Public Comment Period on Environmental Assessment Extended to September 30th
A United States District Court Judge has entered an order requiring the Department of State (DOS) and General Services Administration (GSA) to publicly disclose critical information about a proposed Foreign Affairs Security Training Center (FASTC) and its potential environmental impacts before the agencies close their review of such impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”).
Queen Anne’s Conservation Association filed suit and sought a preliminary injunction to obtain the information under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) so that the community of Ruthsburg, Maryland, where the government plans to build FASTC, could understand how it might affect them and make their concerns known to the government, while the government conducted their review of FASTC’s impacts. To resolve QACA’s motion for a preliminary injunction ordering the production of such information, DOS and GSA agreed to hold open the review of FASTC under the (NEPA) until at least September 30, 2010, by which time the production of the documents, which include emails and other documents, is expected to have been substantially completed.
Last month, in federal court in Washington, DC, Queen Anne’s Conservation Association (QACA) had sought a preliminary injunction to overturn the then 119-day old refusal of DOS and GSA to release to the public any documents relating to the selection of Ruthsburg as the “preferred site” for FASTC.
A small initial production of documents has already been made, and many more documents will be produced “on a rolling basis” over the next three months. If production is not substantially completed by mid-September, the Court’s order enforcing the terms of the agreement between QACA and the government provides that the NEPA review will be further extended. The Court will retain jurisdiction of the lawsuit until all issues relating to the production are resolved.
QACA Director of Communications Jay Falstad stated: “We should not have had to go to federal court to obtain government records to which the public is entitled. Nonetheless, this is a major victory for the citizens of Ruthsburg, Queen Anne’s County and for the entire Eastern Shore.
“The initial release of documents confirms what the citizens have long suspected. This $500 million project, which was sold to Congress as a complete consolidation of all DOS diplomatic training facilities, and would result in operating efficiencies and large cost savings, has no economic justification. Moreover, GSA is increasingly recognizing that Ruthsburg, which was clearly their predetermined site, is a totally inappropriate location for this type of project. As a result, GSA and DoS have continued to fundamentally alter their original proposal to try to make it fit. What is now being proposed is a “partial” consolidation of function and “some training facilities” – that substantially deviates from the initial proposal. Some of the questions that must be asked are – (1), does Congress remain committed to spend $500 million of taxpayer dollars in Ruthsburg, and, (2) can the original objectives of this project be met at another location for less money?”
(Here is a link to a DOS document produced in response to the FOIA request, where a key sentence (page 1) originally read as follows: “The proposed site in Queen Anne’s County would permit the consolidation of all training into a single location.” The document shows the sentence being edited so as to read: “The proposed site in Queen Anne’s County would permit the consolidation of several functions into a single location and allow for operational efficiencies.”)
Falstad continues: “We at QACA remain confident that as more facts come to light, even the proponents of this ill-conceived project will ultimately acknowledge that the Ruthsburg location was a poorly selected, politically-driven decision to locate this project in Maryland’s First Congressional district. It was a fiscally and environmentally irresponsible decision that should be reversed immediately. We remain hopeful that our elected representatives will recognize their responsibility to find an alternative location.”
QACA is represented in the FOIA litigation by the Washington law firm Meyer, Glitzenstein & Crystal.