became a priority? FL: I made the priority based on the directive given in the mtg JR: Including to do all that ASAP? FL: Yes. As soon as practical, I would use the term AL: You used phrase NEPA stuff/NEPA actions. You meant that which occurred that led up to cat ex done on Oct. 9? FL: Correct. AL: In manual, Dr. Griess makes cat ex? FL: If that's what manual says AL: Questions to clear up CLR mtgs AL: was Tom Fazio at meetings in which the CLR was discussed or mtgs in which CLR was discussed and other possible uses were also discussed? (A/C privilege back and forth) FL: No audio cutting out a bit AL: In some sets of mtgs, Trump Company? FL: CLR within Dept. Interior, don't remember discussions about CLR with anyone else AL: Anyone in convos w/ anyone outside DOI? Other agency, WH? FL: Didn't have any convos specifically abt implementation of CLR w/ anyone outside agency AL: General conversations? FL: Never anyone White House or outside DOI in conversations abt implementation of CLR AL: Mtgs where CLR came up and also convo abt any other proposal, anyone from another agency or WH? FL: I have not been in mtgs w/ any agency outside DOI or WH on any disc of CLR JR: Other mtgs? FL: Multiple discussions w/ other entities abt East Potomac golf course but not nexus to CLR JR: Who? FL: Privileged to sit in mtg w/ Fazio some time ago, another indiv interest in golf course I showed around, don't know specifically his affiliation. And discussed w/ WH staff JR: Last time you talked to anyone at WH about golf? FL: Approx 3 months ago JR: No one since then? FL: Not to best of my recollection DOJ: CLR and plans vis a vis Langston and Rock Creek. Who manages Rock Creek golf course? FL: National Links Trust DOJ: Given leasee managing, who would be the entity charged with implementing a CLR? FL: The leasee Same exchange about Langston Judge Reyes wants to know where we are with Greg Wischer. He has been emailed and called, but DOJ hasn't managed to reach him. Says it's a holiday; Judge Reyes says she is well aware. (Me too!) 10 minute break, after which suggestions on how to move forward. Wants timing thoughts from government, because "as far as I can tell there's zero urgency to any of this, so I want some thoughts about what we do with the remaining trees" And this is Greg Wischer: publicdomain.media
www.publicdomain.media
We're back with DOJ objecting more even more vigorously after the fact to attorney-client privilege issues with the recent lines of questioning. Judge Reyes now asking how she got a declaration from acting NPS Director Jessica Bowron on Oct. 6 saying significant renovation work on the golf course wouldn't happen when at least of Oct. 5 there was a plan in place to cut down hundreds of trees. DOJ says this wasn't a renovation. Judge Reyes says, "What I find most frustrating about this, counsel, is that this is all double-speak." Ok, phew, long one coming. "Everyone at NPS knew there was a concern about cutting down trees...There was zero ambiguity about that. The idea that I had a decision made on Oct. 5 and I get a signed declaration from the director of the relevant agency on Oct. 6 saying nothing is going to happen..." "...and then no notice at all that something is going to happen until Friday afternoon...when I have two gov. officials testifying under oath that there was zero urgency to this is completely beyond the pale." To say that no, no, what she meant was that we weren't going to chop down hundreds of trees with respect to the renovation plan and didn't mean chop down trees with respect to a 2019 plan that no one had done anything about for 7 years is preposterous. What I cannot understand is why...given the number of times I made abundantly clear what I didn't want to happen, that no one said, hey...no reason to begin this on Saturday, let's give plaintiffs notice, let's give the court notice. And let's do this after we've heard from the plaintiffs and court on how to proceed. Maybe at a minimum we should wait until the next business day. Here's the thing, counsel. There are American citizens who are deeply concerned with the actions of the government, and I have repeatedly on the record said, "Don't be concerned. I trust the government." I have repeatedly on the record rejected plaintifs' requests for notification order because I told them, I told the American public, "You can trust the government." I do not understand why this went foward on Saturday. Why did this go forward on Saturday? Testimony was that there's absolutely no urgency whatsoever. "Why did no one...raise their hand and say, hey...maybe we should take a beat so we don't chop down hundreds of trees when the court has said repeatedly that she's gonna trust us to act in good faith?" "Let me ask you this, counsel, do you think the government acted in good faith on Friday or Saturday? I'm not going to ask you that question. I'm going to withdraw that question." How should we proceed now? "I have not wanted to enter a TRO. I have not wanted to enter a PI. I have time and time and time again avoided doing that...because I actually don't think courts should be playing Parks and Rec." Now, there are 300 more trees that are gonna get cut down, "and I have no faith the government isn't gonna cut them down unless there's an order in place not to do so." "So now we're all gonna have a massive fire drill because the government can't be trusted. Unless you're gonna tell me that the government can be trusted?" Judge Reyes now proposes a plan. Put in place expedited briefing on summmary judgment motion and PI. Would like to have an order in place that says no further trees or anything else can happen on the golf course without 72 hours notice to plaintiffs and the court -- then take off the TRO. Or extend the TRO to tomorrow, in order to figure out whether she needs to do a full 14-day TRO. Hear from Greg Wischer tomorrow, then extend TRO at least up through his testimony. DOJ says they want the judge to rule on the PI, which is briefed, instead (presumably because they think they'll win on the merits). Says Wischer testimony won't illuminate anything relevant. If you don't understand the relevance, says Judge Reyes, the government has a much bigger problem than I understood it to have. The questions today go to "whether or not I've been lied to. Whether I've been lied to in the declarations about the plan, whether I've been lied to about the timing of things, whether I've been lied to about what kind of notice the court was going to receive." "I am beyond disappointed in the government right now. I wanted you all to be better than you have been. I really did want you all to be better than you've shown yourselves to be, at least with respect to this case." The takeaway is that she'll extend the TRO until at least tomorrow, when she'll try to get testimony from Greg Wischer that doesn't conflict with the government counsel's travel. She may extend it further only for purposes of deciding whether to enter a further TRO. A bit earlier Judge Reyes said, "The only reason I have not yet entered a 'show cause' for contempt is I never put this in a formal order." So, see you (and Greg Wischer) tomorrow I guess? If you enjoyed my coverage today (or really hated it, but because of the situation, not because of me) please consider donating to help fund @lawfaremedia.org's court coverage and expert analysis here: givebutter.com
givebutter.com