The Greenbelt City Council went on record opposing the proposal to move the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) to the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC). The vote at the October 28 council meeting was 6-1 with Councilmember Leta Mach opposed. She wanted to meet first with the agencies before taking a position and was concerned about the impact on BARC if it had to continue to bear the administrative costs of the center on its own.
2018 Meeting
Council held a worksession with BARC and BEP representatives in February 2018, according to a story in the February 22, 2018 News Review. As described then, the proposal called for moving the BEP to a 100-acre site used for poultry research. This area has been unused since the 1990s. This site is located between Powder Mill and Odell Roads. BEP would be responsible for cleaning up all known and unknown environmental hazards on the site, such as asbestos and lead paint, removing 23 abandoned buildings, erecting a security perimeter and making any required improvements for the intersection of Powder Mill and Edmonston Roads (MD 201). Access would likely be from Powder Mill Road.
The plans called for an 800-space parking lot or aboveground garage. Project Manager Chuck Davis of BEP told council the agency already recycles almost all its wastewater and would share BARC’s water treatment facility.
The proposed move is supported by BARC, which is responsible for maintaining 512 buildings, of which only 260 are now in use. They see the proposal as reducing BARC’s administrative costs. Dr. Howard Zhang, BARC’s director, told council “We cannot afford the operation long term. This plan will reduce the burden on BARC and enable us to conduct more research. We see this as a positive direction.”
2018-2019
Since the 2018 meeting, the 2018 Farm Bill (Public Law 115-334) authorized the Treasury Department to proceed with the development of the BARC site and the Appropriations Act of 2019 (P.L. 116-6) provided the necessary funding authority. The agency is now working to complete the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
City Manager Nicole Ard shared information she received from Davis, including a portion of the executive summary for the draft EIS and a schedule for the completion of the final EIS. In mid-November, a one-month scoping period begins. This will include public scoping meetings. While Davis offered to attend the council meeting, until the scoping period begins he can only discuss the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, not the substance of the proposal.
The draft EIS is scheduled to be released to stakeholders in September 2020 with a 45-day public comment period beginning in early October.
The final EIS is scheduled for release to stakeholders in April 2021. This will be followed by a 30-day waiting period with a final record of decision published that June.
Council Action
Nearly immediately after Ard finished her comments, Councilmember Rodney Roberts moved that council oppose moving BEP to BARC. He argued that BARC is a beautiful place that needs to be preserved and worried about the impact of the proposal on water quality on the site and whether Beaver Dam Creek can handle the 50,000 gallons of treated wastewater to be released each day. “We need to tell them tonight that we don’t want it here,” he said.
The initial reaction from his colleagues was mixed.
None of the councilmembers were in favor of the BEP proposal, although some were concerned about what would happen to BARC, with its ever-tightening budgets, if no other agency came in to share the burden of maintaining the campus. Mach hoped that by sharing that burden BARC would be able to fund more research. Councilmember Judith Davis also preferred to wait and raise the questions and concerns of those present with the agencies.
Others were quicker to support the motion. Councilmember Edward Putens argued that BARC is a research facility and that the idea of putting BEP there made him angry. Mayor Emmett Jordan expressed his deep concern about BARC and desire to keep it as it is but also was concerned about what will work to preserve BARC. He pointed out that the proposed site is a brown field, not a pristine site.
Councilmember Silke Pope took the more careful approach of supporting Roberts’ motion but then approving the meeting BARC has proposed. This approach seemed to have helped build support for the motion. Since the city cannot control the use of the property, Pope said, it should at least give its opinion.
Councilmember Colin Byrd, who, like Roberts had asked for this issue to be added to the agenda, did not speak on it other than to call the question after the line of residents wishing to comment had been exhausted.
Public Comments
Fifteen people spoke on the issue. All but one wanted council to take a position that evening. Paul Downs, longtime Greenbelt environmentalist, called on council to align itself with the community and oppose this proposal during its early stages. Recounting past proposals that he felt council had not opposed early enough, such as maglev and the high-rise at Lakeside North, he mocked the councilmembers who wanted to wait and hear “what the nice person from BEP would say.”
Wastewater going into Beaver Dam Creek also concerned residents, especially whether the hazardous chemicals used in producing currency would be adequately removed. One speaker was also concerned about whether there was adequate capacity to provide the required volume of water to the facility.
Others had more general concerns about the impact of the move on the community. The intersection of Powder Mill Road and Edmonston Avenue is already heavily congested – how much worse would traffic get? Where would the additional traffic go given the existing congestion on roads such as the Baltimore-Washington Parkway? (As of 2018, the move would have roughly doubled the number of employees coming and going from the site.)
Concerns about the loss of greenspace, elimination of one of the few areas that are dark at night, increased noise from truck traffic and the impact of changing farmland to a manufacturing and industrial site were raised.
Roberts, Davis and Jordan cautioned those present that Greenbelt saying no will not stop the proposal. The city has little control of what happens to BARC. Residents will need to stay informed and continue to fight the proposal if they want it stopped.