Proximity to K-State is a major factor for attracting the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility to Manhattan, the NBAF project manager said in a public forum Tuesday.

Students and community members received information and voiced their concerns about the NBAF in the K-State Student Union.

The forum was a part of the Environmental Impact Study to be used by the Department of Homeland Security in evaluating the effect of the research facility on the local area.

These effects would include construction and operation costs on the environment, the infrastructure, socioeconomic concerns, and human health and safety, said Kevin Folk, public outreach specialist for the DHS.

Issues brought up at the meeting will partially determine EIS criteria, Folk said.

"The purpose of the scoping meeting is to determine the scope of issues related to the NBAF," said James Johnson, project manager and director for the DHS Office of National Laboratories. "We want and need your comments to form the draft EIS."

Representatives from several separate organizations expressed their support for the proposed facility.

"Our state has top research and development talent, and we've been very serious about investing and partnering with scientists and entrepreneurs," said Steve Kelly, representative from the Kansas Department of Commerce. "All of this creates an environment ideally suited for the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility."

Several local community leaders pledged their support for the facility.

"The board of Riley County commissioners wholeheartedly supports the creation of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility as the best protection for the safety of the American food supply from both natural and man-made threats," said Michael Kearns, chairman of the Riley County commission.

During the public forum, students and community members had the opportunity to ask DHS officials questions about the effect the facility would have on Manhattan and make comments.

City Commissioner Bob Strawn raised concerns about the potential for the facility to put pressure on financing existing roads and other infrastructure in Manhattan.

The DHS will handle the cost of any additional infrastructure, Johnson said.

Several students and community members voiced their concerns over the potential for contamination from the diseases researched at the facility to the community outside.

One community member asked how the DHS could guarantee a disease could not be released.

Johnson responded by saying the facility will have layered security, with upwards of 50 armed guards and advanced technology and rigorous training procedures.

Another student asked if the NBAF would allow students to participate in the research.

"Proximity to the university was one of the most important criteria for coming here," Johnson said. "I fully envision taking advantage of that proximity for research."

Community members' support of the project is recognized as important by the DHS, but it is not one of the factors when determining the placement of the facility, Johnson said.

Selection process for the location of the facility is a multi-faceted process with the environmental impact study as the tip of the iceberg, Folk said.

After the initial drafting of the study, another public forum will take place at each of the potential sites. The community will then have the opportunity to ask questions and comment on the draft before it is finalized in October 2008. At that time, the DHS will announce the final selection for the host city.

Construction is expected to begin sometime in the year 2010, and the facility should be operational by 2013.

Manhattan is one of only six potential sites that include Athens, Ga.; Flora, Miss.; Butner, N.C.; San Antonio, Texas; and Plum Island, N.Y. - the original site for the NBAF.

President Bush generated Demand for a new facility when he made a national security directive mandating the construction of an improved animal-disease research facility to protect against potential threats, said Larry Orluskie, senior public affairs specialist for the DHS.

The Plum Island facility was only able to perform biosafety level-three research, whereas the new facility will have the capability to conduct research on level-four diseases.

Biosecurity levels are determined by the danger the diseases contained would pose to the public if they were released.

"The difference between biosecurity level three and four is that there is some mitigation with level three," said James Stack, director of the Biosecurity Research Institute at K-State. "With biosecurity level four, options aren't available."