Elrich: "...report missed an important piece..."

Subject:  Artificiai turf draft report - comments 

From:  EIrich's Office, Councilmember (Councilmember.EIrich@montgomerycountymd.gov) 

To: TurfReportResponse@yahoo.com

Cc:  Councilmember.Berliner@montgomerycountymd.gov

Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 16:45:43

I would like to make some requests and observations regarding the draft report that was submitted for public review. Previously, while the group was preparing the draft report, I sent a list of questions and concerns that I had wanted addressed. Below are further comments regarding some of those issues.

1. Natural turf best environmental practices. It would be useful for the group to speak with knowledgeable individuals and/or organizations regarding best practices of organic care of natural turf. As you may know, organic care reduces (and sometimes eliminates) the use of fertilizers; it also reduces the amount of irrigation needed and may extend the playability hours for the field. I know the working group received an e-mail from Kathleen Michels, dated January 10, 2011 outlining some of the leaders in this field. Also, the resolution from Montgomery County Stormwater Partners Network on Sustainable Athletic Field Construction and Maintenance calls for a pilot project to install and maintain athletic fields in an organic matter. My staff had a detailed conversation with Kevin Mercer, athletic director at St. Mary's regarding St. Mary's maintenance and use of natural turf fields. We would be happy to provide you with those notes if that would be of use to your reviewing this issue. By not addressing this possibility as an alternative, the report missed an important piece of how Montgomery County might be a leader in the field of preserving green spaces (pervious surfaces) while also providing better playing fields for athletic teams. Consequently, it also did not make a full comparison on environmental impacts between natural grass and artificial turf fields.

2. Insufficient and inaccurate information regarding studies and reports mentioned in the draft report. I was dismayed to learn that potential coflicts of interest by report authors or sponsors are not identified in the report. For example, the report includes the Department of the Environment's review of existing studies; this review includes studies that receive their funding from tire manufacturers (Chemrisk 2008), FieldTurf (Moretto 2007) and a private engineering firm that designs and builds artificial turf fields (Bristol and McDermott 2008). Furthermore, the literature review neglects to note that the Artificial Turf report from Environment and Human Health (a non-profit "made up of doctors, public health professionals and policy experts committed to the reduction of environmental health risks to individuals" as described on their website) actually calls for a moratorium on any new fields until further research is undertaken. Additionally, it appears that many of the reports coming from public agencies do not conclude the absence of environmental risk; rather, they caution that their studies should not be considered conclusive. Some call for additional procedures, including the report from the San Francisco Department of the Environment, as detailed on pages 48 and 49 of the draft report.

3.Stormwater runoff. From the studies cited, it appears that this concern has not yet been sufficiently explored and various studies call for further testing. The draft report does not sufficiently address the 2010 findings from the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection regarding the possibility of chemicals from artificial turf fields leaching into Westport's waters. (Westport News 8/10/10). Additionally, some of the procedures required for stormwater management of artificial turf that might mitigate the potential leaching need to be further detailed (including the costs and the most environmentally friendly processes).  Diane Cameron of Stormwater Partners Network would be a useful contact.

4. Heat island effect. The impact of adding impervious surface around the County is not sufficiently addressed. While the extraordinary heat radiating off the artificial turf fields is certainly of concern, there is also another related but separate concern adding yet more impervious surface to our county. If instead, the County chose to pilot an organic natural turf field using be~practices, there could be less impervious surface and less heat radiated.

5. Use and availability calculations. More explanation is needed on how you calculate the total hours of usage. In particular, how do the fields get used between 8 am and 3 pm on weekdays (p.22)?

I appreciate your attention to these concerns.

Marc Elrich
Councilmember At-large