This article was previously published in the Bay Journal and is reprinted with permission.
The Maryland forest tract owned by NASA that’s at risk of being sold to a developer has won a reprieve for now.
The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) last week rejected a list of federal properties recommended for sale or transfer, which included a 105-acre parcel near the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt. It directed the Public Buildings Reform Board, the agency charged with identifying federal property to be sold off, to resubmit its recommendations by February 27 after assembling more information to justify the disposal of the NASA site and 14 other properties.
As part of a planned redevelopment of the Goddard campus, NASA has declared the mostly wooded tract, known as Area 400, to be “underutilized” and proposed that it be fast-tracked for sale. The space agency had tested rocket propulsion there decades ago but lately has been using the cluster of small buildings on site for “storage and support,” according to a spokesperson.
NASA’s move to sell the land has drawn protests from conservationists, who argue that the federal government should be preserving rather than selling off forested land. Members of Congress as well as state and even other federal agencies also have expressed concern. They have noted that the woodland absorbs climate-warming carbon dioxide from the atmosphere – which NASA has studied elsewhere. And they point out that the site is in the headwaters of the Anacostia River, where it helps soak up pollution from stormwater runoff.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has expressed interest in adding the land to the adjoining Patuxent Research Refuge, a 12,800-acre expanse of forest, meadow and woodlands where federal scientists conduct wildlife research. The refuge, which is open to the public, provides habitat for more than 200 species of birds and other wildlife and contains the National Wildlife Visitor Center.
NASA had proposed disposing of Area 400 under a law passed by Congress in 2016 that aims to decrease the federal deficit by identifying properties for accelerated sale. The space agency said it needs the income to help pay for demolishing the buildings on site and cover unspecified relocation costs.
The Public Buildings Reform Board had recommended that Area 400 be transferred to the wildlife service for inclusion in the refuge. But the board stipulated that the service should pay “fair market value” for the land or else it should be put up for public sale.
Late last week, OMB rejected the board’s recommendations after determining that its report had failed to meet key criteria for deciding whether the properties should be sold. The budget office said the board had not submitted enough information on “stakeholder outreach,” for example, to determine the positions of affected members of Congress and the public, among others. It also said there wasn’t enough financial information to assess the costs of disposal involved with each property.
Jennifer Greiner, the Patuxent Research Refuge’s manager, said the wildlife service doesn’t have the money to purchase Area 400, which she estimated could be worth about $2 million based on other property sales in the vicinity.
Maryland Senators Ben Cardin and Chris Van Hollen and four of the state’s congressmen – including Representative Steny Hoyer, the House Majority leader whose district includes Goddard – wrote to the acting head of the OMB on January 20 urging the transfer of Area 400 to the Fish and Wildlife Service “in the most expedient manner possible.” They noted that conserved land helps keep pollutants out of waters that ultimately flow to the Chesapeake Bay.
The nonprofit Friends of Patuxent Wildlife Research Center and Patuxent Research Refuge urged the public buildings board to recommend a no-fee transfer of Area 400, “so that this forested tract can support regional air quality, clean water, wildlife habitat, human recreation and scientific studies on wildlife and habitat.”
The group also pointed out that the land is already owned by the federal government, saying, “we do not believe that there is any public benefit to be gained by requiring the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to pay NASA fair market value for the land.”
Tim Wheeler is the Bay Journal’s associate editor and senior writer.